My Favorite Burgundies

PREFACE

I should begin by explaining what this book is, and what it is not. It is not a textbook about the wines of Burgundy. There are no chapters of the history and the geography of the region. Nor is there a village-by-village, vineyard-by-vineyard commentary, and a comprehensive listing of all the main growers and their wines. This I have done twice before: in Côte d’Or, published in 1998, and in The Wines of Burgundy, which appeared ten years later. Moreover, since 2008, my friend Jasper Morris has brought out his Inside Burgundy. This is a path well tilled.

My Favorite Burgundies should be regarded as a companion piece to The Wines of Burgundy. The latter is still valid. There have not been many major changes since The Wines of Burgundy appreared in 2008. The villages and the vineyards remain the same. So, very largely, do the domaines. The main changes are that we have five more vintages, and everyone is five years older. A handful of exploitations have evolved—the main ones being Lafon, Liger-Belair, Roulot, and Rousseau. These have been noted in the profiles which follow.

I am in the very lucky position of being able to take part in regular, extensive tastings of the major wines of Burgundy in bottle. What My Favorite Burgundies is, is an account of the opportunities which have come my way since The Wines of Burgundy went to press and my appreciation of the wines offered. I have split these occasions into three parts: Vineyard Profiles, in roughly south to north order; Domaine Profiles, in, apart from the first piece on the Hospices de Beaune, alphabetical order; and Vintage Assessments, in reverse chronological order.

While the list of wines offered is extensive, it does not pretend to be exclusively comprehensive. Production in fragmented Burgundy is meagre and stocks retained at the domaine tiny, normally just a few bottles kept back for birthdays and anniversaries. If you were the proprietor of an 80-hectare growth in the Médoc, you could well put aside five hundred bottles for future reference. And collectors would not find it impossible to acquire more than six or twelve bottles of any wine they desire. But with Burgundy it is different. If the wine that you seek a note on is not here, I can only apologize. There are limits to how greedy you can get. I have found my friends in Burgundy extremely generous, only equalled by the liberality of my friends with extensive cellars elsewhere. But the grower may simply not have the wine, or may be disinclined to offer it for tasting. Or, when the wines have come from stocks in the United States and elsewhere, the wine may not have been cellared in the first place.

You may also wonder why a certain domaine or vineyard or vintage has been included in this book while others are absent. Here again it is also a question of opportunity. In the case of the vineyards and domaines, I have organised many myself and the rest have been tastings with groups of friends in Guilford, Connecticut, and other venues, mainly in the United States. I have included nearly all the estates to which I awarded the top three-star rating in The Wines of Burgundy. I have included many of the top vineyards but not, for instance, any grand cru Chambertins. The Guilford group went through the Gevrey card in the mid-2000s, and you will find these notes in The Wines of Burgundy. These occasions seemed to be too recent to repeat, so we put these aside in favour of other tastings. As far as the vintages are concerned, what appears in this book is, in the main, the five vintages that we tasted at three years on (2005–2009) and the five at ten years on (1998–2002). This follows on from earlier vintages reported on in The Wines of Burgundy.

Marking. You will notice that some wines are marked and some not. The reason for this is that I find it simple enough, where only one vintage is on the table, to place the wines in a rigid hierarchy. Yes. Wine A deserves 17.5; Wine B, alongside it, earns 18.0. When it comes to a mixture of vintages, I personally find this sort of marking more difficult. Vintages vary in quality, and I often find myself noting as more important, for instance, that Wine A, from a celebrated year, is marginally disappointing, while Wine B is an unexpected success compared with what one might expect. The thing, of course, is to read the words.

The University of California Press, being the publishers they are, send out commissioned and submitted books to outsiders for a peer review. I don’t know who my two peers are (though I have a suspicion of who one is). But they came up with a number of suggestions about how my manuscript could be improved; they also pointed out a couple of mistakes. I have taken their comments on board, and the book is better as a result. My thanks to them.

I would like to thank the following, without whom these opportunities I have had to taste fine Burgundy would not have occurred, and without whose friendship, the world would be an unhappier place:

Firstly, in Burgundy: Becky Wasserman and Russell Hone, and all my friends the growers, particularly those whose domaines are profiled in this book, and those others who submitted samples for our tastings.

In Britain and Beaune: Roy Richards, Jasper Morris, Toby Morrhall, Hew Blair, Lindsay Hamilton, Julie Petitjean, Zubair Mohammed, Christopher Moestue, and Neil Beckett.

In Connecticut: Bob Feinn, Gregg Cook, George and Jeri Sape, Jack and Thelma Hewitt, Alvin and Linda Wakayama, Jim and Debbie Cianciolo, Bruce and Pam Simonds, Keith and Judy Edwards, Doug Barzeley, and Roger Forbes.

Elsewhere in the United States: Tony and Judi Dietrich, Arlette and Bob Cataldo, Kevin and Mary-Virginia Hill, Joel and Joan Knox, Jim Kelley, Clay Cockerell, Joe Saglimbeni, Harold Wood, Tom Black, Marshall Katz, Jim and Elaine Israel, Don Scott, Bob Conrad, Jim Finkel, and David Hamburger.

A number of the pieces in this book have appeared in a prior form in Decanter Magazine, The World of Fine Wine, and the late and lamented Quarterly Review of Wine. I thank the editors of these magazines for their permission to use what I had written for them as the basis for the pieces which follow.

And finally, of course, I need to thank all the team at the University of California Press: Rich Nybakken, Leslie Larson, and Francisco Reinking; and Amy Smith Bell, Bea Hartman, Tanya Grove, and David Peattie of BookMatters; finishing up with (and not least) Caterina Polland, who sends out the royalty cheques.

PART ONE

Vineyard Profiles

MAP 1 Burgundy

Puligny-Montrachet, Les Folatières, 2006

LES, OR EZ FOLATIÈRES, is Puligny’s largest first growth, at 17.65 hectares. It lies on the same altitude as Les Caillerets, Chevalier-Montrachet, and Le Montrachet itself, but to the north, between 250 and 300 metres above sea level. It includes the lieux-dits of En La Richarde, a recent addition, Peux Bois, and Au Chaniot—all of which are at the southern end.

While many would argue that Caillerets is possibly the best of the Puligny premiers crus, Folatières is certainly among the very best. Those further upslope—Le Garenne, La Truffière, Les Champs Gain, and others—are lighter and less fine, and in lesser years can be a bit thin. Clavoillon, below, produces a more four-square wine. Only Clos de la Garenne, next to Folatières, Perrières, Combettes, and Champ Canet, further north towards Meursault, plus Pucelles, which marches with Bienvenues-Bâtard-Montrachet, can match the elegance of Folatières, and only in Clos de la Garenne (owned by the Duc de Magenta and exclusive to Maison Jadot) will you find a wine with the same depth of character.

As you would expect in Burgundy, though essentially limestone, the geology is complex. The lower and eastern part of the Folatières climat is made up of a compact, hard, erosion-resistant lower Bathonian rock, found and quarried a couple of kilometres away in Chassagne-Montrachet. The surface soil is rich in stones and rather thin. The uppermost part consists of compact limestones and dolomites equivalent to the Comblanchien rocks of the Côte de Nuits, and also found in the rocky outcrop between Genevrières and Narvaux in Meursault. The soils are once again thin and rich in stones. Between the two lies a thin strip of marl abundant in large mussel-like fossils. Erosion is more commonplace here, so rendering the shalier soils found here more concave. Downslope there is a distinct fault, below which the limestone resembles that of the hill of Corton. You can see the fault in the upper part of Le Montrachet. (My thanks to Francoise Vannier-Petit, local geologist, for this information.)

