MEDIA

Back The Fine Wine Experience Musigny v Chambertin Dinner

Published on 3 September, 2018

By Linden Wilkie

 

Recently, we organised and hosted a comparative tasting of Romanée-Saint-Vivant and Richebourg grands crus in Beijing. Tasted (not blind) side by side these two vineyards had much in common, but there were conclusions it was possible to draw about their differences too. That left me wondering, if we took the two most contrasting Côtes de Nuits villages – Chambolle-Musigny and Gevrey-Chambertin, and compared their two greatest vineyards – Musigny and Chambertin, how stark, or how similar might these two vineyards be? The immediate presupposition is that they would be markedly different. After all, Chambolle is known for its fragrance, charm and elegance – more in the red fruit spectrum, while Gevrey is darker, more powerful and full in style. On the other hand, the greatest grands crus are known for their moderation, combining the best traits of their neighbouring grands crus, without trading away any attribute of value. So perhaps, we thought, these two grands crus (as opposed to these two villages) might offer more in common than first supposed.

What did we find? First, we were simply reminded of the greatness of these two vineyards. The interpretations of either vineyard by the various domaines are quite different – often radically different. Producers are wont to say that their work in the cellar is to translate the terroir faithfully – each wine expresses the vineyard it comes from. This terroir expression can be often understood tasting within a range from a producer. But when the approach is to compare producers within one vineyard, the producer’s style, its stamp, is far clearer, and sometimes juxtaposes one wine to the next. At this level – the highest of the grands crus, the crème de la crème of the Côtes de Nuits – choosing your bottle becomes an exercise in choosing your producer, and the way they interpret the land being close to the style you prefer becomes of as much importance as any other consideration.

The only poor (in the context of vineyard quality) showings tonight were the pair of Faiveley wines from 2002. Both were pushed too hard in my view, masking the natural qualities of their respective sites. In the case of the Musigny this can be partly attributed to the difficulties in fermenting and then ageing in barrel some 120 litres or so. That’s all there was, give or take, until Faiveley’s ownership of Musigny increased in 2016. Secondly, in my view the wines at Faiveley have improved a great deal since around 2006, and there are wines being produced at this address today that rival any neighbour. Pre-2006 Faiveleys can sometimes really shine. But, they will typically need a lot of air and more bottle age than average to begin with.

Aside from that this evening’s tasting reminded me that quality diligent work combined with great terroir will – more or less – simply leave you with a question of stylistic preference to consider (oh, and price perhaps!). And what about our central question? The two vineyards have much in common – power, strength, grace, depth and length. The aromatics, fruit profile and ‘extra’ qualities differ, Musigny offering more silk, and a sweeter, more floral perfume; Chambertin offering a more wild (verging on a note of game or blood), more savoury tone and darker fruit. Still, differences between producers can really muddy the waters. So perhaps it is best if I just leave you with my set of tasting notes below. And for a sense of how my experience of these fine wines might have differed from others at the table, I also record below the votes from the table. Thirteen of us chose our two favourite wines of the night – you can see how those 26 votes were distributed below.

 

 

Finally, a quick word on the two vintages tasted. The 2002 vintage I regard as wonderfully classic and transparent. It’s richer than 1996, but like it finished off by a north wind which dried things out and along with cold nights toward the end, contributed to its wonderfully tangy acidity. (It’s richer and riper than 1996 on the whole). Some might miss the power and authority delivered naturally in vintages like 1999, 2005 and so on. But personally, I would give away those traits in favour of the sort of aromatic clarity you see in 2002.

The 1998 vintage is a contrast, so a useful one for our dinner. It was a great test for each estate, who faced in turn frost damage, uneven flowering, sunburn in summer, and then rot near harvest. It was a year for the diligent viticulturalists ruthless in removing all problems. The yield for Domaine Comte Georges de Vogüé’s Musigny was a mere 12hl/ha in 1998. It’s clean, concentrated, and nuanced. All of our 1998s showed well this evening – testament to the terroirs and the domaines here, and testament too to the notion that nothing is as simple as choosing wine by vintage. On the whole I find 1998 reds a bit austere and sometimes both unclean and finishing with unripe tannins. While there was a touch of dryness marking some of this evening’s 1998s, I’d sooner take any of them over an average wine from 1999. This goes to show just how headachingly complex a subject Burgundy is, but one that rewards the connoisseur willing to consider all three factors – vineyard, vintage and producer – in making selections. Tonight reinforced this point.


