Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
User avatar
Chris Blum
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 7111
Joined: October 10th 2009, 1:40pm
Location: Home of the Mayo Clinic

Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #1  Postby Chris Blum » March 2nd 2013, 2:05pm

Florent Baumard has issued a strongly worded press release in response to Jim Budd.

http://www.baumard.fr/Docs/1-WhatCanISay.pdf
Although we have been appalled by these unjust and defamatory attacks, we have remained quiet safe in the knowledge that we alone know what we have recorded during this recent harvest. Cold pressing allowed us to use the best of a crop battered by the weather, with grapes whose maturity levels were extremely heterogeneous, even by Loire standards.

http://www.baumard.fr/Docs/2-SourGrapes.pdf
Mr Budd’s ill-informed and intemperate critiscims of our business clumsily disguise the true motive of his attack: "It is high time for Baumard to waive their appeals against the Grand Cru Quarts de Chaume".


In case you have not been following the "case of the unripe grapes." Here is the linky...
http://jimsloire.blogspot.com/2013/02/b ... racle.html
"Well, wine only turns into alcohol if you let it sit" -- Lucille Bluth
"The Packers f'n suck" -- Todd French

Advertisement

User avatar
Roberto Rogness
 
Posts: 18966
Joined: February 10th 2009, 11:16am
Location: Santa Monica, Rio de Janeiro

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #2  Postby Roberto Rogness » March 2nd 2013, 3:25pm

Wow....that may be the geekiest bit of wine writing I have ever seen. Fascinating but straight outta geekville!
ITB Retail
É prohibido prohibir!
Michael Powers
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 2688
Joined: March 6th 2010, 2:47pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #3  Postby Michael Powers » March 2nd 2013, 4:02pm

I think that Jim makes a pretty strong case.
User avatar
W. Leonard
 
Posts: 569
Joined: September 25th 2011, 7:27am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #4  Postby W. Leonard » March 2nd 2013, 4:10pm

http://www.baumard.fr/Docs/2-SourGrapes.pdf
Cold pressing is not a miracle, nor is it a "sham". It has had scientific accreditationsince 1987 and is used by the world’s greatest chateaux and wine makers, including those of Sauternes and Barsac.


Would be nice to have an example...

Also, just because a winery wines awards and accolades I shouldn't be skeptical of their practices?
warren@weygandtwines.com
User avatar
Pierre-Yves
 
Posts: 92
Joined: January 24th 2013, 9:47pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #5  Postby Pierre-Yves » March 2nd 2013, 4:41pm

Cryo-extraction or cryo-selection as the Baumard calls it is authorized by the AOC till 2019.
You can debate about it, but if someone disagrees with it has more to do with AOC regulations than the Baumard domaine.

However, the main point remains : what was the potential alcohol % from the tries, given that mother nature made it very hard to produce any high sugar grapes.
Since this is a regulatory point, I am still wondering how and who ensures that. They must have some kind of trace/files to ensures that, and if so I think it would have clarified the debate if Baumard exhibited those potential alcohol numbers.
And since I think the mustometer uses grape juice, which moult did they use ? they used a special one made before cryo selection or used the one after, in which case I believe would comply the regulations.

A lot of suppositions here....

Pierre-Yves
Pierre-Yves C h @ u v e @ u
User avatar
Chris Blum
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 7111
Joined: October 10th 2009, 1:40pm
Location: Home of the Mayo Clinic

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #6  Postby Chris Blum » March 2nd 2013, 5:36pm

In fact Florent regards it simply as an additional tri, no different to workers passing through the vineyard, selecting ripe or botrytised fruit, leaving unripe or non-botrytised fruit on the vine. In cooling the fruit he looks for less ripe, less sugar-rich grapes to freeze first, and when this is achieved he presses the fruit, thereby extracting juice from the ripe and richer grapes, whereas those less ripe berries which have frozen solid contribute nothing.


