5/6/23, 11:54 PM - Good tasting note! Agreed; Picardy has nailed that elegant style and you nailed my thoughts on that lovely wine.
1/16/23, 6:36 AM - Gee I wish I'd read your comment before I bought 6 recently. I thought 2018 was an excellent(+) vintage for white burgundy, despite the heat, so I assumed that it would be at least very good in Mâcon and that Leflaive would be good because I had a terrific run with well chosen Mâcon-Verzé vintages until 2014 (certainly) and perhaps 2016 (can't now recall). However I tried one of these 2018s - without paying huge attention to it - and was a bit disappointed but thought I'd leave the others for a while. Now, I'm a bit worried about the remaining 5. I'll keep a close watch on their colour, because my memory has been stirred up with premox concerns following the disastrous 2006 Pulignys. I used to idolise this maker and have bought all their whites - even a Montrachet once. Sadly, I now regard this Domaine as the biggest enigma in white burgundy - because of multiple shortcomings. One was the excess alcohol on 2006 (what the hell was going on - or not happening- when they should have been picking that vintage)?? Sheesh. Another, was the extent of the pre-mox in many of the Pulignys. (I suspect insufficient SO2 had a significant role but I'm not a winemaker, and there may have been multiple causes - and I'm past buying them now - this exception re the Mâcon being a one-off so far). I used to buy Leflaive's Mâcon-Verzé by the multiple dozen in good years - before they introduced the separate vineyards. The QPR back then was great and I never had 1 bad one out of well over 100 bottles drunk. Not one. I had tremendous confidence in them and they were my little secret for a very affordable insight into the taste of quality white burgundy.Ironically, it was several bottles of the Domanie's better Puligny's that finished it for me. After starting on my perfectly-cellared 2006's I realised most - even the Chevalier - were fat and blousy and/or premoxed so I sold every 2006 and haven't bought any Pulignys since the 2010's. BTW, I still have several 2010s - Les Pucelles and a couple of other premier Crus, and Chevalier, and for which I still have high hopes. I also loved the 2010 Clavoillon but drank them when young and tight and minerally. So, an ex- huge fan...You're being kind in saying that it is "puzzling" how the Domaine allows what I will call such winemaking 'inconsistency'. It borders on unbelievable to me that a legendary maker would allow so many failures over so many years, while still making some extraordinarily fine wines.While I've sadly lost it with the Domaine, they are not the only pebble on the beach. I'll never buy another Bonneau du Martray Corton Charlemagne again because of premox. problems in many bottles of theirs I bought after about 2002 Again, that was a maker from whom I had enjoyed some magnificent bottles from earlier vintages but I had many premoxed bottles from some later vintages that. Enough was enough. Given the cost, I just walked and haven't looked back - even though some in the industry have told me they are fine now. If I were running management courses I would be very tempted to examine both of those famous houses for what was allowed to go and stay wrong - at the very heart of their product - for so many years. Puzzling indeed.
11/10/22, 12:23 AM - Graeme, I hope you still look out for comments on Cellartracker because I want to tell you that I think you perfectly nailed this description. (BTW, in ~2015 I praised an earlier note that you wrote, too).I luckily had a similar experience. You created such a good picture of what a great bottle of this remarkable wine was like in its heyday. I smiled and nodded my head, thinking "Yep, that's it ...him too" as in you've now got that experience for life, like a lucky few of us.It's so hard to convey the incredible feeling - conversation stopping, then much more - as this wonderful creation presented itself in the glass. As you insightfully said: "A shopping list of flavours seems a bit pointless with a wine like this; it’s so much more than the sum of its parts".Given the calibre of your description and the place that this legendary wine holds in the world of wine, you've done a great service by sharing a tasting note which itself is world class. (I say that - as humbly as possible - from the blessed position of having decades of pleasure drinking often fabulous wine).CheersGM
2/2/22, 4:30 AM - Thanks Guady. I've enjoyed reading your tasting notes too. Lucky you to have a relationship with Bill & Dan. Perhaps think about using it to see if you can get a look at the astonishing 2020 Tete - due for release in 2023. Oh my goodness - what a wine the 2020 is. It's even better than the superb 2018 but it's going to be very hard to get a hold of when released. Lots of small berries in a small vintage anyway -> high quality...) It has not only superb complexity but a distinct lift and a character that must have come from a greater quantity of fruit from the new clones. (2020 was a great vintage and they would have made a great wine anyway without the increased % of material from the 'new' Burgundian clones that bore fruit in 2020. But this was special...). Perhaps you know that quality Burgundies and other top-end pinots can be hard to assess so young but this wine was clearly a step up from an already highly regarded line. I've seen many Burgundies in barrel but haven't seen every high quality pinot made in Aussie in recent years (in barrel or in bottle). If however anyone has made another Aussie pinot of this calibre I would love to get some for the cellar.
5/3/20, 8:56 AM - Hi Tiggerk - you'll never find one with TCA (or TCB) from vintage 2016 onwards because each one (in the two pinots and the chardy) is individually tested and guaranteed by the supplier I am told. The other wines from then on have Diams, so they won't be affected either.Agree with you that they're a good producer - one of Australia's very best for Pinot and chardy IMO.Cheers, Greg
1/15/17, 6:03 AM - Hi CollectorDon't despair with this experience; 2012 was an anomaly, being picked 1 day too late as a result of an intense heatwave that unusually occurred exactly at picking time. That area is normally much more temperate, with a heat summation similar to parts of Burgundy, but there you go. This aberrant experience can happen - I remember a couple of 2009 red burgundies that "got away" from top quality producers in that warm summer. 2012 is not the usual style from this house, which I think consistently makes Western Australia's best pinots noir. With the exception of that 2012, from say the 2007 vintage their Têtes de Cuvée have been notably elegant but with power. In fact the 2006 was elegant too, at 13% alc. but the 2006 challenge was to get ripeness. Every vintage since 2006 (other than 2012) has been 13.5% alc. (the 2007 and the 2010 might even have been 13%??) including the superb 2011 and 2013 Têtes de Cuvée, either side of the 2012. Likewise the 2014 Tête de Cuvée, which I've luckily tried a couple of times pre-release; also 13.5%, thankfully. (I find most 14.5% red wines off-putting, and if higher than that, pretty well undrinkable).BTW, here's a tip re the 2014. On both occasions when I tried it I thought it was the best Australian pinot noir that I could remember, in over 30 years infatuation with this variety so if you can get your hands on a bottle when it gets released (or even the 2013) you'll feel comfortable about their direction! I'm keen to see the 2014 Tête again and to line it up with a couple of 2014 burgundies. (I repeat, it's much different - more reserved, appropriate and complex - than the 2012). I'd love to know what you think of it, too, if you get to try it.Cheers, Greg
5/3/20, 7:26 AM - Hi CollectorI wonder if you ever had a look at any other vintages of their Tête de Cuvée - e.g. the lovely 2014 that I referred to years ago, pre-release??I'm not sure what you're drinking nowadays - that 2014 is still improving for mine, although I'm not hitting them too hard yet much as I know it will get even better for many years yet. (IMO the excellent 2011 is just starting to hit its straps).Anyway, in 2021 Picardy will release their remarkable (best ever without doubt) 2018. Here are my just completed tasting notes on that superb wine, FYI. As you may know, Pinot can drop in a bit of a hole for a while - and I imagined, prior to tasting the 2018, that it might have around this time - but when I tasted it I thought that it surely could not have yet since it was drinking sooo well. So I asked Bill Pannell, who to my surprise said it HAD indeed gone into its shell a bit, despite its current remarkable showing! He has the highest regard for the wine and said it will show even better with some age. As further background, I'd chased it up pre-release as I'd heard that it topped a local blind tasting in Perth which was judged by some good palates including a MW, so I tried it and it was so good I decided to release my notes (see link below), for what they're worth.CheersGreghttps://www.cellartracker.com/list.asp?Table=Notes&iUserOverride=0&szSearch=Picardy+Pinot+Noir+T%EAte+de+Cuv%E9e&AR=postlogin#selected%3DW3539356_1_Keff26824c3a1230514db704805f998eb
10/28/19, 1:22 AM - Don't feel awkward about an honest - and accurate - assessment! Some people will hate me saying this but I have never seen recent Granges as "legendary wines" at all. Sure, Grange has a passionate following from some who love the current heady, over-ripe style, while others who are wowed by how much it sells for, while others are impressed by the ridiculously marks given by some wine writers. So, in this social media driven world, I won't argue with those senses of 'legendary'. However, I haven't seen one of the recent era (14.5% alcohol) Granges that is as good as many of the earlier wines made before the "when too much is barely enough" current style appeared. There were several magic wines made in the 60's(especially), while the 1971 was truly 'legendary'. I also had to shake my head in disbelief a couple of years ago when I saw a late vintage Grange in a bottle shop at a higher price than a JF Mugnier Musigny, in a nearby rack. Really?!Yes, I enjoyed a couple of bottles of the 2002 a few years back but they weren't worth the money and I sold the rest of mine, and all my Bin 389s, which had also suffered the same deterioration in style into 14.5% monsters. Unsurprisingly, they weren't developing as they used to but I had been in wishful denial when I bought them. The truth is, Penfold is now making a different style from what created the Aussie legend. They are unconcerned, and would mock my comments because they have created a big marketing machine that sells the current wine in a market that is now driven by more than sheer wine quality -v- price. The fact that you can buy it cheaper in many places than in Australia, despite transportation etc. costs, also makes Australian buyers wistful about how it used to be. RIP Grange ...
10/27/19, 6:36 PM - Sorry to hear of your experience, Spargel. Forgive me asking, but are you sure it was a genuine bottle?
10/25/17, 6:58 PM - Hi VagrantoneI'm disappointed for you that you didn't experience the 2003 as its best. The wine should have been glorious. I realise that different bottles on different occasions drunk by different people can lead to a wide range of views, so I can at least understand how one might query say the balance in this wine, given the hot year (although I've not had that concern). I am however puzzled at how your bottle did not show the extraordinary amount of botrytis that characterised the 2003 vintage.I've been lucky enough to drink the 2003 many, many times and have been delighted with its botrytis. It should be one of the features of the vintage. In fact, I see on Yquem's website that it is said: "35 mm of rain in early September brought on an overwhelming and all-encompassing attack of botrytis that resulted in a unique phenomenon: the entire crop was picked in one single pass! The wine is as elegant as it is atypical. It is said that this vintage is reminiscent of the conditions that led to the making of the first ever botrytised wines in Sauternes."Is it possible that your bottle had not been stored correctly? Was it a 375ml or a 750ml? (Mine have all been 375 ml, BTW ...)Cheers, Greg
10/26/17, 10:56 AM - Vagrantone, you seem not to have read either my comment and its extract from Yquem's website, or the website itself before commenting.Contrary to what you said about 2003 being dry and not conducive to botrytis, the fact was that Yquem received, in the vineyard, 35mm of rain, creating perfect conditions for the creation of botrytis! That is why, in over 200 years of winemaking, they were able to pick the crop in one pass (for the first time, apparently), with its extraordinary levels of botrytis. I've drunk over 2 dozen bottles of the 2003, and each one was laden with botrytis, which is why I politely asked about your bottle (which you also chose to not address).