But, while this geology is instructive, what effect does this have on the wine? Eric Rémy, regisseur of the Domaine Leflaive, says that in the southern part of the climat there is a little more clay: hence powerful but elegant wines with good fruit; while the more stony northern section makes more mineral wines. Franck Grux of Olivier Leflaive Frères points out that upslope the surface soil is very thin. It can get very hot and dry; and the fruit can rapidly degenerate into super-ripeness, producing wine which is heavy and superficial on the follow-through: too primeur for comfort. I incline to the view that the best sector is that on the same latitudinal line as the Caillerets, rather than further upslope. Here are the most complete Folatières.

MAP 2 Puligny-Montrachet, Les Folatières

Those who have vines here, in rough south to north order, include Philippe Chavy, the Château de Puligny, Domaine des Lambrays, Jean Chartron, Réne Monnier, Paul Pernot (in part), Vincent Girardin, and Sylvain Bzikot. Folatières is a full wine, meaty, mineral, and with plenty of weight of fruit and good grip. It ages well. The best, in the best vintages, require seven or eight years to mature. I asked the growers in the early months of 2010 whether they would be interested in participating in a comparative tasting, and I chose 2006, one of the best of the recent vintages, though perhaps one which is more vintage- than terroir-representative. They responded enthusiastically, though some did not have a single bottle to spare for the tasting.

The tasting was held at Hotel/Restaurant Le Montrachet in Puligny itself. My thanks to André Berthier, chef sommelier, and his colleagues for setting up the tasting.

TASTING NOTES

Bachelet-Monnot

When to drink: From 2014

Rating: 17.0

43 ares. Bottled after 18 months. 30 percent new oak.

Slightly heavy nose, with a touch of sulphur and at the same time some evolution. Better on the palate. Much cleaner. Fullish body. Very good grip. Plenty of depth. Properly dry. Quite a meaty wine. Long and satisfying. Very good indeed.

Bernard-Bonin

When to drink: From 2014

Rating: 18.5

16 ares. 18 months. 30 percent new oak.

Clean, crisp, racy, high-class nose. Subtle and flowery. Medium-full body. Ripe, complex, lovely fruit. Very well-balanced. Lots of depth and distinction. Very fine. Just about ready.

Vincent Bouzereau

When to drink: Now to 2018

Rating: 15.0

20 ares. 11 months. 20 percent new oak.

Delicate nose. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of depth here. On the palate medium to medium-full body. Clean and enjoyable. But not really the concentration and dimension of a top premier cru. Balanced but a bit slight. Good at best.

Sylvain Bzikot

When to drink: From 2014

Rating: 17.0

40 ares. 15 to 18 months. 40 percent new oak.

Ripe nose, a touch exotic. Fullish, open, balanced, and just about à point. Good grip. Plump. Quite rich. An attractive wine which is long on the palate and just about ready. Very good indeed.

Michel Caillot

When to drink: Now to 2017

Rating: 15.5

17 ares. 12 months in cask, followed by 12 months en cuve. 100 percent 1-year-old casks.

Quite evolved and a little tropical on the nose. Full and rich, but does it lack a little grip? Better on the palate. Fullish, abundant, decent acidity. Not too exotic, but it could have done with a little more finesse. Balanced and quite concentrated nevertheless. Good plus.

Jean Chartron

When to drink: Now to 2017

Rating: 17.0

45 ares. 12 months in cask and then 3 in vat.

30 percent new oak.

Attractive, cool, and minerally on the nose, but a little lightweight. Medium to medium-full body. Good attack, ripe and racy with a touch of new oak. Lacks a little energy on the follow-through but by no means short. Very good indeed.

Chàteau de Puligny

When to drink: From 2014

Rating: 17.5

52 ares. 12 months plus 3 months en cuve. 15 percent 600 litre new oak casks.

Firm, quite closed nose. But good depth and grip underneath. Lots of class too. Full body, backward, meaty, and profound. Very good grip. It is just a little four-square at present, but it needs time. Fine.

Alain Chavy

When to drink: From 2014

Rating: 17.5

1.35 ares. 15 to 16 months. 25 percent new oak.

A slight touch of sulphur on the nose. Better on the palate. Youthful. Medium-full body. Lots of energy and plenty of depth. Lovely balanced, classy fruit, and very good grip. Fine.

Hubert Chavy

When to drink: Now to 2018

Rating: 18.0

60 ares. 12 months. 25 percent new oak.

From magnum. Lovely rich, ripe nose. A touch more exotic than most. Lovely fruit. Medium-full body. Subtle, balanced, vigorous, and very complex at the end. Very long and classy indeed. Fine plus.

Jean-Louis Chavy

When to drink: Now to 2018

Rating: 18.5

1.03 ha. 14 months. 30 percent new oak.

Lovely subtle nose. Delicate, complex, classy fruit. Not a blockbuster. Indeed quite understated. Very harmonious, long, and complex. Very fine.

Philippe Chavy

When to drink: From 2014

Rating: 19.0

30 ares. 11 months. 30 percent new oak.

The nose is quite hidden. Fullish and a bit four-square on the palate. But a lot of depth and vigour. Still very young. Fullish, classy, very good grip. Got better and better in the glass. Very fine plus.

Maison Joseph Drouhin

When to drink: Now to 2017

Rating: 15.5

Usual purchase not disclosed. 11 months. 30 percent new oak.

Just a touch of sulphur on the nose. Ripe and rich and quite exotic on the palate. Fullish body. Not the greatest of class but good energy. Good plus.

Benoit Ente

When to drink: Now to 2018

Rating: 17.0

27 ares. 12 months. 20 percent new oak.

Classy if not very concentrated on the nose. Fullish, clean, racy, and energetic on the palate. Finishes better than it starts. No lack of depth or finesse. Very good indeed.

Vincent Girardin

When to drink: Now to 2020

Rating: 19.0

1.40 ha. 18 months. 20 percent new oak.

Very lovely nose. Lots of class. Subtle and complex. Balanced and definitive. Medium-full body. Ripe, multidimensional, especially at the end. Very lovely. Very fine plus.

Thierry Glantenay

When to drink: Now to 2020

Rating: 19.5

50 ares. 14 to 16 months. 20 percent new oak.

Classy nose. Still closed. Fullish body. Balanced, and full of fruit. This is really very fine indeed. Multidimensional.

Louis Jadot

When to drink: Now to 2019

Rating: 18.5

24 ares. 20 months. 20 percent new oak.

Delicate nose. A little more marked by the oak than most. Medium-full body. Ripe, clean, and well-balanced. Gently oaky on the palate but long and classy. Very fine.

Domaine des Lambrays

When to drink: From 2014

Rating: 19.5

29 ares. 12 to 14 months. 50 percent new oak.

Full, concentrated, very well-balanced nose. This is profound and youthful. Full-bodied. Ripe, rich, and vigorous. Lots of wine here. Lots of depth and lots of class. Very lovely finish. Needs time. Very fine indeed.

