Well the original Burg hater is fully in Burg mode.  And I really think what got me here, after thoughtful retrospection, is Beaujolais.  With that in mind and with the recently released The Finest Wines of Burgundy by Bill Nanson in my skyrocket (pocket), I was swayed to order some Burgs on a recent night out in London with close mates at up and coming Clapham restaurant Trinity (no big review, but the food was fantastic, truly).  I zeroed in on the 2009 Domaine Bart 2009 “Les Finottes” Marsannay immediately.  First of all it was a 2009 (which are drinking well now and I love) and it was from a trusted producer whom I had come to know through Chambers Street Wines.  Well, this is fantastic stuff, and I can say it does not remind me a little of excellent Cru Beaujolais; very pure red and purple fruits with great stoney minerality; in a word, delicious.  We required two bottles and stayed in Burgundy and jumped up a bit (in price at least) to the Comte Armand Volnay 2008.  Right off the bat I was hit with new oak; not too much, but enough for me to wonder… why?  And while I know this is considered, and should be, the finer wine, I was really smitten with the Bart Marsannay for it’s purity.  As I have gone through each domaine in Nanson’s excellent tome on his faves in Burgundy, I have noted the proportions of new French oak that are used.  I really wonder if more than 20-25% is really necessary, and this is only to represent the proportion which is theoretically needed to keep the barrels renewed in their life cycle.  That said, I also thought that the Bart Marsannay was ready now; the Comte Armand, with it’s new oak, and nice acidity, etc. was really destined for the long haul.  It reminded me of where a great traditional Rioja might go after 10-20 years.  But still, is purity not the better play?  In Burgundy, as in anywhere really, if you can taste the oak, you can’t taste the wine, the fruit, the soil, the terroir, etc.  So what’s the point?