7/27/17, 4:27 AM - Hi aagrawalYes, I think it is settling down into a nice drinking window. It's still got that voluptuous, lip-licking, full-on botrytis laden fruit, but the change I saw in this bottle (a 375ml) at least, was a softening of that oak tannin particularly towards the finish, and generally better integration. I'm one of the few people that I'm aware of who comments, occasionally, on the "attack" that young Yquems have. (I still find it as not properly integrated into 375ml bottles of the 1997).But back to the 2003 - I'm telling you, the wine was gorgeous, utterly gorgeous. I actually laughed many times after sips, because it was just so lovely, and there was a bit of head shaking, too, as in "are you serious - this is exquisite ...". And you're dead right - best Yquem for the price (that I can remember - ever).
7/27/17, 4:10 AM - Well critiqued, aagrawal:* I wholeheartedly agree about the disappointing palate. Like you, I found this less impressive than any other Yquem that I've tried; noticeably so. I've got a few left and, having bought them on release, am only keeping them for an experiment to see whether, one day, they are worthy of the marque. I'm certainly not motivated to try another one until a few good commentators like yourself say it's drinking as an Yquem should;* I doubt that it's in an awkward stage - I respect your politeness but the harsh reality is that it's actually an awkward release a.k.a. a poor Yquem. I think they made an bad error in bottling it under this iconic label. From release, I've never tasted a great bottle and even if, one day, it becomes improbably impressive, it will have disappointed so many tasters since release that it won't have been worth the bad press on the journey to that possible day. I note it's excess alcohol, which I suspect may have been an attempt to try and give the wine something, given it's marked lack of botrytis and general complexity. I'll move on ...
6/10/17, 7:10 AM - Hi DerekI'm sorry to hear about your experience but console yourself that the 2006 Leflaive whites were never great, and the Clavoillon (which I reviewed on CT a few years ago) was very poor, and by far the worst Leflaive Clavoillon that I've ever drunk. You didn't miss anything, my friend.Those comments come from a person who loves Domaine Leflaive whites generally - some are exquisite - so it is painful to criticise them so overtly. However the 2006's were so bad (especially the Clavoillon) that polite umming and ahhing is not good enough feedback for this wonderful producer. The winemaking blunders of 2006 must never happen again.
6/7/17, 7:39 PM - Really good comments you made here, including:* (overly mature) colour* peach and honey on the palate* clear oxidation* advanced palate* "interesting" flavours* no Chevalier typicity. (Hear hear) I made notes on this wine a while ago and, too was disappointed with all the things you said, and more.The 2006 Domaine Leflaives are the worst wines I've ever drunk from that superb producer. Let's hope they never repeat those mistakes.
6/10/17, 6:50 AM - Thanks, Howard, for passing on the comments. Your friend's logic makes sense but I don't want to drink Leflaive and have anything other than feelings of gratitude and pleasure, so that's why I got rid of them. I sold every one of my 06 Leflaives after drinking the 06 Chevalier, I was so disappointed. I'd previously suffered through some of the Premier Crus, that also disappointed immensely because of their over-ripe clumsiness - but the Chevalier was the last straw.I've drunk a lot of them (including a stunning 97 Montrachet about which I made notes on CT), and no white burgundy producer has given me so much pleasure, so I won't smudge the halo with inevitable repeated memories of neglectful wine-making, such as their 2006's.I love their 2010's (even the Macon Verze, so I've cellared a few of these). Cheers, Greg
3/6/17, 7:17 PM - Thanks aagrawal; well spotted, and thanks for taking the time to post. I had not described the colour as well as I could have, so I've now edited my initial note. Cheers!
1/15/17, 7:32 AM - I expect it was oxidised rather than corked?? I feel for you; I've had it with Bonneau du Martray. I have a 2004, 2005 and a 2006 left - and will never buy again; so many oxidised - grrr.
1/15/17, 5:28 AM - Thanks for your insightful and revealing low sulphur dioxide comment, with which I entirely agree. It's so good that sampling was done on some premoxed bottles to prove the low SO2 point. My winemaker friends have been warning about this for a long time.I love Leflaive but was a bit shattered by their horrible over-ripe 2006's, all of which I sold after drinking one too may bad ones. I hope they're back on track now with the 2010's - they seem to be. The fruit is certainly being picked earlier. I wonder if low SO2 was the cause of so many Bonneau du Martray Corton Charlemagnes being prematurely oxidised. I've wasted thousands of dollars buying disappointment from them on at least half the bottles I bought (all 2000 onwards). I think it highly likely that low SO2 was key; I'm not sure how much new oak they use and whether this was part of the issue, too, but I don't care any more; I won't buy them again. I know from speaking to another well known Burgundian white winemaker (with known premox problems) that he was using what I believe to be very low SO2 additions.
1/14/17, 6:42 PM - Hi sjwshirazLEFLAIVE AT SIXES AND SEVENS IN 2006 & 2007In deference to others out there who love Domaine Leflaive (as I do) but don't yet realise how bad the 2006's are, I'll be frank. Every bottle that I've tried has been a huge disappointment, being grossly overipe and misguided, and quite unLeflaive like. (I didn't try the Macon, the Batard or the Montrachet but waded through most of the others).I think many reviewers are polite with their comments because it's not uplifting to bag a wine, especially one from this superlative producer. But the 2006's surely must be the worst vintage they've released in recent memory. I suffered through a few bottles of Clavoillon - aaagh - and a few other vineyards including Chevalier, which was a dreadful disappointment. I confess that my tasting notes were excessively polite. The 2006 Chevalier, to me, was the last straw; after that, I sold every bottle of 2006 that I had - thousands of dollars worth - and my few bottles of 2007's, after a master wine taster friend (who also loves the Domaine) warned me off them, too. I'm so glad I did; I don't want to think of this Domaine badly or even apologetically with the opening of any of their rare poor efforts. I respectfully suggest you get rid of the lot, take the hit, and reload with vintages that will make you smile again. Life's too short ...You'll see that fellow CTer, AJ72, who obviously has a fine palate and knows his stuff, gave the same warning about 2006 and 2007. On a happy note, the 2010's that I've tried are just terrific. I haven't drunk Pucelles or Chevalier yet, but the 2010 Clavoillon is the best vintage of it that I've ever tried, as was the Macon. I'll start on my Bourgognes soon; I've heard they're great, too.
6/15/14, 7:11 AM - Good summary, Jeff! I agree it's not as complex, or vibrant, as great vintages such as 1975 and 2001 but I've thought that its lashings of botrytis make it more complex than most vintages I've drunk (70's onwards). However you've drunk more vintages than I have: do you think its fabulous thick, warm texture - and sheer opulence - might mask some of its complexity??
10/5/16, 7:07 PM - Good to hear from you, Jeff. Would be churlish of me to complain about a delayed response given how many decades this wine will last for (and the number of wines you drink)! I liked your views about the phases of maturity, so I cracked another '03 375 ml the other day. It's progressing brilliantly; slowly, with no sign of advanced maturity. Still full-on, intense and sumptuous, a delicious, rich ripe apricotty honeyed cocktail that was as smooth as a baby's ... and yet had that classic Yquem attack on the finish. It's a stunner. I'll post some tasting notes shortly.
10/7/15, 5:58 AM - Poor you, Poussin, especially as you love Yquem - who doesn't?! - and you know how great they can be. I had a bad '96 too - a half bottle in 2010. Fortunately the shop replaced it (with another vintage) without hesitation. I
10/8/15, 9:35 AM - Nice attitude, Poussin; you'd be a great drinking companion! I notice you said oxidised, without pointing the finger at the cork; well done. Broadening the oxidation point a bit, so many people incorrectly attribute all kinds of problems to corks because they don't know better. I reckon it's because we naturally expect our bottles to be good, and when they're not I suppose the cork is the obvious thing to blame. However my experience is that the cork is rarely the problem for contamination although it does happen; perhaps 1 or 2 or 3 bottles in 100 from a quality producer. I've luckily drunk many dozens of Yquem and I think I've only had one bottle - also a 1996 - that had a likely cork problem.For what it's worth, my experience is that spoiled wine is much more likely to be caused by either poor storage or winemaking issues like random oxidation in white burgundies - eg. perhaps through insufficient SO2 - or perhaps because of brett. contamination or some other spoilage associated with the vintage. Oak resins could also be an issue, too, eg. if a barrel is a bit "green". It can be perplexing when some bottles just present as dumb, and no amount of breathing enlivens them, yet the corks appear and smell perfectly OK (without lab. testing), so I don't rush to criticise the cork in the absence of sufficient evidence. I had this problem with a 2005 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet - groan. That bottle had a hint of premature oxidisation but I don't think the cork was the reason. I'm also realistic enough to know that screw-caps, which have some more-than-fanatical advocates here in Australia, have problems of their own and I personally avoid this closure.I also find it interesting that, even though it's not that unusual to have corks disintegrate on removal, especially for old wines, its very rare that a disintegrated cork is associated with contamination of the wine.
11/9/15, 4:00 AM - Hi PoussinHere's my two bob's worth: cork taint is caused by contamination of the cork and thus the wine (through contact) by a chemical, whereas oxidation is caused by oxygen contacting the wine. A tainted cork won't cause oxidation, of itself, as cork-caused oxidation occurs if the cork lacks seal integrity (eg. is too porous or has an irregular surface with the bottle neck). Oxidation can be caused by many things, of which the cork is only one. I am convinced that cork-caused oxidation is not the main reason why wines oxidise. Corks are much more reliable than you think, especially in recent years, when cork manufacturers have paid even greater attention to quality, in the face of opposition from other closures. Fortunately, I drink good wine, and I reckon cork problems are about 1 in 50 or less. They certainly are rare in my experience, and I have a cork collection of many thousands, as I've kept almost every cork from every bottle of wine I've drunk over the last 35 years. Frankly, I believe that corks are often incorrectly blamed for winemaking faults (or unknown reasons) that cause oxidation, as it's an easy bandwagon to jump on. I've heard about winemakers who said cork was the problem when it almost certainly was something else. Cork is an easy target, especially in Australia, where some cork critics are vitriolic in their criticisms and sometimes don't bother to check facts or send corks for testing. You tend not to discuss the topic in Australia because of the anti-cork sentiment of some noisy people. Then again, Australia is a large bauxite exporter ... Possible causes of oxidation are many. My understanding is that the main cause is a lack of sulphur dioxide (SO2) added in vinification. This is a contentious topic, as some young winemakers include too little SO2, as part of an understandable drive to add as little as necessary to wines during vinification. Nice objective but if you want to store the wine for a few years then good luck, as SO2 (a preservative) diminishes with time. Other causes include oxygen inadvertently added during bottling - different bottling practices can have different outcomes. Oxidation also can result from small batches of wine made in large tanks. This could be the problem with some rare white burgundies eg. Montrachets, inevitably made in small batches. I had a young oxidised Montrachet once; the cork however seemed perfect. I've also had many Corton Charlemagnes from Bonneau du Martray that were prematurely oxidised through no fault of any of the corks but this is not made in small batches. None of the corks was at fault, however.I've heard talk that plunging may be a contributor, too, but a wine-maker I've discussed this with has his doubts. Anectodally, plunging doesn't seem to cause a problem in pinot noir that receives a lot of this treatment, so he has a point there. Coincidentally, I've created my own small (private) data base on cork condition -v- wine condition. I've retrieved corks in bits, or very soft corks that would have dropped into the bottle had I not been careful. However the wines were superb, even though they were in some cases more than 30 years old. Corks have earned a great deal of respect from me.Re your point about over-full bottles: I think it is possible - if the wine is somehow dispacing the small amount of silicone coating on the cork, in the neck of the bottle - but I feel this is an unlikely cause. However I am not an expert on this complex topic on which the industry is still developing its views.