Maison Louis Latour

When to drink: Now to 2017

Rating: 15.0

Usually buy the equivalent of 10 pièces. 12 months. 50 percent new oak.

Not a great deal on the nose. Medium-full body. Somewhat four-square. Not a lot of either class nor dimension, but decent grip and length. Good.

Domaine Leflaive

When to drink: From 2014

Rating: 18.5

1.07 ha. 12 months in cask, then 6 to 8 months in tank. 20 percent new oak.

From magnum. Good balanced fruit on the nose. Fullish body. Ripe. Good grip. Good depth. Lots of energy and a long way from being ready for drinking. Lots of dimension and concentration. Very fine.

Maison Olivier Leflaive Frères

When to drink: Now to 2018

Rating: 18.5

Usually buy the equivalent of 8 to 10 pièces. 15 to 18 months. 25 percent new oak.

From magnum. Subtle nose. There is more here than seems at first. Classy and very harmonious. Lovely fruit. Fullish body. Ripe and complex and multidimensional. Very lovely, long, lingering finish. Very fine.

René Monnier

When to drink: From 2014

Rating: 19.5

82 ares. 14 months. 30 percent new oak.

From magnum. Complex, subtle nose. Still not fully evolved. But classy and promising. Beautifully balanced. Fullish body. Poised, energetic, and very high class. Very fine indeed.

Jean Pascal et Fils

When to drink: Now to 2018

Rating: 18.0

63 ares. 11 months. 25 percent new oak.

Attractive peachy fruit on the nose. Good grip. Ample and very Puligny. Medium-full body. Succulent, pure, balanced, and classy. Lovely finish. Fine plus.

Pernot

When to drink: Drink soon

Rating: 13.5

3.08 ha. 11 months. 40 percent new oak.

Not a lot of depth or class on the nose. A bit of sulphur too. I feel this is one of those 2006s that was picked a little late. It is a little concocted. Others liked it more than I did. Three voted it as one of their favourites.

Maison Remoissenet Père et Fils

When to drink: From 2014

Rating: 18.0

Usually buy the equivalent of 5 pièces. 16 months. 40 percent new oak.

Ripe, racy, and classy on the nose. Profound and stylish. Lots of dimension. Full-bodied. Youthful. Very good depth. A big wine with lots of energy. Needs time. Fine plus.

Etienne Sauzet

When to drink: Now to 2017

Rating: 17.0

27 ares. Plus the equivalent of 9 pièces bought as négociant. 18 months. 25 percent new oak.

Lovely fruit on the nose. Ripe, clean, and harmonious. Nicely racy. Medium-full body. Balanced. Good grip. It just seems to tail off a bit at the end. Very good indeed but not fine.

I took a consensus of the group’s preferences. The four most favoured wines were those of Vincent Girardin, Domaine Leflaive, Olivier Leflaive, and Remoissenet—the last two being merchant wines (but where such merchants were heavily involved in the local viticulture and were bought in as fruit). The Lambrays sample, plus one or two others, were late arrivals and sampled seperately. Note that Chanson and Faiveley, who can today offer you Folatières, did not possess their parcels in 2006.

En primeur, Puligny-Montrachet, Les Folatières, 2006, was offered at 240 to 275 pounds sterling per six bottles, ex cellars, to customers in Britain, $450 or so per sixpack in the United States. As well as the above, the following also produce Folatières: the Domaine d’Auvenay in Saint-Romain, Jean-Michel Gaunoux and Château Genot-Boulanger, both in Meursault, and the Domaine Maroslavac-Léger in Puligny. The wine may also be carried by other merchants.

Chassagne-Montrachet, Les Caillerets, 2007

APART FROM MORGEOT, a name which can be given to any premier cru vineyard downslope from the little road which connects Chassagne and Santenay, and to all the land immediately upslope from Fairendes, close to the village, to Clos Pitois on the Santenay border—a surface area of 52 hectares—and apart from the mainly red wine vineyard of Clos-Saint-Jean, Les Caillerets is Chassagne’s largest premier cru. It is also widely recognised as the best.

The climat—which includes the subdivisions of En Cailleret, Chassagne, Vigne Derrière, and Les Combards—covers 10.68 hectares and lies at an altitude of between 250 and 280 metres above sea level immediately to the south of the village itself. For some of the growers, such as Guy Amiot and his son Thierry, it is literally their back garden.

As you might expect from the name Caillerets, the soil is predominantly stony and shallow. Up at the top of the slope, there are outcrops of bare rock. He we find mainly a white marl. This gives the wine weight. Lower down, there is more surface soil and it is calcareous, producing a wine of steely elegance. A blend of the two, everyone says, makes the best wine.

At best, and there is plenty of best, as the sixteen or so owners include most of the first division in the village, this is a Chassagne white—the transformation from Pinot to Chardonnay having taken place in the 1940s and 1950s, according to the late Albert Morey, who claimed to have been one of the pioneers in this respect—of real elegance, without the four-square character of a Morgeot, but with more weight and staying power than, say, an Embazées or a Romanée. Only (Grandes) Ruchottes can rival it. It requires a year or two more than most of the other first growths to come round, but then, as one might expect, it will hold up longer. The most successful vintages are not at their apogee until they are eight years old and still more than satisfactory at age twelve or even fifteen.

The 2007 vintage, which was the subject of the tasing below, was an early harvest following a precocious spring, but then a generally mediocre summer. But the weather wasn’t all that bad. There was some sun and heat, if intermittent, and not too much rain, even if it was largely gray. Unlike in many vintages, the Pinots matured in advance of the Chardonnays. Those in Chassagne who did not start on their whites until the second week of September (September 10 was a Monday) were able to benefit from, finally, a change to dry, stable weather and an evaporating north wind. This concentrated the flavours without reducing the acidity—which, before malo, was very high. The result was white wines of more definition and greater weight and depth than their red counterparts. It is difficult to generalize—which is best?—between the 2005, 2006, and 2007 whites. In each vintage there are some lovely wines, and they are now just about ready.

MAP 3 Chassagne-Montrachet, Les Caillerets

The following tasting took place at the Restaurant-Hotel Montrachet in Puligny in January 2011. My grateful thanks to the growers for participating and to Thierry and his team for setting things up. I asked the growers to note their three favourites among the thirteen wines on offer. Just about every wine received at least one vote (and far as I could make out, no one voted for their own wine). Marginally ahead of the rest was the wine of Marc Colin and his family. This, as you will see below, was one of my least favourites. De Gustibus!

All wines, unless otherwise stated, are "proprietaire" and produced by the lutte raisonnée.

TASTING NOTES

Bachelet-Ramonet, Père et Fils

When to drink: Now to 2018

Rating: 15.5

55 ares. 18 to 20 percent new wood. Bottled after 16 months.

Restrained nose at first. Ripe, cool, fresh, and minerally as it evolved. Medium-full body. A little oak. Good acidity. Not the greatest finesse, but good weight and energy. Good plus.

Blain-Gagnard

When to drink: Now to 2020

Rating: 18.0

56 ares. 15 percent new wood. Bottled after 11 months.

Fresh colour. Youthful nose. A touch of oak. Flowery, minerally, balanced, and attractive. Medium-full body. Long, positive, and stylish. This has depth and finesse. Fine plus.

