Fully mature and on the downhill (this was a pristine bottle, otherwise would have been gone). Full in the mouth with nice waxiness, formerly ripe citrus and oyster notes are now confected grape and steely acidity. Absolutely needs food - bit arduous otherwise. Will revert if it opens up later, for now 88-90pts, drink up
Edit - l was wrong. Left a glass for an hour it really opened up. Not much on the nose but very round, balanced albeit not complex palate. Smooth. Fevre did a great job in 2002. 90-91pts and drink to 2026
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Light golden yellow. Like a tasting two years prior, there was some wet stone and white musky fruit on the nose. On the palate, this tasted clearly like an aged chablis. The bracing acidity of the younger wines has given way to some round white fruit. The is still some citrus and minerality but these wines do change quite a bit over time. Overall, I tend to prefer the younger versions but this was a really nice drink. I will continue to save some of these for the long haul.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Color: not quite translucent straw. Nose: Wet stone, slightly musky white fruit. Palate: Relatively fullbodied and supple. White fruit without much in the way of citrus. Non dominant minerals notes. Reminded me a bit more of a mersault than chablis.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Much better than the last bottle. Rounded out somewhat. Balanced and clean. Good liberality, it rocket with the abalone. Had next to a 2007 aubert, lairens vineyard. The chablis kickeds it's ass.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
wine has seemed to improve with each bottle over the past half dozen years...thought acidity, structure and minerality was better in the last couple bottles
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Popped and poured after having been in the fridge. Opened up more as it got towards room temperature. Better when chilled, not cold, then it expressed\s more of what is has to offer.
Nose - Wet stone minerality, with an almost seaweed/seashell/iodine type smell. Seashells?
Taste - Stoney minerality, tart citrus flavor (grapefruit/lime?) noticeable especially on the finish, good but not sharp acidity that seems to have integrated well. For me I wish it had a little more fruit to round out the structure but then again chablis is supposed to be austere.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Very impressive-nice nose with fruit and minerals. On the palette, more intense and full bodied than I expected--as full, rich, and long, as some meursault's I have had (tho not the finest examples). A treat. It is fully ready to go now but will likely hold for a few more years. I see no reason to wait, however.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
upon opening, somewhat reticent on the nose, good richness on the pallete, but a little flat, and not a lot of structure. Developed nice minerality on the nose and tast of lemon and wet river stone. After open a couple hours, faded and a little funky. Drink now.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
2002 Domaine William Fevre Fourchaume Chablis Premier Cru, alc 13%, crisp apple on the nose...apple, pear, hint of butter, a vague yeastiness and a gentle smoothness and creaminess on the palate... not overly rich but not crisp either...no wood showing...reasonable acidity..drinking well... still primary...no premox here
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
tasted from 2 different bottles. bottle no.1 was horribly oxidized and undrinkable. bottle no.2 was slightly oxidized but had some fruit and depth to it. I'd be on the drink now side of this trade.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Ravishing! Crystal clear yellow gold w/a nose of banana peel, wax, and fino sherry. There is also a touch of flint and a bit of wet stone. On the palate, it’s light, but lush with very good length of toasted nuts and sherry. It’s oxidized but it’s so complex and beguiling.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Not overly impressed at this stage....acid structure/backbone was pretty weak making for a rather flabby fruity wine. I remember my first bottle being better.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
