Max Gerstl’s annual trade tasting in Zurich, this year held on the 21st of November. Tasted a goodly part of these wines together with vintner Henrik Möbitz. I would like to say that the 2006s I have so far tasted are beyond expectations, but although this may be true, we were disturbed by a few oxidative and a rather great number of heavily sulphured wines, some of which looked and tasted like a throwback to Guy Accad method wines, which I thought were strictly a thing of the past. Let us hope these were corrective measures, a negative side effect of the vintage, rather than a new trend.
There were some good wines, of course, but that seems inevitably true of all Burgundy vintages, and to be expected in the context of a Gerstl tasting. Again, I did not come close to tasting all the wines (Henrik said something about my „lack of professionalism“ when it comes to chatting with vintners, friends and acquaintances, instead of sampling wines and taking notes – very funny given I am just a nerd).
Typed these listening through the new Vladimir Sofronitsky Brilliant Classics set box, 9 CDs of mostly great stuff for the price of one glass or less of truly decent Burgundy Grand Cru.
Notes presented not in the order I tasted them, but alphabetically by producer, only there in the order individual portfolios were poured.
Marquis d’Angerville Volnay 2006
A bit oaky, especially for this producer, light but pretty fruit, a bit dusty with tannin. Rating: 87+/88?
Marquis d’Angerville Volnay Frémiets 2006
More concentrated, a touch of duck meat, also tannic, more power and persistence, furry and quite stony. Rating: 89+/90?
Marquis d’Angerville Volnay Champans 2006
A bit tighter, more tannic with a touch of green, but more complex. Rating: 90(+?)
Marquis d’Angerville Volnay Clos des Ducs 2006
Fruitier, thicker, less Volnay perhaps, but nicely pure and balanced, this has finesse, is longer and the most red-fruity of the portfolio, and the tannin here is the relevant touch less dry. While this may ultimately not be better than the 2005, it is certainly cuddlier (albeit not too approachable) at this early stage. But I seemed to be alone in my (relative!) admiration for this producer’s 2006s (those I spoke to all thought them too tannic for the own good). Rating: 92(+?)
Roger Belland Santenay Commes 2006
A bit smoky, nice little fur top note, dry but lightly soapy fruit, good length, some tannin. Rating: 87(+?)
Roger Belland Santenay Gravières 2006
A nice medium weight with more minerality, more attractive terroir notes, greater complexity, more finesseful tannin. Rating: 88(+?)
Bonneau du Martray Corton 2006
Jean-Charles le Beault de la Morinière told me he had the 2005, to me the finest red I have had from this producer (he noted the 1961, which he appears to have had not too long ago, is great too, and that he had been unaware that vintage was any good for reds...) “the other night” and that is now slowly closing down and could use airing in a decanter if opened today, and that he still finds it a bit larger than life. He finds the 2006 more austere (it is). Again nicely stone-dusty, quite firm, not quite as fruity and high-toned as the 2005 (which Rainer recently thanked me for recommending; he said he would have overlooked their red, and I wonder if many people still do – I certainly did not like it as well as the white until recent years). Well-concentrated. Lightly dusty-dry, furry tannins. Good medium-plus length. There are only about 500 cases of the red. Rating: 91(+?)
Bonneau du Martray Corton-Charlemagne 2006
There are about 4000 cases of the white. Pretty oak, quite intense and lightly oily fruit, good body, nice alcohol, long. Early-harmonious, maybe deceptively so: is this really as good or better than the 2006? Max Gerstl thinks this may be the best ever from this producer, and to be quite honest, my gut feeling told me there may be more to this than I was able to discern. I will admit some vintages make me more cautious than others. Rating: 92+
Bruno Clair Marsannay Les Vaudenelles 2006
Almond, highly extracted, fair enough body but good vinosity, medium length. Best on entry. Rating: 87(+?)
Bruno Clair Morey-Saint-Denis En la Rue de Vergy 2006
Grown through with oak but still relatively sappy, a bit viscous almost, shutting down on a tightly tannic finish. Probably in an awkward phase. Rating: 87+?
Bruno Clair Vosne-Romanée Les Champs Perdrix 2006
Oaky, nuttier, a bit Syrah-like fruit, well-concentrated, nutty on the finish. Rating: 88+?
Bruno Clair Gevrey-Chambertin Clos Saint-Jacques 2006
From a yield of under 32 hl/ha. Cheesy-oxidative, medium complexity and length, a bit rustic and earthy. Disappointing showing for a wine from one of my favourite Crus, if no doubt in an awkward phase. Rating: 88(+?)
Bruno Clair Chambertin Clos de Bèze 2006
Also a bit sullen, and if less oxidative than the CSJ then still enough so. Soft terroir expression for a wine from this site, although still pretty enough. Fair enough tannin and acidity too. Rating: 89+?
Gros Frère & Soeur Vosne-Romanée 2006
Darkly dried-floral, partly already tired fruit, sloe (wild plum) Henrik said. Quite full-bodied, a bit too warming with alcohol. Seemingly old school, some used oak (I was told a maximum of 10% is new when I remarked on this). Quite sweet in the middle, falling apart to some extent on the finish. Rating: 86(+/-?)