Château de Chassagne, Maison Michel Picard

When to drink: Now to 2018

Rating: 15.0

11 ares. 50 percent new wood. Bottled after 12 months.

The colour is a little more evolved than most. On the nose this is full, rich, ample, and quite oaky. A fullish quite powerful wine. Good grip nevertheless. Got better as it evolved but nevertheless a little clumsy. Another year in bottle won’t do it any harm.

Coffinet-Duvernay

When to drink: Now to 2017

Rating: 17.0

25 ares. 50 percent new wood. Bottled after 17 to 18 months.

Flowery-herbal nose. Not a lot of oak. Some evolution. Perhaps a slight lack of energy. On the palate quite forward. Medium body. But very elegant. The fruit is most attractive. Harmonious and very good indeed, if not for the long term.

Marc Colin et Fils

When to drink: Now to 2017

Rating: 14.5

73 ares. One-third new wood. Bottled after 15 months.

I find something slightly scented on the nose, which puts me off. Some botrytis? Less so on the attack, but it comes back on the finish. Medium to medium-full body. Decent fruit and grip. Little evidence of oak.

Fontaine-Gagnard

When to drink: Now to 2020

Rating: 19.0

56 ares. 30 percent new wood. Bottled after 12 months.

Ripe, reasonably substantial, flowery, balanced nose. Good intensity and flair here. Fullish, ample, and concentrated on the palate. Excellent grip. Lovely purity and harmony. Just the very slightest touch of oak. A yardstick example.

Jean-Nöel Gagnard

When to drink: Now to 2019

Rating: 17.5

1.06 ha. Culture biologique. 30 percent new wood. Bottled after 18 months.

Ample colour. A little evolution. But on the nose still a little reticent. Medium to medium-full body. Rich, concentrated, attractive, and well-balanced. Good depth. Good class. Long and positive. Fine.

Maison Louis Latour

When to drink: Now to 2018

Rating: 15.5

Merchant wine. Latour buys the equivalent of 14 barrels (i.e., more or less the equivalent of 1 ha). 50 percent new wood. Bottled after 16 months.

Fresh, ripe nose with a touch of oak. Medium body. Balanced, attractive, and à point. Good follow-through, but essentially a delicate wine. It tails off a bit. Good plus.

Lamy-Pillot

When to drink: Now to 2017

Rating: 15.5

Magnum. 55 ares, en fermage from Madame Fernand Chauve since 1997. No new wood in this vintage.

Light, flowery nose. No evidence of oak, but some evolution. Medium to medium-full body. The acidity in evidence. Reasonable length, but a touch clumsy. Better as it evolved but good plus at best.

René Lequin-Colin

When to drink: Now to 2020

Rating: 18.5

19 ares, en fermage. Biodynamic from 2010. 20 percent new wood. Bottled after 15 months.

Good substantial nose, with at first a touch of SO2 (sulphur dioxide), but this blew off. Fresh, plump, full-bodied, rich, and concentrated. Very good grip and lovely fruit. Real depth. Will still improve. Very fine.

Marc Morey

When to drink: Now to 2016

Rating: 15.5

20 ares. 25 to 30 percent new wood. Bottled after 15 months.

Soft, fruity nose. Plump and attractive if without any real depth. Fully developed. Medium body. Decently positive and harmonious. Very slightly oaky. Long enough but a bit neutral at the end. Good plus.

Vincent et Sophie Morey

When to drink: Now to 2019

Rating: 16.5

35 ares. 45 percent new oak. Bottled after 11 months.

Broad-flavoured nose with a touch of oak and some evolution. Fullish, rich, and quite powerful. This will still improve. Indeed, it got better and better in the glass. Very good plus. One of the group favourites.

Paul Pillot

When to drink: Now to 2018

Rating: 16.5

49 ares. 20 percent new wood. Bottled after 16 to 18 months.

At first the nose was a bit neutral and foursquare, but it opened up and brightened up on aeration. Medium to medium-full body. Good grip. Only very slightly oaky. Good energy. Will improve. Very good plus. Another group favourite.

Three important domaines did not make their wines available for tasting: Guy Amiot et Fils (62 ares), Ramonet (35 ares in two parcels), and Jean Chartron of Puligny (30 ares). In addition, Vincent Girardin owns just under 1 hectare, which he bought from the Domaine Duperrier Adam in 2008.

Meursault, Les Genevrières, 2008

GENEVRIÈRES is the second largest of the Meursault premiers crus, and, with Charmes and Perrières, one of the big three. It lies on two levels on either side of the Route des Grands Crus; the upper part, the dessus, being on the same latitude as the Perrières, and on the slope; while lower down, next to the upper part of Les Charmes, and on flatter land, is the Genevrières dessous.

Between Perrières and Genevrières dessus is a minor road which reaches up towards the unofficial deuxièmes crus of Narvaux, Tillets, and so on, which lie above the first growths, and this is a good place to stop and survey the lay of the land. I often take groups of clients here. To the south, the soil in Perrières is covered in limestone debris the colour of weak milky coffee. To the north, this part of the Genevrières shows a similar rocky aspect, but both the earth and the stones have a more red-brown colour. This is a result of the preponderance of iron in the soil. Lower down on the one side is Charmes: less limestone debris, proper stones the size of golf balls, and muddier in colour. The soil in Meursault Genevrières dessous is similar to the Charmes, but with the iron-based brown shift in colour.

All this makes, or so it should, a difference in flavour. Perrières is minerally, Charmes is flowery, and Genevrières has a spicier, more opulent character, often with a touch of cirtus peel or candied fruit. The upper part is minerally, the lower more fleshy. Most growers, particularly if they are fortunate enough to have their vineyards in the dessus, will insist to you that this upper vineyard produces better wine than the dessous. They are right. It has more definition. Here the soil is Bathonian, a Callovian limestone, in parts mixed with an Argovian white marl. Upslope the surface layer is thin and the rock is hard; lower down it is deeper, redder in colour, and crumbly—what the French call lave.

The white wine from Genevrières has long been considered among the best in Meursault, even if, until the 1930s, whites did not fetch the equivalent prices of reds. Back in 1816, André Jullien rated it third after Perrières and Goutte d’Or (and Combettes in Puligny, which he mistakenly places in Meursault).

MAP 4 Meursault, Les Genevrières

Dr. Lavalle, almost fifty years later, appoints Perrières as a tête de cuvée, while Genevrières dessus, Charmes dessus, and Bouchères and Goutte d’Or were premières cuvées.

The combined Genevières vineyard measures 16.48 hectares, of which about 9 are in the dessus. This is roughly half of Les Charmes, but then Genevrières doesn’t run all the way down to the Meursault-Puligny road (which Charmes does); Limouzin lies beneath it. The largest owner is Bouchard Père et Fils, with 2.65 hectares, followed by Latour-Giraud with 2.39 hectares. Only one other possesses more than 80 ares. In total, there are some thirty exploitants, if you include three or four merchants who regularly list the wine. In addition, there is the Hospices de Beaune, the third largest owner with 1.92 hectares. They produce two cuvées: the largest one (1.48 ha) being half dessus and half dessous, called after its benefactor Félix Baudot; and the smaller Cuvée Humbolt (56 ares) coming entirely from the lower part. As you travel up from the Meursault-Puligny road to the upper road—what I call the first growth—you pass the cross denoting a Hospice vineyard.

