2001 Chablis Les Clos Grand Cru

Bernard Raveneau described 2002 as an ideal vintage, richer and more concentrated than 2000, with no need for chaptalization and sound acidity in the 4 to 4.5 grams-per-liter range. The wines, according to Raveneau, have more of the typical minerality of Chablis than the 2000s, a vintage in which some rain just before the harvest resulted in an element of dilution. Raveneau also clearly prefers the family's 2001s to its 2000s, and my tastings of the finished 2001s confirm that these are extremely impressive, even if they are in a different register of aromas and flavors. Raveneau told me he doesn't mind a bit of noble rot in his wines, noting that it gives them a honeyed quality and a more glyceral texture. There's no doubt that a vintage like 2001 is in a different style," he concluded, comparing this vintage to 1994.

Imagine my surprise when Bernard Raveneau announced that 2001 was a stronger vintage than 2000 for this superb estate. It was possible to get ripe fruit in 2001," Raveneau assured me. It all a question of controlling your yields. Yes, there was a lot of noble rot in 2001, but the rot brought extra gras to the wines. Three of our wines reached 13% potential alcohol, and we did very little chaptalization for the other cuvees Raveneau added. In 2000, it rained the weekend before the harvest, and the precipitation resulted in an element of dilution. The same thing happened to us in 1970, a very good vintage that could have been even better if not for rain just before the harvest that swelled the grapes. Like the '70s, the 2000s will be nice wines for drinking on the young side." Raveneau went on to describe the 2001s as more jovial, fruit-driven wines for mid-term consumption, while the 2000s, despite coming from a large crop, show more of the minerality for which Chablis is known. The best Raveneau bottlings from both vintages showed spectacularly in early June.