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

There was a little trepidation when I opened this – the cork didn’t smell that great – but the first sniff from the glass came with a clear message “you have been drinking too much young stuff!” Wonderful aromatics. I have to say that I shy away from pulling older bottles out of the cellar, they somehow seem so finite vs the shelves full of 2001 vintage and onwards.
1995 Pousse d’Or, Volnay 1er Cru Les Caillerets
Medium garnet core with a more mahogany rim. The nose started wide and forward with bloody, earthy tones. Plenty of time in the glass and you settle to a mineral, raisined cranberry expression, very lovely. The palate is much more understated and lithe, still with just a faint ‘jarr’ to the fine tannin. The acidity is good and you’ll find an equally good intensity from the mid-palate into the finish. Could still do with another 3 or so years in the cellar, but no crime to drink now.
Rebuy – Yes

Rather than an oak-based savoury and serious wine in the style of the 2004 Jadot Chardonnay, this wine (which is usually quite simple) shines with energy and flavour in 2005. It’s about 60% more expensive than the Jadot 04, but is worth the extra outlay.
2005 Jean-Marc Boillot, Montagny 1er Cru
Medium yellow. The nose is quite deep with a little spicy butterscotch, swirling releases a denser and higher-toned fruit aspect. Lithe, sweet with a kick into the mid-palate before the mouth-watering acidity rushes you into the finish. The sweetness of the ripe fruit brings fine balance. A lovely ebullient wine that is yet another contender for house wine this summer.
Rebuy – Yes

There’s only one thing that I really dislike about this wine – the cork – or should I say the cork ‘amalgam’. It’s purely empirical, but I find a very high taint rate from similar ‘cheap’ closures – no problem with this bottle though.
2004 Louis Jadot, Bourgogne Chardonnay
The 2002 was my house wine last summer so it’s only fair to try out the 2004. Medium yellow. The nose is less sweet oak dominated than the 02, it’s higher toned, just a little floral with a quite subtle oak base. This has a quite rich texture that’s offset by a little dissolved gas which makes the acidity a little prickley. There’s a nice expansion of creamy flavour in the mid-palate and a more than reasonable length. Give it time and the prickle is gone and the palate is nicely smooth. Just a little less rich and sweet than the 2002. It’s very good for the price if not quite as good as the 2002 – though this very young – it has a chance of being a house wine for summer 2008, but won’t make it for 2007, the 05’s are currently too good.
Rebuy – Yes