Some recent ‘work…’
Doubtless, you will already know that this is my least loved vintage for red wine – to a level that if the results of 2004 were oft-repeated, there would be no Burgundy Report!
Recent wines from this vintage – ie over the last 2-3 years – seemed to indicate no abatement of the pyrazines, but with 20 years on the clock it seems to me that the excuses must stop and that we should no longer suggest offering time to spare the blushes of wines from this vintage. Some recent (March Report 2024) 2011 grand crus still show some overt pyrazine but how is the older pyrazine sibling faring?
So, remembering the old joke about burgundy wine: ‘In a good year you SHOULD give the wines 20 years. In a bad year you HAVE to give them 20 years…‘ – wish me luck !!
First, the 2004 Vintage…
Beaune 16 May 2004
This was my first harvest – and I’ve now done 21 of them!
I remember like it was yesterday my instructions for the triage table: ‘Trie is easy – anything that you wouldn’t want to put in your mouth to eat, is what we throw away.‘ It turned out that practice was not so easy as theory though, as there was almost nothing in this harvested pinot fruit that I would have wanted to put into my mouth !!
But I’m getting ahead of myself. How did the vintage look, pre-harvest?
The winter and spring weather in 2004 reminds me of the current situation – relatively mild with few really cold spells. The timing of bud break was not particularly different to the 2003 vintage that proceeded it, but given the very short crop in 2003, the effect of ‘compensation’ was apparent in this follow-up vintage; 2004 started with obvious fertility, sufficient that many domaines would later feel the need to do some green harvesting – just like in many of our more recent vintages. Flowering was easier for the earlier flowering chardonnay but a couple of weeks later the weather was less kind for the pinot so took longer.
The weather in the latter part of the growing season was like comparing chalk (2003) and cheese (2004). July onward in 2003 was super-hot and remains the hottest of the last generation’s memory. 2004 was much cooler and wetter – the summer punctuated by two major thunderstorms and, for many in the Côte d’Or, with episodes of hail too – hail that significantly reduced yields in some Côte de Beaune villages – these places needed no green harvest!
My photos were mainly taken in the sunshine – but there were more dark and wet days than average. During this period, trying to keep the rot and oïdium under control meant that much spraying was needed – analogous to this year’s 2024 vintage. Some observers linked an ‘excess’ of sulfur sprays to some issues we would later encounter in the wines.
I well remember touring the vineyards of Volnay to Beaune towards the end of August 2004 and seeing plentiful red bunches that carried the damage of hail. Even the undamaged bunches, as we approached the harvest, showed ever more rot in the centre of the bunches. The trick in triage would be to top and tail these bunches, throwing away the rotted centre – ie much of the cluster!
The weather improved at the very end of August and into September – this, coupled with a drying north wind, slowed the advance of rot and helped (a little) to dry out the wounds of the hail and get the grapes over the line in maturity – something that seemed doubtful before the better weather.
For all the discussion of the weather, hail, rot and the like, this was no low volume vintage. Versus the last 10 years it would have been classed as one of the largest for reds – way more was produced than in other, more recent, difficult vintages such as 2016, 2021 and as we will soon see, 2024 – and it was a decently average volume white vintage too:
Figures, thanks to the BIVB – in hectolitres per hectare (hl/ha)
The harvesting was largely done over the last two weeks of September and into the first days of October. 2004 was one of the last vintages where people took notice of the Ban de Vendanges which, in the Côte de Beaune, was declared for Monday September 20th for reds and Wednesday 22nd for whites – it was possible for some producers to get a dispensation to start earlier – this was mainly for whites or some young vine pinot. 2006 was the last vintage where the Ban de Vendanges was to be followed.
For the harvested grapes it was the chardonnay which was easier to triage – the thicker skins of this grape showing less incidence of rot – but an ever-present oïdium infection had to be removed. For the reds, the vibrating tables (though there were relatively few of these in 2004) were not particularly effective because the grapes had thin skins, so even in small 15kg harvesting cases, the modest crush on the grapes led to plenty of juice which together with some rot helped glue insects – ladybugs etcetera – to the bunches. The real work of triage came after the vibrating tables. This was completely reversed in 2011 as the clusters had thicker skins and were quite dry, hence, the vibrating tables easily dislodged any insects (protein!!) in the bunches.
