So many words have been used to describe it - the 'taste' in 2004 red Burgundy. To keep this essay simple, we'll describe this taste as 'taint'. That is to say, the taste has an 'element', a 'character', (that can also be found in the odour) that displeases. What is it? How did it get there? How serious is it? Three questions which need to be answered. So far, we have no scientific proof & hence the answers remain elusive. One theory leads all others however - that the culprit is 'coccinella'!!! LADYBIRDS!
First to the taste. Despite early fears (i.e Jun - Aug) of oidium & even under-ripeness, the 2004's were harvested with surprisingly high sugar levels. Little need for the addition of sugar therefore. Indeed most growers remarked that there was no need to chaptalise. Acidities were decent. The fruit displayed good levels of freshness. So far so good. By no means a classic, 2004 was a welcome sequel to the 'atypical' 2003's & a good medium-term cellar vintage. There was some rot but sorting tables (triage) eliminated virtually all of that. As usual, the better addresses in Burgundy are well equipped to deal with moderate rot levels. Rot is not the problem.
Some 6-12 months after bottling the first hints of this 'taint' manifested. Initially in the odour, increasingly in the taste. It has been described as carbolic, green, wax-resin, chemical, astringent . . . and so on. Basically it is not particularly nice. Curiously, beneath the odour & after the 'taint' flavour, the fruit is in a perfect healthy state. The freshness has not been eroded or gone away.
How did it get there? This is considered a good question. Not before or since has this flavour, this 'taint', been evident in red Burgundy wines. So what made 2004 unique? Oidium, which causes rot, is a regular visitor to Burgundy. Treatments haven't changed. Mildew is no stranger either. Growers & oenologists alike rule out the rot theory. One potential culprit is the ladybird, for which there was an abundance in 2004. Ladybirds release pyrazines; a chemical compound which can effect the odour of wine and, where abundant, evidently the taste too. I have posted a second Blog today (07 Jan 2010) from an article by Bill Nanson in his Burgundy Report in the autumn of 2008. It is interesting, detailed & plausible. It may well prove to be the 'raison d'etre' for the 2004 'taint'. However, I emphasise that the jury is still out on this matter. To read this report just scroll down this Blog until you come to my next Blog entitled Bill Nanson - The Burgundy Report.
What of the wines? Regretably the incidence is increasing (see report). My own experience is identical to others elsewhere. That is to say, inconsistent, increasing & a cause for concern. Like everyone else too, I find the 2004's otherwise healthy, fruit-driven & fresh. All generic & most village wines drink now. Others will benefit from further keeping. Will this 'taint' diminish or even disappear? Time will tell, but the evidence so far is troubling.
Who is responsible? What can be done? The wine growers are likely to tell you that the ladybirds are responsible! They are certainly not recalling the wines. They argue (& correctly so) that not all wines are affected. Many are perfect. You will find that wines from the same case do not all have this 'taint'.
Wine importers are on a hiding to nothing. Though 2005 Burgundy deflected attention from the 2004's, the reality is, this problem has only manifested itself in the past 12 months. Both 2006 & 2007 Burgundy have been victimised I fear. This is a great pity as both vintages have plenty to offer. The 2006's in particular are proving to be of very high quality.
I will hold a tasting of 2004's in February & a full report will follow on the results. In the meantime, any feedback / comments / experiences etc would be welcomed.
Scroll down to next Blog for additional info.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Bill Nanson - The Burgundy Report
"I think I was possibly the first to publicly raise & discuss the 'vintage character' of 2004 reds. Early on I had empirically estimated that about 30% of cuvées had a strange aromatic profile, elevated levels of which also affected the taste. I accepted to a large but limited extent to (lets call it for now . . . .) the 'taint' and one which would hopefully subside, but in Oct 2008 lunch with a few fellow enthusiasts that focused on 2004's left me questioning that perspective.
