2013s… (and a bit of gevrey!)

Update 29.7.2015(6.5.2015)billn

DSC06617
Gevrey-Chambertin Les Evocelles today…

The 2013 whites were rather accurately reported I think, but I really felt that the reporting on the 2013 reds was all over the place – more-so than the wines themselves.

Of-course I’m talking about good addresses, and, in the main, Côte de Nuits domaines (which I’m visiting this month), but the wines where I’ve re-tasted (as much as any new wines tasted) show that the 2013s have put on more weight and richness versus the November-December tasting jamboree. The end of 2014 had more dissolved CO2, more forward acidity (emphasised by the gas) and less richness than the wines show today.

I keep telling myself “November is a great time to taste, but that’s not what gets bottled…” – it seems that others (erroneously imho) think that they can be more definitive without any attempt to extrapolate.

Effectively, the problem with many reports I saw was that they described only the wines (ergo the vintage) at that moment in time, to say that this vintage is ‘x’ without using other vintages as reference points – with those reference points in place, you can reasonably say that a vintage should be x or y in character once (maybe in more than 6 months) it’s bottled – this was largely absent from any critique. Oh-well…

And for Dan, as I’ve written elsewhere, today those wines show more like a blend of 2010 and 2009, than the hypothetical 2010/2008 impression they gave in November.

Anyway, a bit of Gevrey-Chambertin today:

Agree? Disagree? Anything you'd like to add?

There is one response to “2013s… (and a bit of gevrey!)”

  1. Dan6th May 2015 at 10:25 pmPermalinkReply

    Bill, I’ve sworn off paywall review sites (just in time to miss your offering). Why Harry Potter, indeed. But why your post, save the lovely pix? Not at all sure what has been noted. What reports were accurate and what reports were all over the place? And why not give us your one sentence assesment of the vintage instead of x and y? Not your usual high standard.

    • billn6th May 2015 at 10:48 pmPermalinkReply

      Sorry Dan, but I don’t understand your comments – Harry excepted!
      I may be frustrated by poor vintage ‘placement’ by consumers based on other reports they’ve read, but it’s going to get me no-where by rubishing people – it’s got me in enough trouble before…

      If it wasn’t clear, I was reinforcing that no vintage is set in stone, and that I rated 13 very highly from the start – unlike some – and now I see the proof of my previously published enthusiasm. I have though, added my vintage comparison which I’ve published elswhere…

Burgundy Report

Translate »

You are using an outdated browser. Please update your browser to view this website correctly: https://browsehappy.com/;