From chris kissack's write up of Baumard on thewinedoctor.com
"Well, wine only turns into alcohol if you let it sit" -- Lucille Bluth
"The Packers f'n suck" -- Todd French
Michael Powers
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 2688
Joined: March 6th 2010, 2:47pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #7  Postby Michael Powers » March 2nd 2013, 5:51pm

Chris, the question I have after reading that is, how do you still get a huge yield with that system if they come in that underripe? Jim says the yield is close to max allowed and much higher per hectare than anyone else saw. Pressing only the ripe grapes in a very low potential year, if I understand this method, should result in an extremely small yield, right?

In any case, calling it an extra tri seems disingenuous.
User avatar
Chris Blum
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 7111
Joined: October 10th 2009, 1:40pm
Location: Home of the Mayo Clinic

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #8  Postby Chris Blum » March 2nd 2013, 8:55pm

Totally agree, Michael.
"Well, wine only turns into alcohol if you let it sit" -- Lucille Bluth
"The Packers f'n suck" -- Todd French
User avatar
Lewis Dawson
 
Posts: 3875
Joined: June 7th 2009, 5:37pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas, USA

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #9  Postby Lewis Dawson » March 3rd 2013, 12:57am

Jim Budd is on Baumard like Klapp is on Parker. He is on a mission, and I wonder how that colors his judgement and objectivity. Still, I am an old school traditionalist and do not approve of cryo-extraction. I regret that the appellation rules permit it, and glad it is being removed, albeit slowly.
-- Lew --
Italian Bikes &
Fr
User avatar
Jamie Goode
 
Posts: 77
Joined: May 16th 2009, 4:23pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #10  Postby Jamie Goode » March 4th 2013, 4:44pm

The proof is in the wines, isn't it?
User avatar
teddemop
 
Posts: 393
Joined: February 10th 2011, 12:50pm
Location: New Hampshire

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #11  Postby teddemop » March 4th 2013, 4:53pm

Jamie Goode wrote:The proof is in the wines, isn't it?

And the wine is fantastic!
Well, I had one of their Cremants last week that I didn't care much for (and I should post a TN - lazy me).

The entire thing is fascinating, but that's from a wine geek perspective of course!
D3m0p0ul05
ChampagnePoodle.com
User avatar
Jim Brennan
 
Posts: 3226
Joined: April 17th 2009, 6:10pm
Location: People's Republic of Illinois

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #12  Postby Jim Brennan » March 4th 2013, 5:15pm

Jamie Goode wrote:The proof is in the wines, isn't it?


I'm good with that. But I also want "truth in advertising", as the saying goes.

If there's truth in what Jim Budd is alleging, then I'd argue that Florent should drop the AOC, and be very clear that he harvested grapes which don't meet the AOC standards (overcropped and underripe), detail how he achieved his spectacular results (cryoetraction and/or other methods), be very clear about how many bottles of Baumard Quarts de Chaume were produced (which will show up on shelves here in the US for approximately the same price as bottles of Huet Moelleux 1er Trie, just by way of comparison), and let the chips fall where they may.

Lew Dawson, I don't think your analogy to Bill is accurate. To me, it seems that Jim Budd has a reasonable and demonstrated record of investigative wine journalism, and I similarly believe that he's largely been accurate. Although I guess if his mission is to uncover hypocrisy, then perhaps he and Bill do share some qualities.
User avatar
Thierry Jutel
 
Posts: 231
Joined: April 29th 2010, 6:32am
Location: Wellington, NZ

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #13  Postby Thierry Jutel » March 4th 2013, 6:12pm

Correct me if I'm wrong but the issue seems to be about how much Baumard declared after picking (close to the maximum allowed), and what ultimately ends up in the wine after cryo-extraction or cryo-selection which I assumed would be different. Baumard argues that the extra step of selection ensures that only the ripened grapes are used, and therefore this would reduce the yield. However, this is not what they have to declare at picking. Of course this is hardly a traditional approach, getting all the grapes in the winery and then selecting from there.
I have mixed feelings about this for sure, but then the Baumard have been doing things differently for a long time. When you drive around the area, you cannot miss the Baumard vineyards and their very tall vines. And then you have the use of screwcaps. One cannot underestimate the extent to which the Baumard stand out in the AOC for all these practices. I have a lot of respect for that.
All of this of course is happening a stone-throw away from Nicolas Joly on one side and Chateau Pierre Bise on the other (a producer for which I have the highest regard). Who said there is no diversity in the rather small area!
@thierrynz
CT strava thierrynz
User avatar
Z. A c s a n
 