9/2/15, 11:34 PM - Thanks for your feedback, Buzzzz. The 2002 is not too young at all, so I'd encourage you to open it soon (who knows what the future brings, btw) while it still has lots of primary fruit lusciousness. There are few wine experiences in the world like a "lip-licking" complex young Yquem! Sure, it will get even more complex - but it will also be a bit different - so it depends what really appeals to you with Yquem. I have an increasing respect for the 2002, which I've always loved even though it was not a great Sauternes vintage. Its superb balance is seeing it mature into an even more impressive wine BUT, despite that, I perhaps preferred it a year or so ago because I really love that "lip-licking, let's savour this from a silver spoon" kind of experience. You know what I mean: the adoration of luscious sweetness, fully prominent among all that magnificent Yquem citrus blossom and musky oak complexity. Put another way, the 2002 wasn't big on fruit compared to say the full-on and gorgeous 2003, so don't push it too much with the cellaring. Drink it now and see if you can pick up a couple of 375ml bottles 2003; which is a noticeably better wine and, like the 2002, also was sort of affordable!Secondly, it seems like you have some 97 in your cellar (as I have, too). I'm more inclined to keep the 97 than the 02 as it's a fair bit richer and it's oak can be too assertive now. I think 97 could offer more from cellaring than the 2002 plus I want to avoid the possible disappointment with the 97's oak (which I HOPE will integrate in time).Yes, well pointed out; I was aware of Yquem's uncompromising approach to quality. Congratulations for visiting the shrine!
9/3/15, 8:08 AM - Thanks again, Buzzzz. So you think Yquem is near and dear to me, eh? A wine that sometimes makes me think that angels made it … Well spotted! Look at how it has influenced us both, and so many other lucky people. What a gift to mankind. I’m glad you like the “lip-licking” expression. The beauty is that it’s based on my involuntary reactions, not on something I read. So often when drinking a bright young, intense Yquem I find myself doing just that. The wonderful 2003 has been great in that regard because it’s so luscious, intense and full of botrytis and other complexities. In fact it’s more full-on than that old classic from another hot year, the 76, which I luckily savoured fairly young, many times in my early days. Thanks for the “Y” reminder. Haven’t drunk that for a long time but I will next time I see one, now that you reminded me. Well read that I hadn’t yet visited Yquem. (Awkward silence - bit of hole there …) In fact, a dear friend, a winemaker, keeps telling me I must go, and even bought me that beautiful Yquem book by Richard Olney. I never get to Bordeaux however; we can’t get out of Burgundy!!. BTW, in that book the 2003 is described as having “an amazing orange-honey nose, mixed with acacia” and “Stunning balance and elegance, which is a triumph. Enormous length on the palate”. I agree, but would have added “lip-licking” in there somewhere!A great friend has a birthday next week so I’m providing a 2001. It’s a big moment; I’ve only had it a few times but fortunately have a few more cellared. Can’t wait - I find it to be almost a transcendental or spiritual experience to drink that astonishing creation.
10/7/15, 6:31 AM - Thanks Poussin and Buzzzz - great to hear from you again, Buzzz! Your talk of Corton Chuckie got me salivating again; I love white burgundy. It could get a bit untidy if I lived near you :-) It's great to have Cellartracker to share thoughts with people like you, to see how, simply by expressing our thoughts about a great wine, it can really resonate with someone and spark bonhomie across the other side of the world. Thanks again, my friend.
10/7/15, 6:15 AM - Good notes, Poussin; especially the comment that the 02 represents Yquem's feminine side. I've drunk a lot of it - and always admire its "elegance" - but that comment is sums it up better, I think.Thinking about some of the other vintages around 02, I've had an 03 recently, and if, for the sake of the discussion, we were to say that was feminine then I guess it would be Yquem's recent Dolly Parton. Also had the stunning 2001 again, last month and, extending the feminine analogy to that vintage too, it would be some super, super classy diva or the like. Jackie Evancho seems to be a little angel that could become the personification of that jaw-dropping wine.
9/8/15, 8:34 AM - Great tasting note, Goldstone, on one of the greatest bottles of wine I ever drunk, too, the legendary 1971 Grange. You'll see that (the highly experienced) graemeg obviously also had a similar love affair as you with this wine - refer his 2008 tasting note - and to his comment (above) rightly complimenting you on "conveying the jaw-dropping effect this wine has". I repeat his compliment, and willingly 'fess-up with my own 30 year adoration of the same wine!I haven't had the 1959 Latour that was in the your line up but I did have the 1983 Margaux (more than once). Great as it was, like you I found the 71 Grange to be much more memorable. It's one of those incredible wines that moves you; you mentioned poetry, Chartres cathedral - anything's possible. For me it was goose bumps, head-shaking (as in "I can't believe this") and, yes, even a bit of a lump in my throat. Loved your comment about drink one before you die. It's hard now, however, as they are very expensive here in Australia, provenance is increasingly difficult (I nearly bought one at a lunch in 2012 but chickened out for that reason), and very few of us have friends with the cellars and generosity of your great mate, Runny!
