Domaine de la Romanee-Conti 2014s - from bottle

Having tasted at Bonneau du Martray and then Domaine Leflaive it was time to head north to Vosne-Romanee and to taste the Domaine de la Romanee-Conti 2014s from bottle with Aubert de Villaine. This was his first tasting from bottle. For good measure and as a reference please see my notes from the bottle tastings of 2012s and 2013s (both these tastings were in the February following - so just over 3 months later).

Corton - Good deep nose with red and black fruit that is then followed by herbs and Potpourri. There is real purity here, none of the hardness that you can sometimes associate with Corton. On the palate there is a beautiful touch of sweetness but also some nervous energy and some sappiness. All really rather fine, driven with some stemminess, delicious. Good, good wine, not massively Corton in nature but delicious. 17.5-18.5

Echezeaux - Orange rind and a dash of cloves, quite herbal on the nose. Both airy and complete, lifted. There is a little saline and the wine gets deeper and  more intense with every swirl. The palate has a lovely attack, sweet and then with that driven element. More richness and texture than the Corton. This is a larger Echezeaux than usual, more zip but also more weight, splendid...loved this. So complete. 18-18.5

Grands Echezeaux - A little deeper in colour than the Echezeaux. More spice and a darker fruit type, more introvert, more sinister than the Echezeaux. The nose is then almost the opposite, less deep, dark more nervous and with lift. There is a substantial weight in energy here, also quite a bit of tannin. This is a structured Grands Echezzeaux and should the mid-palate flesh out then a potentially special wine. 17.5-18.5 (the former score is the palate the later the nose - one to follow)

Romanee-Saint-Vivant - A shade deeper again but the differences are genuinely minute. A nose of real intensity but the orange rind character of Echezeaux is there. So pretty, so airy, a very complete nose. A very gentle but proper palate, a sweet attack and then drive. The palate matches the nose perfectly, very complete, elegant but with a certain graceful power, herbal oranges as part of the fruit. There is a certain richness that adds a dimension to this. My note finishes "exactly as it should be". 18-18.5+

Richebourg - Possibly a shade lighter than RSV for a change. A certain brooding nature to this, a little less complex than the Vivant on the nose, fruit a shade more candied, good focus but less dimensions. The palate has a certain stout power, darker fruit, masses of good tannins. Classy, serious, broader all round. Re-visiting the nose it is now more complex, there is almost indefinite ageing potential here. Not the grace of  Echezeaux or RSV but the spice and power is there. Classical Richebourg fans (I tend to be more an RSV man) will be very pleased. Scoring here was difficult  17.5- 19

La Tache - Very complex, a herbal edge, a very together wine, much harder to describe than the others for me. More red than black fruit. Saline comes in, a seriously enticing nose. I was surprised when we discussed the wines after (we tasted in silence) that the others found La Tache more muted, I didn't. The palate has lovely depth and sweetness, good weight too. There is a great element of persistent, elegant power here. The power comes from the layers rather than the weight for weights sake. Returning to the nose my note finishes with simply "that nose!!". 19

Romanee-Conti - At least the colour of La Tache (for a change). Deep nose, more reserved, more power than usual for me. Monumental depth and complexity. More dark fruit than red. Such sucrosity to the palate, intensely primary and redder, driven, spice and a definite herbal edge. Tight, latent, powerful for Romanee-Conti, super-expansive palate. A brilliantly confusing wine, like nailing jelly to a wall when it comes to describing it. "Rather wonderful" is a useless, if moderately accurate, description. 19-19.5

Montrachet - Pale yet golden colour. Brine and pure saline elements but with pure golden fruit. The definition of delicious. Shortbread and drive, energy. The perfect blend of power, richness and classicism. So, so, so generous yet totally true to young Grand Cru Burgundy. So full but so driven. My note here finishes with "I do not know in what way this could be better!" When I said this to Aubert he, smiled and said yes "we are very happy". Quite simply the greatest young white wine I have had. 19.5-20

It had been a great and always re-assuring tasting, these are great wines but you feel that they are great rather than trying to be great. I have a feeling that people have underestimated the 2014 reds just as they may do the same with the white 2015s.

And with this we were off to Dijon and train back to London.

The main man!

Domaine de la Romanee-Conti 2013's...