A bit tight when first opened, I had it with a poached red snapper and it seemed a little much for the food. Still, nice acid/sugar balance, firm structure. agree that it needs some air time before consumption right now.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Medium yellow. Medium aroma of yellow fruit and wet stone mineral. Fairly rich mouthfeel and round for the acitidity level. Nice mid-palate fruit tapers off into a nice finish. Very enjoyable, but nothing special. 3/05
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Nice restrained wine. I wish I could keep my hands of of this stuff. Stood up well with The much more expensive Peter Michael and Kistler McCrea from the same vintage.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
$23.99 retail, after discount. Opened side by side with Fevre's '02 Montmains (see TN). Tonight I preferred slightly the Montmains, though the two are quite different. Fourchaume is noticeably darker in color. The nose is riper, yet more closed. Honey, peach and apricot to Montmains' lighter lemon / mineral profile. In the mouth this is rounder and heavier, with less tension than the Montmains; Fourchaume has a slightly creamy texture and a touch of vanilla on the finish. 1-2 hours of air allowed this wine to open and reveal more than was evident early on. Quite nice for $24 retail. Day two: less ripe and more minerally. Actually, I like it even better than I did yesterday... Could be that tasting the more minerally Montmains first and then comparing the two side by side emphasized the relative ripeness of the Fourchaume.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
10/17/2023 - JulianSkeels wrote: 90 Points
Fully mature and on the downhill (this was a pristine bottle, otherwise would have been gone). Full in the mouth with nice waxiness, formerly ripe citrus and oyster notes are now confected grape and steely acidity. Absolutely needs food - bit arduous otherwise. Will revert if it opens up later, for now 88-90pts, drink up
Edit - l was wrong. Left a glass for an hour it really opened up. Not much on the nose but very round, balanced albeit not complex palate. Smooth. Fevre did a great job in 2002. 90-91pts and drink to 2026
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
6/23/2014 - short and confused wrote: 92 Points
Light golden yellow. Like a tasting two years prior, there was some wet stone and white musky fruit on the nose. On the palate, this tasted clearly like an aged chablis. The bracing acidity of the younger wines has given way to some round white fruit. The is still some citrus and minerality but these wines do change quite a bit over time. Overall, I tend to prefer the younger versions but this was a really nice drink. I will continue to save some of these for the long haul.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/31/2013 - Villon wrote: 89 Points
Notes d'évolution sur la pomme, la poire et les noisette, beaucoup de minéralité, acidité fondue, longueur moyenne. Très bien!
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
4/4/2013 - affordableCollector wrote: 85 Points
clear, light yellow, in color. herbal, floral, apple, on the nose. oxidized, apple, floral, citrus, on the palate. mild acid on this lingering finish.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
3/26/2013 - THT wrote: 89 Points
Robe soutenue, nez sur des notes d'évolution, miel, puis citronnée, pas trop de minéralité. Pas transcendental mais un bon vin.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/23/2012 - short and confused wrote: 91 Points
Color: not quite translucent straw. Nose: Wet stone, slightly musky white fruit. Palate: Relatively fullbodied and supple. White fruit without much in the way of citrus. Non dominant minerals notes. Reminded me a bit more of a mersault than chablis.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
9/4/2010 - Margauxguy wrote: 90 Points
Much better than the last bottle. Rounded out somewhat. Balanced and clean. Good liberality, it rocket with the abalone. Had next to a 2007 aubert, lairens vineyard. The chablis kickeds it's ass.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/5/2010 - JBVino wrote:
wine has seemed to improve with each bottle over the past half dozen years...thought acidity, structure and minerality was better in the last couple bottles
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/15/2010 - gfish wrote: 88 Points
Popped and poured after having been in the fridge. Opened up more as it got towards room temperature. Better when chilled, not cold, then it expressed\s more of what is has to offer.
Nose - Wet stone minerality, with an almost seaweed/seashell/iodine type smell. Seashells?