9/10/15, 9:24 PM - Thanks, Goldstone, for the tip re the 71 Dom Oenotheque. Little chance I'll ever see one, sadly, but my radar is up now (so to speak). No-one would think you're boasting, BTW. Rather, when you said you could (almost) ditch everything else in your cellar for that Dom and the 71 Grange you just reinforced how transcendental great bottles of great wines can be. I love hearing people express these extraordinary and memorable moments. On my death bed I don't think I'll reflect on even one special thing I did at work - not one - but I will reflect on those conversation-stopping wines that have left me in awe.
9/8/15, 8:08 AM - I'm writing this 7 years after your tasting note, which says a lot about your fabulous description, Graeme, and the indelible effect that a great bottle of this wine leaves on you. Irrespective of your superb comments about particular aspects of this legendary wine, you really captured the never to be forgotten experience of drinking one of the world's great red wines (I mean the 1971, not Grange generally). I drank my last bottle many years ago but I still remember being utterly stunned as to how good it was. It was better than any other red wine I'd ever drunk to that point, including a beautiful bottle of the 1955 Grange, and many other superb, mature Granges after that. I still regard the 1971 to be one of the greatest bottles of wine I've ever drunk. Thanks for evoking such wonderful memories with some of the following: "a stupendous palate ...impossible to imagine it tasting any better... an absolute privilege for us to share now. Utterly stunning"
9/3/15, 8:50 PM - Agree with your comments on this wine entirely, Graeme. I've said before that Penfolds don't make the wines like they used to. The style has become too overt, blowsy, alcoholic and Parker-esque for me. I still love the way they handle their oak but the 389, overall, strikes me as a more concocted style, lacking that lovely savoury complexity that you rightly refer to, and often without a proper structure and definition. It's a terrible shame. As an Aussie, too, I've lucky drunk a lot of Penfolds top end wines from the 55 Grange on (in the 1980's - it was marvellous), and pretty well every Grange from 63 on to the early 90's, including the legendary 71 (still one of the greatest wines I've ever drunk). The 71 Bin 389 was iconic, too, as you'll probably remember. And the St Henri. I bought several cartons of the 2004, 2005 and 2006 Bin 389 but that was it. I went to the shop to load up on the 2008's and they were so overblown etc. that I just couldn't buy them, even though I wanted to, and and haven't bought 389 since.I did buy a few 2002 Grange and there's a lot to like about it - but it's not in the style of the 1971 (which I think was only about 12.2% alcohol??) and, for all its appeal, is nowhere near as good a wine, IMO.
9/3/15, 10:08 AM - Hi AlAlways good to see your comments; you look at many fantastic wines and it's great to get your insights. I'm hoping you'll get a chance to look at another bottle of the 2003 soon and to see whether it has a bit more of the overwhelming botrytis that, in my experience, is typical of the vintage. It's a bit of a favourite of mine because of that, and its richness and intensity, too. I understand that the botrytis was so widespread that the wine was picked in one pass but I realise experiences can vary from one bottle to another. In that regard, I noticed that the 2003, for all its power, is surprisingly sensitive to serving temperatures; including closing down noticeably when a little cool. I hope the next bottle reveals itself very fully for you! Cheers, Greg Munyard
7/27/15, 8:57 AM - Logos, I agree that Mr Parker's marking has led to some silliness with scores, especially here in Australia, where wines that are (merely) very good or excellent are being given above 95 points, and 96 and 97 is not uncommon. It's often quite absurd; marks of under 90 points are becoming uncommon in Australia, for just good wines. I wonder what such markers would give to a 1990 La Tache or a 1982 Chateau Margaux etc...However, great bottles of this wonderful 1996 Sir Winston (we had a cracker the other night) would be given 19 points by credible tasters, I believe, and that = 95 points (if we calibrate by the 100 point system). You wouldn't be aquiescing in silly marking if you ranked this much higher.
1/21/15, 6:37 PM - Thanks, aagrawal. Agree with you that this is one of the best Yquems of the last 2 decades, and you've tried a few, I see! I enjoyed a few 76's way back when, and I reckon the 2003 is at least as rich and complex; perhaps a bit more so. I think they've done a superb job of balancing the tour de force fruit with the acid and oak, and I was so pleased to load up on these at good prices (unlike current vintages). Thanks for yr comment.
1/21/15, 8:12 AM - Sounds just like our experience 2 years earlier. Poor you (too). I know wine experiences vary so much for so many reasons but I still wonder how different (well stored) bottles of such a quality wine from one of the world's greatest white wine producers, can taste so different.
10/27/14, 9:24 AM - Ouch! What was the colour like? Definitely oxidised? I had an 05 Chevalier a couple of years ago and it was dumb, despite all sorts of coaxing, but it was not premoxed but just in a shell; a disappointing experience.
11/5/14, 3:28 PM - Goodness me. What a disappointment; it should have been perhaps the greatest dry white wine of your life. That's unacceptable. I had 2 bottles of the 2007 Clavoillon earlier this year and they were both premoxed. They must be at sixes and sevens - devastated, more like it - at the Domaine with what they did to the 06's and 07's.
10/27/14, 9:19 AM - Thanks for trying this again and giving us your thoughts. Am glad it went well. On our last bottle one guest said it was the best bottle of white wine she could remember!
10/23/14, 11:30 PM - Lipsman, I think this is a case of bad news and good news. The bad news is that you must have had a poor sample - a shame, because the wine is not cheap - but the good news is that if you get another one (perhaps from a different supplier) you will be in for a thrill because this is a very, very good wine from an outstanding vintage. Now if you said the 2006, I would agree - that had those poor qualities you mentioned, and more, but I'll be mortified if the 2010's go that way.Colour should not be showing any sign of maturity and there should not be caramel or madiera aromas. I feel for you because I know what you missed out on.
