The discussion of Belgian barrels had me wondering when it became the norm in Bordeaux to make an assemblage and bottle that rather than barrel by barrel. I remember hearing that Lafite stopped bottling by barrel in 1975, but was curious when the practice stopped.It would explain a lot of the variation of old Bordeaux (and other regions I suspect). Didn’t find much, if anyone has insights, please let me know.
Anyway, as I was researching it, I saw this article from the venerable merchant, Berry Bros, which is tangential to what I was curious about, but nevertheless, fascinating.
Very interesting article! Thanks for sharing
Thanks for posting the article. Your original question was partially answered, it depends on the estate, and it started with Latour in 1924 :
“It is largely for commercial reasons that the leading estates have for many years now insisted on château-bottling only, although it may not be generally realised that it was possible to buy Ch. Latour in cask up to 1924 and Ch. Margaux up to 1949.”
Larry,
My question was when did most chateaux do a full assemblage and bottle from that, rather than bottle from each barrel.
Interesting article thanks for posting,
Im sure a lot of english merchants were unhappy with the end of bulk shipping, they lost the ability to “stretch the cask” and “improve the wine”.,
To answer your original question, Im not sure but I guess you would need to create an assemblage to feed a bottling line as opposed to hand bottling barrel by barrel.
We avoided non-chateaux/ bottles of Bordeaux, too many were not the same.
On the other hand, we legitimately had to have custom labels put on the Ports we imported in the early 80’s–holdovers from that era. The capsules were branded/imprinted and bottles were frequently shiners when purchased from the Brits.
Imagine Rudi in the “mix” back then? Yikes!
It was Mouton that first estate bottled, if I am not mistaken in 1924, not Latour.
Very interesting article. Much of it could have been written yesterday about the pricing. I was struck though by this prophesy about taking the merchant out of the role of curator:
Will the grower be content to sell his less successful wine under some general appellation at a lower price, or will he be tempted to bottle it himself and rely on his past reputation to fetch the higher price? The danger is that if the public becomes conditioned to think that Château X is always “a good wine” some merchants might be obliged to stock it whatever they really thought of a particular vintage. Whereas at present our customers know that anything bottled under the B.B. & R. label, irrespective of the district or the year, is on our list because we have confidence in it.
often barrel by barrel in Burgundy, sometimes a 5 barrel or greater assemblage. Quantities and resources are often much smaller, of course.
This sounds like very self-serving BB&R marketing. There was always pressure on the trade to buy all vintages of the better wines. What producer wanted to sell importer or retailers 82 or 90 or 2000 or 2010 when demand exceeded supply if they hadn’t bought 80 or 87 or 97 and 2007?
Moreover, one of the big trends of the last 20 or 30 years is for the classified growths to create and expand their second and third labels so they can declassify wine and still sell it under the broad umbrella of the chateau’s brand. That way they don’t have to sell off lesser lots or vintages in bulk to the BB&Rs of the world.
It’s a pendulum, sometimes with the merchant sometimes with the chateaux. The Dillons bought Chateau Haut Brion in 1935, it was the mid fifties before they turned a profit. Back in the seventies merchants had the upper hand, and after a bright 1970s futures campaign the market collapsed, and negotiants, themselves, created enough scandals that both sides were hurt, and neither had the upper hand.
The eighties and nineties, the pendulum was in the equal position, but since 2000, and especially 2005, we have seen chateaux take charge. This may prove to be irreversible, as owners of the major estates now have so much cash, there is little or nothing that the merchant can offer that the chateau cannot do itself, at least at the top end. Hence Chateau Latour going alone.
Outside of the FGS, the second label does allow for some cash flow, but yields are down overall, and second and third wines were included in the Grand Vin, and priced there. The First growths second labels sell for more money than many classified growths. Is Les Forts actually as good as Lynch Bages or Grand Puy Lacoste? Not in my book, but they can and do sell for more money.
Second wines for Grand Puy and Lynch do not make a lot of money. Small profit, but the money is in the Grand Vin. They are still dependent on merchants, and this is where Berry Bros still has some power, and I don’t think that will change. I really do not think GPL wants to deal with mailing lists and consumers coming to the door to pick up wines. So merchants are likely to stay, and who knows, another crisis, and the chateaux may become dependent on the negotiant again.
The original article was really interesting, and I thought it courageous of Berry Bros to put it out there.