- Chambertin, Armand Rousseau
- Chambertin, Philippe Charlopin-Parizot
- Chambertin-Clos de Bèze, Bruno Clair
- Chambertin-Clos de Bèze, Frédéric Magnien
- Ruchottes-Chambertin, Georges Roumier
- Mazis-Chambertin, Dugat-Py
- Chapelle-Chambertin, Louis Jadot
- Griotte-Chambertin, Claude Dugat
- Latricières-Chambertin, Jean et Jean-Louis Trapet
- Charmes-Chambertin, Joseph Roty
- Mazoyères-Chambertin, Perrot-Minot
There were fabulous whites too. We had two as aperitifs: 2002 Chandon de Briailles Corton Blanc and 1998 Rapet Corton-Charlemagne. I'm beginning to sense that coincidentally or not, we're beginning to skew towards Corton whites as aperitifs for our formal burg tasting events. Hmmm... Hey, I have no issues with that.
The Corton blanc was fat and textured, with an almost oily viscosity. I noticed that although it was round and full in the mouth, the finish was sort of clipped, and lacked the acid lift I would expect from a 2002. Fortunately this was temporary. A few minutes of airing and the wine put on length and a green apple like acid finish later on. Nice and quite delicious. Reminded me a bit of 2000 whites.
The Corton charlie smelled evolved on the outset. In the palate it was noticeably sweeter and more lacy than the preceding wine. However, the palate was certainly more youthful than the nose. The nose developed later and put on more freshness. Interesting. Again, apple skins and lime oils are featured here. Accessible and ready.
And now the reds.
#1 - Reticent in the nose at first, but in the palate all-cherry explosion with charming floral expression. With aeration, soy and earthy flavours emerged. Sweetness due to wood was detected but the wine was very well-pitched. The nose turned flinty afterwards. Lots of delicious fruits. I thought it was a Latricieres, but it was Magnien's Clos de Beze.
#2 - Explosive crunchy sweet red fruits on the nose. In the palate, no different. The fruits were almost raspberry, but with a coolness that only Gevrey could do. It was all soft and sexy. Unfortunately the fruits receded later on and some traces of wood began to show later. I thought this was very Griotte because of its rather flamboyant, all-charming character and the lack of apparent structure. Shoots! No, it's Clair's Clos de Beze.
#3 - Nothing but reticent woodspice at first. Very closed, very structured, unyielding. Promises solid materials though... Later on, classic Gevrey aromas and unmistakable minerality. Almost salty, soil-taste with metallic sheen and lengthy palate stanining finish. Impressive. Could it be the Ruchottes? No. Jadot's Chapelle-Chambertin.
#4 - Slightly floral stemmy nose. Rather simple in the mouth, and an obvious dusty finish. Sweet but rather soupy in texture. Some lightness and lift, and a sweet-tea-like aromas came on subsequent visits. Roumier's Ruchottes-Chambertin.
#5 - Very dark red, almost purplish. Decidedly modern, very ripe and very big. Toasty and curranty. I am not sure I like it. Some Gevrey tell-tale in the nose but other than that very hard to place the origin of this wine. Dugat-Py Mazis-Chambertin.
#6 - Immediately shouts "Gevrey!" on the nose. Slightly stewey, but high-pitched. Very sweet, bright with persistent black cherries on the palate. Smoky and flinty aromas with deep and pungent minerality. The breed is apparent here. Superb. I was quite convinced this was Clair's Clos de Beze because of the pungent minerality. Nope... Trapet's Latricieres-Chambertin. Very good show.
#7 - High-toned, fleshy crushed dark raspberries nose but with solid Gevrey minerality nuances. Very sweet and rather extracted. Viscous and decidedly very ripe. Sweet and long finish, sappy but rather cloying. Impressively built and a bit over-the-top to my taste. Roty's Charmes-Chambertin.
#8 - This is hard to miss: bacon-fat. This fatty, oily Gevrey nose is quite special. Delicious on the palate, yet rather simple at this juncture. A lush wine but lacking in apparent lift and grip. Somewhat the sweetness is shy and not quite as expressively long as the others...? Rousseau's Chambertin.
#9 - Very creamy and powerful nose of black cherries. Rather sappy and quite massive in the mouth. Spherically textured, no angle whatsoever. Sweet and nicely pitched, and not cloying at all. Very nice and a showstopper. I thought this was the Roty as the built was almost unmistakable. Wrong! Dugat's Griotte-Chambertin.
