Why Big Red Diary?
8 notes


2001 Coche-Dury, Auxey-DuressesApr. 2008
Medium-pale colour with a hint of amber at the rim. The nose is soft, with a suggestion of undergrowth and pretty violets. The palate is mineral yet soft, not so deep but a fine width and a savoury finish. An altogether lovely aperitif if you can get a good price.
1989 Coche-Dury, MeursaultApr. 2007
A penetrating and wide nose. There’s good depth and only faint brioche. The nose bit-by-bit improves and improves, eventually giving a little caramel. The palate is polished smooth and gives a very impressive, slightly creamy length. There is the merest trace of oxidation on the palate, but even for oxidation-averse me, it is additive to the complexity. Expands very nicely on the palate in an understated but highly impressive way. Very, very long with a little lime in the finish. Simply fantastic villages.
1989 Coche-Dury, Meursault RougeotsApr. 2007
The nose is reasonably toasty, some width and a little spent match (gunflint) – but relatively primary for all that. Given time the glass fills with aromas and added complexity. The palate has understated entry, is wonderfully intense in the mid-palate – but I’m no fan of a flavour profile that (for me) from time to time hints at taint – I must have been wrong because it faded rather than got worse. On its own I’m still unconvinced, but this wine transformed with food (scallops) it became as polished as the 89 villages, alone it’s merely very good.
1990 Coche-Dury, Meursault RougeotsApr. 2007
The first note on the nose is oak toast, but it’s a little more background than the 1989. There’s faint gunflint and at first – fruit – it’s understated, but it’s here. Much longer, interesting and complex than the 1989. There’s an exciting burst on the mid-palate and (disappointingly) still some oak texture to resolve on the finish. I have to say though, that this is very seductive wine.
1988 Coche-Dury, Meursault Les PerrièresApr. 2007
A wide and deep nose, mainly of ripe fruit, just a little oak and some rounding, higher notes. The palate is quite linear, intense on the tongue and very, very complex as it leaves the mid-palate for the finish. The finish is understated, but very long. Not sexy, but not severe – very, very good, but don’t let’s discuss the price vs quality ratio…
2004 Coche-Dury, Meursault Les CailleretsApr. 2007
Medium lemon-yellow. The nose is quite high-toned with faint, but not excessive, estery notes over a base of mainly pear fruit. The palate is a little fatter than the Chartron, quite silky and also shows good acidity. There is some intensity of fruit, but despite some minerality it is delivered in a rather dense and unyielding fashion. Excellent length. This is a very good and very well proportioned wine, but I miss some engagement.
2004 Coche-Dury, Pommard Les VaumuriensDec. 2006
Medium-plus cherry red. The nose is sweet ripe and only with time betrays the faintest trace of cedar. Wide and friendly, the aromatics are sweet oak with a creamy edge to the red fruit. One sip and you’re hit by fresh, crunchy red and black fruit and grainy tannin – quite the extrovert – given the nose I expected something much more plush. The finish is quite long for a villages, showcasing those grainy tannins. This improved in the glass and was quite a crowd-pleaser.
2001 Coche-Dury, Bourgogne AligoteAug. 2006
Medium yellow. The nose is deep with a little width. The fruit impression is of a rather rubbery banana effect – actually better than it sounds. The palate has some density, very good acidity and (once more) the banana/rubber theme – this time with the rubber in the ascendancy. Interesting to drink on it’s own but a little wearing, however, this wine really complimented a wide range of dishes – truly a food-loving wine. Interesting and very good value at €20 in a restaurant (Ma Cuisine).
Translate »