Posts: 313
Joined: December 19th 2012, 12:26pm

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #14  Postby Z. A c s a n » March 4th 2013, 6:50pm

Pierre-Yves wrote:Cryo-extraction or cryo-selection as the Baumard calls it is authorized by the AOC till 2019.
You can debate about it, but if someone disagrees with it has more to do with AOC regulations than the Baumard domaine.

However, the main point remains : what was the potential alcohol % from the tries, given that mother nature made it very hard to produce any high sugar grapes.
Since this is a regulatory point, I am still wondering how and who ensures that. They must have some kind of trace/files to ensures that, and if so I think it would have clarified the debate if Baumard exhibited those potential alcohol numbers.
And since I think the mustometer uses grape juice, which moult did they use ? they used a special one made before cryo selection or used the one after, in which case I believe would comply the regulations.

A lot of suppositions here....


I'm just a guy who has enjoys Baumard wines on an occasional basis [my bias], but I have to say, having read the Jim Budd blog entry and the two response letters from Baumard, my take away is that Budd's obsession strikes me as sort of creepy and replete with stalker-like behavior. Maybe I've missed something here, but shouldn't we be happy if Baumard has sufficient technology at hand to turn what would be an otherwise lost crop in to perfectly good QdC? I know this may fly in the face of a purist's ideal, but if we borrow the chef anology forwarded by Baumard, can we not think of this as a net positive; like what can be done in a French kitchen with a sous vide machine at the Chefs disposal?

I know enough about the science of winemaking to be dangerous, but some searching from those who really do know about such matters point to cryoextraction, or more specifically, supraextraction, as being valid methods of producing better wine. In the Handbook of Enology Volume 1: The Microbiology of Wine and Vinifications (2nd ed.), which discusses the process in Bordeaux as used in Sauternes, and they mention: "By pressing at this temperature [0 degrees C], a selected juice is obtained which only represents a part of the juice volume. The potential alcohol content of this juice, however, is higher." More interestingly (to me), they add: "The selction of the most sugar-rich and thus ripest by cryoextraction is the primary cause of improved wine quality."

In a book by Ronald Jackson, titled Wine Science: Principles and Applications, the author talk about supraextration. He says: "An alternative to crushing is supraextraction. It involves cooling the grapes to -4 degrees C, then followed by warming to about 10 degrees C before pressing. Freezing causes both grape-cell rupture and skin splitting. These facilitate the escape of juice during pressing. Although increasing the extraction of sugar and phenolics, supraextraction reduces total acidity and raise the pH.

At any rate, it seems like Baumard is simply leveraging technology to produce wines when others can't. I don't see the problem in that, but understand why others might get their knickers in a twist about it. I not sure why mutiple passes through the vineyard is a problem (if I'm understanding that it is), when the Germans commonly do so to produce better wine. I'm also not sure if the 'truth in labeling' argument holds, if Sauternes is produced by utilizing cryoextraction and there is no disclosure that accompanies such practices.

After reading all of this, I'm left feeling Jim Budd is conducting what amounts to a witch hunt against Baumard. Maybe he feels justified in saving the wine world here, or maybe he is just looking to make his journalistics bones at the expense of Baumard? I can't claim to know his motives. Either way, it remains such a geeky endeavour that few outside pages like this, a few assorted wine geek blogs, or those that are local to what is being discussed, will take more a passing interest in such an undertaking.
Either way, it sounds like Z e e
User avatar
Bill Moore
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 223
Joined: July 6th 2012, 3:34am
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #15  Postby Bill Moore » March 4th 2013, 7:53pm

Z. A c s a n wrote:
Pierre-Yves wrote:Cryo-extraction or cryo-selection as the Baumard calls it is authorized by the AOC till 2019.
You can debate about it, but if someone disagrees with it has more to do with AOC regulations than the Baumard domaine.

