Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- start [2020/06/05 03:45]
doncornwell
+++ start [2020/06/05 04:59]
doncornwell
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 === MAJOR UPDATE ON THE LIST OR PRODUCERS MOST AND LEAST AFFECTED BY PREMOX ===
 (June 5, 2020)  We've recently done a major update to producer incidence list which takes into account both the rapidly expanding use of DIAM closures and more recent data on the incidence of oxidation and notably advanced wines. [[which_producers_are_most_and_least_affected2|See Producer Incidence]]  The list has changed quite a bit over the last 15 years but some of the worst offenders have been on the list since it was initially published and exhibit no signs of change or even acknowledgment that premox is a problem for their wines.\\ \\
+=== 2011 VINTAGE ASSESSMENT DINNERS - A LIGHTER STYLED BUT VERY GOOD VINTAGE ===
+(June 4, 2020)  The fourteenth annual white burgundy vintage assessment dinners were held in Los Angeles on February 18, March 14, and March 27, 2019. We tasted 75 wines from the 2011 vintage in three nights. All of the wines were served single blind (except for the ringers which are double blind) and all of the voting takes place completely blind (with individual written ballots) with the attendees ranking their top five wines by bottle number.
+My overall impression from these dinners was that the 2011 vintage, both in Chablis and the Cote de Beaune, is a solid, technically correct vintage, but most of the wines tend to the leaner side and do not have as much density and weight as the 2009 and 2010 vintages.  The 2011s are well structured and show pretty good vineyard transparency.  Unlike the 2008, 2009 and 2010 vintages, none of the 2011 wines we tasted were affected by botrytis, surmaturite, or rot.  But, at the same time, the very top wines from our tastings in those prior vintages (except for the 2010 Cortons) are most often a point or two better than the corresponding ratings for the 2011s.  The 2011s from Chevalier Montrachet and Montrachet were particularly good and seem to hold their own against the 2008, 2009 and 2010 vintages.
+On [[https://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=167447| Night One]] we tasted thirty-two 2011 white burgundies from Chablis, Meursault and Corton Charlemagne.  The 2011 Chablis as a group were more approachable/enjoyable than they usually are at age 7.5 (so perhaps they will have slightly less than the usual longevity).  One of the things that I noticed (particularly on night one) was an astonishing level of uniformity in the color, and very good acidity. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a vintage from the Cote de Beaune with such uniformity of color.  Given the uniformly light colors and good acidity levels of the wines, I suspect that the top level 2011 whites from Meursault and Corton will have an aging curve comparable to the 2007s (which was another early vintage).
+We experienced a very large divergence in the number of oxidized and advanced wines during the 2011 vintage. We encountered very little premox on night one, and none at all on night three (the only other time this happened was with the 2007 vintage), but we had a large percentage of premox on night two.   On [[https://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=167489|Night Two]] we tasted twenty-nine wines from the hyphenated grand cru vineyards of Bienvenues and Criots-Batard Montrachet, Batard Montrachet and Chevalier Montrachet along with a couple of ringers.  The wines were much more uneven, but the Chevalier Montrachets particularly stood out.
+The very uneven premox performance over the three nights demonstrates the risk of judging a vintage based on wines from a limited number of samples or just a few of the appellations.  (Yes, this is hard to figure….)  We also experienced the largest number of bottles ever which seemed to have reduction problems or serious chemical flaws.  A total of 11 of the 29 wines we tasted on night two either had premox problems or some type of reduction–related issue or a serious chemical flaw. We didn’t have numbers like that on night one or night three, or in prior years, but this dinner certainly confirmed for me that reductive winemaking, while it may help to avoid premox issues, can also lead to issues of its own.
+On [[https://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=168312|Night Three]] we tasted 14 bottles of “Mostly Montrachet,” Coche-Dury Corton and MP, and two ringers.   The 2011 Montrachets and the two 2011 Coche wines were extremely impressive. I thought these wines would hold their own very well with the 2010s.
+The DIAM closed wines continued to perform flawlessly from a premox perspective. Once again, there were no oxidized or advanced bottles closed with DIAM. There were also no unusual or unexpected aromas. Over the past three years we have now had 30 bottles closed with DIAM in excellent condition (but we did have one chemically flawed bottle of Jadot Bienvenues on night two.)
+\\ \\
 === 2010 VINTAGE ASSESSMENT DINNERS – A SOMETIMES SENSATIONAL BUT UNEVEN VINTAGE ===
 \\  (September 14, 2018)  The thirteenth annual white burgundy vintage assessment dinners were held in Los Angeles on February 7, February 20 and March 7, 2018.  We tasted 80 wines from the 2010 vintage in three nights.  All of the wines were served single blind (except for the ringers which are double blind) and all of the voting takes place completely blind (with individual written ballots) with the attendees ranking their top five wines by bottle number.\\ \\