WTN: POX Free (2002 Fevre)

[David M. Bueker]

2002 Domaine William Fevre Chablis 1er Cru Montmains
News flash - Fevre drinks well, no premox! Tasting note at 6:52.

Oh this is so good, probably more so because I always expect the pox. But this is pure lemon cream on rainwater drenched rocks. Oh man is this good, especially for the $22 it cost back in the day. Yum!

2002 Domaine William Fevre Chablis 1er Cru Montmains
News flash - Fevre drinks well, no premox! Tasting note at 6:52.

Oh this is so good, probably more so because I always expect the pox. But this is pure lemon cream on rainwater drenched rocks. Oh man is this good, especially for the $22 it cost back in the day. Yum!

You lucked out. It's absurd that the public has to put up with a product that has a failure rate as high as in white burgundy.

You are lucky. CT says I still have one, hopefully I'm as lucky.
Funny how I have more confidence opening a 15-20 year old white Burg than a 6-12 year old one!

[David M. Bueker]

I'm anything but lucky. I have had scores of premoxed Fevre wines, mostly grand cru.

I'm anything but lucky. I have had scores of premoxed Fevre wines, mostly grand cru.

"Scores of premoxed Fevre wines, mostly grand cru" David? Do you really mean well over 40 possibly even 60+?

If so you have been supremely unlucky since Fevre, until mainly the 2000-2002 vintages, had not been a significant pox sufferer.

The only consolidated record of pox'd wines [Don Cornwell's wiki] shows 30 putative pox'd wines out of 147 reports from 1995 to 2004. Of course the wiki could benefit enormously if more people included their experiences there.

We drink more Fevre than any other Chablis and the only pox'd GC we have had was a 2000 Bougros Cote Bouguerots. In fact that's been the only pox'd Fevre we have had. I see from threads I have followed on Tanzer and eBob that others have not been nearly so lucky but 'scores' suggests that you drink an enormous amount of Fevre AND have been the most unlucky by far.

[David M. Bueker]

Nigel,

The word "scores" was not used in its literal sense.

What I can say is that I purchased 17 or 18 (18 if you count the bottle I bought & consumed the same day in 2004 when the Red Sox won the World Series) of 2002 Fevre Chablis, most of it Bougros Cote de Bouguerots and Grenouilles with a few bottles of Montmains. The wines came from multiple sources on the east and west coasts. So far I have had 9 clearly poxed bottles. The bad bottles were ALL purchased on or near release, with some coming from Woodland Hills (CA), some Premier Cru (CA) and a couple of Table & Vine (MA).

As far as the Wiki, I have never been aware of how to use it, so haven't entered the info. It's nto just Fevre that has been poxed for me though. Jadot & Verget have darkened my cellar door as well. I don't buy much White Burgundy, and I will be buying a lot less in the future.

I will be the last to deny the seriousness of white Burgundy wines that have suffered from what some are calling POX and others premox (but I in my old fashioned manner, insist on continuing to refer to as "premature oxidation". I do, however, wonder about what I consider the wine olympics, in which it becomes quite fashionable from time to time to jump on the bandwagon of who can spot the greatest number of faults.

It started of course with the competition to see who could most easily spot TCA in their wines, some almost joyfully bemoaning a TCA rate of as much as 16-18% of all wines sealed under cork. If one didn't spot TCA, one was a nebish, a nobody, a clumnik, a rank beginner in the world of wine. Of course a great percentage of the "TCA" spotted was related to Brett, to overheating or other storage or shipping problems, or to even other faults.

From there it moved to the issue of premature oxidation, in which some are claiming that 40-60% of all Burgundy whites for a certain decade and a half were spoiled. As I say, I will not poo-poo the problem. On the other hand, however, as much as one hates to burst bubbles, especially that give people the ability to joyfully bemoan aloud, I'll have to cite a good deal of laboratory work that shows that (a) the problem is more deeply related to certain producers and not to all, and (b) that the fail rate due to premature oxidation among those producers is about 15-18%. A serious problem, I agree entirely as that's a heck of a lot of expensive wine to have to spill into the sink, but simply not quite as serious as some would have us think.