However, the main point remains : what was the potential alcohol % from the tries, given that mother nature made it very hard to produce any high sugar grapes.
Since this is a regulatory point, I am still wondering how and who ensures that. They must have some kind of trace/files to ensures that, and if so I think it would have clarified the debate if Baumard exhibited those potential alcohol numbers.
And since I think the mustometer uses grape juice, which moult did they use ? they used a special one made before cryo selection or used the one after, in which case I believe would comply the regulations.

A lot of suppositions here....


I'm just a guy who has enjoys Baumard wines on an occasional basis [my bias], but I have to say, having read the Jim Budd blog entry and the two response letters from Baumard, my take away is that Budd's obsession strikes me as sort of creepy and replete with stalker-like behavior. Maybe I've missed something here, but shouldn't we be happy if Baumard has sufficient technology at hand to turn what would be an otherwise lost crop in to perfectly good QdC? I know this may fly in the face of a purist's ideal, but if we borrow the chef anology forwarded by Baumard, can we not think of this as a net positive; like what can be done in a French kitchen with a sous vide machine at the Chefs disposal?

I know enough about the science of winemaking to be dangerous, but some searching from those who really do know about such matters point to cryoextraction, or more specifically, supraextraction, as being valid methods of producing better wine. In the Handbook of Enology Volume 1: The Microbiology of Wine and Vinifications (2nd ed.), which discusses the process in Bordeaux as used in Sauternes, and they mention: "By pressing at this temperature [0 degrees C], a selected juice is obtained which only represents a part of the juice volume. The potential alcohol content of this juice, however, is higher." More interestingly (to me), they add: "The selction of the most sugar-rich and thus ripest by cryoextraction is the primary cause of improved wine quality."

In a book by Ronald Jackson, titled Wine Science: Principles and Applications, the author talk about supraextration. He says: "An alternative to crushing is supraextraction. It involves cooling the grapes to -4 degrees C, then followed by warming to about 10 degrees C before pressing. Freezing causes both grape-cell rupture and skin splitting. These facilitate the escape of juice during pressing. Although increasing the extraction of sugar and phenolics, supraextraction reduces total acidity and raise the pH.

At any rate, it seems like Baumard is simply leveraging technology to produce wines when others can't. I don't see the problem in that, but understand why others might get their knickers in a twist about it. I not sure why mutiple passes through the vineyard is a problem (if I'm understanding that it is), when the Germans commonly do so to produce better wine. I'm also not sure if the 'truth in labeling' argument holds, if Sauternes is produced by utilizing cryoextraction and there is no disclosure that accompanies such practices.

After reading all of this, I'm left feeling Jim Budd is conducting what amounts to a witch hunt against Baumard. Maybe he feels justified in saving the wine world here, or maybe he is just looking to make his journalistics bones at the expense of Baumard? I can't claim to know his motives. Either way, it remains such a geeky endeavour that few outside pages like this, a few assorted wine geek blogs, or those that are local to what is being discussed, will take more a passing interest in such an undertaking.

Huge +1 to this post.
CT handle: Billigan
Michael Powers
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 2688
Joined: March 6th 2010, 2:47pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #16  Postby Michael Powers » March 4th 2013, 8:06pm

I don't see where it says that others "can't" make the wine this way, just that they don't. I also don't know if one says ...sauternes is made by utilizing cryo..." When all we see is reference that some Sauternes may use the method. My main issue is that it seems a way to sell a lot of inferior wine as GC. I guess it's their brand dilution, so whatever. I think it feels off to me.
User avatar
Lewis Dawson
 
Posts: 3875
Joined: June 7th 2009, 5:37pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas, USA

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #17  Postby Lewis Dawson » March 4th 2013, 8:27pm

Z. A c s a n wrote:... Budd's obsession strikes me as sort of creepy and replete with stalker-like behavior....

Exactly.

