Dale Williams wrote:I love Riesling, but would be sad not to own any white Burgundy.
Sam Platt wrote:I've actually had worse luck (TCA and premox) with Riesling than white Burg.
Salil wrote:*well, almost none - aside from a few bottles of young Raveneau MdT, all of which should have meet a corkscrew by the end of the year.
So Rieslingfeier - an absolute ton of German bottles across a couple of days. Many utterly amazing. A few, tragically corked. Some, just old and tired.
Dinner with a few friends last night, and we started with a pair of Chablis.
1996 Dauvissat Chablis Les Preuses - light gold in color, oxidative, and bleh.
Onto the backup, which was a 1995 Dauvissat Chablis Les Clos. Also premoxed. 0 for 2. and thankfully the FX Steinertal Riesling saved the day.
Premox sucks. The hipsters may not be fans, but sulfur and residual sugar can be wonderful things to keep the oxidative forces at bay.
David Lole wrote:I share the experience and pleasure of drinking mature white burgundy but the risk of premox has been so ridiculously high over so many years now, you'd have to be a little mad to involve yourself with it until the problem is eradicated.
Tim York wrote: there has been no price softening in high end white Burg which suggests that demand is still strong in spite of the risks.
Tom Troiano wrote:Tim York wrote: there has been no price softening in high end white Burg which suggests that demand is still strong in spite of the risks.
Some don't care what the wine tastes like. They are buying the name/label to impress their friends.
Same applies to those who spend $500-600 on the second wine of a First Growth.
Salil wrote:The premox part of this makes no sense unless you have only been opening a few white Burgs in the past ten years?
Sam Platt wrote:Salil wrote:The premox part of this makes no sense unless you have only been opening a few white Burgs in the past ten years?
I have tasted multiple vintages of Zind-Humbrecht Riesling including Clos Windsbuhl and Turckheim that have definitely exhibited what I can only describe as POx. They have been the main POx offender. I have had almost twice as many corked Rieslings, on a percentage basis, as corked white Burgs. If I look at POx alone Burg is affected more often on a percentage basis, but perhaps not statistically significantly so. I am enough of a nerd to pop the data set into Minitab, but I'm going to resist my stat geek urge to do so.
I did have a spate of Burgs with POx from the mid/late ’90’s but have yet to run in to POx on any white Burg vintages later than ’99. Last year I drank 18 Burgs, not counting Macon Village, and about 35 German/Alsatian Rieslings. Those numbers are about average for me over the years. There is definitely more opportunity for failure among Riesling in a given year. Perhaps I’ve just been lucky.
Rahsaan wrote:I'm still trying to figure out how you have Salil as quoted for the response that I gave!
Rahsaan wrote:But the real surprise is the POX difference, not the TCA difference. So many factors including which rieslings you are counting as 'prematurely' oxidized, storage conditions over the lifetime, etc etc. My instinct is that POX should be much higher in white Burgundy, especially since I've never had a POXed riesling, although I tend to drink the off-dry versions which have their preservatives! I guess if you're mostly drinking dry rieslings, that's a different story and they may very well be just as susceptible to POX as Burgundy and even more susceptible to bad showings because they are so austere and difficult during the shutdown period.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests