Interesting tidbits from the latest Wine Advocate

[Robert Dentice]

Some interesting observations....

- DS says that the 07 Foillard 3.14 should be drunk within the next 12-18 months and is classified as mature

- Antonio had this to say about the de Moors' (he also scored their wines on average as high as Raveneau):

"My visit to this tiny estate in Courgis was a highlight of my recent stay in Chablis. These fabulous wines from Olivier and Alice de Moor are all the more remarkable because the de Moors own no premier or grand cru land. Through diligent, painstaking work Alice and Oliver de Moor have elevated their wines well above their humble pedigrees, showing just how much can be done when the focus is purely on growing the best fruit possible. Biodynamic farming and artisan winemaking are the rule here"

 

[SFJoe]

Huh. Does anyone else think the '07 3.14 is headed downhill?

Tasty now, for sure.

 

[Matteo Mollo]

um...fuck no.

 

[Matteo Mollo]

too bad about the de moor wines getting spoffuliated in the press. expect major price hikes and supply outages.
.
.
.
PS: I fucking love de moor wines. the 09 rosette is drinking like magic beans of late.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

I've just heard 09 de Moors are good too, despite the reputation of the vintage. We're drinking a very nice 08 Chitry this evening. Prices are already pretty high, though not near Raveneau levels.

I've yet to try the 3.14, but I've read no one else suggest it's a wine for early drinking. Maybe DS sees more than others.

 

[Robert Dentice]

originally posted by SFJoe:
Huh. Does anyone else think the '07 3.14 is headed downhill?

Tasty now, for sure.

I thought it was a strange comment based on the few that I have had.

 

[MarkS]

De Moor is no Raveneau, but not bad.

 

[SFJoe]

The De Moors don't have Raveneau's vineyards. But they do pretty damn well.

 

[Unknown]

originally posted by SFJoe:
The De Moors don't have Raveneau's vineyards. But they do pretty damn well.

et tu, joefus?

fb.

 

[SFJoe]

originally posted by fatboy:

originally posted by SFJoe:
The De Moors don't have Raveneau's vineyards. But they do pretty damn well.

et tu, joefus?

fb.

Dude, you wish all the vineyards were in the flats.

 

[SFJoe]

But have you no love for de moor, fb?

 

[BJ]

The 07 3,14 is nowhere ready to drink. What is he thinking?

de Moor is great, but on par with Raveneau? Come on.

 

[Ned Hoey]

originally posted by BJ:
de Moor is great, but on par with Raveneau? Come on.

Well, Raveneau has the reputation but they're lutte raisonée farmers, I believe they inoculate, and their wines taste very reliably "Raveneau". I enjoy them for what they are but are they really ultimate terroir expressions? Were the de Moors to have the chance to do their thing with more esteemed sites, well it would be interesting.

The Raveneau comparison is a bit apple/orange due to the track record and site disparities. Domaine de la Cadette might be more apt because they have closely consulted with Raveneau and their sites are more equivalent to the de Moors.

 

[Brian C]

Anybody else have oxidation problems with the 07 DeMoor? My last half case of 07 Rosette was enough to spook me away despite some stellar bottles.

 

[David M. Bueker]

David S. very much prefers the youthful fruit of most Beaujolais. His drinking windows reflect that.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

originally posted by Ned Hoey:

originally posted by BJ:
de Moor is great, but on par with Raveneau? Come on.

...

The Raveneau comparison is a bit apple/orange due to the track record and site disparities.

...

The beauty of point scoring - you can sweep aside all that fussy detail.

 

[Brézème]

originally posted by Ned Hoey:

originally posted by BJ:
de Moor is great, but on par with Raveneau? Come on.

Well, Raveneau has the reputation but they're lutte raisonée farmers, I believe they inoculate,

Wrong

 

[Brad Kane]

While I don't agree with David's time assessment for the '07 3.14, I will say that it has been drinking beautifully this year, even from magnum.

Also, some information on Raveneau.

 

[chaad thomas]

originally posted by Brézème:

originally posted by Ned Hoey:

originally posted by BJ:
de Moor is great, but on par with Raveneau? Come on.

Well, Raveneau has the reputation but they're lutte raisonée farmers, I believe they inoculate,

Wrong

What's wrong, that they practice Lutte raisonee, or that they inoculate, or both?

The KL site above says they use indigenous yeast, but that fact does not preclude inoculation, does it? I think typically "indigenous yeast" is used analogously to "wild yeast," which itself is typically used to mean that a winery does not inoculate, but I have to wonder about why the distinction and why the choice not to say wild, which, technicalities aside, is more clearly suggestive about non-inoculation.

I don't know why a winery would mess around with cultivating it's own indigenous yeasts, but hey, I'm just asking the question!

 

[Keith Levenberg]

My understanding was that Raveneau doesn't inoculate. Most Burgundy producers don't. Granted Chablis is a different animal with the proliferation of machine harvesting and all that, but Raveneau never did that stuff. That said, I can understand why someone might assume they have a selected yeast strain - there is definitely a very specific flavor note that seems to pop up in almost every Raveneau I've ever had and not in any other Chablis, and that's exactly the sort of thing you might figure a yeast would be responsible for. Of course, the fact that they don't inoculate wouldn't rule out a particular yeast population in the winery as the cause for that.