Taste - Stoney minerality, tart citrus flavor (grapefruit/lime?) noticeable especially on the finish, good but not sharp acidity that seems to have integrated well. For me I wish it had a little more fruit to round out the structure but then again chablis is supposed to be austere.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/17/2009 - VinoMax wrote: 91 Points
C- Deep straw N- Minerality, stone fruits T- Medium bodied, apple/pear, viscous, some petrol, good menerality, 20+ sec finish
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
6/7/2009 - Luvwine1 wrote: 92 Points
Very impressive-nice nose with fruit and minerals. On the palette, more intense and full bodied than I expected--as full, rich, and long, as some meursault's I have had (tho not the finest examples). A treat. It is fully ready to go now but will likely hold for a few more years. I see no reason to wait, however.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/13/2009 - Margauxguy wrote: 88 Points
upon opening, somewhat reticent on the nose, good richness on the pallete, but a little flat, and not a lot of structure. Developed nice minerality on the nose and tast of lemon and wet river stone. After open a couple hours, faded and a little funky. Drink now.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/7/2009 - DJenkins wrote: flawed
Premoxed
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/3/2009 - ludwigbpm wrote: flawed
Bouteille oxydée.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/7/2009 - TaitaJidou wrote: 91 Points
Excellent served for Robert Ducharme’s 70th birthday. Crisp, flavorful, excellent.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/20/2008 - TaitaJidou wrote: 92 Points
A great wine. Just wonderful crispness, good flavor, no oak -- just what you’d want from an excellent Chablis.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/5/2008 - ssouth wrote: 90 Points
2002 Domaine William Fevre Fourchaume Chablis Premier Cru, alc 13%, crisp apple on the nose...apple, pear, hint of butter, a vague yeastiness and a gentle smoothness and creaminess on the palate... not overly rich but not crisp either...no wood showing...reasonable acidity..drinking well... still primary...no premox here
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
9/25/2008 - br wrote:
tasted from 2 different bottles. bottle no.1 was horribly oxidized and undrinkable. bottle no.2 was slightly oxidized but had some fruit and depth to it. I'd be on the drink now side of this trade.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
6/9/2008 - mdavis wrote:
Well made wine, and in a good spot right now, DRINK.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/10/2008 - JBVino wrote:
no notes taken...better than bottle 18 months ago
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/14/2008 - STEVEN@WINECELLARCLUB.COM wrote: 89 Points
Lots of life remaining. Pale gold, great fruit on nose, well balanced, crisp.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
11/17/2007 - wineismylife wrote: 90 Points
WIML90
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/12/2007 - mebydef wrote: 93 Points
Ravishing! Crystal clear yellow gold w/a nose of banana peel, wax, and fino sherry. There is also a touch of flint and a bit of wet stone. On the palate, it’s light, but lush with very good length of toasted nuts and sherry. It’s oxidized but it’s so complex and beguiling.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/6/2006 - JBVino wrote: 87 Points
Not overly impressed at this stage....acid structure/backbone was pretty weak making for a rather flabby fruity wine. I remember my first bottle being better.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/16/2006 - transpodude wrote: 90 Points
A bit tight when first opened, I had it with a poached red snapper and it seemed a little much for the food. Still, nice acid/sugar balance, firm structure. agree that it needs some air time before consumption right now.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
10/11/2005 - TaitaJidou wrote: 90 Points
An excellent wine. Served with roasted chicken for Nancy’s birthday. Lovely indeed.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
3/1/2005 - winefool wrote: 91 Points
Medium yellow. Medium aroma of yellow fruit and wet stone mineral. Fairly rich mouthfeel and round for the acitidity level. Nice mid-palate fruit tapers off into a nice finish. Very enjoyable, but nothing special. 3/05
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/21/2005 - Mike V wrote: 91 Points
Nice restrained wine. I wish I could keep my hands of of this stuff. Stood up well with The much more expensive Peter Michael and Kistler McCrea from the same vintage.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/11/2005 - Ben Andersen wrote:
$23.99 retail, after discount. Opened side by side with Fevre's '02 Montmains (see TN). Tonight I preferred slightly the Montmains, though the two are quite different. Fourchaume is noticeably darker in color. The nose is riper, yet more closed. Honey, peach and apricot to Montmains' lighter lemon / mineral profile. In the mouth this is rounder and heavier, with less tension than the Montmains; Fourchaume has a slightly creamy texture and a touch of vanilla on the finish. 1-2 hours of air allowed this wine to open and reveal more than was evident early on. Quite nice for $24 retail. Day two: less ripe and more minerally. Actually, I like it even better than I did yesterday... Could be that tasting the more minerally Montmains first and then comparing the two side by side emphasized the relative ripeness of the Fourchaume.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment