Rebuy – No Chance!

Back to being predictable, another red, another 1972. But one with a bit of interest attached… Charles Viénot is largely remembered as a négoce operation, but like many of today’s négoce, they also had a sizeable ownership of vines too, including vines in Richebourg. Indeed a cursory scan of this label says ‘Négociant à Premeaux par Nuits St.Georges’, but a small addition to the capsule reads that they also have the monopoly of selling the Domaine Charles Viénot wines – such as this one. The Viénot estate was wound up in the 1980s, these particular vines, planted around 1930, were bought and shared by Domaines Jean Grivot and Jean Mongeard. 1972 Charles Viénot, Richebourg It is a rare thing for the aroma in the neck [....]

After the Damoy ’96, why not go back another 10 years! 1986 Michel Lafarge, Volnay 1er Clos des Chênes The cork slides far too easily out, but in one piece and it doesn’t smell too oxidised. Just a hint more than medium colour. Like the Damoy of last night, there is a faint twist of beefy brett, but on a way lower level – the precise red berry fruit literally sweeps it aside – overall an interesting nose but not one that keeps drawing your nose to the glass. In the mouth this has just a little cushioning to the velvet-soft texture, and an acidity that is balancing but slightly too emphasised in the mid-palate. The fruit still has sweetness and interest – this is [....]

They say that the past is a foreign country – well I hope not too foreign! Versus 40 years ago, the winemakers and vignerons may do ‘almost everything’ different now, but if our modern wines can deliver as much pleasure as this, we will have been well-served. 1972 Gagnard-Delagrange, Chassagne-Montrachet 1er Morgeot Barely medium colour. The nose starts with a sweet strawberry jam before building a little struck match – there is width and interest – in a word ‘satisfying’, in two ‘very satisfying!’ There is just the right amount of ‘fat’ to the texture given the fine, smooth acidity – should you wish to search, you can still discern a faint but fine-textured tannin. The sweet fruit has a high-toned impression – plum-skins plus [....]

This Meursault had a very smelly cork indeed – had me thinking oxidised, but I won’t say ‘premature’! 1983 Jacques Prieur, Meursault Clos de Mazeray The colour is certainly aged, but mercifully the aroma seems to have little to do with the cork. The aromas start a little murky, then there’s home-made lemonade(!), slowly but surely a decent red berry note comes into focus, underpinned by a leafy note that seemingly adds texture – this just gets better and better. Lithe, slightly lean in stature as the acidity has an element that isn’t completely ripe, but overall – no great problem. There’s decent enough concentration and an (overall) interesting glass of wine – the fruit seems to have just enough sweetness to make me want [....]

1979 Philippe Thevenot, Meursault 1er Goutte d’Or Golden. Whilst I may have decanted this, the nose needs no time at all to offer a round, white chocolate and lanolin invitation – lovely. Following the Charlemagne, this has a little more roundness and plushness of texture – let’s call it ‘richness’ – but it has perfectly judged acidity to offer balance. Clean, round and very, very pleasurable – though none of the mineral note of the Charlemagne. This seems all the more voluptuous for it. Simply super! Rebuy – No Chance

1978 Pierre Boillot, Meursault 1er Charmes Medium-plus golden colour. The nose betrays no overt oxidation, rather it is the classic nose of an older wine but with extra bolstering from a strong herbal note too. That herbal note is also part of the flavour profile; this is a little fat but with a lovely acidity that cleaves through the centre of the wine and emphasises its intensity. To be honest, this isn’t that complex a wine despite its mature profile. Tasty, and it holds the attention too – but based on the first two bottles, I think the 1976 significantly the better wine. I wonder if subsequent comparisons will agree… Rebuy – No Chance