Burgundy 2016 – S–Z

Juicy and crisp on the palate with a simple, fresh style giving correct lemon and apple fruits as well as a slightly herby note on the finish. (RH)

Spicier than their Hautes-Côtes de Beaune, with pithy green-apple fruit and lemon zest freshening the finish. Some salty character giving a savoury aftertaste. (RH)

Rich spices and creamy texture with reasonably full body and attractive flinty notes on the finish. More fleshy than zingy, but doesn't lack refreshment. (RH)

Oak shows on the nose here in gentle mealy spice. Lovely creamy palate shot through with cool, citrus freshness. Perfect balance between fruit and winemaking. Long finish. (JH)

Less expressive on the nose than Sur La Roche Mâcon-Vergisson from the same domaine, and a little more cedary. Marked cedary character on the palate, lean but not mean, tight and fresh with lots of presence in the mouth, breadth and a terrific arrow-like freshness to a long finish. Very good. GV (JH)

Cool, herbal freshness. Stony and dusty. Excellent combination of breadth and texture on the palate and a tight, lively freshness. Just what Mâcon should be. A touch of spice on the zesty finish. (JH)

Smells as if there is more deliberate oak influence here than in the Mâcon-Villages yet there’s also a steely precision to the aroma. Deep, mildly chewy and with a fresh citrus and spice finish. GV (JH)

Firm and intense with the rounded richness in the texture as a perfect counterpoint to the bright, cedary, citrus freshness. Really persistent. GV (JH)

Riper fruit on the nose – there’s citrus but also some just-ripe pineapple. Juicy, bright and complete, the finish lengthened by a creamy texture and finely balanced acidity. (JH)

That rounded character of discreet oak influence and just a touch smokily reductive. Deep, orange-scented on the palate, with an almost chewy texture and impressive length. Brilliant freshness all entwined with the fruit and texture. GV (JH)

Clay soil.
Ripe, creamy citrus aroma but still has a dusty mineral note. Firm and full in the mouth, broad but less intense thant the Vignes Blanches. Clean, fresh cedary finish. (JH)

Calcareous with very shallow topsoil.
More obviously stony on the nose than the Ronchevats but also brighter citrus fruit. Intense, chalky textured and long. Elegant and still creamy on the finish. Creamy enough to enjoy soon but with the core of fruit and freshness for a long life. (JH)

Pale gold. Very rich with a classic, broad Pouilly-Fuissé nose. Almost fat and very evolved – even slightly oily. Absolutely ready. (JR)

Very pale. Lightly toasty but distinctly sweet too. Easy to appreciate! Just a tad simple. But manna for airline and restaurant buyers. A little chewy on the end. (JR)

Light nose and then good tension underneath. But overall just a little dull. (JR)

Round and a little rich. Halfway to JM Boillot style?! Easy to like. (JR)

Hint of steel and liquorice on the nose. Some green-fruit flavours and almost painful acidity. (JR)

Light nose. Sleek and neat – bit of a civil servant of a wine; does not set the heart racing. Bit stodgy and chewy on the end. (JR)

Light citrus, not particularly expressive. Very crisp, light body and just a very slight creaminess in the texture of the finish. A bit too tart to drink on its own. (JH)

Screwcap. Dusty/stony nose. Bright, fresh, zesty. Mouth-watering but in balance. Almost chewy on the finish. (JH)

Screwcap. Even more stony in aroma than the Petit Chablis. Lemon freshness and only a touch more intensity than in the Petit Chablis – seems slightly softer though, and a bit longer. (JH)

More expressive on the nose, with a gentle woody spice underpinning the fruit. Steely and deep rather than rich. Then pretty tart on the finish but with sufficient balance to age well in bottle. (JH)

Unoaked. Gently creamy/leesy nose, stony citrus. Subtle and nicely dusty. More grapefruit on the palate, tangy and crisp and that same stony character. Very precise, tight and mouth-watering, the crisp acidity balanced by the lees texture. (JH)

Aged in 500-litre oak.
More mealy on the nose than the Preuses, thanks to the oak, a little bit yeasty. This seems to have less concentration at the core but it is fuller in the mouth thanks to the oak. This is broader but has less finesse than the Preuses and perhaps less ageing potential? (JH)