#10 - This is a very deceptive wine. It appears rather modern and straightforward. But beneath there's plenty of layers and it constantly evolved. Very ripe yet still Gevrey nose. Rather oaky but sheds this quickly to reveal lots of minerality. The fruits unfold slowly but surely to a very nicely pitched, if not rather monolithic but classy wine dominated by red fruits. I thought this was Rousseau's Chambertin. Half-right only -- Charlopin-Parizot's Chambertin.
#11 - Luscious red fruits with a certain sauvage character. This was what we thought we're looking for in a Mazis...? Wood is still rather obvious at this point but salvaged by a solid delineating acid-lift. A Mazis? No. Perrot-Minot Mazoyeres-Chambertin.
The wines were all excellent in my opinion, showing grand cru breed and the commune it came from. What was not easy to tell was the nuances that separate, say, the Charmes from the Latricieres from the Mazis -- not that this was ever easy to begin with. But it was particularly tricky tonight. I had none of my guess correct. Except for 1/2, that is, wine #10 was indeed a Chambertin, but wrong producer.
So what could have gone 'wrong'? Well, let's not worry about the scores of how many wines each person got correct for a moment. The fact is that there's nothing wrong with any of the wines. The key question to ask is this: is there a distinction between one wine to the next and can the distinction be related to the specific terroir? Recall now that we hold the vintage factor constant this time, and the commune too. Since Gevrey has relatively pronounced characteristic features, the overall flavour factor is also held somewhat constant. But this is a very large commune, and with 9 plots of grand crus. Being a burgundy, each must therefore be different, and represent something peculiar about its terroir. So the answer to the above question is yes, there are differences as noted in the tasting, and quite obvious in most cases too. Whether or not we could map these differences to just plain terroir is another completely different question altogether.
Again, as we fast forward to the results, and as I try to reconcile the outcome from the analyses from the semi-blind tasting, I can't help but make these observations:
- One thing I note about Gevrey wines in particular is that as one moves up the cru hierarchy, the wines tend to become more sleek and understated. The measure of richness of a Gevrey grand cru is not found in concentration and opulence of the fruits, but instead one must work hard to look out for texture in the midpalate, depth and unique inner-mouth perfume -- not at all an easy task. And these are the very qualities the wines are very shy to show in its youth. A Chambertin is a good example. When one expects that Chambertin is a masculine and powerful wine, this statement should not to be taken at 'face' value. There is nothing in-your-face about a Chambertin and its masculinity is not about structure and grip. Rather it's about the shape of the wine in the mouth -- a Chambertin almost always tastes square in the mouth (whereas Clos de Beze tends to be sexier and more briary). In its youth it tends to appear simple, but the evolving fruits have an immense reserve and depth. But these are all very inward qualities that need to be searched hard.
- I often wonder about the effect of decanting on burgundies. In the past I have always resisted the idea of decanting red burgundies to open up the wine. However, recently, I am experimenting more. Some young wines are just impossibly massive and tight-fisted without extended aeration (Roty's Charmes and Comte Armand's Clos des Epeneaux as an example) and my experiences tasting them out of decanter after one or two hours had been quite positive as the wines thereafter showed more layers than just straight out of the bottle. I do notice too, however, that the sweetness of decanted burgundies tend to have a slightly waxy sappiness to it at the finish. However, this flaw, if you will, taken against the prospect of a clammed monolith seems rather forgivable in comparison. Tonight, almost all the wines were double decanted -- though for only less than an hour -- except for two, Clair's Clos de Beze and Perrot-Minot's Mazoyeres. It would remain difficult to judge if the decanting had irreversibly altered the wines' palate profiles -- it certainly had an impact -- but for certain wines which I thought I knew quite well, e.g., Roty's Charmes and Rousseau's Chambertin, my memory of the past bottles had just been aerated in-bottle certainly was better pitched and its nuances were more clear and obvious.
- The winemaking style of the domaine almost always adds a significant effect to the wines. Some, in my opinion, were detrimental, such as the case with Dugat-Py. While the wine was not bad, the winemaking choices had made the wine lose its sense of origin -- wood, overripeness, extraction... Some others were quite a revelation. For example, I had always been skeptical with Charlopin's winemaking style in the past -- in my opinion, decidedly new world. Several examples, such as his Charmes and Echezeaux left me with disappointing conclusions. Tonight, his Chambertin was one of my picks for the night. There are several possibilities. Either he had moderated his winemaking style, or for this particular cuvee he's just done a significantly different piece of work. Whichever is the case, I have now learnt to never ever write off a producer and be ever ready to taste objectively and as widely as possible.
Let's plan for the next Burgfest early next year!