I try each year to document my notes of the Domaine de la Romanee-Conti wines. I did this with the DRC 2012's actually at the Domaine last year which was a real treat. Last Tuesday saw the annual press tasting of the 2013's - a vintage (the only vintage) I have been lucky enough to taste from barrel (see end of this POST). The wines are "finished" wines, served from bottle.

The wines in order of tasting are covered below (there is no Cuvee Duvault-Blochet in 2013), I am normally quite anal about putting Grand Cru, 1er Cru etc but as they are all Grand Cru...

Corton* - Markedly redder than it has been for the last few vintages, the first being 2009. Crisp and almost crunchy. This was the wine that I found most different at lunch with more volume of wine, it became more juicy with a bit more grip and grit. This is what 2013 Corton should be like, to my mind anyhow.

Echezeaux* - To me this is the wine that showed a whole bunch character the most. Pencil shavings and a little grit, fine-grained pepper too. It was driven and fresh with lively acidity and red fruits at the core...a serious Echezeaux, uncompromising.

Grands Echezeaux - A deeper and more substantial nose. More stuffing, darker fruit, good structure and a nicely sappy edge also, this is balanced and in common with the Echezeaux is a serious rendition.

Romanee-Saint-Vivant* - I am totally biased here having seen this wine come to full blossom over the last 15 years. This is floral and red fruited and with sincere focus. Intense, poised and quite linear. There is a little spice but it stays firmly in the background. I think 2013 exaggerates the strengths of RSV. Superb.

Richebourg - A lot of people mentioned this as a real favourite, I love how different it is from RSV. I'd almost always have the RSV if I was on a desert island and had to choose but hopefully that won't happen. The fruit is deeper and darker, blacker and more sturdy, as it should be. There is a little graphite and a very slight edge of orange rind. It's slightly like a combination of Corton, Clos Vougeot and Richebourg.

La Tache - The word that springs to mind, especially after such significant differences in the other wines, is "completeness". Elements of all the others and a seamless texture as well. There is that dash of spice and it is almost impossible to define the fruit as red or black as it is both. Refined and flamboyant in equal measure.

Romanee-Conti - Superb nose but somehow a little more one dimensional than La Tache. The palate is alive and very red-fruited and fresh a little like the RSV but with the texture of Tache. I am never worried by this wine not being head and shoulders above La Tache at this early stage. Romanee Conti always ages on its grace and harmony as this tasting taught me.

*the notes for these wines are an amalgam of the tasting and lunch.

The Montrachet is never shown at the tasting but I was lucky enough to try it over lunch afterwards.

Montrachet - Reduced nose (I love reduction), rich but not heavy. The palate has a balancing driven saline element that has a lot of energy to it. This is a cooler vintage Montrachet with great acidity, may be slightly less opulence. The nose over time lost the reductive covering with citrus, especially lemon, coming to the fore. This is in-line with the Montrachets from vintages like 2004 and 2007. Superb, cellar worthy and serious.

This is one of those days in the year that really makes me wish I had started my blog much earlier...

La Tache - decades and decades...

A wonderful dinner that was years in the organising by Jordi Orriols-Gil. It was a quite wonderful marathon all in all from a kick off at 7pm we finished at midnight…The notes below are a little erratic that is only because with some flights there was a bit of quiet and everyone was quite studious with others the conversation flowed and I wrote far less. As always when dealing with great wine the notes end up being comments and observations, or even character assessments, rather than descriptors.

A mention must go to The Square whose service was good as ever and whose menu was really delicious (a couple of pics at the bottom).

Salad and Tartare of Highland Wagyu Beef with Nasturtium and Bouton de Culotte

Ravioli of Wild Mushrooms with Melted Onions, Parsley Oil and Snails

Glazed Veal Cheeks with Cauliflower, Chanterelles, Parmesan Caviar and Truffle 

Breast & Croustillant of Pigeon with Confit of Vegetables and Trompettes de la Mort 

Burgundian Cheese

Rhubarb Fool

So, on with the wines:

Bollinger RD 79 en magnum - Rich, opulent, a little dry Tarte Tatin, enticing with some saline.

Montrachet 1950, Comte de Moucheron – The Comte de Moucheron were the owners of Chateau du Meursault and the owners of the plot of Montrachet that was later sold to the Domaine in 1966. This was alive but fully mature, as you’d expect. A dry butterscotch and orange character, tangy.