10/25/14, 7:11 AM - Can you please let us know how bottle 6 is? Should be a nice night out! PS agree with you re the Domaine and Clavoillon. We had a couple of lovely 2000's in 2010 - no signs of premox. I love the 2010 Leflaives that I've seen and expect the 2010 Clavoillon should be great in 10 years, too, if well cellared.
10/23/14, 11:23 PM - Have you tried this again, Kernel? You may be in for a pleasant surprise (assuming your case was not mishandled). We put one on recently and it was superb; lovely rich fruit (without being heavy), tasty minerals and oak and an excellent acid cut. The 4 of us loved it.Greg Munyard
9/8/14, 2:31 AM - You hit the spot with that tasting note, St Paul. I haven't drunk the wine but I know exactly what you're talking about; what I call a "gulp" wine. I feel good just thinking about the possibility. One never forgets wines like that...
9/3/14, 10:14 AM - Had another bottle in early September 2014 and it was much better; the fruit was less dull and it had better structure. Both were under screw cap from my air-conditioned humidified cellar so I think my June bottle noted above was not the best example. I don't know if Penfolds follow the practice of adding copper sulphate to their screw cap wines but I hope there is less bottle variation in my remaining 05's. I'll also pay close attention to consistency of my 04's (have not had a problem with them so far - all under cork) and my 06's, also under screw cap but not sampled yet.
8/31/14, 10:38 AM - Thanks, Giggs - I appreciate your comment. Supported by your insights I'll try another 2005 this week - and drink them sooner rather than later - while keeping my 04's and 06's for a while yet. Cheers, Greg.
9/3/14, 9:54 AM - As promised in my comment the other day, I tried another '05 389 and it was a much better bottle than the June bottle that I was a bit unimpressed with. Yes, it was still a bit broad and overripe but it had better structure and better fruit - less dull - than the June bottle. Both were under screw cap.It shows me again that screw tops are not an answer to a maiden's prayer for wine consistency, although in Australia you have to duck after saying anything even faintly critical of this closure because of the extraordinarily intense views of some supporters when any criticism is made about screw caps. I don't know if Penfolds follow the practice of adding copper sulphate to their screw cap wines ... but there was a remarkable difference between the 2 bottles, both of which were from my air conditioned, humidified cellar.
6/15/14, 8:05 PM - Great notes, Graeme and a reminder of a bygone era of better 389's than now. I've just had a disappointing 2005 and am dismayed with Penfolds 14.5% 389's and Granges now. I've stopped buying 389 after the 2006 - too porty; they've lost the plot - ironically at a time when media hype and prices are greater than ever. I felt sorry for the younger people who had not had the great 12-13ish% range 389's and Granges. I agree that the 1990 was a cracker but I did prefer the wonderful 1971, the best vintage I ever tried. Similar to the Grange as you know. I think I preferred the 1971 even to the 1955; both were much better than the recent hyped (14.5%) vintages.
6/15/14, 7:41 AM - Yes, Jeff, cellar beneficiaries will remember anyone fondly who leaves them any of this but anyone else will think they are a complete nutcase! Fancy leaving some of this behind, by intention!This is one of those transcendental wines that I will remember forever. A "conversation stopper", as I sometimes call them. And you're right - "2001 Yquem" says it all. (Am so tempted to open another one after reading your note ...)
6/9/14, 8:56 AM - Hi La TurqueI'm not convinced it was an off bottle although perhaps it was a little over-advanced. In my opinion as an Yquem lover, the 1997 is not as good a wine as it should be. I've drunk - not just tasted - many 1997's in the last few years (see tasting notes on 3) and all but the last slightly disappointed me for an Yquem. They would be great by any other standard but Yquem creates its own expectations.In my Dec. 2012 notes I said the colour was "quite golden for its years". I just checked my remaining 375 mls, and they all are pretty golden - it was a hot year and they are a very voluptuous 14% alc. Their colours are similar to the 1999's and the 2003's - both of which also were 14%. They are distinctly darker than the 13.5% 2001's and the 14% (but much more elegant than 97) 2002's. You will see an earlier comment of mine that "I have some reservations about this vintage" - 1997. I still do, although my July 2013 bottle made amends somewhat. I hate to see an Yquem drinker disappointed so may I suggest the 2003 (bargain priced) as a materially better wine than the 1997 but in the same opulent, extravagant style. Or some more of the 2002, which you loved before and which is a beautiful elegant wine. It's more vibrant than the 1997 although not as rich. It's under-rated and still well priced. But please don't waste your money on the 1999 - it hasn't anywhere near the complexity of the 97, even less so the 2003. It has hardly any botrytis, sadly, and is highly likely to disappoint in my experience, especially as you liked the 2002 style. They should have sold off all the 1999 - it was a lovely rich Sauternes but is not representative of Yquem.
6/9/14, 10:32 AM - My pleasure. It's great that we can share thoughts about things as important as wine (let alone Yquem) in a forum as good as this. Some of these experiences are pretty rare (because of cost, availability of wine, opportunity etc.) so it's great to perhaps do a bit to improve those rare moments for other like-minded people!
6/8/14, 3:34 AM - Hi Goldstone - like you their Macon Verze has been my go to white wine for some years, as an entree to this great domaine at affordable everyday prices. I particularly love the 2010, but re the 2009, have you tried it lately? I still have over 2 dozen left but am a bit worried about them as recent bottles have tasted a bit dumb and broad, not offering much. I'm wondering if they are past their best, and they don't last (although earlier vintages offered more at 5 yrs) or whether they just did not do the 2009s well. I still have 2.5 dozen 2010's left and have just bought 3 dozen 2012 and was considering buying more of the fabulous 2010s before they're all gone - but not if they go like the 2009s. Your thoughts??
