Premier cru prime choice?

Through a stroke of good luck I have been able to participate in a number of tastings of white Burgundies over the last 12 years. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I was particularly interested in the grands crus.

What surprised me was that out of 47 grands crus from Leflaive, Le Moine, Ramonet, Sauzet and Verget (produced from 1996 to 2005 and tasted after 10-15 years), only a third turned out to be really great, in my view. One third was either oxidised or just had nothing agreeable to offer, and a final third was somewhere in between, say at the level of a mediocre ‘village’ wine. In contrast, virtually all premier cru whites from the same producers (stored for 10-12 years in the same cellar) performed very well indeed.

Were we just unfortunate? Maybe. Or could it be that producers somehow overdo things when making a grand cru white Burgundy, thereby often making the wine worse instead of better? With their high reputation, these wines will sell anyway and (as is often the case with luxury goods) their high prices seem to attract, rather than deter potential buyers.

Eric de Winter, Arnhem, Netherlands

Decanter responds: The vintages you cite, Mr de Winter, cover almost exactly the period when the question of ‘premox’ – premature oxidation – arose in the wine industry globally. This was seen particularly to affect white Burgundies, of all levels. It may be that premox was a contributory factor in the problems you’ve been unfortunate enough to experience with your wines. For a summary of the premox episode and what it entailed, please visit Decanter.com/premox