Gros Frère & Soeur Clos Vougeot “Musigni” 2006
Somewhat Californian nose, a touch caramelized-jammy fruit for Burgundy, slightly acidity and bitterness spikes, quite well-integrated oak (50% of which is new), medium-short on the finish. More of a stylistic problem, though, I have to admit. Rating: 88+?
Guyon Chorey-Lès-Beaune Les Bons Ores 2006
More stewed fruit than the 2005, but not a bad buy for the money, this may still sort itself out a little. Medium length. Rating: 86+?
Guyon Echézeaux 2006
This tasted even more Accad-styled. Faint duck meat, quite luscious fruit, a bit warm with alcohol, and that undeniable touch of sulphur. Green oak, Henrik muttered. Medium-plus length. Rating: 88+/89(+?)
Clos des Lambrays Morey-Saint-Denis 2006
Now this smelled and tasted exactly like a Guy Accad wine. Cassis and Coca Cola, sulphur, weird. My rating is based on the assumption/hope this is just a phase, and not stylistic perversion. Rating: 85(+/-?)
Clos des Lambrays Morey-Saint-Denis Les Loups 2006
The material underneath a similarly shocking stylistic surface shows much greater subtlety. Longer. Rating: 87(+?)
Clos des Lambrays Grand Cru 2006
85% whole clusters vinified here. Shows lovely terroir notes and thus comes across as a bit less weird, crystallized berries if any, lightly scorched earth and tree bark, quite long on the finish. Rating: 90(+?)
Domaine Leflaive Bourgogne Blanc 2006
Soft oak spice, medium-fresh veggie oil fruit, sweet with a touch of alcohol. Rating: 83+/84(+?)
Domaine Leflaive Puligny-Montrachet 2006
Bigger body than the generic Burgundy, touch of alcohol also, vanilla oak (unusual for a Leflaive, or at least the ones I know), soft straw, scorched earth, fair enough body and length. Rating: 85+/86(+?)
Domaine Leflaive Meursault Sous le Dos d’Âne 2006
Subtler and/or nicer quality oak, more integrated alcoholic warmth, longer, some bread dough spice. Rating: 87(+?)
Domaine Leflaive Puligny-Montrachet Clavoillon 2006
Pretty oak with a sesame touch to the oak, first wine in the portfolio so far that shows ripe lime and limey acidity underneath (= a more serious combination of ripeness, freshness and cut). Nice fresh herbs. Better alcohol integration as a result, longer. Rating: 88+/89(+?)
Domaine Leflaive Puligny-Montrachet Folatières 2006
Rounder if a touch more tannic than the Clavoillon, firmer, good medium-plus body, more depth and complexity. Nice Folatières. Rating: 90+/91?
Domaine Leflaive Puligny-Montrachet Pucelles 2006
As usual the most minerally and interesting, and thus my favourite 1er Cru in Leflaive’s portfolio, even if not necessarily a greater success in this vintage than the Folatières. Attractive balance, depth and complexity. I would not say this is better than the 2005, but more prettily rounded and smoother at this stage. Rating: 90+/91(+?)
Domaine Leflaive Bienvenues-Bâtard-Montrachet 2006
A touch of thistle oak, but complex, softly but prettily spicy, faint straw and tiny mace, harmonious, subtle, long on the finish. Lovely wine. Rating: 93(+?)
Thierry Mortet Gevrey-Chambertin 2006
A bit cherry chewing gum like sweetness. Not as natural-tasting and harmonious as the 2005. Rating: 86+?
Thierry Mortet Gevrey-Chambertin Vigne Belle 2006
So faintly cork-tainted no one agreed with me, but there was a bitterness on the finish when I tasted it, too). Good density and ripeness, a bit earthy, not bad. Rating: 87+/88?
Thierry Mortet Chambolle-Musigny 2006
Fruity, softly meaty, again a bit chewing gum like, and simpler terroir notes than the two Gevreys. Rating: 87(+?)
Thierry Mortet Chambolle-Musigny Aux Beaux Bruns 2006
Scorched tree bark, drier earthiness. Little fruit but some surface sweetness. Medium body and length. The terroir seemed a bit subdued. Rating: 87+/88?
Henri Perrot-Minot Chambolle-Musigny Vieilles Vignes 2006
From vines that are 45 years old and over. A touch of bitterness from the oak, nicely old-viney fruit of above medium complexity, nice body and length. I never loved the style here, but still liked it better a decade ago, enough so to buy some 1996s at the time. Rating: 87(+?)
Henri Perrot-Minot Vosne-Romanée Champs Perdrix 2006
Quite well-balanced but lightly nutty oaky, a medium-bodied wine that combines fair enough ripeness with sufficient liveliness and length. Rating: 88(+?)
Henri Perrot-Minot Vosne-Romanée Les Beaux Monts 2006
The fine terroir shows despite some oak, extraction (always taken to the limit here, it seems) is not over the top, not too weighty, faintly rubbery but attractive, fair length. Rating: 89+
Henri Perrot-Minot Nuits-Saint-Georges La Richemone Vieilles Vignes 2006
The 2005 was a Nuits standout of last year’s arrivage tasting, and this is impressive again in 2006. From 70-years-old vines. Nice density, steel and pepper, brighter fruit than the other wines in the portfolio, good body and length, it were not for the modernistic style (and the shocking price tag), I might buy some. Rating: 90+/91
Henri Perrot-Minot Chapelle-Chambertin 2006
Apparently thirty harvesters had to sort out fruit for two days due to hail damage. Nice if slightly bland terroir notes, a bit earthy, fair body, medium length at best. Rating: 89+?
Henri Perrot-Minot Charmes-Chambertin 2006
Oaky but firm, with an almost salty old-viney core, intense, fair enough body, fairly long. Quite impressive apart from stylistic concerns... Rating: 90+
Henri Perrot-Minot Mazoyères-Chambertin Vieilles Vignes 2006
Again (more than?) oaky enough for its own good, medium earth and spice notes are promising enough. Rating: ~90?
Henri Perrot-Minot Chambertin 2006
Almost Guy Accad like in style, with high sulphur and huge oak that make this rubbery at present. Sweet but reductive, earthy, nutty, underneath it all quite terroir-expressive. Concentrated wine with upwards potential, made in a now popular style that I nevertheless find well-neigh impossible to appreciate. Rating: 90+
Armand Rousseau Gevrey-Chambertin 2006
Nuttier oak, smoother and sweeter than many, quite long. Ultimately a bit simple. Rating: 87+?
Armand Rousseau Gevrey-Chambertin Lavaux Saint-Jacques 2006
One-third of these vines are 12 years old, the other two-thirds close to 80. Reminded me of why I like Rousseau’s style so much: elegant, also in the sense that it is a bit light, but quite complex, finesseful, nice acidity, longer, a pretty wine. Rating: 89+/90
Armand Rousseau Charmes-Chambertin 2006
Aged in once-used barrels. Meatier, thicker, good depth, less finesse and subtlety, but long. Volume instead of the terroir expression of the most serious Charmes (by other producers), but an outstanding effort for the vintage. Rating: 90+/91-?
Armand Rousseau Clos de la Roche 2006
Nicely oaked on the nose, but oakier on the palate than I find necessary. Quite flavourful, pretty acids, lightly walnutty tannin. Rating: ~90?
Armand Rousseau Ruchottes-Chambertin Clos des Ruchottes 2006
A bit oaky despite being aged in once-used barrels, walnuttier and more tannic than the Charmes-Chambertin, less thick and meaty, but more complex, one would assume this has greater potential. Even so, I would have loved to sample Rousseau’s top three to really know what they could do in this vintage. Rating: 90+
Tollot-Beaut Beaune Clos du Roy 2006
Modern-styled and rather thick, I first though it is not overdone, but it is really a bit fat, alcoholic and mouth-searing. A touch nutty oak. The kind of “sizeable” Pinot style that will probably please those who were not born and raised Burgundy drinkers. Rating: 87+/88(+?)
Tollot-Beaut Corton-Bressandes 2006
Syrupy but dry, a bit petrolly, also warm with alcohol but not hot, good terroir notes, medium-plus length. Again, made not to be accused of being light, it seems. Rating: 89+/90?
Comte Georges de Vogüé Chambolle-Musigny 2006
Even if Henrik was not half as convinced with the village here as with the two Grand Crus, I personally feel this and the 1er Cru are the two cuvées that have shown the most qualitative improvement in recent years (the top wines have always ranged from respectable to memorable). Nicely round, smooth, easy to enjoy, relatively long, and: the first taste of a portfolio that seems to transcend the vintage (all the Vogüés tasted as if from another, a fraction better no doubt, but mainly different vintage). Rating: 89+?
Comte Georges de Vogüé Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru 2006
From Musigny vines less than the 25 years old, thus really a Musigny Jeunes Vignes. A perplexing wine insofar as it shows better at this early stage than the 2005, if perhaps only because it is unusually approachable. Round and candied, sappy, quite complex fruit that is almost Richebourg like in character. The beautifully primary combination of fruit and acids reminded me of some 1996s that in hindsight, I sometimes wonder, may never taste better than they already did at this very same stage. Rating: 91+/92-?
Comte Georges de Vogüé Bonnes Mares 2006
“Plus myrtillé” (blueberry-flavoured) than the Musigny indeed. A bit more manly, nicely firm fruit, less floral and red-fruity high-toned, plus there is relatively little minerality here. Henrik sure loved it. My preference for the Musigny is such that I tend to look elsewhere when I buy Bonnes Mares, if at all, simply because it is rarely a favourite Grand Cru of mine in terms of sensuality. But the site sure brings forth structured, ageworthy Pinot Noir, often unusually broad-shouldered for Chambolle. Rating: 92(+?)
Comte Georges de Vogüé Musigny Vieilles Vignes 2006
Complex, a bit more glyceric than the Bonnes Mares, a bit darker-hued florality than in some vintages. Rating: 94(+?)
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________
„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti