Wide, red fruited and floral – you could think a 1990s wine! Supple, almost liquoreux, long a touch of tannin, almost but not quite touched by astringence. Very long. Just delicious and blind you would say needs a couple more years! The way the tannin still shows, I wonder at what age it first became drinkable! An honour to have tasted twice!
Gradually there are some higher, floral tones and eventually a few flashes of tobacco too, but mainly this has a deeper register of dark fruit buttressed by equally dark oak. Round, plenty of sweet depth, just a little cushioning, balanced by close to perfect acidity. There’s plenty of flavour here, but I really can’t find the ‘Beaune’, and that’s because such a large part of the flavour profile is the sweetness of dark oak. Despite that oak, this has quite a measure of elegance – this is a lovely wine – but it needs to shed a lot of non-grape derived flavour before it becomes a lovely Beaune.
Medium, medium-plus colour. Some high, tones, even hints of mint over a red and blueberry fruit with vanilla/coconut accents. Sweet, growing in the mid-palate with creamy, ripe fruit and very good underlying acidity. This is large-scaled and very long finishing, but it’s mainly in the vanilla-coconut register, which I find a shame today. Very easy to drink but in a, perhaps, non-Burgundian way. I’m sure that time will cure all my concerns.
Golden. No hint of oxidation on the nose; there is some impact but it’s a little foursquare, hints of lanolin escaping from the glass. In the mouth – now we’re talking – good acidity and a lithe impression of restrained power. Decent length too. Belying its 33 years – this is lovely old white burgundy.
Sealed with the Diam 10. On first opening there is nothing on the nose save oak-spice, the palate has some density and suggestions of fruit but little else. As the wine aerates and warms there is a short period where the oak and fruit come close to aromatic balance, but afterwards the impression is rather diffuse. Likewise the flavours never offer the focus and intensity that I would hope for and indeed expect. It seems disappointing, yet I’m loathed to discount it – I didn’t like either the 2001 or 2006 at this stage/age yet they improved immeasurably with another 3+ years in bottle – but I don’t think oak was the issue with those wines. Still, to drink today I wouldn’t/couldn’t recommend it. Day 2 and the oak is, if anything, more dominant. I have a couple more to see if I’m (yet again) wrong about this wine.
Medium, medium-plus colour. The nose is very fine; there’s latent oak that brings a little espresso macchiato into the equation but essentially it’s about a fresh, dark red fruit and occasional faint whiffs of bacon. Smooth, fresh and intense, it’s a classic middle-years wine – forward acidity and a narrow, lean complexion, but long too. This will be excellent – eventually! I won’t open another for 5 years, but I expect I’ll need to wait another five for real dividends. Super.
You are using an outdated browser. Please update your browser to view this website correctly: https://browsehappy.com/;