>Recently I have had a 1999 Faiverly AocBurgundy only. Not vineyard or area
>specific. It was about $13.99 and was great for the money.

Is this actually a drinkable wine? The 93 NSG Argillats was way overoaked, with
little fruit.

Does Faiveley still make any decent wines (maybe the basic burgundy)?

This question should get people's dander up, as the producer has a good
reputation.

Tom Schellberg

In article >,
(Xyzsch) writes:

>s this actually a drinkable wine? The 93 NSG Argillats was way overoaked,
>with
>little fruit.
>
>Does Faiveley still make any decent wines (maybe the basic burgundy)?
>
>This question should get people's dander up, as the producer has a good
>reputation.

Faiveley does best in my opinion at the low-end (Bourgogne, Côte Chalonnaise
especially Mercurey) and at the top end - my few tastes of the Corton Clos des
Corton and Chambertin Clos-de-Bèze were pretty good - even a '81
Charmes-Chambertin was better than it had any right to be.

I don't think of Faiveley as an especially heavy oaker, but would guess that a
NSG 1er would get as much as any Burg- meaty wines that could use some age.
When did you drink this? Because I find a consensus that most '93 1ers are
pretty closed right now.

Now that I'm done defending Faiveley, I'll say that I haven't bought any in a
while. I can't afford the Grand Crus, and the Mercureys have shot up in price.
If I did see the '99 Bourgogne in store I'd probably try, though, based on
vintage strenght and producer history.


Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

>I don't think of Faiveley as an especially heavy oaker, but would guess that
>a
>NSG 1er would get as much as any Burg- meaty wines that could use some age.
>When did you drink this? Because I find a consensus that most '93 1ers are
>pretty closed right now.

I drank it last week, Dale. Most of the several 93s I've had seem quite hard.
Does that mean dumb, hiding the fruit? I have my doubts that many of them will
improve, as opposed to drying out. So it could be partly the vintage I object
to.

The 93 I liked best was Beaune Montremenots by Mussy. The 93 Jadot wines seem
quite hard. After being opened a while(few hours to one day) they seem to lose
their fruit. Although, with a Burgundy, they may be too delicate for such a
test. I'll save a few bottles as an experiment.

I would not assume the style or quality of Faiveley in the 90s is the same as
in earlier years, as in 81 (a generally horrible year). But I do not have the
benefit of tasting a lot of these wines.

Tom Schellberg

In article >,
(Xyzsch) writes:

> drank it last week, Dale. Most of the several 93s I've had seem quite hard.
>Does that mean dumb, hiding the fruit? I have my doubts that many of them
>will improve, as opposed to drying out.

Yes, I meant closed = dumb. A couple of village wines -shut down hard 2 years
ago - have begun to open up nicely. I'd think 1er will follow suit over next
couple years. Of course, if you like lower-acid styles of Burgundy, 1993 is
probably not for you. It's the maybe the most controversial vintage of the last
20. Parker and Rovani severely deride it, while others like Claude Kolm (Fine
Wine Review ) and Allen Meadows (Burghound) love it. I think Clive Coates, WS,
and Steve Tanzer like it, but not as strongly as the others.
>
>The 93 I liked best was Beaune Montremenots by Mussy.

Mussy is not a producer I know. Is it one I should add to my watch list? But
Cote de Beaune wines tend to mature a little faster than Cote de Nuits, and
never shut down quite as hard, IMHO.

I'd say if you haven't liked your '93s so far, there's nothing to lose by
holding them a few more. If I'm right, you win; if I'm wrong, you didn't like
them now anyway.
Or you could email me list of what you want to dispose of & I'll offer you a
trade
I wish I had more '93s!

Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

>>I don't think of Faiveley as an especially heavy oaker, but would guess
>that
>>a
>>NSG 1er would get as much as any Burg- meaty wines that could use some age.
>>When did you drink this? Because I find a consensus that most '93 1ers are
>>pretty closed right now.
>
>I drank it last week, Dale. Most of the several 93s I've had seem quite hard.
>Does that mean dumb, hiding the fruit? I have my doubts that many of them
>will
>improve, as opposed to drying out. So it could be partly the vintage I
>object
>to.

Some 1993s will dry out, but the majority of 1993s I have tried are
spectacular.

The DRC, Drouhin, Mortet, Bachelet and Roumier all had watershed years. For DRC
and Drouhin, select wines are among their best ever in my opinion (DRC Grands
Echezeaux and Romanee St. Vivant, Drouhin Montrachet and Griottes Chambertin)
and the top reds will have a staying power that is matched only by the best
1959s (which are still alive and well.)

Most other estates I have tasted are at least outstanding. Needless to say, I
consider 1993 at the top levels a finer vintage than 1990, 1994, 1996 and
certainly 1999.

As for Faiveley, the concern is warranted, but with time the wines emerge
triumphant. I have not touched my 1993 Faiveleys, but the 1985 Gevrey Les
Cazetiers is coming into its own and is marvelous juice. The fact this 1er cru
wine is just now opening up in a great vintage where many grand crus are in
decline is a testament to the time Faiveley needs to mature.