Jim Brennan, this is why I referred to Bill Klapp. However, I am willing to concede Jim Budd has a greater degree of credibility.
-- Lew --
Italian Bikes &
Fr
User avatar
Z. A c s a n
 
Posts: 313
Joined: December 19th 2012, 12:26pm

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #18  Postby Z. A c s a n » March 4th 2013, 9:03pm

Michael Powers wrote:I don't see where it says that others "can't" make the wine this way, just that they don't. I also don't know if one says ...sauternes is made by utilizing cryo..." When all we see is reference that some Sauternes may use the method. My main issue is that it seems a way to sell a lot of inferior wine as GC. I guess it's their brand dilution, so whatever. I think it feels off to me.


They can't, if they haven't made the investment in the technology. I do wonder how many producers would choose to use the equipment, were it given to them for free. Hardcore traditionalists might have little interest, but I have to believe some protests are born out 'can't afford' more than a purist's idealism.

The reference on Sauturnes posted above came from Faculty of Enology Victor Segalen University of Bordeaux II, Talence, France. An October 2012 Decanter article mentioned: "Olivier Castéja at Chateau Doisy Védrines has reported using cryo-extraction to concentrate sugars, and is confident that he will get attractive flavours, and a reasonable quantity..." While I don't know how many producers use cryoextraction, clearly it is 'some' and not 'none'.

As for knowing if the Baumard wine in question is inferior wine posing as GC, I'll defer judgment until I read some reviews or get a chance to taste the wine for myself.
Either way, it sounds like Z e e
User avatar
Pierre-Yves
 
Posts: 92
Joined: January 24th 2013, 9:47pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #19  Postby Pierre-Yves » March 4th 2013, 9:14pm

Z. A c s a n wrote:
Pierre-Yves wrote:Cryo-extraction or cryo-selection as the Baumard calls it is authorized by the AOC till 2019.
You can debate about it, but if someone disagrees with it has more to do with AOC regulations than the Baumard domaine.

However, the main point remains : what was the potential alcohol % from the tries, given that mother nature made it very hard to produce any high sugar grapes.
Since this is a regulatory point, I am still wondering how and who ensures that. They must have some kind of trace/files to ensures that, and if so I think it would have clarified the debate if Baumard exhibited those potential alcohol numbers.
And since I think the mustometer uses grape juice, which moult did they use ? they used a special one made before cryo selection or used the one after, in which case I believe would comply the regulations.

A lot of suppositions here....


I'm just a guy who has enjoys Baumard wines on an occasional basis [my bias], but I have to say, having read the Jim Budd blog entry and the two response letters from Baumard, my take away is that Budd's obsession strikes me as sort of creepy and replete with stalker-like behavior. Maybe I've missed something here, but shouldn't we be happy if Baumard has sufficient technology at hand to turn what would be an otherwise lost crop in to perfectly good QdC? I know this may fly in the face of a purist's ideal, but if we borrow the chef anology forwarded by Baumard, can we not think of this as a net positive; like what can be done in a French kitchen with a sous vide machine at the Chefs disposal?

I know enough about the science of winemaking to be dangerous, but some searching from those who really do know about such matters point to cryoextraction, or more specifically, supraextraction, as being valid methods of producing better wine. In the Handbook of Enology Volume 1: The Microbiology of Wine and Vinifications (2nd ed.), which discusses the process in Bordeaux as used in Sauternes, and they mention: "By pressing at this temperature [0 degrees C], a selected juice is obtained which only represents a part of the juice volume. The potential alcohol content of this juice, however, is higher." More interestingly (to me), they add: "The selction of the most sugar-rich and thus ripest by cryoextraction is the primary cause of improved wine quality."

In a book by Ronald Jackson, titled Wine Science: Principles and Applications, the author talk about supraextration. He says: "An alternative to crushing is supraextraction. It involves cooling the grapes to -4 degrees C, then followed by warming to about 10 degrees C before pressing. Freezing causes both grape-cell rupture and skin splitting. These facilitate the escape of juice during pressing. Although increasing the extraction of sugar and phenolics, supraextraction reduces total acidity and raise the pH.

At any rate, it seems like Baumard is simply leveraging technology to produce wines when others can't. I don't see the problem in that, but understand why others might get their knickers in a twist about it. I not sure why mutiple passes through the vineyard is a problem (if I'm understanding that it is), when the Germans commonly do so to produce better wine. I'm also not sure if the 'truth in labeling' argument holds, if Sauternes is produced by utilizing cryoextraction and there is no disclosure that accompanies such practices.

After reading all of this, I'm left feeling Jim Budd is conducting what amounts to a witch hunt against Baumard. Maybe he feels justified in saving the wine world here, or maybe he is just looking to make his journalistics bones at the expense of Baumard? I can't claim to know his motives. Either way, it remains such a geeky endeavour that few outside pages like this, a few assorted wine geek blogs, or those that are local to what is being discussed, will take more a passing interest in such an undertaking.


I don't think 2012 was a perfectly good crop, since most of winemakers there could not make any QdC.

I am not really talking about cry extraxtion here. Even Jim Budd doesn't seem to like it, it is allowed by the AOC , so you can use it or not, you should not be blamed for it, and indeed should be seen as winemaking technique. Traditionalists don't like it, modernist do, this is just a church matter.
Now, if they don't follow the potential degree of alcohol of the grapes coming into the winery they should not call it AOC QdC. I would be fine by it and I am sure their wine will still be very good. Business wise, it might be a different story.

Sometimes the AOC administration seems to follow strange patterns, filing suit agains O. Cousinhttp://www.alicefeiring.com/blog/2011/10/olivier-cousin-enemy-of-the-loire-not.html but letting this one go.

By the way doing multiple tries is part of coteaux du layon and I believe late harvest wines.
Pierre-Yves C h @ u v e @ u
User avatar
Pierre-Yves
 
Posts: 92
Joined: January 24th 2013, 9:47pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #20  Postby Pierre-Yves » March 4th 2013, 9:16pm

Z. A c s a n wrote:
Michael Powers wrote:I don't see where it says that others "can't" make the wine this way, just that they don't. I also don't know if one says ...sauternes is made by utilizing cryo..." When all we see is reference that some Sauternes may use the method. My main issue is that it seems a way to sell a lot of inferior wine as GC. I guess it's their brand dilution, so whatever. I think it feels off to me.


They can't, if they haven't made the investment in the technology. I do wonder how many producers would choose to use the equipment, were it given to them for free. Hardcore traditionalists might have little interest, but I have to believe some protests are born out 'can't afford' more than a purist's idealism.

The reference on Sauturnes posted above came from Faculty of Enology Victor Segalen University of Bordeaux II, Talence, France. An October 2012 Decanter article mentioned: "Olivier Castéja at Chateau Doisy Védrines has reported using cryo-extraction to concentrate sugars, and is confident that he will get attractive flavours, and a reasonable quantity..." While I don't know how many producers use cryoextraction, clearly it is 'some' and not 'none'.

As for knowing if the Baumard wine in question is inferior wine posing as GC, I'll defer judgment until I read some reviews or get a chance to taste the wine for myself.


Agree they won't be able to make the investment especially since it will not be authorized in 7 years.
Pierre-Yves C h @ u v e @ u
User avatar
Z. A c s a n
 
Posts: 313
Joined: December 19th 2012, 12:26pm

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #21  Postby Z. A c s a n » March 4th 2013, 10:04pm

Pierre-Yves wrote:
Z. A c s a n wrote:
Michael Powers wrote:I don't see where it says that others "can't" make the wine this way, just that they don't. I also don't know if one says ...sauternes is made by utilizing cryo..." When all we see is reference that some Sauternes may use the method. My main issue is that it seems a way to sell a lot of inferior wine as GC. I guess it's their brand dilution, so whatever. I think it feels off to me.


They can't, if they haven't made the investment in the technology. I do wonder how many producers would choose to use the equipment, were it given to them for free. Hardcore traditionalists might have little interest, but I have to believe some protests are born out 'can't afford' more than a purist's idealism.

The reference on Sauturnes posted above came from Faculty of Enology Victor Segalen University of Bordeaux II, Talence, France. An October 2012 Decanter article mentioned: "Olivier Castéja at Chateau Doisy Védrines has reported using cryo-extraction to concentrate sugars, and is confident that he will get attractive flavours, and a reasonable quantity..." While I don't know how many producers use cryoextraction, clearly it is 'some' and not 'none'.

