A wine to separate the men from the boys! Joking aside I think you have to be that curious ‘burgaholic’ breed to take enjoyment from a wine like this – the ‘unconverted’ will simply screw up their faces and cry!
1996 Hospices de Beaune, Corton Charlotte Dumay
Classic 1996 Corton. The nose is of blood and iron, eventually red berry fruit from the partially drained glass. The palate is linear and intense – almost metallic acidity pushes you into a quite long finish. The only thing that this wine gives away is the free polish of your teeth. I wouldn’t go as far as to say it’s enjoyable right now – but I was (just about) up to the challenge!
Rebuy – Yes

And the winner is – the one and only Mr Tom Blach !

Bouchard’s Chambertin today only has an average vine age of 25 years – I’m not sure about in 1998.

The vines are on the Chambertin, Latricières-Chambertin border and on average there are much less than the 100 cases I initially mentioned – closer to 60 cases from a tiny 0.15 hectare plot – so 2 barrels.

Now if I were to look at winesearcher:

Bouchard

de Vogüé

Grivot

That’s a difficult value proposition! Oh, and that’s before you even think of comparing to 2005 prices!

So, the last piece of the jigsaw – everything should be easy now.

Wine #3
The first 20 minutes:
The first few sniffs disappoint, a little undergrowth but little else. Slowly a dense red note builds at the core with a slightly herbal, menthol note above. The palate is dense, plush and very well textured – contrasting to the minerality of wine 2. The tannins come through on the mid-palate onwards and finish slightly bitter but there’s a real creamy base and this is probably the longest finishing.
After 45 minutes:
The nose is good but not great, some extra width of high-toned fruit and occasional glimpses of coffee – the herbal element is now much more in the background. The palate remains dense, plenty of silky tannin and exquisitely long if not particularly involving.
90 minutes on:
The nose was almost coming together, but then a little cedar thing started to develop. The palate stays unmoveable; concentrated, perhaps a little dense and very long. Side-by-side with wine 2 this denser, but #2 is more mineral and fresh.

Wines two and three are easily the best of this trio as they show greater length and more importantly sophistication. I would not rebuy #1. Today I would rate #2 above #3 – for it’s wonderful aromatics – for the longer term I’m happy to keep checking back every 5 years or-so and even add to their number in my cellar – if I had both the cash and the opportunity.

Faces put to the names on Friday!

Wine #2 – now we’re talking!
The first 20 minutes:
Deeper colour, a core of garnet with a ruby rim. The nose is very deep, and quite reduced. A fresh palate with laser-like intensity – this is excellent – plenty of velvetty tannin and certainly longer than wine #1, though that length (like wine 1) is quite oak based and initially slightly bitter. The fruit needs five minutes to provide a nice sweet black impression, still quite primary, but it starts to come through on the finish too – with just an edge of creaminess.
After 45 minutes:
The nose is now much fresher with higher-toned jellied fruit – almost confiture – creamy black-skinned fruit forms its base – this is now lovely. It’s softer on the palate now, which is becoming fuller – still, there are plenty of tannins bathing the mid-palate and finish but they seem quite round.
90 minutes on:
The nose continues to really impress, the higher tones have become ever redder though the base remains black and creamy. It’s the palate that remains the most unformed, but it’s concentrated, still rather linear and certainly very young. The last bottles should wait a minimum of five years in the cellar, probably much longer – but they will be excellent.

I decided it’s time to pull out a trio of long-term grand crus this week just to see what’s cooking in the cellar. One with relatively poor reviews, one that courts controversy and one that you hardly ever see. I think I’ll play a game with you again and put the notes up unattributed – I’ll just put the labels to the notes at the end of the week.

The three:
1997 Grivot, Richebourg – as a cuvée this has had a much better reputation since 99 – when the price unfortunately went up by about 60% – that was the last one I bought as the price continued to rise. The 97 had a poor write-up by Allen Meadows in his 2002 Richebourg retrospective, but to be fair all the other 97’s tested were also rather poor. I might as well open one now – what’s to lose?
1998 Bouchard Père et Fils, Chambertin – hard to find as BP&F own such a small plot of vines, the production is only about 100 cases. I’m looking forward to opening this as I’ve no reference points for this wine.
1998 de Vogüé, Musigny Vieilles-Vignes – it’s a style thing, but de Vogüé have managed to garner quite some criticism from burgundy buyers – but not from critics like Coates and Meadows who regularly appraise the wines as exceptional. It’s the first time I’ve popped one of these corks, I think it should be interesting!

Wine #1 on opening:
Medium-plus core of garnet red. The nose starts wide, slightly unfocused with deep and brooding fruit and a cedar note that’s reminiscent of many a 2004. The initial texture is quite silky though in the mid-palate there is quite some grainy tannin that despite showing a little bitterness seems to help cement the very long finish. The flavours are mineral rather than fruit driven; quite some creamyness underpinning more cedar on the palate, it’s mouthwatering without being overly fresh.
After 45 minutes:
The nose is now starting to show a little meatyness, and that brooding fruit is now showing glimpses of red, the cedar element is slowly withdrawing. On the palate the bitterness is still there but is less in the ascendant.
After 90 minutes:
The nose is slightly fresher, no cedar, perhaps a little spiced tea. The mid-palate dimension seems even better, though the overall effect is a little blurred – like a soft-focus picture. Summarising, there’s plenty of grand cru dimension, some secondary flavours and a structure that would benefit from another 3-5 years storage – but there’s no wow factor here.

2000 Hervé Sigaut, Chambolle-Musigny 1er Les Chatelots
Medium, medium-pale ruby red. The nose is wide with cooked red fruit notes. The palate is soft and sweet, again with a slightly roasted fruit profile. Low acidity and a medium finish – little tannin to speak of. It’s okay, but lacks both freshness and complexity.
Rebuy – No