In general I would group Faiveley with Bouree, Maume and Gelin- all producers
who aim for a very rustic and meaty style that is not for everyone. The wines
are seldom finessed, but they have a tremendous palate impact when mature and
expose their respective terroirs quite well IMHO, and they display strong
herbal components very similar to certain wines of St. Emilion in Bordeaux-
wines like L'Angelus and Troplong Mondot.

That said, these are wines you like or hate. I happen to like them all very
much, but there is certainly plenty to dislike if these do not rub you the
right way.

Take care,

Tom.

In article >,
(Elpaninaro) writes:

>Some 1993s will dry out, but the majority of 1993s I have tried are
>spectacular.The DRC, Drouhin, Mortet, Bachelet and Roumier all had watershed
years.

Unfortunately, out of that list I only have 1 bottle of '93 Drouhin Clos de la
Roche. Not planning on touching for a while.

>Most other estates I have tasted are at least outstanding. Needless to say, I
>consider 1993 at the top levels a finer vintage than 1990, 1994, 1996 and
>certainly 1999.

Tom, I find this interesting. Not the '93 part, as I said earlier there's a
strong base of support for this vintage. And certainly if prices are any
indication '90, '96, and '99 have a lot of supporters. But I'm surprised you
include '94 in the "contenders". Most folks seem to rate '94 at the bottom of
the decade. That being said, I don't have that much experience with the
vintage, but have been VERY happy with the Lafarge Clos du Chteau des Ducs
Volnay, which I'm unfortunately down to one bottle of.

As you are the resident Burgundy guru here, could you tell me what you think of
these recent vintages? Maybe I need to adjust my buying strategy:
1990 - very ripe vintage, some top wines seem closed these days.A good vintage
for buying lesser appelations if reasonably priced
1991 - spotty, be selective
1992 - Light vintage, drinking well now. (I just bought the Bachelet V.V. -have
you had?). Do not buy to cellar.
1993 - high acid wines with good structure. Drink villages and lighter 1ers.
Buy.
1994 - spotty, but some gems in there. Most ready to go.
1995 - good vintage, most need time.
1996 - big structured vintage. Needs time.
1997 - Lush, drink now.
1998 - Tannic, wines that are worth buying should be left alone
1999 - Another big ripe vintage ala 90. Many closed up. Hold.
2000 - Pretty wines for mostly early consumption.

Thanks for your help!
Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

>>Most other estates I have tasted are at least outstanding. Needless to say,
>I
>>consider 1993 at the top levels a finer vintage than 1990, 1994, 1996 and
>>certainly 1999.
>
>Tom, I find this interesting. Not the '93 part, as I said earlier there's a
>strong base of support for this vintage. And certainly if prices are any
>indication '90, '96, and '99 have a lot of supporters. But I'm surprised you
>include '94 in the "contenders". Most folks seem to rate '94 at the bottom of
>the decade. That being said, I don't have that much experience with the
>vintage, but have been VERY happy with the Lafarge Clos du Chteau des Ducs
>Volnay, which I'm unfortunately down to one bottle of.
>
>As you are the resident Burgundy guru here, could you tell me what you think
>of
>these recent vintages? Maybe I need to adjust my buying strategy:
>1990 - very ripe vintage, some top wines seem closed these days.A good
>vintage
>for buying lesser appelations if reasonably priced
>1991 - spotty, be selective
>1992 - Light vintage, drinking well now. (I just bought the Bachelet V.V.
>-have
>you had?). Do not buy to cellar.
>1993 - high acid wines with good structure. Drink villages and lighter 1ers.
>Buy.
>1994 - spotty, but some gems in there. Most ready to go.
>1995 - good vintage, most need time.
>1996 - big structured vintage. Needs time.
>1997 - Lush, drink now.
>1998 - Tannic, wines that are worth buying should be left alone
>1999 - Another big ripe vintage ala 90. Many closed up. Hold.
>2000 - Pretty wines for mostly early consumption.

Dale- that is my mistake! I meant to say 1995 instead of 1994 in my initial
comment.

1994 was pretty dreadful. All of the wines are tainted with the medicinal dusty
tones of the vintage, and gems are few and far between. The only 1994 reds I
really liked that I would even suggest someone buy now are Rousseau Clos de la
Roche, Leroy Richebourg, Serafin Charmes-Chambertin and Roumier Musigny and
Ruchottes-Chambertin. Most everything else is surely past it now- and these
that I liked are probably on the edge too. And courtesy of their fame, these
are going to be so expensive even in a vintage like 1994 that you will not see
any semblance of QPR for what you get.

As for your general assessment of vintages, I tend to agree in many ways. Here
is my take,

1990- a great vintage for power and ripeness, but at all levels there is a
stewed quality to many wines that has left some imbalanced with time. A vintage
that is great when it is great, but going out of balance when it is not. And at
these prices, something I do not suggest buying at all right now since the few
truly great wines are priced in the stratosphere (La Tache goes for about
$1,000 these days!), the big beef I have with 1990 is that the wines are too
big and flamboyant to suit a meal in most cases, exceptions exist such as Rion
and the DRC RSV most notably, but for the most part these are not terribly
useful wines outside of a comparative tasting IMNSHO.

1991- one of my favorite vintages for burgundy ever (but I am only 30, so do
not take this as advice from a sage who has seen decades of vintages lol),
extremely consistent among the best estates with very classic balance- good
firm tannin and ripe- but not overripe- fruit, Rousseau, Roumier, DRC, Ponsot
all very strong, I have yet to find a bad wine here, a vintage still worth
seeking as the top wines are nowhere near ready.

1992- early on the best wines were charming and pleasant, but most were too
dilute to last, as with 1992 Bordeaux the only flaw is a lack of concentration,
hence this was a good vintage to get a good sampling of top estates at a good
price, I paid $75 for the DRC Romanee St. Vivant (which ended up being the best
DRC this year and is still quite good), not a vintage to buy at this point
however unless you run across a DRC Romanee St. Vivant at a good price

1993- this is the 1959 of modern times, massive wines of uncommon depth and
tannin, but with significant aromatics and other goodies in reserve, from
1978-1999, I think 1993 is the one vintage that people will still be drinking
30-40 years from now with thrills in their hearts, DRC, Drouhin, Roumier,
Bachelet, Mortet, Grivot- all of these personal favorites had a watershed
performance in 1993, but the wines need time, keep in mind the big critic who
claims this was a difficult year does not like tannin in his burgs, it is a
reasonable position I suppose but it does count for the strong disagreement
between him and many burgundy lovers, a vintage to buy heavy because the wines
came out right before the general price increase and have remained reasonable.

1994- a hard vintage, medicinal tones, dusty tannins and in some cases rot have
affected every wine I have tasted, Roumier Musigny was WOTV however and best
escaped these perils, Bonnes Mares and Ruchottes were strong too, across the
board a vintage that will probably dry out before the fruit matures in 99% of
cases, avoid, there is truly nothing worth buying at this point since the wines
worth buying are going to be super-expensive because of the name on the label

1995- a vintage I have underrated in the past, this may turn out to be a 1985
with more staying power, very pure aromatics this vintage- I noted lots of
violets in the DRC wines, incredible balance, silky yet substantial tannins,
and good ripe fruit (but not overripe as in 1990), this will be an incredibly
useful vintage for serving with food as well, a noted importer and DRC expert
has told me he thinks the 1995 La Tache will be the one that makes it for the
long haul and blossoms into one of the greats, expensive on release but still
worth seeking

1996- a vintage I have little experience with as this is about when I got out
of wine for 3 years, a few TNs suggest a classic vintage in the style of 1991
but with almost the fruit power of 1993, the Mortet wines are incredible,
Chambolle Beaux Bruns especially fine and sure to be stunning in 10 years, a
vintage to buy and hold

1997- some good wines- 1997 Dujac Clos de la Roche among the finest- but for
the most part overripe and under-structured (and very lacking in acidity),
couple this with the highest prices ever for a burgundy vintage and I say "why
bother?", there are some good wines but nothing exceptional in my view (except
for that Dujac!), even the DRC wines- released at absurd prices- were
disappointing to me, buy a few at firesale if you must, but generally not worth
it IMHO, I have passed on many good ones at 50% off because there is still no
value there, were it not for the pricing, this might have been a very useful
vintage.

1998- few TNs here too, some good some bad, DRC had a great year but Dugat and
Serafin 1998s recently opened (premier cru level) are already starting to dry
out, I think the WA is too judgmental on burgundy most of the time, but in 1998
there is reason for some concern and I think their position may be somewhat
correct, there are certainly many great wines this vintage, but I am tasting
first before buying anything- regardless of reputation, too many wines are too
tannic and too lean on fruit.

1999- a marvelous vintage with enormous up front appeal which I think has left
it overrated in the grand scheme of things, have had many great ones-
d'Angerville had one hell of a vintage, Hospices de Beaune as well with an
incredible Pommard Billardet bottled by Meo Camuzet that is a MUST HAVE if you
spot it (was about $50 which is cheap for such things), this is a big year for
the DRC as well, overall I am wondering if we have another 1985 on our hands
here- a vintage that is truly phenomenal but will bring disappointment for
those who wait too long, by most accounts even the DRCs of 1985 are passing
peak, and I think 1999 will bring much the same if the wines are held too long,
savor and revel in these beauties now is my advice, tasting your long termers
every 3-4 years to keep close watch, in short- great vintage, but not one that
will last for decades.

2000- lots of raspberry tones in this vintage, paler colors, good fruit,
pleasant and enjoyable, very sappy wines at the top level, aromatically more
gamey and berry tones than flowers, some good structure for mid-term enjoyment,
Engel is wonderful in 2000 as is Dujac, deMontille made light wines- but very
pure and promising excellent aromatics when they mature, DRC is a mixed bag-
Echezeaux is outstanding but La Tache- while quite good- is not up to the price
charged (2000 DRC pricing broke all previous records, including 1997), a
vintage to cherry pick and select some great mid-term drinkers, I am finding
these are matching quite wonderfully with food as well.

Take care,

Tom.