6/9/14, 7:47 AM - Thanks Goldstone - would love to hear your thoughts after further review. I like some of your notes re some mutual favourites e.g. any Yquem except the 1999, Domaine Leflaive (esp. Pucelles), Mount Mary Quintet - oh the 1979, the 1982 John Riddoch, the magical 1971 Grange ...Pursuing this 2009 MV issue, we drunk a 2009 Domaine Leflaive Bourgogne tonight. Mmm - rich and tasty - but also am concerned with this - about structure and wanting to see more purity. 12.5% should have tasted tighter and more Puligny like. While it had some of that lovely Leflaive oak and some minerals, it reminded me of my concern with the 09 Macon. Yes, I know 2009 was nice and sunny - and I know Macon is warmer - but I'm on alert re my lower end Leflaive 2009's. I lost so much confidence after the excessively alcoholic 2006's - their worst ever vintage for me. Would love to know one day how one of the world's great domaines took their eye so off the ball in 2006. ...
9/18/13, 5:51 PM - I like your notes, AJ72 and you obviously know your stuff. However, a question. I assume it was contaminated (eg. TCA or TCB?) rather than just prematurely oxidised? I know that bottle has gone now but if thought to be contaminated, have you tried sticking a plastic bag in the bottle to see if that attracts some of the contaminants? A winemaker friend showed me this handy trick, which helps verify the problem, and may make a wine that is not too badly shot somewhat drinkable. It of course makes no difference for oxidation.A couple of weeks ago a group of us were given a Bouchard Pere 2006 Corton Charlemagne which was, sadly, gone. Some suggested it was the cork but the problem was in fact oxidation rather than taint. Granted, the oxidation might possibly have been caused by the cork but since the cork had not leaked at all, let alone materially, that just left a possible overbleaching problem causing oxidation. However I can't recall seeing overbleaching problems since the some of the late 1990's wines (this is a general comment, not specific to Coche-Dury!). I wonder whether too low SO2 may be an emerging problem for some makers, including in Mersault, although I have no idea what regime the mighty Coche-Dury follow.
10/14/13, 8:21 AM - Thanks Adam; very helpful. No apology needed re timing; there are other things in life, too :-)I'm really interested re low SO2 possibility. My winemaker friend said 6 of the 8 recent 2006 red burgundies that he has had (1 with me) had brett., consistently with low SO2. Fascinating, given my experience with the 06 whites, which has been generally very disappointing, although a recent 2006 Coche Bourgogne Blanc was lovely. However even the great Domaine Leflaive made heavy weather of their 06's; soooo alcoholic - [shudder]. I commented a while ago that the 06 Clavoillon (14.5% alc.) was unworthy of the label of that fantastic producer.I'll keep a look out for Thierry Matrot when in Burgundy next year.
1/7/14, 11:03 PM - Hi AdamThere seems to be increasing evidence to support your concerns about brett. My winemaker friend enthusiastically agrees with you, and links this in part to low SO2 (as well as some winery practices). He's recently returned from another trip to Burgundy, where he was surprised and disappointed to see so many red burgundies with obvious brett; some very much the worse for it. He spoke of some disappointing whites as well. Further, at last count 7 of the 8 most recent 2006 red burgundies that he'd drunk here in Australia were brett affected. He suspects that most of the problems he is seeing result from misguided non intervention (which you will understand)!
9/18/13, 5:21 PM - Thanks, Stefan! I know I'm fortunate to enjoy such memorable wines and I'm glad the note was helpful.I'd wondered if the 03's might mature too quickly after one experience with an 03 Suduiraut half bottle but a later half bottle was maturing normally (and was luscious and yummy btw). I was thrilled at the acid in this 03 Yquem, as I indicated in my note. I haven't had a 1976 - the previous hottest year - for a long time, sadly, but I see they are still getting great reviews.You'll love the 2003. It is a transcendental wine and, as I said with a 97 point bottle that we drunk in September 2010, it was "an almost divine experience". I can think of no higher praise. :-)
9/18/13, 4:47 PM - Sounds wonderful - I liked your 3 levels analysis.Also liked your comment about taking time to assess epic wines one after the other. I agree! One night we had a magnificent bottle of 1983 Latour followed by the divine 2001 Yquem. We were still carrying on about the Latour when the Yquem was opened. Although understandable, I realised that was not appropriate. A great year Yquem deserves 100% attention. It should produce some sort of emotional response, as your 1934 Haut Brion did! I loved reading about that.2 nights ago a friend brought along a 1996 Pol Roger Sir Winston Churchill so I put on a 2003 Yquem. To ensure we were ready for the Yquem, I put on an elegant (13% alcohol) - name doesn't matter - Chianti. In a similar situation before I had put on a 2002 Penfolds Grange. The Chianti was a much better idea than the Grange because we didn't feel the need to concentrate on it, and just unwound and chatted about other fun things before the Yquem experience. I found it unnecessarily challenging to recalibrate, without any unwinding, after savouring a great champagne and then a great Chateau Latour or Penfolds Grange - or an Haut Brion, no doubt!
2/28/13, 10:26 PM - I've just had this wine, too and was incredibly disappointed. You've summarised it perfectly ie. unbelievable, how did they get it so wrong etc. I'm scared about my other 06's now - have Folatieres, Chevalier etc. and haven't tried one so far, imagining they were maturing beautifully. Based on my one experience with the 2006 Clavoillon (but extensive experience with Leflaives from the 97 Montrachet down) the 2006 Clavoillon seems unworthy of the label of this great maker.
1/29/13, 7:30 AM - Have had another bottle of the Yquem recently, and also the 03 Suduiraut, both out of my cellar. The Yquem was still stunning (but is moving into a more mature phase) while the Suduiraut was clearly past its peak and was both surprising and disappointing.
Thanks for letting us know about this problem. We will review your comments and be in touch soon with an update.
Search