2006 Bourgogne Blanc, Domaine Comte Georges de Vogüé, en magnum 92

Made from small plots of Chardonnay planted in Musigny Grand Cru. Entitled to the Musigny Blanc Grand Cru label, but declassified by the domaine between 1994 and 2014 to the next available appellation (there is no 1er Cru or village level for white in Chambolle), due to replanting. Prior to 1994 and since 2015 this wine is labelled Musigny Blanc Grand Cru.

Pale; fresh and ripe on the nose, even a touch exotic, with pear and marzipan notes; full and rich on the palate, with bright mineral- laden acidity at the core and pushing the finish. This grand-styled wine is ripe with a touch of fresh pineapple. Delicious.

 

2002 Musigny Grand Cru, Domaine Jacques Prieur 92

100% from Musigny’s ‘La Combe d’Orveau’ lieu-dit of which Prieur owns 100%.

Mid depth of colour; a rich nose, bold, spicy with great intensity and wildness; fleshy on the palate, lush, supple, with good acidity, and a touch of this vintage’s leafiness at the end. Quite sauvage, smoky, with a lovely sweet/savoury tension. Quite a grounded style, some firmness. Appealing.

 

2002 Musigny Grand Cru, Domaine J.-F. Mugnier 97

Light appearance, clear; an elegant nose of tea, roses and red fruits; delicate and supple on the palate, with a really silky, caressing texture, lots of inner mouth fragrance, a touch of savouriness at the end. This wine remains silky, sweet and scented right through. A lovely wine – it has that effortless weightlessness that reminds me of the 1971 Romanée Conti. It grows quietly in the glass and then makes you sob just a little.

Three votes for wine of the night.

 

2002 Musigny Grand Cru, Domaine J. Faiveley 91

The smallest holding of Musigny – a mere c.150 bottles per year at this time.

Full in colour, clear; a fine, spicy, fragrant nose; fleshy, full, a potent sort of Musigny, good length, a bit burly, and you can both feel and taste the oak texture and flavour. There is real beauty here, but it is made up in pantomime makeup, which is a real pity.

 

2002 Chambertin-Clos de Bèze Grand Cru, Domaine J. Faiveley 87

A fine garnet appearance; quite closed on the nose – even after two hours, it simply didn’t budge; fleshy and spicy on the palate, fuller than the Musigny, and with darker fruit. Tannic. On the palate it slowly began to come out of its formidable shell, and I feel this will probably improve in another ten years in bottle. However, the stiff dry structure will always dominate, as there isn’t the concentration of fruit to overcome it.

 

2002 Chambertin Grand Cru, Domaine Denis Mortet 98

Fine mid depth of colour; a spectacular aroma soars from the glass – spices, tea, floral notes, sauvage; sapid and ripe on the palate, sumptuous but with drive and direction, and real authority. Fantastic! A DRC-like floral, spicy, high register expression, achingly pure. Still not quite at its peak – probably five years more. But this wine remains as fine a Chambertin as I have ever tasted. (Consistent with the last time I tasted it).

Nine votes for wine of the night.

 

2002 Chambertin Grand Cru, Domaine Dugat-Py 91

Another unicorn wine production – c.220~270 bottles per year.

Rock solid opaque with a narrow rim; sweet, spicy, dark and brooding on the nose; thick on the palate and very oaky, tannic, pushed in style, furry-textured. You feel the greatness of the immaculate fruit, but it is pushed too hard overall. After an hour in the glass, out came more dark spice – a touch of curry-like aroma. The fruit and spice on the palate are all Pinot Noir, but the formidable structure feels more Medocain. That said, after that hour in the glass, ample glycerine and sweet extract gave that initial furriness a more sumptuous feel, buffering the thick façade of tannin and oak.