As for knowing if the Baumard wine in question is inferior wine posing as GC, I'll defer judgment until I read some reviews or get a chance to taste the wine for myself.


Agree they won't be able to make the investment especially since it will not be authorized in 7 years.


Point taken, but isn't Baumard still seeking to have the decree annulled in the French Supreme Court, or has that appeal been denied?

http://www.decanter.com/news/wine-news/529729/fury-and-charges-of-egotism-as-loire-s-baumard-challenges-grand-cru
Either way, it sounds like Z e e
Nick Ryan
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 2637
Joined: October 7th 2009, 3:24pm
Location: NorCal

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #22  Postby Nick Ryan » March 4th 2013, 10:11pm

Looks to me like the Baumards have been making themselves extremely unpopular with their neighbors for a long time and are now reaping the rewards of their karma...? At least that's my impression, reading up on this with no prior knowledge of these wines or producers. If Budd's allegations are true they are committing straight-up fraud, seems like he's doing a public service here.
Last edited by Nick Ryan on March 4th 2013, 10:13pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jcoley3
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 6056
Joined: January 31st 2009, 4:31pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #23  Postby jcoley3 » March 4th 2013, 10:12pm

Jamie Goode wrote:The proof is in the wines, isn't it?


Nope. Proof can only be found in dogma, theory and pe-conceived notions about what should be done and what should not be done. Very French.
"Jim Coley ITB Retail
User avatar
Jim Brennan
 
Posts: 3226
Joined: April 17th 2009, 6:10pm
Location: People's Republic of Illinois

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #24  Postby Jim Brennan » March 4th 2013, 11:57pm

I'm not sure anyone wants to be caught in the unenviable position of choosing between often indefensible INAO rules or the apparently deceptive practices by the Baumards...
Alex Rychlewski
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: August 13th 2009, 5:22am
Location: Bordeaux

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #25  Postby Alex Rychlewski » March 5th 2013, 12:52am

There is nothing objectionable in using cyroextraction in my opinion.
Even the great Château d'Yquem has used it on occasion.

Lafite, Léoville Las Cases and others used reverse osmosis.
So what?
The world changes...

My comments have nothing to do with Beamard's yields, the ripeness of the grapes or what the AOC laws say.

Best regards,
Alex R.
User avatar
Jim Brennan
 
Posts: 3226
Joined: April 17th 2009, 6:10pm
Location: People's Republic of Illinois

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #26  Postby Jim Brennan » March 5th 2013, 6:09am

There is nothing objectionable to blending syrah into Bordeaux, but you can't call it Bordeaux anymore.

Cryoextraction is legal in QdC, but you can't call it QdC when you harvest insufficiently ripe grapes. Baumard vin du table wouldn't taste different, would it?
Alex Rychlewski
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: August 13th 2009, 5:22am
Location: Bordeaux

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #27  Postby Alex Rychlewski » March 5th 2013, 8:19am

Jim,

I may agree with your 2nd statement, but do not think the comparison you make in your first one is appropriate.

Alex R.
User avatar
Jim Brennan
 
Posts: 3226
Joined: April 17th 2009, 6:10pm
Location: People's Republic of Illinois

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #28  Postby Jim Brennan » March 5th 2013, 8:34am

Be more forward thinking Alex. It's about what's in the glass!
Doug Schulman
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 3806
Joined: October 21st 2009, 9:42am
Location: MA

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #29  Postby Doug Schulman » March 5th 2013, 8:37am

Alex Rychlewski wrote:There is nothing objectionable in using cyroextraction in my opinion.
Even the great Château d'Yquem has used it on occasion.

Lafite, Léoville Las Cases and others used reverse osmosis.

Maybe that says more about the high end Bordeaux wine industry than it does about the appropriateness of those techniques. [stirthepothal.gif]
ITB - retail sales and education
Doug Schulman
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 3806
Joined: October 21st 2009, 9:42am
Location: MA

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #30  Postby Doug Schulman » March 5th 2013, 8:54am

Jim's coverage of this issue does seem a bit obsessive, and it makes me wonder if he has some hidden agenda.