The wines were then served in flights of between three and six wines. The glasses used were mid sized, bigger and some of the delicate wines would have been too prone to oxidation as we were 14 people to each bottle. No wines were decanted just poured straight from the bottle. Other than the magnum of Bollinger everything was from bottle format.

Flight 1: A brilliant flight of young wines that really showed exactly the characters I expected of the vintages.

1999 – Such amazing vibrancy, so rich with fruit but so focussed, a shade of graphite minerality but essentially a wine of opulent fruit, some of that fruit is quite dark. Really very special, on reflection one of the wines of the night. I have had this a few times and it is a stunningly exciting wine, no doubt about that. If you own this be very excited.

 
2000 – A shade more bruised in fruit character, mulled fruit a little, a dash of orange rind but only a tiny bit, light and elegant, no blockbuster, gentle, good focus, became more generous, easily nice, a little grip on the end but essentially very complete if short of being profound.

2002 – A shade degraded as you would expect, very 2002 to the 1999’s purity. “Mulchy” there will be undergrowth to come soon, some mushroom but also sweetness, young but on track to be a wine that has superb secondary and tertiary class. Structure is very good, definitely there but very balanced, retains it’s sweetness. On revisiting later is tightened up and kept it’s focus.

Flight 2: Possibly the flight where I learnt the most, wonderful differences.

1980 – Interestingly Aubert noted that this was the second vintage (after the ‘79) where they did no racking, straight from barrel to bottle so as not to lose anything. This wine reminded me of the Romanee Conti 1965 we had had the previous evening. Incredibly clear, clean and pure, so persistent, like rosewater, consommé and savoury notes all at the same time. Amazing and in most peoples top three wines of the night, who would have thought…

 
1985 – More red colour and depth than the 1980, sweetness, life, very fine. Three of those assembled commented that it was not as perfect as another bottle they had previously drunk together but to me this was high class and really pretty decadent.

1989 – This had a strictness and correctness but certainly a lack of charm. Good weight and density as well as darker, thicker colour, more robust but also a little clumsy. The tannin ws definitely there, as was dark fruit but somehow the two did not meld as they might. I was very re-assured by Aubert’s observation that this was a wine that went into bottle “in a bad mood and has never really changed”. In isolation a good wine from a vintage that has never been as great in Burgundy as other European regions.

1990 – Superb, decadent nose, very 1990. There is an element of the 1999 about this but may be more degradation. There is a little savoury side but fundamentally this is a wine of dark but fresh fruit, succulent texture and a dash of cleansing saline at the end. Odd though this may sound but it reminds me of a Burgundian Haut-Brion 1989 in so far as it is just so hard not to like it and yet it stands out as being of the vintage as much as the site. Delicious.

1991 – If the 1990 has always been the opulent, generous, crowd pleaser then the 1991 is the purists vintage, all freshness and red fruit with acidity to focus and sort of perfect leanness. Such focus and life, nervous energy if you like. Aubert commented that it corresponds exactly to the type of wine that he likes to make. Poised and classy.

1989-1990-1991

Flight 3: It is fair to say this was comfortably the most under performing flight, even those that were good had a degraded, powdery colour and texture.

1970 – It was noted that this was a very difficult vintage with botrytis almost floating in the air as in 1965 and 1967. The wine had some bruised oranges, then quite quickly mushrooms and mushroom water*, it was a little weary but I did like it, long as well.

1971 – We tried two bottles. Neal Martin, whose birth year this is, said he must have cursed the wine. The first was promising but ever so slightly corked and once you noticed this you couldn’t avoid it. The second bottle was more correct but not (cork aside) as good as the first. A shame, you could though tell in that the first showed real class and texture as well as savoury persistence.

1972 – Oranges and Verdehlo Madeira, a zesty powderiness, it was like must, pretty exhausted, so beyond mature but my note finished “bizarrely enjoyable”.

1974 – This was noted as a rainy vintage like 1967 and 1977. There was sweetness there and dry wood, a good surprise, not serious but really enjoyable.

1976 – Aubert commented that there are others who probably made better '76’s. It was very hot but picked in the rain that finally came. Someone asked about 1976 and 2003 being similar and Aubert felt that 2005 has more in common with 1976 than 2003 does. I like this wine, clean, precise and really quite dense, a great effort.

1978 – Sadly this was not as it should be. A Bual character and drinkable due to some sweetness but… 

  

Flight 4: A lovely flight, clear candidates for the wine of even this night.

1962 – Not correct in colour or tasting

1964 – Wow! Stunning, fresh and pure, red-fruited bliss, energy and life, vibrant. Not heavy just weighted perfectly and balanced, feminine even. Exceptional.

1965 – Some soy and balsamic, nice, on the savoury yet focussed side of things. Some mushroom came out and the colour did brown in the glass, elegant.

1966 – Delicious, nervous, so elegant, sweet yet savoury, some wood and nutmeg, real depth, I could see the ’99 developing this way but then I could say that for the 1964 as well and yet the two wines are quite different.

1969 – I made very few notes here sadly – I had it down as good but lacking a little fruit sweetness.

 
1964 – Another bottle, a little less “red” than the other, very good though, slightly more saline and savoury notes but the same focus. A magnificent bottle on any night but just shaded by the over 1964.

Flight 5: What our host would call mature wines!

1950 – Tea, some orange but lightly so, citrus, sweetness, almost some butterscotch, a little vanilla, lovely, elegant...with air some coffee notes appeared…fascinating. It was very interesting to note that this vintage was all but written off by the critics…it certainly “shouldn’t” be alive now!

1952 – Delicate, lovely, fresh, bright, a little edge to it but there is some volume, fascinating.

1953 – Sadly not in taste-able condition.

Romanee-Conti 1953 – Clean and clear, very very good, very persistent and focussed, real weightlessness but also sweetness. Light and elegant, very fine.

1958 - Sadly not in taste-able condition.

1959 – A dash of caramel, a real similarity of character to the Romanee Conti 1959 tasted a few weeks previously. There is a viscosity and intense sweetness, incredible.

Flight 6:

1937 - Sadly not in taste-able condition.

1943 – Bacon on the nose to a degree, richness but a light framework, in one place. It has an energy albeit delicate…surprisingly long.
Not that any more wine was needed but Jordi always likes to keep the line of vintages going back so we went into the 1920's with:

Climens 1929 – Very much Brulee initially, dried fruits quickly appear, good but fully mature of course.

Doisy-Daene 1928 – Fresher, lovely, toffee apple character even some pecan…

What an evening, a great reward for Jordi's hard work in assembling these bottles. Certainly a tasting I can't imagine will ever be repeated. I don't think anyone has ever doubted La Tache's place at the top table of vineyards in the world let lone Burgundy. Possibly the most true identifier of a great site is the ability to perform year in year out and in a series of different vintage conditions. La Tache does this from extroverts like 2002, 1990, 1959 to the refined and elegant dancers of 1980, 1991 and more…wonderful (however biased I may be)...

The beginning and the end...

Salad and Tartare of Highland Wagyu Beef with Nasturtium and Bouton de Culotte

Ravioli of Wild Mushrooms with Melted Onions, Parsley Oil and Snails

*Mushroom water - this is a note I have started to use a fair bit, it describes the smell you get when soaking dried mushrooms in hot water. This normally signals that Mrs Hargrove is making her mushroom risotto, always a good thing! 

All aboard the Cutty Sark

This was a very special evening however biased I may be. With Aubert de Villaine in town for a dinner at the Cutty Sark. We had a champagne reception on deck with access to the middle deck for those that might not have had a thick enough coat with them, or forgotten hat and gloves! Delamotte Blanc de Blancs NV from magnum is always a good option and drinks so well. For the actual dinner we moved downstairs to eat at tables of ten under the hull. Coated in copper it is a striking place for a dinner. Aubert amusingly noted it was also a wise choice given it was one of the few ships of note that had not fought the French. The menu was a good one that worked very well, the standard especially given it was for 100 people was superb.

Confit sea trout, sweet pea puree, roasted lobster oil

Wood pigeon, barley risotto, balsamic jus, lemon thyme

Thyme roasted guinea fowl, anna potato, salt baked carrots, cavelo nero

Sourdough toast, griddled mushrooms, parsley butter

To start the Domaines wines for the evening, all of which had been collected from the estate just 3 weeks before the dinner, we had the Bâtard Montrachet 2000. The Domaine have enough land, two ouvres which is 1/12th of a hectare, in Batard to produce about two barrels. From a conversation I had a few weeks before it appears that the harvest here is always done at the same time as the Montrachet. This was purchased with the Domaines Montrachet in 1966. The wine is never released for sale and in fact this was a very rare excursion outside the Domaine. There is a touch of the tropical about the nose but then there is a balancing saline edge, a lovely richness but it does have freshness. Aubert commented that, like Montrachet, you can really let this get fully ripe without worrying about a lack of energy. As less wine was left in the glass there was a phase when it was a little smokey like lapsang tea and then the empty glass had a lovely dash of butterscotch. A cracking start to the evening.

Échézeaux 2000 and Grands Échézeaux 2000 came next, It was a really good pair. The vintage is one that slightly gets overlooked given it falls in amongst '99, '01 and '02. Aubert made a very good point during the evening that to speak nowadays about "great" and "lesser" vintages is really a little pointless, it should be "easy" and "difficult" as there is so much that can be done in the vineyard and in selection. So how were these two wines? Without sounding silly there were both great, but in different ways. The Echezeaux had a delightful airy nose, stones and minerals then berries and raspberries, very bright and wonderfully accessible. The Grands Echezeaux was far more restrained and muted on the nose but then the palate comes alive with so much fruit, really impressive. I finally think after about 16 years I am starting to understand this Cru. It is never showy, always more restrained but serious.

For the main course it was another pair: Richebourg 1991 and La Tâche 1991. Aubert mentioned how 1991 was neither as spectacular or seductive as 1990 but has a long way to go, "the type of wines I really like to make". I have been lucky to have a fair few 1991's from the Domaine in the last few years and I love the vintage, elegance and focus tend to be the words I would use. These two both showed well. The Richebourg was the darker and richer of the two as you would expect but the focus of the wine and precision of the fruit was a massive, good, surprise for me, there was a moreish minerality behind the fruit, really lovely. The La Tache 1991 is always a star, very hard to write about, focussed with red fruit and some gentle spice, "complete" is the word.

From the 1991's we then went to a blind vintage of Romanée-Conti, not an everyday occurrence, this got all sorts of guessing games going. It was precise, elegant, not heavy but very persistent with some gentle red fruits and a tea-like purity, clearly not from a big warm vintage but a wine with refined texture and beautiful weightlessness. The reaction when it was revealed as 1965 was excellent. The fact that a 50 year old vintage that was not in anyway a showbiz vintage showed this well is wonderful.

There was one more "drink" to come Marc de Bourgogne 1979. I think most people were still re-tasting and wallowing in the wines so this may be didn't get a fair crack, I had a glass and liked it as usual, I was though past the stage of tasting notes.

The dinner worked so well as we had wines from 6 different Grand Cru sites and they all showed their characters very clearly...this is exactly what you, well certainly I do, want from Burgundy at the top level.

DRC 2012's...I am biased but...

This is the first of three posts from the biennial meeting of the various Domaine de la Romanee-Conti agents from round the world. On the second morning we tasted the 2012's from bottle with 1 hour in the glass before tasting.

Domaine de la Romanee-Conti 2012’s

I have not commented on the colours here for two reasons, I am not good at it and in all honesty I do not feel it tells you a great deal at this stage.

My over-riding impression is of wines with a wonderful balance of fruit density and proper/serious structure, I imagine the vast majority will close down a fair bit in the next 2-3 years, this appears to me to be a vintage for the long term, like the 2010’s. While there will be charm early I think these wines need and demand time (more so than 2007, 2009 and 2011 for instance).

No Vosne-Romanee 1er Cru “Duvault-Blochet” was made in 2012 (nor in 2013). You may think given the name of this blog that this would be a disappointment but in honesty I like that it is not made each year. One day I would love to sit down and taste them all... 

Corton

Charming, quite dark fruit, the nose is true to Corton but with charm. You can feel the whole bunch vinification. The palate at this stage does not have the density, nor depth, of fruit that you get from the nose. There is good grip but it is not overpowering. Complexity will come with time for sure.

On re-visiting at the end of the tasting and with more air the forest fruits were coming out.

Score: 17-17.5

Drink: 2020-2030

Echezeaux

A shade reductive, which I like, lovely "complete" nose with an earthy element, multidimensional. There is fruit and as usual for the Domaine's Echezeaux it is red, it releases more and more with the air and swirling. The palate is red fruited also, more delicately but it grows. There is a good structure, not harsh but definite, very grown-up. I like this a lot, a very good Echezeaux.

On re-visiting at the end of the tasting and with more air it became more decadent and of course less reductive, the fruit is ever so slightly degraded, real complexity – I’m very impressed.

score:18.5+

drink: 2021-2034+

Grands Echezeaux

Less animal and more primary than Echezeaux in character, though less expressive, may be the most muted of all the wines in this tasting. Very complete, quite brooding and serious, alluring and academic.

On re-visiting at the end of the tasting and with more air it made me think that this will go more to the savoury end of the spectrum in time.

score: 18 – 18+

drink: 2022-2032+

Romanee-Saint-Vivant

I seem to love this wine more every year. I also feel the purity of fruit character is the closest to that of Romanee-Conti itself. Mellow yet precise red fruits hit you. There is a light freshness of orange peel as well. Easier to assess and easier to love than Grands Echezeaux. To counter the red fruit there is a gentle white pepper spice that I often find in Romanee-Saint-Vivant, it never overpowers but always balances the fruit. Very poised and attractive on the nose. It is though the seriousness of the palate that I think really marks the outstanding quality of this wine. Whilst the nose makes you flirt with it the palate makes you sit up and pay attention. There is a depth of minerality on the palate that lifts the complexity of the wine and makes it so moreish, a persistent and fine structure here that almost goes unnoticed but is there as a serious frame to the lovely fruit. As might be obvious I have really rather “fallen” for this wine.

On re-visiting I was delighted to have all the above confirmed, this is a superb Romanee-Saint-Vivant – seriousness to balance the attractiveness.

score: 18.5 – 19

drink: 2022-2035++

Richebourg

Tasting and reveling in the differences between Romanee-Saint-Vivant and Richebourg is one of the greatest parts of any tasting with the Domaine’s wines. Darker-fruit, more cherried and with some damson there is a certainty about Richebourg a rugged confidence, just short of swagger and so it is here. The palate shows a little less weight of fruit than the nose, not quite so brooding, more charm. The structure is clear but ripe.

On revisiting I found the biggest difference of all the wines, some animal a little graphite and cool savoury minerality as well as a good structure, may be the sleeper?

score: 18 - 18.5+

drink: 2024 – 2036++

La Tache

I got a tiny note of “grain” or as I noted, popcorn “unpopped”, immediately the glass was swirled it went. La Tache is so often the “confident senior sibling” and so it was here. The glass that was most empty at the end of the tasting. I find this often the hardest to describe but then tend to waffle. There is an earthy power, some links to Echezeaux here, that is very La Tache, this is expressively complex, more “sharp minded Bon Viveur” less the “intense academic”…There is a lovely structure a little mouthwatering dryness that leads to a dash of pepper, pink not white, herbs and gentle spice. With more air it gets more complete and harder to describe, this is a serious La Tache for the long term but as ever it is also charming and welcoming.

On re-visiting the above was just confirmed.

score: 18.5-19+

drink: 2022-2036+

Romanee Conti

The lift of fruited excellence that you see in Romanee-Saint-Vivant with some of the earthy complexity in the background that was evident in Echezeaux and La Tache, lovely. A striking balance of black and red fruits, powerful and brooding yet not too closed or too tense. This is serious, a keeper. There is sweetness but it is kept in check with a persistent and definite, if lightly worn, structure. To say the integration of the fruit, structure and texture is perfect is too technical but so true.

On revisiting there is so much depth and complexity, near perfect.

score: 19.5+

drink: 2024-2040+

Le Montrachet

The colour is confusing as everything is there, flashes of green, yellow, gold even. Real power and almost a spritz of youth. There are notes of brine and lowland malt mixed with white flowers and yellow fruits that stop just short of the tropical. The palate is so lively, so driven and focused, as was commented there is an almost Corton-Charlemagne tension like, verve and drive to the attack then the tongue is left in no doubt that this is Montrachet. There is an impression of sweetness and a textural weight to come. My hand written notes finish with “Epic potential”. This may well be a legend…so sad that there is so little but may be that plays a part?

score: 19-20

drink: 2019 – 2032++

Bernard Noblet spoke about the vintage after we tasted. 

One additional observation:

Were I to pair the reds on the basis of similarities of overall character it would be easy to my mind:

Corton with Richebourg

Echezeaux with La Tache

Romanee-Saint-Vivant with Romanee-Conti

As always, a privilege to taste the whole line-up and even more so to do it in Vosne-Romanee itself.