WTN: 2005 Louis Jadot Gevrey-Chambertin

I consider Louis Jadot Gevery-Chambertin to be a Burgundy standardbred. I can’t afford thoroughbreds, so in my mind's eye this wine carries out all that can be Burgundy for me. And through it I view the different vintages.

When I first tasted the 1996 I was harked back to the finest bottles from Burgundy I had experienced, only through the grace of others, millionaires I had acquaintance with. To me it was what Burgundy was all about, that ineffable joy that makes life what it should be.

I had only a case of it, and once gave a bottle to a lady with whom I worked after she told me she liked Burgundy. The bottle became a lifelong nexus between us. She shared it with a man who ran a little river inn. They sat up half the night awakened by what they both considered the best wine they had ever drunk. If it wasn’t for my millionaire acquaintances, I would not argue with that evaluation. It was like visiting a lost childhood spring in a dream, or some other exalted private reverie.

You can never go home again. (I don’t have to quote that because he really didn’t say it – as nobody said play it again, Sam, either. Such thoughts come from the soul of man after they think someone else said them.) But year after year I buy the same “brand” hoping for a hint of redux. Hence the 2005 I drank last night, from the “best vintage in a generation.” I know someone knowledgeable said that.

The difference in the growing seasons was that there was more rain in 1996, more resultant malic acid. The crop was also more abundant, raising fears of hollow mid palates, but all in all it was a very good vintage. The 2005 season was dryer, warmer and bunches were thinned out to produce better concentration.

The difference in the two bottles, however, was night and day. There was no comparison. The 2005 reminds me of 2005 Bordeaux a little in that you can taste class and complexity, but somehow there is not much interest. The 2005 tasted very much like many other years and mass market brands of Burgundy Pinot Noir. Very good, but I only have to purchase that single bottle from 2005—still waiting. I hope there is no conspiracy to hide whatever 1996 was from the children of men.

I have 6 bottles of the wine in my fridge which I am guessing is very similar. Translating your post, you were not impressed but is that because it needs a few years? I was planning to open one every couple of years. I am pretty excited about it.

When did you drink the '96?

2005 Domaine Rene Leclerc Gevrey-Chambertin 1er Cru

I have 6 bottles of the wine in my fridge which I am guessing is very similar. Translating your post, you were not impressed but is that because it needs a few years? I was planning to open one every couple of years. I am pretty excited about it. When did you drink the '96? 2005 Domaine Rene Leclerc Gevrey-Chambertin 1er Cru

Your wine has a better pedigree than mine, so it could be better. I thought the 2005 was very good, but it lacked the wonderful earth, underbrush, etc., that makes Burgundy interesting to me. I was surprised at how smoothly it drank for such a young wine; the tannins were I guess what you would call very fine grained. The pronounced acid speaks for potential longevity, and it was certainly not lacking fruit. I might very well pick up a second bottle to drink after another five years or so, for science and the potential that it could pick up some interest.

I believe I drank most of my 1996’s in 1999, 2000 and maybe 2001. They were wonderfully earthy from the start.

Hopefully in two years I can bump this thread and give the tasting notes!

[David M. Bueker]

I'm not at all shocked that the 2005 would give a very different impression from the '96. '96 was a good year, but not a year for fine quality all the way down to negotiant village wines. So a '96 Jadot Gevrey was likely an earlier drinking wine.

I've had the 2005. It's somewhat brooding, lots of fruit and rather tannic, just like the vintage. It needs time, lots of time, even as a negotiant village wine. Even most quality Bourgogne needs time in 2005.

I've got a solo half of this, probably will hold off, as so many '05s seem to be going into shell. Thanksto all for opinions.

My layman's impression of the 2005 LJGC was that it would take at least 20 years to begin to develop any secondary notes, and that the tertiary stuff might not come for 40.

Definitely not a wine for near-term consumption, unless you like 'em big and blocky and [nearly] impenetrable.

Which is not to say that it's not a nice wine [it's a very nice wine, especially in the $30-$35 price point with which I'm familiar], it's just that it might be decades before it begins to show any delicacy or complexity or elegance.

Got 6 bottles of the 1997 LJGC...I asked my wine guy to send something over and that is what he came up with.

Is the 1997 any good? (I can look it up)

[David M. Bueker]

Jadot did a lot better than most in 1997. I'm sure it's ready to drink.