Chablis Panel Tasting - Decanter
PREMIER CRU CHABLIS 2010: If you enjoy minerality in your Chablis, this vintage is one to snap up, says Rosemary George MW, who says a reliable producer, more than cru, is still the key factor.
Publication: Decanter Magazine
Publication Date: July 2012
Summary:
Our judges had high expectations that were mostly met – the main criticism being real variability in quality and typicity. But for approachable, good-value Burgundy, these are hard to beat.
How was the overall quality of the vintage?
Steven Spurrier put a very positive spin on the vintage, saying: ‘I don’t think any other region could have come up with 182 wines that are so well made.’ Matt smith agreed: ‘On the whole, this is a delicious vintage. They are wines you can rely on if you choose a decent producer.’ Philip Tuck MW rated the vintage four stars out of five and Stephen Brook noted that there were very few faulty wines over the two days of tasting. ‘There were also perhaps a lack of truly thrilling wines, so most of my scores sat in that middle ground between 16 and 17 points,’ he said. Many of the judges agreed that the defining factor for the 2010 premiers crus was the linear acidity of the wines.
How was the typicity of the vintage?
‘Given that it is very easy to make extremely disappointing, nondescript Chablis, this tasting did at least illustrate that there are plenty of producers trying very hard to make concentrated, elegant wines that reflect their origins – which is, after all, what good Chablis is all about,’ said Tuck. Brook disagreed, saying that the vintage lacked typicity, and if he hadn’t known these were all Chablis, he would have guessed that some wines came from ‘30 miles further south’. Gearoid Devaney MS also disagreed with Tuck: ‘Some of the flavour profiles were wrong.’ Jason Haynes countered: ‘People are trying to make more typical Chablis than they were 10 years ago. there is a movement in the past few years to try to make much more mineral-based wines which is what they should be all about.’
How would you compare 2010 with recent vintages?
‘It’s quite an exciting vintage coming off the back of quite a fat one,’ said Smith. ‘It’s nice to see some of that acidity and intensity back again.’ Haynes and Devaney agreed that 2009 was forward and easy, with the latter adding that ‘2010 will be compared to 2008 in terms of structure, acidity and pH levels’. Haynes predicted there would be discussions as to whether 2010 trumped 2008.
What vineyard sites showed best, and which ones left you wanting more?
‘With the extra complexity that the region brings, it is quite important for the winemaking to sit in the background. And I think that my highest scoring wines were along the more mineral and tense styles,’ said Smith, who scored some of the cooler appellations, such as Montée de Tonnerre, the highest. Beverley Blanning MW preferred Fourchaume, while Devaney conversely felt both Fourchaume and Montée de Tonnerre were not showing well; he thought Vaillons and Côte de Léchet were much stronger performers. Haynes agreed with Devaney and additionally found Montmains to be disappointing. Brook preferred Vaillons and thought Mont de Milieu was the most mineral-driven cru.
Any criticisms?
Blanning noticed a lot of sulphur on the wines. she said this ‘possibly has the upside of enhancing minerality’ because she found the wines extremely mineral. She added: ‘The only other thing that I would possibly criticize is the malolactic fermentation. To me I found a lot of these wines to be acid-driven in a linear way. But it seems like some of the winemakers tried to compensate for this high acidity with malolactic fermentation. Some of the wines I tasted were quite creamy in a way that I didn’t appreciate.’
Haynes was disappointed by inconsistent quality: ‘It really varied. The best examples were certainly very good premiers crus. The lesser wines I actually wouldn’t have even liked if they had been grands crus – they just weren’t particularly appealing in any sense. At the end of the day, if the quality isn’t there it doesn’t make a difference whether these wines are village, premier or grand cru. That lack of consistency I found really disappointing.’ Lance Foyster MW agreed with Blanning and Haynes: ‘I did notice quite a few wines with overtly creamy, yeasty flavours. I assume that these were the ones that have seen a little bit too much oak oak on them, and it wasn’t a coincidence that i gave these wines my lowest marks.’
Is this an ageworthy vintage?
‘I have a perverse view in that the less fruit there is in a wine, the more I like it,’ said Brook. ‘I want some austerity in premier cru Chablis because I want a wine that is going to age in an interesting way.’ Haynes thought the wines would best be enjoyed between two to five years post-vintage and suggested the latest drinking window for most between 2015 and 2018. ‘Maybe the wines were a little bit more advanced than I’d have thought,’ he added.
And are these good value wines?
Our judges agreed unanimously that Chablis premiers crus have a very good price-to-value ratio. ‘For me they represent much better value for money than the grands crus,’ said Tuck. ‘To the average consumer, they would taste very similar but there is frequently a significant price differential.’ Devaney added: ‘Village and premier cru wines still offer good value on a restaurant list and these 2010s will be no different.’ Spurrier and Brook said their value was extraordinary, with the latter adding: ‘There are some premier cru white Burgundies that are now pushing £85 a bottle. Some are maybe great wines, but who could afford them? With premier cru Chablis, you are talking about far more modestly priced wines that will give much more pleasure. Vive Chablis!’