The red fermentations had little in common with the infusions of recent memory – I well remember grand crus in our fermentation tanks with almost no colour after 5 days of maceration. You can be sure that much pigeage followed, but also 94 points for that Latricières (how we laughed) though admittedly the finished wine was blended with some from a second source…
When the time came to taste the wines in the autumn of 2005, most of the buzz was actually about the super looking 2005 grapes – but that’s for another time. The 2004s, though, exceeded everybody’s expectations. Burgundy in more challenging years was already a wine of triage – ie keeping only the best fruit for the wines – and it looked like the trie was done well in 2004. The acidities were quite high – both colours – and the wines showed good sweetness and plenty of terroir differentiation.
Tasting from barrel, I did make note of reds with a cedar/pine/coal-tar note – but they were in the minority. Post bottling, this impression moved into the majority of wines – and I didn’t like it. A simple explanation would be that the barrel oak acted as a masking agent during elevage but as the oak faded towards (and post) the bottling, the consistent background coal-tar note was given the space to express itself. Very occasional whites also showed the aroma; I tasted maybe less than half a dozen with an overt note – so the effect here was negligible…
I later realised that for this specific aroma/taste I could be classed as a super taster – because 80% of tasters seemed not to notice. Clearly becoming a super-taster was a double-edged sword as 2004 was effectively the last vintage where many wines could be ‘easily’ sourced – they are now classed as unicorns. I remember sending off most of my 2004s to auction in about 2007, wines like Romanée-Conti, La Romanée, Dugat-Py Chambertin, Engel Grands-Echézeaux, Faiveley Musigny – and many, many more – for prices that you would weep over if you compared them to today’s prices for the same wines! But that money was well-(re)spent on 2006/2007s and even a few more 2005s.
The cause of the green herbaceousness has been opined on to death – whether from ladybug pheromones (pyrazines) or alternatively the excesses of sulfur treatments in the vines and also potentially before bottling (JM Fourrier’s theory) but we are left with the wines as they are – so how do they look and taste today?
Summarising the wines…
Drunk between March & November 2024, in each case over three days, just in case I was less sensitive to the green taint on day 1…
2004 is not the vintage to dispel the thoughts of many disappointing vintages ending in a 4. The whites were more than workmanlike but should mainly have been drunk, poor corks and a propensity to oxidise mean that remaining bottles are a long-odds lottery. And then there’s the reds… Some wines are still stridently green – to my level of sensitivity. Some others have developed more in the direction of a peanut note – which is in line with pyrazines in other regions such as British Columbia. Occasional wines surprise with how genuinely tasty they are, whilst others, even those that have never exhibited pyrazines (thank you JM Fourrier) sometimes disappoint with their lack of energy/clarity or deliciousness – whichever way you look at it, even if you’re insensitive to the greens, you’re unlikely to find the finesse of a traditional pinot noir from burgundy in 2004.
What did surprise me was that a number of wines showed in a very young, structural and tannic way – wines that I’d unhesitatingly wait another 5+ years for – but whether they will shed more than their strictness, I doubt.
Despite occasional nice wines, this is a red vintage which I will continue to avoid, though I’ve enjoyed many whites. The last white only this week – a Meursault villages from Sylvain Dussort (Nov.19 2024). Unfortunately, the last bottle of this vintage in white from my own cellar – the Dents du Chien – was dead and oxidised. The only such sub-standard wine I ever opened of this cuvée.
The wines…
1. Louis Jadot, Beaune 1er Clos des Ursules
This was most definitely a wine I didn’t enjoy in its youth! The cork comes out, robust and in one piece.
Plenty of colour though with a hint of brown, Whilst I don’t see any greenery, the first aromas have some impression of herbal austerity and within minutes a suggestion of balsamic – I get the impression that this wine won’t last long in the glass – I was completely mistaken! Slowly but surely the nose becomes rounder and starts showing some red fruit. On the first day I drank a second glass with interest – on the second day, I drank the first and second glasses with enjoyment. This is currently a super wine for the vintage.
2. Pierre Bourée, Gevrey-Chambertin 1er Clos St.Jacques
A cork whose last quarter broke off but was – just – saved by an Ah-So.