And indeed, as talks with quite a few Burgundy producers have shown, a great deal of work is underway to determine the precise causes of the problem and to eliminate those. My guess - from the 2010 vintage and on we'll be seeing a great deal less premox (there, I did it, I allowed myself a shortening) in our Burgundy whites.

Ye faithful but optimistic curmudgeon
Rogov

[David M. Bueker]

Daniel,

That is an interesting analysis, and while in some ways I am inclined to agree with you, but much in the case of opening a backup bottle to confirm TCA, when two bottles from the same source are opened with one deep, golden yellow (with heavily oxidative aromatics) and the other still showing green touches (and youthful fruit) there is something going on. Normally when I plan to drink White Burgundy I put two bottles in the fridge, as this problem happens too often.

There are some producers that never showed this condition, or at least not so often to claim it as a problem outside of the normal area of bottle variaiton. I have had great luck with Fichet. Louis Michel Chablis has also never given me problems. We tend to focus on the negative, while the positives fall to the bottom of the board in regular tasting notes. It is likely only because I gave my note a provocative title that anyone even bothered to comment on the issue.

Nigel,

The word "scores" was not used in its literal sense.

What I can say is that I purchased 17 or 18 (18 if you count the bottle I bought & consumed the same day in 2004 when the Red Sox won the World Series) of 2002 Fevre Chablis, most of it Bougros Cote de Bouguerots and Grenouilles with a few bottles of Montmains. The wines came from multiple sources on the east and west coasts. So far I have had 9 clearly poxed bottles. The bad bottles were ALL purchased on or near release, with some coming from Woodland Hills (CA), some Premier Cru (CA) and a couple of Table & Vine (MA).

As far as the Wiki, I have never been aware of how to use it, so haven't entered the info. It's nto just Fevre that has been poxed for me though. Jadot & Verget have darkened my cellar door as well. I don't buy much White Burgundy, and I will be buying a lot less in the future.

David,
Thanks for the clarification. Serves me right for taking your comment literally.

Unfortunately Fevre has recently suffered quite badly , particularly with the 2002 vintage [although oddly not all the wines], but they have acknowledged the fact, worked with retailers like the UK Wine Society, and invested in research, changed processes and a new bottling facility. We have never stopped buying their wine, picking up some of it from Chablis each year.

As I said, we have been very lucky with the pox although I suspect it is at least partly because the only GCs I buy are Chablis and we don't seek to age any white Burgundy 1er crus to the age that some do before they drink the first bottle. We drink our first bottles of a case pretty early and will drink them slowly from then on and very rarely do any 1ers reach 10 or GCs much past 10 although we tend to start the latter later.

Our preferences are partly informed by my experience of the odd aged AND oxidised white Burgundy even in the 60s when I first started drinking them in any quantity. The main difference is that, today, the few oxidised wines I have had have been much younger than they used to be and, for too many people, much more numerous.

However, while completely convinced of the seriousness of the pox as a producer issue, like Daniel Rogov I am suspicious about the very high percentages [of premature oxidation et al] that are called in the absence of any objective testing. I am particularly suspicious of the default option of e.g.TCA even when people who regard themselves [some even quote personal sensitivities to single parts per trillion although they usually admit these are their estimates and that they have never been tested] as super-sensitive identify a wine as corked without ever being able to actually smell the wretched stuff - simply because a second bottle tastes better. It's as though the ONLY chemical/situation that can affect an individual bottle of wine negatively [and differently from others] is TCA.

I recall a 31 case purchase of Corton Clos du Roi and Vosne Romanee Les Suchots where about 40% of the bottles were off - in some cases all 12 bottles were affected but not to the same extent, in others apparently none were and in further cases some appeared fine, some o.k. and others dreadful. This fault was not TCA [nor oxidation] but it was certainly possible for some bottles to be 'not quite right' and the next one, even from the same case, apparently fine.

But I digress [and certainly don't wish to start a closure debate] so back to white Burgundy, Louis Michel's wine [a different part of the Chablis spectrum but, for us, enjoyable for that reason] are the next most consumed by us with Billaud-Simon, Domaine des Malandes in the mix. We only ever drink Raveneau in France [too expensive here] and Dauvissat much less frequently than the others. Although I haven't experienced a pox'd bottle of either we don't drink enough of them for the statistic to matter.