 

 

2002 Chambertin-Clos de Bèze, Domaine Louis Jadot 94

Fine, clear appearance; smoky, wild, masculine, vibrant and open on the nose; fleshy, satin-textured, smoky, wild, pure and delicious. Old school, refined and with a long, wild, appealing taste.

 

*2002 Musigny Grand Cru, Domaine Louis Jadot 93

*offered as a ‘bonus wine’ at the end of the evening, tasted at the very end of the dinner.
Fine, clear colour; elegant nose, pure and floral; sapid, floral, red fruit, fine-textured (not “silky” like the Mugnier, but “velvet”, fine- grained). Very fine – “an iron fist in a velvet glove”. Full and ripe. (The ’02 Jadot Bèze trumps it just slightly).

 

1998 Musigny, Domaine Joseph Drouhin 94

Land owned and farmed by Drouhin since purchase from Mugnier in 1961.

Fine, mid depth colour; fine nose, floral, really lovely; sweet and elegant on the palate, good concentration, a seamless feel – though there is a touch of dryness right at the end, it is well-buffered, very pure and long. Supreme really, and drinking well.
Three votes for wine of the night

 

1998 Musigny, Domaine Comte Georges de Vogüé 94

By far the largest owner of Musigny at 7.12ha.

Full, luminous ruby – a lovely full colour; fine but reserved on the nose, very pure fruit and roses – even a hint of lokhum; real depth on the palate, fine, firm but pure in still youthful expression, and a touch of dry tannin at the end too. So young still. This Musigny is one to which you must lean in – there is such depth here, but it is displayed discretely, and the impressive depth on the palate delivered in a compact way. Feels well balanced enough to bloom in another 10 years or so.

 

 

1998 Musigny Grand Cru, Domaine Georges Roumier 95

Another very small production wine – around 350 bottles per year.

A fine garnet with some evolution at the edge of the rim; Wow! This nose is so lovely, open, sweet and a touch earthy too with notes of moss and bark; sumptuous on the palate, unctuous, really concentrated, but also super clear, clean and pure. Long on the finish – real depth. This wine is open and fragrant, good attack and middle, with a touch of dryness on the finish.
Three votes for wine of the night

 

1998 Chambertin-Clos de Bèze Grand Cru, Domaine Armand Rousseau 94

Fine hue to the garnet appearance; spicy and wild and exuberant nose – really appealing, a touch of leather in the aromatic mix; fleshy on the palate, full, sweet and spicy, great attack and middle, a touch abrupt at the end – lacking a little length – but this wine is thick, open and spicy. (Fuller, sweeter, rounder than the Chambertin)
Two votes for wine of the night

 

1998 Chambertin Grand Cru, Domaine Armand Rousseau 94

Fine hue to the garnet appearance; a low key cool and mossy nose, red fruit; fine, elegant and spicy on the palate, more Latricières-like in its expression. Silkier, sumptuous and long, if tauter, more sinewy and cool than the Clos de Bèze. While the Bèze is more gourmand today, there is something – for me – more deeply satisfying here, the sheer class of Chambertin comes through.
One vote for wine of the night

The differences between Rousseau’s Chambertin and Chambertin Clos de Bèze seem consistent with the traits of the two terroir – Eric Rousseau describing Chambertin as ‘cool’ – in part due to winds funnelled in from La Combe Grisard – Chambertin is often picked a full week later than Chambertin-Clos de Bèze, which Rousseau describes as a ‘warm’ climat.

 

1998 Chambertin Grand Cru, Domaine Leroy 93

Mature garnet; spicy, wild expression, richer and more exuberant than the ’98 Rousseau Chambertin, and also with a touch of ‘buttered popcorn’ oak. All in all a really signature Leroy nose; concentrated, sweet, grippy, full, okay, very ‘Leroy’, sexy in style, though lacking a little charm and natural expression. For me this was upstaged by the Rousseau Chambertin, but mine was a minority preference. Five votes for wine of the night