Here’s a deep colour. The nose starts still quite oaky – almost a resinous oak. Visible are modest traces of pyrazine – though 15 years ago the pyrazine was stronger – as the oak fades you will more easily note the pyrazine aromas – it is still strong here. In the mouth we have both scale and concentration – and a lot of sucrosity too – that’s a rather sweet concentration. This is a wine, pyrazine excepted, that really impresses but is more of a 30-year wine than a 20-year wine.
3. M&P Rion, Nuits St.Georges 1er Clos des Argillières
A cork that remains intact but has quite the tide mark of wine about 2/3rds of the way along its length – but the wine seems unaffected – at least by the cork!
Deep colour – the first nose is herbed and has some old dirty oak attractiveness. The palate directly shows the pyrazine that the nose doesn’t – but the nose will catch up in 10 minutes. In the mouth, we have super freshness but there’s intensity too – decent texture and back to that impressive intensity – a very brambly, blackberry fruit. I can imagine a lot of people enjoying this – but not me. On the positive side – assuming you have patience – it has something in common with the Bourée Clos St.Jacques – it’s a wine that is in no way ready – another 5-10 years will, likely, be enough. So a wine that’s more than good – in parts…
4. Dugat-Py, Vosne-Romaée Très Vieilles Vignes
There’s a smoky, oaky, depth to this nose, supporting quite some green herbal activity – though less than I remember in its youth. Slowly the nose takes on a little more silky width and a notch less green. Good shape in the mouth – lots of volume – silky too before a little tannin surfaces – it’s more velour afterwards. There’s plenty of herb and still a little bitters in this finishing flavour. It’s another wine where I’d suggest waiting – it’s surprising to me how many of these 20-year-old wines really need to be 30-year-old wines. The finish is intense still with plenty of young bitters. Overall a wine that’s still in a relatively youthful, herbal, phase. The green is modest versus many. It’s potentially a very good 2004…
5. Denis Bachelet, Côte de Nuits Vieilles-Vignes
A cork that just about stays in one piece – it smells quite good too!
The depth is impressive – but it’s a dark and very consistent nose with most of the previous bottles – in this case, the green note has a little extra clarity and ‘obviousness.’ Mouth-filling wine – open and with energy – there’s a really nice fluidity and shape to this – without the green I’d be calling it excellent/great for the vintage – but… One glass is enough on the first day, seemingly the days that followed too…
6. Jean-Marie Fourrier, Chambolle-Musigny Vieilles-Vignes
JMF, at least with young wines, seemed unaffected with the greens – and with age? A robust cork that extracts easily.
A nose with deep, dark notes – green? I’m on the fence but there’s a decent floral impression and an aromatic that has a good airy style about it. Supple, mouth-filling and vs many that went before, extra long in this very tasty finish – there’s a little more sucrosity than most too. It drank well over 3 days, never explicitly showing a pyrazine note – to my sensitivity…
A wine that I probably shouldn’t have bought given my already expanding experience of the ‘greens’ but at this tasting, it was apparently ‘clean’ and delicious too – I succumbed and bought 6! Later bottles showed that it was still green but less so than most. A robust, easy to remove, cork.
The first nose is reminiscent of most here with a sort of dark, almost resinous nose and suggestion, in this case, of the greens, but only 10 minutes after opening the nose seems squeaky-clean and quite attractive. If the nose needs 10 minutes then not the flavours; right from the start, this is the most open, focused and moreishly delicious wine – of energy – that I have so far opened. A wine that, in the right company, you drink the whole bottle in one go. I drank about 1/3rd and returned on day two. Day two was a little less fun – the nose less interesting, slightly resinous like wooden train sleepers. The palate, whilst still free from the greens, seemed to offer less clarity of flavour and certainly less delicious flavour energy. Even in this phase, nicer than most here, but no longer a great 2004 – but on day one, I’d go as far as to say that it was a great 2004!
8. Ghislaine Barthod, Chambolle-Musigny
The last in this trilogy of villages Chambolles. A previously purchased (different vintage) was beset by problems and the ever-courteous Berry-Bros & Rudd stepped up to the mark and offered to replace the whole case – but with the current vintage – my timing was poor over this, so 2004 was the result at a time when I was starting to understand the problems of the vintage – unsurprisingly, I still have a bunch of these – oh well!!
