Recent Beaujolais vintages

B

BJ

BJ
A Beaujolais tasting running through 04-07 highlighted for me the great variation of these vintages and where they are at in their aging cycles.

I think 07 is a fantastic Beaujolais vintage, one of the best of the last 10-15 years. Quite transparent, clear, articulated, crystaline. Well balanced wines with no heaviness and lots of complexity. The Chermette Poncie absolutely shone, as did the Lapierre, coming in at 12%. The Brun that I had off the boat showed a lot of promise. I would not hesitate to age these either.

05 and 06...honestly, the notes I've seen recently of people finishing their stash or tucking into the 05 Brun leave me scratching my head. These wines scream out for fairly deep cellar buries. I think for the most part 05 is clearly much better (Jim, I feel your pain on not buying more of them...I wish I'd bought cases and cases, esp. at the price). Some of the 06s are a bit more muddy and it's hard for me to tell if they will clarify as they age or always stay a bit monolithic. There are some 06s that I think very highly of (the Aufranc 1939 is superb) though so certainly you can't generalize, which is I guess what I'm doing here.

I have always thought 04 was just a dandy vintage, classic and just your average Joe Beaujolais vintage that did well at the start and will age fine. I do think 07 is better though, but they have similarities, at least in their weight.

I want to say here that I continue to be totally impressed by Chermette. To a wine they are superb. He seems to get more articulacy out of his wines than anyone. I know some folks aren't crazy about his wine, which I don't get.
 
I agree, nearly totally, with your vintage assessments. However, I've found 06 to be something of a mixed bag - some good wines(roilette,) but a lot of clumsy ones too(Tete.) 06 is a fruit year, a simple year and only in some cases a cellaring year.

My 07 standout is Foillard's Cote du Py Morgon. Goodness it's gorgeous.

And why are we drinking our Cru Beaujolais so young? I do because I can afford too. The cellaring budget is largely consumed by Burgundy, Barbaresco, Barolo and Loire. Can't save everything and I gotta drink something (though a few bottles seem to have found their way to the very back of my locker.)
 
originally posted by jack hott:

And why are we drinking our Cru Beaujolais so young?
Click to expand...

In my case, because I can't keep Jean's hands off of them. It's the age-old conundrum: why age a wine that tastes so fantastic now? I've been able to cellar a fair number of '05s because they didn't taste so good young (Jean: Why are we drinking this? It doesn't taste like Beaujolais. It's a Burgundy wannabe) but no such luck with '04s, '06s or the '07s we've tried so far. I'm going long on '07s, though, for the reasons that Brad elaborates.

Mark Lipton
 
I have the same issue: I think I'm going to cellar them, and then somehow by year five, which is when I should start drinking them, they're gone, unless I buried them. I did manage to buy a case and a half of 05 Brun, which is buried quite deep.

I've started to seriously up my purchasing - best by the case, or more.

I have a little stash of Thivin 04 halves that I got ridiculously cheap - gone through a couple cases at least - and I'm down to my last 3 or 4. And they haven't even really hit secondaries yet!

I too appreciate Foillard, and put him up with Roilette, Chermette, and Lapierre in my own personal top tier.
 
originally posted by Brad L i l j e q u i s t:
Recent Beaujolais vintagesA Beaujolais tasting running through 04-07 highlighted for me the great variation of these vintages and where they are at in their aging cycles.

I think 07 is a fantastic Beaujolais vintage, one of the best of the last 10-15 years. Quite transparent, clear, articulated, crystaline. Well balanced wines with no heaviness and lots of complexity. The Chermette Poncie absolutely shone, as did the Lapierre, coming in at 12%. The Brun that I had off the boat showed a lot of promise. I would not hesitate to age these either.

05 and 06...honestly, the notes I've seen recently of people finishing their stash or tucking into the 05 Brun leave me scratching my head. These wines scream out for fairly deep cellar buries. I think for the most part 05 is clearly much better (Jim, I feel your pain on not buying more of them...I wish I'd bought cases and cases, esp. at the price). Some of the 06s are a bit more muddy and it's hard for me to tell if they will clarify as they age or always stay a bit monolithic. There are some 06s that I think very highly of (the Aufranc 1939 is superb) though so certainly you can't generalize, which is I guess what I'm doing here.

I have always thought 04 was just a dandy vintage, classic and just your average Joe Beaujolais vintage that did well at the start and will age fine. I do think 07 is better though, but they have similarities, at least in their weight.
Click to expand...

Yep. And the '07 generalization extends to regions beyond Beaujolais. The beauty of the vintage makes think crazy thoughts, like buying some Burgundies when they are released.

I'm not drinking any '05s now.

I gave my mom and dad most of the rest of my 06's. My mom called the other day to ask where she could go to buy more wine from this "J.P. Brun guy."
 
Word was originally Kermit Lynch was talking about cellaring his 2005 cru Beaujolais at least five years and probably longer. Then there were some rumblings that maybe they're not that long lived. When's a good time to drink them, all in all?
 
originally posted by SteveTimko:
05 agingWord was originally Kermit Lynch was talking about cellaring his 2005 cru Beaujolais at least five years and probably longer. Then there were some rumblings that maybe they're not that long lived. When's a good time to drink them, all in all?
Click to expand...

As always, I think this depends to some extent on the specific wine. And for what it's worth, I don't think Kermit's Beaujolais producers are the ones that are best suited to aging.
 
originally posted by SteveTimko:
05 agingWord was originally Kermit Lynch was talking about cellaring his 2005 cru Beaujolais at least five years and probably longer. Then there were some rumblings that maybe they're not that long lived. When's a good time to drink them, all in all?
Click to expand...

What Rahsaan said.
Exactly.
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
And for what it's worth, I don't think Kermit's Beaujolais producers are the ones that are best suited to aging.
Click to expand...
I'm coming around to this conclusion as well. Perhaps Diochon Moulin-a-Vent in the right vintage can improve significantly with some years in bottle. And I don't have enough experience with Thivin to say.

But my limited results with Lapierre, Foillard and G. Breton have been decidedly mixed. I think for my palate, these wines usually are as good as they are ever going to be over the first year or so after release.

It would seem this puts me a little out of step with the other voices in this thread. But maybe you guys were just talking about Coudert, Chermette, etc.

Either way, we all seem to agree that 2007 Foillard is the dog's bollocks.
 
Boy...I have no problem aging Kermit's Beaujolais. We visited Lapierre in 05 and he opened a vertical back to 97...I would be hard pressed to say any were too old, not by a long shot. Each was a great window on the year.

Older Foillards and Thivins I've had were great.

Not a lot of experience with Breton or Diochon.

I do struggle some with Thevenet's brett issues, which certainly affect ageability.

Even Dubeouf wines can age great, tho I know that is heresy here.
 
If I were forced to do such a silly thing as decide my favorite Beaujolais, I think it would have to be Foillard Cote du Py. Although I'd be curious to see how the wine ages, the sheer exuberance and rompy deliciousness of a young version is not something I'd want to jeopardize with cellaring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top