You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
2010 Brun Fleurie
- Thread starter Yixin
- Start date
originally posted by Brézème:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
2010 Chamonard Morgon the other day was just OK.
2010 Chamonard the other day was drinking like a potentialy brilliant wine 10-15 years from now. Drink Lapierre or Breton if you want to drink 10s. Or drink 1995, 1998 or 2003 Chamonard.
Drinking Chamonard young is a total waste. Always. IMO
Although still skeptical of the brilliance of Chamonard (I've had good bottles, but never the great bottles others have had), I can firmly stand behind the 2010 Lapierre and Breton, of which a bottle of the latter was fantastic the other night.
originally posted by VLM:
Although still skeptical of the brilliance of Chamonard
Keep on trying, my friend. One day you'll touch the truth...
U
Unknown
Guest
originally posted by Brézème:
Rousseau
really? Don't remember one with "fluid" structure young, except for Beze which I had always attributed to soil. I would have thought Ponsot would have made the list, despite inconsistencies.
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
originally posted by Brézème:
originally posted by VLM:
Although still skeptical of the brilliance of Chamonard
Keep on trying, my friend. One day you'll touch the truth...
A couple of years ago, they had bottles of the '96 at Ten Bells.
"And I saw her face, now I'm a believer..."
originally posted by .sasha:
originally posted by Brézème:
Rousseau
really? Don't remember one with "fluid" structure young, except for Beze which I had always attributed to soil. I would have thought Ponsot would have made the list, despite inconsistencies.
Well one exemple maybe : 85s never strucked me as structured.
I never found tons of structure in any Ruchottes especially when compared to Roumier's ones.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
A couple of weeks ago, Etienne Grivot was kind enough to open a bottle of his 1987 Richebourg, from his full Accad period, in the cellar and it was nothing short of amazing.originally posted by Brézème:
And tons of structured wines that turned into mess without hope (Cambie CdP or Accad pinots come to mind).
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
I liked this wine, too, about ten days ago, but Thor was less enthusiastic. That night, Descombes's nouveau was not interesting at all.originally posted by kirk wallace:
2012 foillard nouveau at lunch today at Olympic Provisions NW was just fine.
U
Unknown
Guest
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
A couple of weeks ago, Etienne Grivot was kind enough to open a bottle of his 1987 Richebourg, from his full Accad period, in the cellar and it was nothing short of amazing.originally posted by Brézème:
And tons of structured wines that turned into mess without hope (Cambie CdP or Accad pinots come to mind).
so that's what it takes to make a great richebourg!
I just had to bite.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Eric, you mentioned in another thread that Chamonard's carbonic is more traditional than Chauvet's - does this make his Morgons leaner (does this mean less dry extract?) without compromising longevity because the acidity is the same/higher?
And, since you seem to be saying that the sensation of structure (the sensation of dry extract, perhaps) is not so much a factor in making old bones, what else do you use to assess that a wine looks like it might become potentialy brilliant 10-15 years from now? Acidity alone? Some other aspect of the fruit or the nature of the sweetness?
And, since you seem to be saying that the sensation of structure (the sensation of dry extract, perhaps) is not so much a factor in making old bones, what else do you use to assess that a wine looks like it might become potentialy brilliant 10-15 years from now? Acidity alone? Some other aspect of the fruit or the nature of the sweetness?
Jean CLaude Chanudet makes the wines the way Joseph Chamonard used to make them. A traditional maceration beaujolaise. Partially carbonic, partially yeast fermented followed by a traditionnal long elevage. the no sulfur thing has nothing to do with it, of course.
Far from the strict cold carbonic that Neauport (and not really Chauvet) made popular.
I think the longevity of the wines has at least as much to do with the terroir (mostly corcelettes, always more "tardif" than say Py), the vine growing, the age of the vines than the winemaking itself. His wines can seem leaner at first, but my experience is that these wines reach heights that very few others can reach.
And I have strictly no explanation for that.
But I know the man, his vineyards, his wines and their history, and like Joe Dressner tought me, this is plenty enough to make your mind about a wine.
2010 is a great vintage in Morgon, and Chanudet never made a bad wine in 30 years. Plus, every single time I had the wine, I found what I have been finding in his wines for the past 25 years, and that I can't really objectively describe.
This is why I believe that this wine will be a very singular expression of the terroir of Morgon in a few years.
Tasting can add an information to the rest, but, for me, is hardly the alpha and omega of the longevity determination.
If I know nothing about a wine, the grower, the terroir, I don't think that so called structure can be a sign of anything. Or acidity, or anything else.
I remember clearly the first time I tasted a Rayas wine. It was 1983 Fonsalette. I said right away that the wine was already showing signs of decline. A few days later my old friend Alain Doerfler went into his cellar to pick a 52 Rayas. And poured it blind. The wine was incredibly fresh and young. Last time I had 83 Fonsalette, it tasted very much like this 52 Rayas.
The only objective thing that make Rayas obviously ageable (except in monster vintages like 1995 or 2001) is that Rayas History shows us that Rayas always ages with grace, even in the Emmanuel Reynaud era.
Far from the strict cold carbonic that Neauport (and not really Chauvet) made popular.
I think the longevity of the wines has at least as much to do with the terroir (mostly corcelettes, always more "tardif" than say Py), the vine growing, the age of the vines than the winemaking itself. His wines can seem leaner at first, but my experience is that these wines reach heights that very few others can reach.
And I have strictly no explanation for that.
But I know the man, his vineyards, his wines and their history, and like Joe Dressner tought me, this is plenty enough to make your mind about a wine.
2010 is a great vintage in Morgon, and Chanudet never made a bad wine in 30 years. Plus, every single time I had the wine, I found what I have been finding in his wines for the past 25 years, and that I can't really objectively describe.
This is why I believe that this wine will be a very singular expression of the terroir of Morgon in a few years.
Tasting can add an information to the rest, but, for me, is hardly the alpha and omega of the longevity determination.
If I know nothing about a wine, the grower, the terroir, I don't think that so called structure can be a sign of anything. Or acidity, or anything else.
I remember clearly the first time I tasted a Rayas wine. It was 1983 Fonsalette. I said right away that the wine was already showing signs of decline. A few days later my old friend Alain Doerfler went into his cellar to pick a 52 Rayas. And poured it blind. The wine was incredibly fresh and young. Last time I had 83 Fonsalette, it tasted very much like this 52 Rayas.
The only objective thing that make Rayas obviously ageable (except in monster vintages like 1995 or 2001) is that Rayas History shows us that Rayas always ages with grace, even in the Emmanuel Reynaud era.
Guilhaume gerard
Guilhaume gerard
originally posted by Brézème:
even in the Emmanuel Reynaud era.
nice
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Thank you, Eric, very clear and persuasive, and your point about the unreliability of uninformed perceptions of structure, while unwelcome, is well taken. Though I liked very much the 1996 and 2007 and am generally biased towards Chamonard, my impression of mere OK-ness was for the most part based on the notoriously limited "what's in the glass." Yours is also informed by knowledge of an entire practice, as well as sensorial references to that practice. While this also creates an emotional investment, that is only as it should be. I certainly find myself in that position often, particularly with producers that I have visited and fallen oenologically in love with. Had I visited Chanudet and internalized a piece of his (and Chamonard's) vision, I might have shrugged off the annoying candied sweetness as baby fat. Since I haven't, I didn't. But it's not difficult to do so vicariously, through the eyes of your advocacy. While it is frustrating to retreat to a position that one can draw almost nothing in the way of longevity clues from objective experience, it also, regrettably, rings true.
U
Unknown
Guest
originally posted by VLM:
Although still skeptical of the brilliance of Chamonard (I've had good bottles, but never the great bottles others have had)
the 2010 in my glass is unquestionably a great wine
( a first timer )
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
Are the Chamonards sans souffre?
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Are the Chamonards sans souffre?
Go ask him! You won't regret