In January 2011 I invited the locals to participate in a blind tasting of the 2008 vintage. We sampled fifteen wines, one or two late-comers being sampled separately. I asked the growers to name their top three. The results were rather inconclusive. Every wine got a vote. I was the only one to vote for my clear favourite, the Jadot example.

Could you tell the difference between the wines from the dessus and the dessous? And were those from the dessus better? Looking at my notes (it was of course a blind tasting and the wines were all mixed up), I think the answer to both questions is a marginal yes. Certainly the wines from the upper part showed a more minerally aspect and seemed to have more future. Other growers which have a high reputation include Ballot-Minot, Henri Boillot, Coche-Dury, Rémi Jobard, and Jean Monnier.

TASTING NOTES

Domaine Bernard-Bonin

When to drink: Now to 2016

Rating: 17.0

77 ares. Half in the dessus, half in the dessous. 50-year-old vines. 25 percent new oak. Batonnage. Bottled after 18 to 19 months.

Good fruit on the nose. Fresh and stylish. Ripe and balanced. Not the greatest concentration, but ample and reasonably profound. The finish is positive and elegant. Very good indeed. Just about ready.

Domaine Guy Bocard

When to drink: Now to 2018

Rating: 17.0

18 ares. In the dessous. 45-year-old vines. 5 percent new oak. A little batonnage. Bottled after 20 months.

Good fresh nose with a touch of sherbert lemons. Attractive. Just about mature. Medium to medium-full body. Balanced, fruity, and elegant. Very good indeed.

Domaine Bouchard Père et Fils

When to drink: From 2015

Rating: 17.5

2.65 ha. In the dessus. 27-year-old vines on average. 13 percent new oak. No batonnage, but they roll the barrels about. Bottled after 13 to 14 months.

A bit tight on the nose still. Not much oak. Some ripeness though. Rather better on the palate and as it opened out. Medium-full body. Yes, there is a touch of oak. Good grip. Still youthful. Finishes well. Classy indeed. This will keep. Fine.

Domaine Michel Bouzereau et Fils

When to drink: From 2014

Rating: 16.5

52 ares. In the dessous. 25-year-old vines. 25 percent new oak. Batonnage. Bottled after 16 months.

Good colour. Still quite closed. But good depth here. Medium-full weight. Good grip. This will still improve. Just a touch of oak. Very good plus.

Domaine Hubert Bouzereau et Filles

When to drink: From 2016

Rating: 18.5

10 ares. In the dessous. 60-year-old vines. 25 percent new oak. Batonnage. Bottled after 15 months.

Clean flowery nose. Nicely pure and elegant. Medium to medium-full weight. Good concentration. Plenty of vigour and depth. Long. Complex. Very fine. Still needs time.

Domaine Boyer-Martenot

When to drink: Now to 2016

Rating: 16.5

19 ares. In the dessous. 45-year-old vines. 33 percent new oak. Batonnage. Bottled after 11 months.

Stylish nose. Good depth. Ripe flowery fruit. Just about ready. Medium to medium-full body. Fresh and balanced. Not the greatest complexity and dimension but very good plus.

Domaine Buisson-Battault

When to drink: Now to 2016

Rating: 15.5

63 ares. In the dessus. 45-year-old vines on average.

20 percent new oak. 3 batonnages. Bottled after 18 months.

Round somewhat spicy-agrumes (candied peel) nose. Quite developed. Medium weight. Fully ready. Decent balance but no great weight or concentration. Quite stylish. Good plus.

Domaine Darviot-Perrin

When to drink: From 2014

Rating: 17.5

41 ares. In the dessus. 50-year-old vines on average. 33 percent new oak. One batonnage every two weeks until the malo-lactic fermentation is finished. Bottled after 18 months.

Quite a delicate but stylish nose. Ripe, flowery, and sherbert lemony. Medium to medium-full body. Balanced, clean, and elegant. Only just about ready. Finishes well. This is fine.

Domaine Louis Jadot

When to drink: From 2015

Rating: 19.0

29 ares. In the dessus. 20-year-old vines. 25 percent new oak. No malo-lactic. No batonnage. Bottled after 18 months.

Fresh, youthful, stylish nose. Clean and positive. Lovely purity. Medium-full body. Excellent, very complex, very harmonious fruit. Long and multidimensional. Very elegant. Will last well. A lovely wine. Very fine indeed.

Domaine Antoine Jobard

When to drink: From 2015

Rating: 18.0

50 ares. In the dessous. 36-year-old vines. 20 percent new oak. No batonnage. Bottled after 23 months.

Classy, balanced nose. Good depth and weight. This is a fine example. Pure and concentrated. Lovely fruit. Very good grip. Elegant and vigorous and plenty of potential. Fine plus.

Domaines des Comtes Lafon

When to drink: Now to 2018

Rating: 17.5

55 ares. In the dessus. 25 percent vines of 18 years, 75 percent 65-year-old vines. 40 percent new wood. 3 or 4 batonnages. Bottled after 18 months.

Firm, full, and profound on the nose. Rich and ripe. Medium-full body. A nice touch of new oak. Well balanced. Not quite the grip and power on the palate that the nose had suggested, but fine enough. Just about ready.

Domaine Latour-Giraud

When to drink: From 2015

Rating: 17.5

2.39 ha. In the dessus. 35-year-old vines. 25 percent new oak. Batonnage. Bottled after 18 months.

Restrained nose. Still youthful. Good class though. Concentrated, composed, fresh fruit. Good energy. Just a touch of oak. This still needs time and has a fine future.

Domaine Michelot

When to drink: Drink soon

Rating: 12.0

40 ares. In the dessus. 45-year-old vines. 15 to 20 percent new oak. Batonnage. Bottled after 15 to 20 months.

This is rather a common wine. No evidence of any new oak. The fruit is raw and coarse. Quite high acidity. Rather a dead sulphury background. A bad bottle? Jean-Francois Mestre, today’s proprietor, didn’t seem unduly concerned.

Domaine Francois Mikulski

When to drink: Now to 2018

Rating: 16.0

58 ares. In the dessus. 42-year-old vines. 16 percent new oak. 3 batonnages early on. Bottled after 18 months.

Broad ample nose, showing a little new oak. Balanced and full of fruit, if just a little four-square. Softer on the palate. A touch of candied peel and spice. Good acidity. Very good finish. Just about ready.

Domaine Alain Patriache

When to drink: Now to 2016

Rating: 17.0

12 ares. In the dessus. 60-year-old vines. 40 percent new oak. 3 batonnages. Bottled after 6 months.

Nutty, oaky nose. Yet not much depth and concentration underneath. Medium body. Ready. Clean, balanced, and stylish. Very good indeed.

Volnay, Les Santenots, 2005

SANTENOTS IS AN ANOMALY. It lies within the commune of Meursault, but with some minute exceptions, Pinot Noir rather than Chardonnay is grown here. Of course it is on the north side of Meursault, adjacent to Volnay Les Cailleretes—the authorities have for years allowed the wine to be called Volnay. And no one would disagree for a minute that the red grape produces by far the more interesting wine.

The vineyard has probably always been planted in Pinot Noir. We have evidence from Thomas Jefferson that red wines made twice the price of whites in this part of the world (so the inhabitants of Volnay were able to enjoy white bread, while those of Meursault could only afford black bread). It is quite clear that this is red wine soil, as opposed to what you find in Perrières and Genevrières at the other end of the village. Jasper Morris cites a reference to Santenots dating from 1218, when the Abbaye de Tart ceded vineyards to the Abbaye de Citeaux. Sadly, it seems that whether the vineyard produced white wine or red is not stated. Subsequently the climat was rated a tête de cuvée by Lavalle in 1855, alongside Champans and Caillerets, but superior to Clos de Chênes and Taillepieds—a rating I have always felt was a grave error of judgment.

Santenots, at 27.4 hectares (for red wine in 2005 production: 1,118 hectolitres; 29.1 in total surface for both colours in the books), is by far the largest vineyard in Volnay. The heart is the 8.8 hectares Santenots du Milieu, shared by amongst others, Lafon and Jacques Prieur, the latter under the title Clos des Santenots. Upslope is the Santenots Blancs (2.9 hectares). Here a few misguided souls (in my view) persist with Chardonnay—the Marquis d’Angerville, Bitouzet-Prieur, Monthélie-Douhairet, there may be others. These are labelled Meursault, Santenots. To the south lies the Plures (10.4 hectares). This is good land, producing, according to Dominique Lafon, wine with less structure but perhaps more finesse than the Santenots du Milieu. Downslope, and denigrated by critics, is the 7.6 hectare Santenots de Dessous. It is not worthy of premier cru status, says Morris, pointing out that any white wine from here would be merely village Meursault.

The soil structure is complex. At the top of the slope, as in the Clos de Chênes on the other side of the road, there is Bathonian scree and debris over the mother rock, which is hard. There is not much surface soil. The soil is red in colour, and there are quite a number of stones. There is a lot more clay than in the Caillerets or Champans (and indeed elsewhere in Volnay), for over the Bathonian rock there is Oxfordian or Argovian crumbly limestone—what the French call lave.

MAP 5 Volnay, Les Santenots

All these climats are about 240 to 280 metres above sea level. In the Santenots this produces a very individual Volnay. Not the pure, elegant wine you find in the Caillerets at the top (the 60 ouvrées, for instance), nor at the bottom of the Clos des Chênes or in the Taillepieds, where the wines are mineral and both more linear and lusher, nor indeed in the Champans, where from the best domaines such as d’Angerville we have depth and size while remaining essentially round as well as rich. Santenots are—and I don’t want to denigrate them by any means—somewhat less aristocratic. Yet they can be very lovely, among the greatest of the Côte de Beaune.

According to the list I was given by the local syndicat des producteurs, there are just over thirty owners and lease-holders in the Santenots, including the Hospices de Beaune, who produce the cuvées Jehan de Massol and Gauvain. The domaines of Comtes Lafon, Jacques Prieur, and Ampeau are the most signicant—all looking after more than a hectare.

The following examples of 2005 were sampled, courtesy of the Montrachet Restaurant in Puligny, who set the whole thing up blind (my thanks to them) in January 2012. The group as a whole voted the wine of Pierre and Anne Morey in first place. Other growers which should be noted include Nicolas Rossignol-Jeanniard, Leroy, Ballot-Millot, Vincent Sauvestre, Remi Jobard, and Sylvie Esmonin in Gevrey-Chambertin.

TASTING NOTES

Maison Albert Bichot, Domaine du Pavillon

When to drink: Now to 2019

Rating: 15.0

30 ares. In the Pleures. 30-year-old vines. Cold-soaking at 14°C for 4 days. Destemmed. 35 percent new oak.

Medium to medium-full colour. Soft, fruity nose. But there doesn’t seem to be much back-bone here. Medium body. Quite fresh. A pleasant example with reasonable style but only village depth. Just about ready. Good at best.

Domaine Eric Boigelot

When to drink: Now to 2020

Rating: 15.0

30 ares. In the dessous. 50-year-old vines. Cold-soaking for 12 days. Destemmed. 15 percent new oak.

Medium to medium-full colour. Soft, forward, fruity but not very sophisticated nose. Medium body. Ripe and balanced. But not a great deal of grip and dimension. Fruity and agreeable but lacks depth. Good at best.

Domaine Réyane et Pascal Bouley

When to drink: Now to 2020

Rating: 16.0

9 ares. In the Santenots Blancs; 35-year-old vines. Coldsoaking for two days. Destemmed. 1-year-old barrels.

Medium to medium-full colour. Quite a forward but stylish, balanced nose. Medium body. Not much tannin. Plump, fresh, fruity, and attractive. But forward. Shouldn’t a Santenots have more to it than this? Very good though.

Domaine Vincent Bouzereau

When to drink: From 2014

Rating: 16.0

20 ares. In the Pleures. 60-year-old vines. Cold-soaking for 5 days. Destemmed. One-third new oak.

Medium-full colour. Fresh, balanced nose. A little unforthcoming at first. Medium to medium-full body. Good fruit. Decent grip. A slight lack of fat and succulence, so a touch astringent. But the wine has class and depth.

Domaine Bernard et Thierry Glantenay

When to drink: From 2016

Rating: 16.5

68 ares. In the dessous. 30-year-old vines. No deliberate cold-soaking. 20 percent stems retained. 20 percent new oak.

Fullish colour. A touch stewed on the nose at first but better on evolution and on the palate. Quite full body. Ripe and rich. The tannins are quite sophisticated. Needs time to soften but there is good grip. Potentially very good plus.

Domaine Georges Glantenay et Fils

When to drink: From 2014

Rating: 14.5

51 ares. In the dessous. 45-year-old vines. No deliberate cold-soaking. One-third of the stems retained. 40 percent new oak.

Medium-full colour. Somewhat sweaty on the nose at first. A bit of sulphur here. Medium-full body. A touch sweet and a touch astringent. Reasonably fresh but it lacks a bit of style. Quite good plus.

Domaine des Comtes Lafon

When to drink: Now to 2020

Rating: 17.0

3.78 ha. In the milieu. 40-year-old vines. Cold-soaking at 12°C for 4 or 5 days. Destemmed. 30 percent new oak.

Medium-full colour. Ripe, round, attractively balanced but forward nose. Medium to medium-full body. Plenty of fruit and good backbone. Very well put together. An elegant, engaging wine. If with a little less vigour than I would have expected, especially when I discovered whose it was. Just about ready. Very good indeed.

Domaine Thierry Matrot

When to drink: From 2015

Rating: 16.5

87 ares. 3 parcels, 2 in the Pleures, 1 in the Santenots Blancs. 32-year-old vines. Cold-soaking at 15°C for 3 to 6 days. Destemmed. 10 to 20 percent new oak.

Medium to medium-full colour. Some development. Fruity-spicy nose. Not a lot of refinement at first, but it developed in the glass. Classier and fresher on the palate. Medium to medium-full body. Balanced. Long. Stylish. Very good plus.

Domaine Mikulski

When to drink: Now to 2019

Rating: 14.0

90 ares. In the milieu. 50-year-old vines. Cold-soaking for 4 days. Destemmed. 30 percent new oak.

Medium-full colour. A rather sweet, bland nose. Lacks grip. Not much backbone either. Some SO2. Only light to medium weight. The fruit is not bad, and the wine is fresher on the palate than the nose would suggest. Just about ready. Only quite good.

Domaine Pierre Morey

When to drink: From 2015

Rating: 17.0

35 ares. In the Pleures. 35-year-old vines. Cold-soaking for 8 days at 16°C. Destemmed. 50 percent new oak.

Fullish colour. Firm, substantial, rich, robust nose. The tannins show at present giving the wine a certain earthiness. Medium-full body. Ripe and fresh, even rich and meaty. Very good indeed. A Santenots for the future.

Christophe Pauchard, Domaine de la Confrerie

When to drink: From 2017

Rating: 18.5

38 ares. In the Santenots Blancs. 50-year-old vines. Cold-soaking for 4 days at 12°C. Destemmed. 20 percent new oak.

Fullish colour. Good depth and style here on the nose. Fresh, rich, and classy. Fullish body. Some new oak. Rich and ripe on the palate. Quite concentrated. Very well-balanced. Lots of depth, and, above all, style. Lovely finish. A very fine wine from a grower I have to confess I had never heard of.

Domaine Jacques Prieur, Les Santenots

When to drink: Now to 2018

Rating: 15.5

56 ares. In the Plures. 30-year-old vines. No deliberate cold-soaking. Destemmed. 45 percent new oak.

Medium-full colour. Soft, fruity, fragrant, mature nose. Good balance and class. Medium to medium-full body. Fresh and ripe if without a great deal of personality and depth. Good plus. Just about ready.

Domaine Jacques Prieur, Clos des Santenots

When to drink: From 2016

Rating: 18.0

1.19 ha. In the milieu. 40-year-old vines. No deliberate cold-soaking. Destemmed. 100 percent new oak.

Full colour. Still youthful. Closed in on the nose. Rich, ripe, and tannin. Even a bit dense at present. Almost Pommard-ish. Full-bodied. Backward. Concentrated. Very good grip. Lots of wine here. Plus very good, ample, almost fat fruit. Fine plus. Needs time.

Domaine Rebougeon-Mure

When to drink: From 2017

Rating: 18.5

26 ares. In the dessous. 57-year-old vines. Cold-soaking for 6 days at 14°C. Destemmed. 30 percent new oak.

Medium-full colour. Little development. Fresh, abundant, ripe nose. Some new oak. Plenty of class and definition. Rich and with nice ripe tannins. Fullish body. Very good grip. Lots of sophisticated fruit. Harmonious, subtle, and complex. Very fine. Needs time.

Nuits-Saint-Georges, Les Saint-Georges

THE 2005 AND 2006 VINTAGES

DOWN AT THE BOTTOM of the middle section of Nuits-Saint-Georges, underneath Les Vaucrains and Les Chaines-Carteaux, and between Les Cailles and Les Didiers, lies the 7.52 hectare vineyard of Les Saint-Georges, widely considered, not only by the town itself, which has adopted the name as its suffix, to be Nuits’ best climat.

It could also be Nuits’ oldest. The Abbé Courtepée, writing before the French Revolution, stated that it was already planted with vines in the year AD 1000. In 1023 the land was given by Humbert, archdeacon of Autun, to the Chapitre of Saint-Denis, whose base was up in the hills in nearby Vergy. Dr. Morelot (1831) states that Les Saint-Georges was clearly the best vineyard in the commune. The historian Lavalle, twenty-four years later, placed the wine at the same level as Corton and Clos des Lambrays. Others since have called it unjust that the land was not ruled as a grand cru by the authorities in 1936.

Yes, perhaps, I would answer. But justifiably—clamour to be promoted?

Much of the vineyard territory in Les Saint-Georges is clearly not Richebourg. So if you promote this vineyard, how many more will follow suit? And this part of Nuits the vines are planted east-west—this is how the climat is divided. There are fifteen plots and thirteen owners. Most of the plots are small: only Thibault Liger-Belair, with over 2 hectares; Henri Gouges, with just over 1; and the Hospices de Nuits, with just under 1 hectare, are substantial. The rest make a token few pièces only.

The vineyard lies at an altitude of between 245 and 260 metres above sea level, exposed to the east on a gentle slope of around 7 percent. The soil is a reddish-brown, relatively deep mixture of very stony, limestone debris, together with a little clay that has been washed down from the plateau above over the aeons. The mother rock underneath is Bathonian, the earliest era found in the Côte d’Or. In contrast, Les Vaucrains, above, contains more white oolite and a fraction of sand. Les Cailles, on the same level to the north, also has this sand element but more overflow from the land above.

This produces what Professor Saintsbury, writing about Hermitage, called a manly wine. In the Gouges cellar the Vaucrains is more brutal, but the Les Saint-Georges is the most backward. The wine is well-coloured, solid, and tannic when young, and requires a decade at minimum before it even begins to round off. Frequently in the protracted adolescence it is frankly not very enjoyable. You just have to wait. But if you give it time, your patience will be rewarded. You will find a wine of richness, depth, and concentration which will last and last, getting steadily more and more mellow and fascinating. A Gouges 1959 Les Saint-Georges, generouly provided for the meal which followed, was mellow and splendidly complex, classy and vigorous: an absolutely delicious bottle.

MAP 6 Nuits-Saint-Georges, Les Saint-Georges

And, compared with an equivalent Vosne-Romanée, it won’t have cost you an arm and a leg.

In February 2011 I invited the growers to join me for a tasting of the 2005 and 2006 vintages. One declined, another I could not reach. My thanks to the team at Faiveley for allowing us to use their premises and providing a cassecroute afterwards.

TASTING NOTES

Maison Béjot, Domaine Vincent Sauvestre

En fermage from the Audidier-Maitrot family of Corgoloin.

2006

When to drink: From 2016

Rating: 16.0

Good, full, youthful colour. Somewhat flat, over-blown nose. Lacks a bit of fruit and grip. Better on the palate. Medium-full body. A touch of oak. Rather more alive and succulent than the nose would suggest. Positive finish. Very good.

2005

When to drink: From 2018

Rating: 15.0

Fullish colour. Firm, slightly harsh nose. Rich underneath but a little ungainly. Medium-full body. Quite sweet. The tannins a mixture of richness and rusticity. So a bit unbalanced and unstylish. Reasonable but not really convincing fruit. Good at best.

Domaine Chevillon-Chezeaux

45 ares en fermage from the Frisby family of Hitchin, UK. 100 percent destemmed. 6 days cold-soaking. 25 percent new wood. Bottled after 16 months.

2006

When to drink: From 2017

Rating: 15.5

Fullish colour. Just a little hard and perhaps astringent on the nose. This is a bit old-fashioned. Slightly dry. Fullish body. Some tannin. Decent fruit but not the fat and potential richness of the best. Good plus.

2005

When to drink: From 2018

Rating: 16.0

Fullish, youthful colour. Medium weight nose. Slightly tough fruit here. Medium-full body. Decent ripeness, balance, and style. Quite high acidity. Not exactly rich, nor as classy as some. Very good.

Domaine Robert Chevillon et Fils

63 ares of 75-year-old vines en fermage from the Misserey and Deharveng families of Compiegne and Neuilly-sur-Seine. Very largely destemmed. A brief period of cold-soaking. 30 percent new wood. Bottled after 15 to 18 months.

2006

When to drink: From 2018

Rating: 16.0

Full colour. A bit closed-in on the nose. Medium-full body. Just a touch astringent. Decent fruit but not a great deal of richness. Good grip. Youthful. Will it ever have the charm and excitement? Very good at best.

2005

Not offered.

Domaine Georges Chicotot

22 ares. 100 percent whole-cluster vinification. 6 days cold-soaking. 25 percent new wood. Bottled after 16 months.

2006

When to drink: From 2018

Rating: 17.5

Fullish colour. Round, accessible, stylish, balanced nose. Fullish body. Ripe tannins and very good grip. An elegant, vigorous wine with plenty of depth and a lovely finish. Fine.

2005

When to drink: From 2022

Rating: 18.0

Full colour. Firm, closed nose. But plenty of depth and vigour. Fullish body. Some tannin. Very good grip. This is a rich meaty example. Lots of energy. Needs time. Fine plus.

Domaine Dufouleur Frères

16 ares. 100 percent destemmed. No deliberate cold-soaking. Around 30 percent new wood. Bottled after 18 months or so.

2006

When to drink: From 2020

Rating: 17.5

Full, vigorous colour. Firm, full, oaky nose. Full body. Some tannin. Very good grip. This has depth and concentration and quite a lot of new oak. Rich and ripe on the follow-through. A good sturdy example in the best sense of the word. Fine.

2005

When to drink: From 2018

Rating: 18.0

Fullish colour. Quite a mellow, succulent, gently oaky nose. Rich and classy. Medium-full body. Well-mannered. Harmonious. More accessible than most. Not a monster and all the better for it. A stylish wine. Fine plus.

Domaine Faiveley

23 ares of average age 60-year-old vines. 100 percent destemmed. 5 days natural cold-soaking. 50 percent new wood. Bottled after 15 months.

2006

When to drink: From 2018

Rating: 17.5

Medium-full colour. Ripe, balanced, vigorous nose. But not a blockbuster. Quite substantial on the palate though. Some tannin. Good grip. A little sturdy. But a long, vigorous finish. Fine.

2005

When to drink: From 2018

Rating: 17.0

Fullish nose. Youthful. At first it seemed to lack a bit of succulence, but it got richer as it evolved. Medium-full body. A little tannin. Just a hint of astringency, yet good grip and a balanced, ripe follow-through. Very good indeed.

Domaine Régis Forey

19 ares planted in 1983 en fermage from the Naudin and Laporte families. 100 percent destemmed. 4 days natural cold-soaking. 100 percent new wood. Bottled after 16 months.

2006

When to drink: From 2020

Rating: 16.5

Full colour. Rich, full, quite tannic nose. Firm but not brutal. Full body. Good tannins. Good grip. Ripe and rich. Just a little sauvage at the end. But very good plus. Needs time.

2005

When to drink: From 2019

Rating: 17.0

Very full colour. Firm, rich but quite tannic nose. A big wine here. Some tannin on the palate. But underneath good style and grip. The structure of the wine tends to overwhelm the fruit but very good indeed nonetheless.

Domaine Henri Gouges

1.03 ha, planted 1961. 100 percent destemmed. 2 to 3 days natural cold-soaking. 20 to 25 percent new oak. Bottled after 16 to 18 months.

2006

When to drink: From 2020

Rating: 18.5

Full, immature colour. Quite a firm nose. Plenty of substance. But the tannins are ripe and rich. Full-bodied. Quite some tannin. This is a backward wine, but there is harmony and depth here. Lovely long finish. Very fine.

2005

When to drink: From 2020

Rating: 18.5

Very full, backward colour. Broad-flavoured, fullish nose. Ripe and rich, with a suggestion of new oak. Fullish body. Some tannin. Backward. Very fresh. Lovely balanced fruit on the follow-through. Long, very stylish, and very fine.

Hospices de Nuits-Saint-Georges

2 parcels totalling 95 ares, producing Cuvée Georges Faiveley and Cuvée des Sires de Vergy, the former from the best parcels and oldest vines. 100 percent destemmed. 6 to 8 days cold-soaking. 100 percent new wood. Bottled after 17 months.

2006, Cuvée Georges Faiveley

When to drink: From 2018

Rating: 18.5

Full, youthful colour. Fresh, balanced, well-mannered nose. I like the poise here. Medium-full body. Very good tannins. Lovely very rich fruit. Energetic and very classy. Not a suggestion of over-oaking here. Lovely long finish. Very fine.

2005, Cuvée Georges Faiveley

When to drink: From 2020

Rating: 19.0

Full colour. Firm and closed-in but very classy on the nose. Fullish body. Balanced. Very concentrated. Excellent grip. Fresh and harmonious, rich and complex on the follow-through. A classic. Excellent.

Domaine Thibault Liger-Belair

2.10 ha. 33 percent of the stems retained. 7 days cold-soaking. 40 percent new wood. Bottled after 15 to 18 months.

2006

When to drink: From 2018

Rating: 18.5

Good colour. Still youthful. Fresh, round nose, no hard edges. Plump and fruity. Fullish body. Rich. Lots of succulent fruit. Very good grip. Stylish. Good depth. Not a bit sauvage. Long. Very fine.

2005

When to drink: From 2022

Rating: 18.0

Very full, youthful colour. Firm, backward nose. But marvelous concentrated fruit and very sophisticated tannins. Very good grip. Full, nicely sauvage—in the best sense—so a very typical middle Nuits-Saint-Georges. A sturdy wine. Rich at the end. Fine plus.

Domaine Alain Michelot

19 ares planted 1978. 100 percent destemmed. 4 to 5 days cold-soaking. 30 percent new wood. Bottled after 16 months.

Declined to submit samples.

Domaine Gilles Remoriquet

19 ares. 45-year-old vines. 100 percent destemmed. A brief cold-soaking. 30 percent new wood. Bottled after 15 to 20 months.

2006

When to drink: From 2018

Rating: 18.0

Medium-full colour. Ripe, succulent, gently oaky nose. Lots of quality fruit here. Medium-full body. Some tannin. Very good grip. Quite rich. This is long, complex, and harmonious. Stylish too. Fine plus.

2005

When to drink: From 2022

Rating: 18.5

Very full, youthful colour. Rich and ripe on the nose. Classy too. But closed-in. Full, concentrated, rich, and oaky on the palate. This is a very stylish example. Concentrated, complex, and potentially velvety. Lovely finish. Very fine.

Domaine Edouard Zibetti

Unable to run to earth.

I asked the assembled growers to nominate three favourites in each vintage. The group preferences in the 2006 vintage were for Thibault Liger-Belair in first place, with Robert Chevillon, Dufouleur Frères, and the Hospices de Nuits as equal second. In 2005 the vote went to the Hospices, with Thibault Liger-Belair in second place and Georges Chicotot third.

Vosne-Romanée, Les Premiers Crus

NOWHERE IS WINE more noble than in Vosne-Romanée. Between the Nuits-Saint-Georges premier cru of Boudots to the south and the walls of the Clos de Vougeot at the northern end lie the 240 hectares of Vosne-Romanée vineyard: the most valuable piece of vinous real estate in the world.

Fifty-eight hectares of this is premier cru, and there are twelve of these; six of them lie just above the grands crus; the other six on the same altitude or