It was only by chance that I mentioned my experience of grape-baskets often with dozens of ladybirds (ladybugs or coccinella depending on your location) at harvest-time, but quick as a flash, Don Cornwall found a potential link - pyrazines.
But first let us take a step back. As the wines matured in their barrels, the 2004 reds were better than many had expected. The wines showed ripe fruit coupled to a nice freshness. At en-primeur tastings all was fine & for the first 2-3 months in bottle they repaid my confidence, but less than 6 months after bottling there was an obvious 'odour' problem.
The 'character' of the vintage
The closest for me was a peculiarly old English thing - the smell of Wrights Coal Tar soap - an almost mineral, chemical smell - I would describe it as similar to a cedar / sandalwood mix. Others say 'mirepoix' or vey simply 'green', which implies under-ripe - but 2004's were far from under-ripe. In fact, in my opinion, 'green' does not describe very well the character of 2004's.
Who is affected?
Close to everyone. Bottles opened by me between Sept 2006 & Jun 2007 indicated about a 30% level of 'infection'. A more recent but small sampling, had a majority showing the effect. The issue was that in the early months after bottling, the producer was not an indicator - find two cuvees whose elevage were side by side & in many cases only one wine would show taint. You could find it on a low level in DRC wines, but here's the interesting thing: at many low levels, its just another small note of complexity & its actually rather nice - e.g. Fourrier's Morey Clos Salon tasted in Oct - increase the concentration & its nasty. A much bigger concern to me is that some bottles I opened 2 years ago, bottles that were fine, now show an 'issue', so the 'infection rate' certainly hasn't peaked yet.
What is it?
Well chemically, a number of more technically oriented wine-makers have told me that the smell is of pyrazines. If so, thaty doesn't bode well for a slow reduction over time - pyrazine odours can often get worse with time. Ladybirds (coccinella) use pyrazines (methoxy-pyrazines) as sexual attractants. They are also used as a defence alert - pick one up & the yellow colour that leach onto your fingers also contains pyrazines.
How did it get there?
The link could be these coccinella. Some people pooh-pooh the idea - 'you expect me to believe that every vineyard was infested with these things'? Actually NO, though it can happen. The vineyard is in many respects a red herring: 2004 was a year with an over-abundance of coccinella. The following year the cuveries were full of fruit-flies. The year after that the grapes were full of earwigs.. In 2008 the grapes were almost fauna-free as they were so cold. There are natural cycles & some insects dominate for a year & are seen less the following year. Its not about how many coccinella were in the vineyard, its about how many were in the cap of the fermenters or on the triage (sorting) table. That coccinella can taint a wine has been empirically demonstrated by a number of authorities.
Of course, there is another possibility - Coccinella are not involved in the 2004 'vintage character' at all!
Summary
I've 'hypothesised' coccinella as a plausible reason for the malaise that affects so many 2004 reds. Many winemakers accept that possibility whilst others remain unsure. I fully accept that coccinella may not be THE reason - but thus far no-one can tell you otherwise & there is certainly no alternate & 'viable' theory yet proposed. I expect that no wineries will be sponsoring research to find a 'root-cause' as they have to concentrate on selling recent vintages.
Other than to 'keep my hand in' I have all but stopped opening 2004's as I dont like the 'taint', whatever its source. So the vast majority of my bottles will stay in cellar a good few more years to see whether MP's (methoxy-pyrazines) really do diminish with time - and thats a shame as the vintage had much early charm.
So what isn't it?
1. Its not a smell of rot
2. It is not the smell of stems
3. It is not anything to do with unripe fruit (few winemakers added sugar in this vintage because the natural sugars were high enough. It is a rare wine the truly unripe 2004)
So it is a conundrum for two reasons:
1. Wines tasted from barrel showed this only to a minor, let us say 'normal' extent; yet it has developed / amplified since bottling
2. Different wines from the same cellar (so same viticulture, ripeness & vinification) are not the same. Some show it & others dont!"
Confused?
It was only by chance that I mentioned my experience of grape-baskets often with dozens of ladybirds (ladybugs or coccinella depending on your location) at harvest-time, but quick as a flash, Don Cornwall found a potential link - pyrazines.
But first let us take a step back. As the wines matured in their barrels, the 2004 reds were better than many had expected. The wines showed ripe fruit coupled to a nice freshness. At en-primeur tastings all was fine & for the first 2-3 months in bottle they repaid my confidence, but less than 6 months after bottling there was an obvious 'odour' problem.
The 'character' of the vintage
The closest for me was a peculiarly old English thing - the smell of Wrights Coal Tar soap - an almost mineral, chemical smell - I would describe it as similar to a cedar / sandalwood mix. Others say 'mirepoix' or vey simply 'green', which implies under-ripe - but 2004's were far from under-ripe. In fact, in my opinion, 'green' does not describe very well the character of 2004's.
Who is affected?
Close to everyone. Bottles opened by me between Sept 2006 & Jun 2007 indicated about a 30% level of 'infection'. A more recent but small sampling, had a majority showing the effect. The issue was that in the early months after bottling, the producer was not an indicator - find two cuvees whose elevage were side by side & in many cases only one wine would show taint. You could find it on a low level in DRC wines, but here's the interesting thing: at many low levels, its just another small note of complexity & its actually rather nice - e.g. Fourrier's Morey Clos Salon tasted in Oct - increase the concentration & its nasty. A much bigger concern to me is that some bottles I opened 2 years ago, bottles that were fine, now show an 'issue', so the 'infection rate' certainly hasn't peaked yet.
What is it?
Well chemically, a number of more technically oriented wine-makers have told me that the smell is of pyrazines. If so, thaty doesn't bode well for a slow reduction over time - pyrazine odours can often get worse with time. Ladybirds (coccinella) use pyrazines (methoxy-pyrazines) as sexual attractants. They are also used as a defence alert - pick one up & the yellow colour that leach onto your fingers also contains pyrazines.
How did it get there?
The link could be these coccinella. Some people pooh-pooh the idea - 'you expect me to believe that every vineyard was infested with these things'? Actually NO, though it can happen. The vineyard is in many respects a red herring: 2004 was a year with an over-abundance of coccinella. The following year the cuveries were full of fruit-flies. The year after that the grapes were full of earwigs.. In 2008 the grapes were almost fauna-free as they were so cold. There are natural cycles & some insects dominate for a year & are seen less the following year. Its not about how many coccinella were in the vineyard, its about how many were in the cap of the fermenters or on the triage (sorting) table. That coccinella can taint a wine has been empirically demonstrated by a number of authorities.
Of course, there is another possibility - Coccinella are not involved in the 2004 'vintage character' at all!
Summary
I've 'hypothesised' coccinella as a plausible reason for the malaise that affects so many 2004 reds. Many winemakers accept that possibility whilst others remain unsure. I fully accept that coccinella may not be THE reason - but thus far no-one can tell you otherwise & there is certainly no alternate & 'viable' theory yet proposed. I expect that no wineries will be sponsoring research to find a 'root-cause' as they have to concentrate on selling recent vintages.
Other than to 'keep my hand in' I have all but stopped opening 2004's as I dont like the 'taint', whatever its source. So the vast majority of my bottles will stay in cellar a good few more years to see whether MP's (methoxy-pyrazines) really do diminish with time - and thats a shame as the vintage had much early charm.
So what isn't it?
1. Its not a smell of rot
2. It is not the smell of stems
3. It is not anything to do with unripe fruit (few winemakers added sugar in this vintage because the natural sugars were high enough. It is a rare wine the truly unripe 2004)
So it is a conundrum for two reasons:
1. Wines tasted from barrel showed this only to a minor, let us say 'normal' extent; yet it has developed / amplified since bottling
2. Different wines from the same cellar (so same viticulture, ripeness & vinification) are not the same. Some show it & others dont!"
Confused?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)