And, apart from the Fevre Bougros Cote Bouguerots, the only other pox'd Chablis we have had were the last bottles of two cases of Les Clos and Vaudesir from the, IMO, exceptionally good QPR Domaine des Malandes - and they were from the notorious 1996 vintage at 10 years of age. Perhaps they might reasonably be considered old-style oxidation since the wines had been drinking very well as mature wines just before the last of them suddenly went.

Finally, I have suggested that our luck with the pox is at least partly the early start we make and thereafter to gradual regular consumption. I realise that is unacceptable to those who can only enjoy their better white burgundies with considerable age but it does allow an early assessment of whether a wine is developing quickly. I can certainly recall wines like e.g. a 1er Cru 2002 Meursault Genevrieres that was identified as an early developer before I bought it. The early bottles confirmed that opinion and we finsished that case some time ago. If we were still drinking it we would be calling pox.

OTOH a case of a village 2002 Meursault Les Tillets bought at the same time from the same source is still in fine form with not one failure from it yet - nor any reason by colour or taste to accelerate the consumption.

[David M. Bueker]

Thanks for the information Nigel.

I'm actually not a notable proponent of aging White Burgundy, but things just tend to take a while to flow through the cellar. I would love to have older ones than what I have had, but I am afraid to let any of my bottles age any more. I do have one bottle of 2004 Raveneau (Monte de Tonerre), and I am really not sure what to do with it. Any thoughts?

But I digress [and certainly don't wish to start a closure debate]

Did someone say 'closure debate'????

Naw, I'll give you a pass this time, Nigel.

Thanks for the information Nigel.

I'm actually not a notable proponent of aging White Burgundy, but things just tend to take a while to flow through the cellar. I would love to have older ones than what I have had, but I am afraid to let any of my bottles age any more. I do have one bottle of 2004 Raveneau (Monte de Tonerre), and I am really not sure what to do with it. Any thoughts?

Well the 1997 Raveneau Butteaux we had with a dinner at the Hostellerie des Clos in Chablis in November last was great and a 2000 Raveneau Les Clos at the Vieux Logis, Tremolat, Dordogne 2 years ago was still very young although I loved it.

However I see both have one strike against them in the wiki so what can I say. Being an optimist and a very small loser in the pox stakes I would say 'hold it for as long as you want to' but who knows. Good luck whatever you decide.

I'm actually not a notable proponent of aging White Burgundy, but things just tend to take a while to flow through the cellar. I would love to have older ones than what I have had, but I am afraid to let any of my bottles age any more.

I am sure that you have already considered it but on Monday I picked up a Henry Boillot 2000 Chassagne Montrachet Chaumees that I plan to open tonight. I got this bottle at MacArthur's and the web site shows 14 selections available from 1995-2002 including a 2002 Louis Michael Chablis Grenouilles but no Fevre or Raveneau. I am sure you can find them elsewhere. Its a gamble for sure but prices are not much different than for current vintages and in many cases cheaper.

As far as the Wiki, I have never been aware of how to use it, so haven't entered the info. It's nto just Fevre that has been poxed for me though. Jadot & Verget have darkened my cellar door as well. I don't buy much White Burgundy, and I will be buying a lot less in the future.

David,
I'm quite surprised that you haven't been aware of how to use the wiki. It took me all of 3 minutes to figure out how to enter my data in there and I'm fairly certain that your computer skills are at least as good as my own. To me, it's all about enhancing public awareness of the problem (or lack thereof). However, I drink very little Chablis any more and cellar even less, so I no longer have a dog in this race.

Mark Lipton

[David M. Bueker]

Wasn't obvious when I first looked at it, so I lost interest.

I will repeat my claim pre mox is a very serious problem in white burgs, as a wine drinker and someone who is ITB. Fred Corbalis who is a friend and customer of a wine store that I have an interest in is the person who started the thread on Ebob. Our sales of white burgs have decreased significantly since the bad publicity. Until the cause is identified and corrected I think sales will continue to drop. As of now nobody in Burgundy has admitted there is a problem. We have returned many bottles to distributors and some we've had to "eat" ourselves. Not a good way to run a business.

