2003 Domaine Georges Mugneret-Gibourg Nuits St. Georges 1er Cru Les Chaignots

Community Tasting Notes (9) Avg Score: 88 points

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View BurgAndy's profile
  • Report Issue

  6/12/2012 - BurgAndy wrote:

  Finally has come around. Beautiful decadent mineral floral nose, dense black and blue fruits, and an unctuous long finish without any dryness. Real good balance now. This was ripe and disjointed a few years back -- now, a great surprise. Would not have thought Chaignots this time around. Drinks like Burgundy meets northern Rhone in the best way.

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View BurgAndy's profile
  • Report Issue

  9/19/2011 - BurgAndy wrote: 88 Points

  This has evolved nicely over the last 2 years. Typical 2003 in terms of being ripe, but time has certainly tamed it. Not surmature or roasted. A bit jammy. In the past, this could have been mistaken for California pinot or even cabernet, but it has now taken on more Burgundian qualities. For the first time, I can recognize this as Chaignots. A lot of fruit. I think this bottling will improve over the next 1-2 years.

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View jimbomatic's profile
  • Report Issue

  9/16/2010 - jimbomatic wrote: 88 Points

  While a pretty good rendition of 2003 1er Red Burg this was certainly a step below the excellent Chambolle “Feusselottes” from a couple of weeks ago. This is definitely dark, dense and a touch sappy if a bit grounded in earthiness in a Nuits sort of way. Interest comes in the form of fleshy blackberry styled fruits, coffee bean, mocha and a licorice touch on the back. Not especially nuanced or well-defined. Big, brooding and tasty. Did the job with Delmonico steaks. No complaints and it should hold for several years if without much in the way of advancement or change.

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View EyeDoc's profile
  • Report Issue

  4/9/2010 - EyeDoc wrote: 87 Points

  Overpriced for what it is - I don't find it California like- could use more aromas. Well balanced - just nothing special.

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View jimbomatic's profile
  • Report Issue

  12/10/2009 - jimbomatic wrote: 88 Points

  I would like to think I could identify this as Burgundy in a blind tasting by picking up on the mineral notes and the tannin structure tips that might help give it away but I am not very confident that in a line-up of 4 or 5 other wines that I could do so. This wine has the components that bring either love or hate for this vintage. It is ripe. It is very ripe. Sweet, roasted cherries, vanillin, spice, candied fruit and a touch of balsamic (not in a VA sort of way, more just in the fruitier aromatics of good balsamic) dominate although buried underneath it all is a hint of minerality and there is definitely some firm tannin (especially after breathing for awhile). While I don't think it necessarily tastes like domestic Pinot Noir it likely has more commonalities with domestic Pinot Noir than it does with typical Burgundy/Nuits. I think that this is enjoyable for what it is; well-made, balanced within the context of what it is Pinot Noir. Not for those that are stuck on Burgundy tasting like Burgundy and probably not for those that don't like 2003 wines no matter their style. I'm in the middle somewhere. Enjoyable, would have been better with a hamburger, rib-eye steak or even some lasagna but I'm not crying over it. I'd give it a solid 88. More if you like big, full-throttle, concentrated, balanced, sappy Pinots, less if you are not inclined that direction.

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

View all 9 Community Tasting Notes

Professional reviews have copyrights and you can view them here for your personal use only as private content. To view pro reviews you must either subscribe to a pre-integrated publication or manually enter reviews below. Learn more.