The cork comes out well. The colour is a bright medium red with some age showing at the rim. The nose – ah yes – green as clear as can be. The palate in terms of shape, juiciness and sucrosity are in a great place – but the green is as a young wine and centre-stage – without that note it would be delicious – I can part enjoy this glass – but not to the extent that there will be a second glass on this first night. The nose is the nose and stays the nose!
9. David Clark, Pinot Noir (VdF)
A rare wine, this bottle 821 of 847 labelled. David’s 2004 was both his first vintage and his only wine. I remember tasting it blind at the domaine one day and guessing both vintage and wine – well if you knew the vintage, you also knew the wine as there was only this one in 2004! So, in 2012 it did have enough of a blind 2004 character but today, that’s not the case.
Deep colour. It’s a deep nose too – no trace of the greenies – but it’s still a burly nose to start. Exposure to air brings more energy and interest while retaining a plummy depth of fruit. This is actually a tasty wine – not in the class of the Chambolles of either Fourrier or Lignier-Michelot, nor the Beaune of Jadot – but it’s a Bourgogne that drank well and consistently over 3 days. Well done David !!
10. Jean-Marie Fourrier, Gevrey-Chambertin Vieilles-Vignes
A clean – green-free nose – like every Fourrier I’ve tried from this vintage. Clean but undemonstrative – there’s also nothing here to set the pulse racing. In the mouth we have a similar story; drinkable, almost juicy but a lite wine versus many in this selection – and some way behind how the domaine’s Chambolle tastes right now. Easy but uninspiring – as much a Bourgogne-level impression as the wine of Clark – but no faults.
11. Dr Georges Mugneret, Gevrey-Chambertin
A very different ‘Gevrey’ – this the result of the young vines of Ruchottes-Chambertin; the first vintage for this was 2002 and it was delicious. It fared less well in 2003 as the young vines suffered in the heat. Here is my last 2004 but I have a 2005 hidden away, somewhere…
Such an energetic, red berry, nose – but there’s plenty of fresh, classic green pyrazine in there too – such a baby wine. Here is far more depth of concentration and textural generosity than the Gevrey of Fourrier – open, complex, almost airy too. It’s a great combination. In the flavours the pyrazine is modest – almost just an accent. Finishing wide and interest, holding well in this finish too. Much more wine and interest than the last, despite the obvious nod to the vintage.
12. Mischief & Mayhem, Gevrey-Chambertin 1er ‘Crazy Love‘
A crazy assemblage of both Cazetiers and Clos St.Jacques – likely to protect the identity of who supplied the grapes! There was a modest 2004 character when it was released – and today?
Day one is not the high point for this wine – a nose that starts with some fun but then becomes sullen with beef-stock aromatics – it changes with every sniff – but rarely positively. Like the nose, this flavour still betrays the vintage, but less overtly than the Mugneret, though never so delicious as that wine. There’s concentration for sure and a good silky texture – yet no interest in the flavours. All hail day two (& three!) as this has cleaned up the aromas – now complex and interesting if still faintly with pyrazine. The flavours have come good too, more open and interesting with some genuinely tasty flavours. Almost as good on day 3 – another wine that is likely better in 5 years…
13. Jean-Marie Fourrier, Gevrey-Chambertin 1er Clos St.Jacques Vieilles-Vignes
Another JMF wine that seems to be free of the 2004 taint – yet – this is a surprisingly unexciting wine: The nose red but unexciting, the palate likewise; there’s depth to this flavour but not the spark that urges you to take another drink – it’s flat. Undetectable cork taint? It’s possible – the rest of the wines from this address, even the ‘lower’ wines, have been much more delicious…
14. M&P Rion, Chambolle-Musigny 1er Les Charmes
A good cork that extracts easily.
Deep colour. This nose takes time in the glass to open, but I see no pyrazine! The flavour shows deep, darker fruit – not particularly floral but actually with sweetness and a reasonably inviting clarity. This is a wine that improved all the time that the bottle was open – and I enjoyed it !!
I was sure that I had some more 2004s to taste – grand cus including Musigny – but at this stage, I gave up the search. Why prolong the pain? 🙂 But I had a white:
15. Alex Gambal, St.Aubin 1er Murgers des Dents du Chien
A pale cork but a robust cork.
Dark colour, and a fully oxidised nose. Nope. A shame. That’s the only substandard bottle of this cuvée I’ve experienced from my cellar. I followed this with my last 2005 Dents du Chien, and that was singing… Ho hum !!