Dominique Laurent: the Controversy

I've had only one, a 1992 premier cru from his 200 percent new oak phase, and I liked it. Of course I'm hardly an expert on Burgundy.
 
It's a bit complicated and they've gotten better in recent years. Back in the early/mid '90s in the heyday of the more oak the better attitude among many producers/reviewers they made waves with their 200% new oak and their spectacular ratings. Most Burgundy lovers hated the wines and they were one of the several major causes (along with drinking windows) for said people ceasing to take Robert Parker seriously for Burgundy. I haven't tasted them widely or deeply, but the '93s and '96s I've had were uniformly dreadful. I had the chance to taste a bunch of '99s on release and they were a substantial improvement. There were still many other producers I would buy in preference to them but there were some bottlings that I could drink and enjoy. The oak was not nearly as prominent as I remember it being in the few '93s and '96s I'd tried. I have not had any of their wines since that vintage.

I should mention that I've read of severe variability between bottles as they might have sourced grapes for a given bottling from several different sources. If so, one might guess which bottles on the quality scale were opened for visiting reviewers.
 
I read somewhere that his 200% oak deal was part of theoretical system that allowed him to eliminate or substantially reduce the use of sulfer in his winemaking.

I've also heard of the bottle variation issue.
 
Some wines have been terrible, others not. But the premise of the operation is bothersome: he buys wine in barrel from very good producers such as Chevillon, Maume, and Bertheau and then raises the wines on his own. He does not blend them as a traditional (at least in the past) negociant would. And it is difficult to imagine that Chevillon, etc. are selling him their best barrels (although apparently he does pay well). Therefore, his claim to superiority is based on the unstated claim that he knows how to raise the wines better than the producers do. Thirty or forty years ago, there was force to that argument. Today there are still producers for whom that argument would be true. But not for producers of the quality that I cited above.
 
I agree that the premise is really bad (ie Buying wine and adding oak).

That said, I would characterize the wines as traditionally fermented, sometimes exceptional fruit that is vastly over-oaked. If you have a high oak tolerance these wines are a great deal since many of his sources are excellent.

I recently opened a '96 Grand Cru (maybe a Charmes?) and it had integrated a lot of the overt oak (which was offensive in its youth) but remained blurry IMO.
 
originally posted by Joe Perry:

Con: The wines suck.
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums it up. Next question.

Actually if I were to refine it further, I'd say that enough of the wines suck that who in their right mind would want to spend their own money to buy the wines and hold them till the oak finally disappears just to be able to then identify a few that don't suck.
 
The wines appear to be well known to suck, from the grey market pricing. Premiere Cru seems always to have a bunch to sell.

I don't taste them much, but a friend ITB who tries them on release tells me they can be quite flattering when first available, but that they often crack up in a hurry. I just pass this along.
 
Actually if I were to refine it further, I'd say that enough of the wines suck that who in their right mind would want to spend their own money to buy the wines and hold them till the oak finally disappears just to be able to then identify a few that don't suck.
Click to expand...

I had a '97 Charmes back in March '08 that was (a) not from my own reserves and thus cost my nothing, (b) in perfect shape, and (c) absolutely delicious. Generally, I'm not keen on oaky wines, but the oak faded rather elegantly. There was certainly still some wood showing, but the dominant characteristics were animalistic and raw. It had tons of sediment and cranky, rugged qualities. I rather enjoyed it.

Having only had the one, I can't yet claim to love or hate Laurent's wines. But I certainly wouldn't have wanted to drink this particular bottle any younger than I did. It would unquestionably have been foul. I hate to open up the Pandora's Box of "intent," but if Laurent claimed the wine I had was for aging, I suspect I'd view them differently than if Laurent claimed the wine was suitable for drinking upon release.

(Hello, by the way... I'm new. No one give me a wedgie, please.)
 
Evan-

I agree you can't open a Laurent Charmes or some very oaky-styled Barolo really young and then complain that it tastes oaky (well, you can do that, but you know what I mean). So you have to wait a long time. For me the wait, expense, and risk just weighs in favor of placing my bets elsewhere. But then i also buy 20x more Bourgogne than Charmes-level wine. I am always happy to test drive other people's Laurent wines, however.

By the way, welcome! (I'm not sure what kind of welcome wagon the Politburo drives)
 
I've actually had some really nice wines (96s in particular) that were at the village level that were actually quite good. And included in that definition is not very oaky.
 
I agree with Claude, Kevin and Jay. In the mid-90s the wines were awful, and the wines I bought (foolishly, admittedly) have not held up well, even the Grands Crus. In fact, I've foisted them off on people like Jay as a sign of friendship and respect.

That said, my most recent experiences have been slightly better, but these tastes still don't make me want to go out and buy the wines. For the same price, I can get much higher quality, to be honest. As far as my wallet and cellar are concerned, I won't be buying any more Laurents for a while.
Cheers!
 
I've had some remarkable wines from here but I think until the 98 vintage a majority of bottles ended up being spoiled.
Best at the lower end, I think. I've had Santenay, Savigny, Chorey, Beaune, all villages, which have been absolute paragons.
 
The wine I had was the 1992 Laurent Gevrey-Chambertin 1er Cru Estournelles-St.-Jacques and it was nice. No oak issues. Darker red fruits and a nice earthiness. If my friend hadn't explained to me the 200 percent new oak I would have never guessed. I drank it in 2006, I believe.
 
Steve:

The '92 you tried might not have gotten the full-on treatment. That is the problem with Laurent, there is no real rhyme or reason to the elevage from wine to wine and year to year.

I went to a tasting of a broad spectrum of the '96s a few years after their initial release and the grand crus were hideous. Literally slathered with a lumberyard of oak to the point where all the wines tasted the same. I thought they'd fall apart for sure. It sounds like some have managed to recover from all that oak treatment, but I've never been tempted to seek these wines out.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Some wines have been terrible, others not. But the premise of the operation is bothersome: he buys wine in barrel from very good producers such as Chevillon, Maume, and Bertheau and then raises the wines on his own. He does not blend them as a traditional (at least in the past) negociant would. And it is difficult to imagine that Chevillon, etc. are selling him their best barrels (although apparently he does pay well). Therefore, his claim to superiority is based on the unstated claim that he knows how to raise the wines better than the producers do. Thirty or forty years ago, there was force to that argument. Today there are still producers for whom that argument would be true. But not for producers of the quality that I cited above.
Click to expand...

Strange business model indeed. To top it off, his wines are often cheaper on this market than those of the people whose wine he is buying. (But maybe that has more to do with importer markups.) My own experience with Laurent (not extensive) has been mixed. A few good wines, several so-so, one or two dogs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top