|
|
|
|
From Issue 92, published in January 2003. (Note: Text is the same as printed version, but not shown in actual format.)
|
2001 ON THE CÔTE DE NUITS: A BURGUNDY-LOVER’S VINTAGE
Racy, Pure Wines that Reflect Terroir
|
For red Burgundies, 2001 will never be highly-rated on the vintage charts. There are too many factors that will prevent general appreciation of the wines: unevenness of quality, the fact that the vintage comes shortly after the highly popular 1999 vintage and shortly before the much-anticipated 2002 vintage, the fact that the wines will be sold during challenging economic times, and the fact that many of the producers, who have shown themselves less than astute in misjudging earlier vintages (overestimating 1989 and 1997 and underestimating 1993 and 1998) are not especially enthusiastic about the wines. Any yet, and yet … this is a real Burgundy lover’s vintage: the best wines are racy and pure with great fidelity to their respective terroirs. At this point, I would evaluate the vintage on the Côte de Nuits as very/extremely good – a lighter 1993 with some 1991 and 1988 thrown in – but there is an outside possibility that with further development in barrel, when I visit next autumn, I shall find the wines to have developed into something extraordinary. Let’s take a quick look at vintage conditions, and then return to reexamine the reasons why the vintage will never be famous.
Vintage Conditions. Weather conditions were highly varied. The bud break was in early May, about two weeks behind the highly precocious 2000 vintage. The fine weather in May was followed by cold and rainy weather in June. Domaine de la Romanée-Conti reports that flowering began on 10 June in cool weather, but it was quick enough and uniform. July was a mixture: storms and favorable weather, hot and cold. August generally was chilly, but the last half was very hot – Domaine de la Romanée-Conti reports four consecutive days of weather at 38ºC (100ºF) during this period with some violent storms in some places, but at least at DRC, the storms did not hit. There were even some reports of sunburn (shriveling of the grapes on the vine), as occurred in 1998. Overall, the heat and sun accumulations matched those for 1995. Nevertheless, the weather in September did not drive the grapes to the very high sugar levels that we have seen in other recent years, although the estates that I visited reported quite respectable levels (often 12-12.5% potential alcohol prior to chaptalization) and phenolic maturity, which is what really matters. Fans of the wines of Hubert de Montille will note that 12% is all that he aimed for in his wines.
Depending on the location of the estate’s vines and the vineyard practices, there may or may not have been rot and/or uneven ripening on the same bunch. The best ways of avoiding these problems were to have old vines that produce little, and if that was not possible, to take care that the younger vines were well pruned and to do a severe green harvest. At any rate, the grape skins were thick, as in 1993. In bunches of grapes, the harvest was large – generally, as large as 2000 – but because of the thick skins, the yield in juice was significantly lower than in 2000, although in no way a small vintage. The huge yields of the preceding years have educated those quality producers who had held out against green harvesting (cutting off grapes prior to harvest) and convinced them of the necessity of doing so. Additionally, some producers are reverting to the Cordon-en-Royat method of pruning, as opposed to the Guyot method that was introduced in the 1930 and that had become standard in most of the Côte d’Or. The Royat’s advantage is that it does limit much more severely than the Guyot the yields; the disadvantage is that with the Royat, there is a much narrower window for optimum harvesting. (Ponsot has always been in Royat; Laurent Ponsot thinks that some have gone back to the Royat because it is easier to work by machine, not because it limits yields.)
As I stated, some producers reported problems with rot and/or uneven ripeness, others not. Similarly, some producers reported high yields, others not. As a practical matter, producers in Burgundy are now sophisticated enough that some will be dishonest and report whatever they believe the interviewer wants to hear. Consequently, I have not gone out of my way to report yields of individual estates because they are not necessarily reliable. Even if I had gone to the trouble to check the yields with those officially reported, that would not be accurate, because it only reports what is harvested and put into the cellars and would not tell what was on the vine prior to harvest.
Also as I stated, the grapes had thick skins, so care had to be taken not to extract too much tannin from them. The wines also started out very high in malic acidity. Malolactic fermentations were late, typically not finishing until sometime over the summer. As anyone experienced tasting young Burgundies should know, the wines cannot be accurately judged until malolactic fermentations have finished. In spite of that, commercial pressures to pronounce early led some to downplay the vintage after tastings early in 2002 (and by all reports the 2001s were extremely difficult to taste while in malo). As the year wore on, the producers understandably became more concerned with the 2002 vintage on the vine. Indeed, the vintage turned out to be relatively small in yield, high in alcohol, and high in acidity, leading some to predict a great year, and the more cautious to say, at least a very good year, but one that requires waiting until the malos are finished to see what the wines are like. (I will, of course, be reporting on the 2002s following my tastings later this year, but regardless of what the wines actually taste like, we do know already that the reputation has been made and that the prices will be high. Caution: some producers had fermentation problems in 2002, and the skins again are very thick, leading to the potential for very tannic wines. One can think of years such as 1989 and 1976 that were similarly pronounced great immediately after the harvest and that by and large have not lived up to their initial reputations.)
Factors Holding Back the Reputation of the Vintage. But as I indicated above, there are external factors that will keep the vintage from being appreciated for what it is.
-- First, the 1999s are tremendously attractive as young wines and continue to be available in stores, sometimes even at close-out prices.
-- Second, consumers have already made the mental decision to hold their wallets and wait for the 2002s.
-- Third, the dollar is in decline against the Euro, making the wines more expensive on retail shelves here.
-- Fourth, vintages with uneven quality are never easy for the general public to understand because it takes too much effort to sort through the poor wines in search of the gems.
-- Finally, and most importantly, the producers have not pushed the vintage. What gives here? Aren’t they the best judges? Well, . . . no! Time after time, all but the most sophisticated producers show themselves swayed by the lab analyses and not by what is found in the glass. As a result, in recent years, I have seen producers honestly overestimate the 1989 and 1997 vintages because of the ripeness of the vintages, and underestimating 1993 and 1998 because of the adversity of some of the weather conditions (which were countered by other factors that the producers did not consider). In the case of the 2001s, when I tasted, most producers were themselves only tasting the wines for the first time after the finish of malolactic fermentation: in the previous 2-3 months, they had been on vacation and then occupied with the 2002 harvest and fermentation. Following the ripeness of the 2002 vintage and the preconceived notions formed by tasting the 2001s while they still were undergoing malo, there was not the openness of mind to recognize the quality that was in the glass. Time after time, I felt as though I was repeating the experience of tasting the 1993s, at best, the greatest Burgundies of our generation: I was impressed, but the vigneron still couldn’t recognize the quality of the wines that he/she had in the cellar. (In the case of one famous estate, the producer couldn’t even accept the greatness of his 1993s two years later, when the wines were in bottle, although his web site finally recognizes the quality of the vintage.)
Overall Style of the Vintage. As I said, 2001 is not yet at the level of the 1993s, and has only an outside chance of achieving that level. Put simply, the wines have the purity, but not quite the force and depth of the 1993s – but improved viticultural and vinicultural practices a factor to consider, here.
Bottom Line. This will be a vintage to buy – but with the pressure of the 2002s coming after, it is one to buy on futures only selectively, for two reasons: first, one wants to get a better perspective on exactly how good the wines are as a result of the second year of aging, and second, with 2002 following and the current uncertainty in the world economy, there will be plenty of 2001s offered on closeouts in late 2004.
The wines reported on here were tasted during my three-week visit in October and November 2002.
|
|
|
