WTN: White Burgundies, two oxydized!

TNs from last sunday.

Corton-Charlemagne 1993, Bonneau de Martray
Nose with seawater, fennell and citrus, minerally. Crabs meat. Quite oily texture. Very long with good grip, fruitstones, minerals and acids in the finish. Superb balance. Great wine.

Corton-Charlemagne 2000, Bonneau de Martray
Flint, stony. Some spices. Hints of honey and seawater. Finely focused in the mouth, again that hint of spice, as in a good Chassagne (nutmeg, allspice). With air the honey decreases. Minerally and focused but only hints at its potential. Will it be as great as the 93; I don’t know. The 93 was quite austere for a long time until it bloomed. I’ll certainly hold on to my remaining couple of bottles for 5-6 years before trying again.

Corton-Charlemagne 2002, Bonneau de Martray
Fatter style than the 2000, some orange peel on the nose. Lower acids and richer. Slightly nutty and quite fat texture, without quite the grip of the 93. Not as long either. Of course this is young, but still approachable. I’m not absolutely convinced – but won’t be surprised if this blooms into a thing of beauty.

Corton Charlemagne 2001, Bonneau de Martray
Cool and elegant, nicely chiselled citrusy aromas. Lacks the focus of the best previous examples though. Quite minerally but also slightly foursquare on the finish.

Corton Charlemagne 2001, Juillot
This is proof of the quality of Bonneaus Corton. Though I appreciate Juillots reds and whites from Mercurey, this isn’t my thing. Aggressive and oaky nose. Slightly tropic, maybe even hints of botrytis? Slight oaky dryness and badly integrated acids on the finish as well. Unelegant and no potential that I can see.

Puligny-Montrachet Perrieres 2001, Sauzet
With lots of battonage, Sauzet should be a prime candidate for oxydation, but no. This is simply superb, at least in context of the vintage, but I think also in absolute terms (the 2000 is even better though). Cool and chalky nose, apples and the barest hint of honey. Lacks a little on the length to be truly grand vin, but super balance and good length nevertheless. Some mints, fennel and citrus.

Puligny-Montrachet Les Enseignères 2001, Coche Dury
Dark, mature apples, oxydized !

Meursault Genevrieres 2001, Remy Jobard
Incredibly rich nose, nuts and sea, but still cool style. Also nutty in the mouth, rich, good length, with perhaps the slightest squareness on the finish, really good substance in the mouth, but balances its solidity nicely to still create that feeling of lightness and walking on a tightrope that great white Burgundy is all about. Really good.

Puligny-Montrachet 2002, A Leflaive
Very obvious allspice (Pimenta) – the spice I more than anything associate with Chassage – but also very minerally and stony. Very concentrated and super acids, wet stones and citrus in the mouth with a slight bitter minerality to the finish. Simply oozes of minerals. Super, I’ll try to put my hands on a few bottles of the 2004 of this.

Puligny-Montrachet Champ-Gains 2002, M Colin
Complex and deep nose. Some juniper on both nose and taste, which I often find typical of Puligny. Slightly minty minerality alson on the finish, cool style, quite long. Still young, this gives me the same impression of lightness and substance at the same time as the Meursault. Needs time.

Chassagne-Montrachet Champ-Gains 2002, JN Gagnard
Some oak, and a nose I don’t like, sligtly peary/steely, like pears from a tin can. Slightly aggressive, metallic acids and slightly unbalanced as well. No.

Puligny-Montrachet Champ-Gains 1999, O Leflaive
Fat with some fudge on the nose. Also lacks some concentration. Many 99s are starting to show real well now, but this simply hasn’t got it. Not well balanced either, and the oak has got the better of it, something that unfortunately seems to happen quite often with Olivier Leflaives wines.

Puligny-Montrachet Folatieres 2002, G Chavy
Beautiful nose. Light, elegant and stylish Puligny, fine minerality with hints of mint and juniper, good length and acidity. Fine balance in the finish and quite approachable. Drink within 2-3 years I’d say. I like this. Really elegant tightrope walking.

Puligny-Montrachet Folatieres 2001, G Chavy
Slighly unclean, wet cardboard. I’ll go with corked here, but wouldn’t rule out that this simply is bad wine, we had better things to move on to than to mull over this.

Puligny-Montrachet Folatieres 1995, G Chavy
Well this isn’t it (better things to move on to). Oxydized on the nose, not among the worst examples per se; but the fruit is totally blown.

Puligny-Montrachet Folatieres 1992, Sauzet
Substituted for a Chavy Folatieres 96 that would have been oxydized as well. I know this from other occasions and this has held up really well, however I think most 92s need to be drunk. Very minerally nose, mature yellow fruits and minerals in the mouth. Long with some stony bitterness on the finish, this is quite austere. Lacks a little concentration and the fruit is gently subsiding, but it still hold sits balance well. Good wine.

Batard-Montrachet 1985, Ramonet
Quite dark. Mint, seawater, camphor and apricots. Very dry nose. Cloudberry is very obvious also, particularly in the mouth. Very complex wine, with great acidity and length. Very smooth but still fresh.

Thanks for all this imput, Odd. I have been a fan of White Burgundy, hard to find in my location as well. The oxidized notes seem to be common this year and there has been much discussion here and over on Squires where they came to fist-fights!!

Thanks for all this imput, Odd. I have been a fan of White Burgundy, hard to find in my location as well. The oxidized notes seem to be common this year and there has been much discussion here and over on Squires where they came to fist-fights!!

I'm presuming from these notes that the 01 is definitely a premature oxidation case, whilst the 95 is potentially a reflection on the wine itself?

I'm aware of the issue, having noted oxydation problems on some 96s early on (Dauviassat Forest and Bonneaus Corton-Charlemagne), and also on some isolated 99s, but not to the extent of some other people. This tasting didn't work out to bad, I knew about the Chavy 95 and included it for educational purposes, what really surprised me was the Coche, a producer with no reported problems previously AFAIK, and in such a young (nad expensive!) bottle. Makes me suspect provenance issues, brought by one of my friends and I think it was bought somewhere in France or Italy but I have no further details.

Thanks for all this imput, Odd. I have been a fan of White Burgundy, hard to find in my location as well. The oxidized notes seem to be common this year and there has been much discussion here and over on Squires where they came to fist-fights!!

I'm presuming from these notes that the 01 is definitely a premature oxidation case, whilst the 95 is potentially a reflection on the wine itself?

The other way around I think, the Chavy 95 is oxydized but the 01 is corked or may be only unsuccesfull; the Coche 01 OTOH is oxydized.
2 out of 16 isn't too bad an batting average, but much young wine here, and the oldies were made before "the disease" struck.

I guess the crux of the matter is what happens with the 2000s and 2002s (both good vintages) in 5-8 years when the Premier Crus ought to be starting to show really well. A lot of expoerienced Burgundophiles have simply opted out of these vintages. And is the problem as widespread in Chablis?