...As of now nobody in Burgundy has admitted there is a problem.

Lou, Hi...

Perhaps not all that true today as it was a year ago. As a single example, I recently attended a tasting of the Burgundy white wines of Montille, a family owned concern whose wines appear under the labels of Domaine de Montille, Deux Montille and Chateau de Puligny. The tasting was held in the presence of Monsieur Etienne de Montille and, during a discussion period, when I asked about the problem of premature oxidation that has been noted more often in many Burgundy wines, I was impressed in that M. de Montille attempted neither to avoid or deny the problem as many of those in Burgundy are doing. His assesssment of the problem, as au currant as that of anyone in the field is that the situation has come about as a result of three major factors – the reliance on lower levels of sulfites than in the past; the increasing reliance in recent years on pneumatic presses; and the potential contribution of corks. His honesty, as the wines that I went on to taste, were much appreciated.

Perhaps an optimistic sign?

Best
Rogov

...As of now nobody in Burgundy has admitted there is a problem.

Lou, Hi...

Perhaps not all that true today as it was a year ago. As a single example, I recently attended a tasting of the Burgundy white wines of Montille, a family owned concern whose wines appear under the labels of Domaine de Montille, Deux Montille and Chateau de Puligny. The tasting was held in the presence of Monsieur Etienne de Montille and, during a discussion period, when I asked about the problem of premature oxidation that has been noted more often in many Burgundy wines, I was impressed in that M. de Montille attempted neither to avoid or deny the problem as many of those in Burgundy are doing. His assesssment of the problem, as au currant as that of anyone in the field is that the situation has come about as a result of three major factors – the reliance on lower levels of sulfites than in the past; the increasing reliance in recent years on pneumatic presses; and the potential contribution of corks. His honesty, as the wines that I went on to taste, were much appreciated.

Perhaps an optimistic sign?

Best
Rogov

There are definitely a number of producers and bodies like the BIVB that have recognised the problem both generally and as it affects them specifically. I have already mentioned Domaine William Fevre and others like Sauzet, Lamy and, as you have indicated, de Montille to name just 4 that have gone public.

The BIVB and French Universities are also involved in several studies which involve regular producer briefings and one carried out by Bruno Michéa and his team at the AOC (Académie Oenologique de Conseils) laboratory in Beaune published some conclusions in June 2007 primarily IIRC about SO2 [amounts and the timing of various additions] and the role of what they called the complexe obturateur - the combination of bottle neck, closure and bottling procedure and the role of entrained oxygen. It concluded that cork washes [including peroxide] and the various surface finishes [paraffin, or silicone or silicone on paraffin] had no influence on the atypical evolution of the wines in bottle.

The problem might seem to have been been around for a long time [most have the 95/96 vintages as a major start point] but the first vintage when the problem might already have been sensed by the most alert producers was 2002 and it would have been 2004 before it was widely perceived as more than an individual problem. So 2004 is probably the first vintage where critical judgements can be made about whether any of the earliest steps taken by various producers have affected their problems.

New pneumatic presses have again become a consideration in the possible genesis of the problem but, as I understand it, the issue is not with the new presses per se but the [different] way they have apparently been used versus the older versions - the resultant juice, being deliberately clearer and cleaner in appearance, may simply be lacking in the phenolics that were part of the earlier constitution that was more naturally resistant to oxidation. Together with reductions in sulphur use [in pursuit of more natural winemaking and in recognition of new labelling requirements] it is another possible and plausible factor in what may be causing the earlier oxidation of these wines.

Of course for this to be a significant factor it would be helpful if we knew how many presses were changed in the mid 90s [not difficult surely] but along with all the other possible factors [lower sulphur usage, more new oak, more batonnage, cork quality, washing and surface treatment changes etc etc] there appears to have been no concerted attempt to research and record how these were changed by producers particularly in the mid 90s. A record in a narrow mid 90s timeframe of all changes considered as potential contributory causes of the pox by producers would have enabled a comparison to be made of those with the worst and best records and, by difference, some of the major issues might well have been identifiable.