That said, it would surprise me if the average ripeness of those vineyards measured up to the minimum ripeness required for QdC, 18.5% potential alcohol. The Baumard letters mention that the pictures are no proof, which is true, but they also don't explicitly state that they had achieved the necessary level of ripeness naturally. Whatever his motives are, I do think Budd might be on to something.
ITB - retail sales and education
Doug Schulman
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 3806
Joined: October 21st 2009, 9:42am
Location: MA

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #31  Postby Doug Schulman » March 5th 2013, 8:57am

To be clear, I'm fine with using the techniques that are allowed, even if I might not be fond of them, but I also think meeting the legal requirement for minimum ripeness at harvest is extremely important. Comparing wines made from grapes frozen inside to wines made from heavily botrytized grapes or grapes frozen on the vines shows the huge difference in quality between the two methods, and requiring a high level of ripeness at harvest is a way to ensure a certain level of quality.
ITB - retail sales and education
Alex Rychlewski
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: August 13th 2009, 5:22am
Location: Bordeaux

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #32  Postby Alex Rychlewski » March 5th 2013, 9:10am

Jim,

You wrote « Be more forward thinking Alex. It's about what's in the glass”
But I *am* forward thinking! Seems to me that people who refuse modern techniques on questionable grounds are rather the reverse.

Doug,
You wrote: “Maybe that says more about the high end Bordeaux wine industry than it does about the appropriateness of those techniques”
There are so many châteaux with so many different ways… Anyone would be hard put to generalize!
Things are done in California that would land people in prison here. One needs to tread carefully before finding someone else’s techniques reprehensible!

Cryoextraction removes water. Period. Ditto for reverse osmosis.
I think if people objecting to this had the slightest inkling of how most of the food they ate was prepared, they would become far less critical!

Once again, I’m defending a modern, quality-oriented winemaking process. I am *not* defending Baumard on any other front (yields, sugar levels, or anything else).

Best regards,
Alex R.
User avatar
Z. A c s a n
 
Posts: 313
Joined: December 19th 2012, 12:26pm

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #33  Postby Z. A c s a n » March 5th 2013, 10:05am

Doug Schulman wrote:To be clear, I'm fine with using the techniques that are allowed, even if I might not be fond of them, but I also think meeting the legal requirement for minimum ripeness at harvest is extremely important. Comparing wines made from grapes frozen inside to wines made from heavily botrytized grapes or grapes frozen on the vines shows the huge difference in quality between the two methods, and requiring a high level of ripeness at harvest is a way to ensure a certain level of quality.


If the end goal is to "ensure a certain level of quality", then wouldn't the critics/market response eventually confirm whether the wines are less than excellent? I think the winery is hugely aware of their 'standard-bearer' status for the entire region and would likely not do something to compromise the quality of the end product and risk diminishing their long-standing reputation for excellence - like bottling a QdC that isn't worthy of that designation.

What is being argued here, is the method by which they create their product. While Mr. Budd may feel he has Baumard cornered and is seizing an opportunity to right some grave injustice, this is quickly becoming a blur of village politics to most of the rest of the world. The area is not especially large in size and the number of producers relatively few, so it's understandable that the objections seem mostly grounded in partisan bickering to control whatever vested interest the complaining party is protecting. None of which can be good publicity for the entire region, which is probably better served gaining notice for the quality of their wines than their ability to point fingers at each others.

My objection here, is that this appears (at least to me), to be little more than a smear campaign orchestrated to unseat Baumard as the standard-bearer for the region. Having just read a NY Times article from a year ago that presents a far more balanced assesment (though no doubt, far less detailed) than I have read from any of Mr. Budd's blogs regarding Baumard, I came away with a very different frame of reference.

If a crime has been commited, then call the authorities charged with enforcing the rules. Didn't the INAO declassify some 5,000+ cases of Jean-Paul Brun Beaujolais for being atypical of the appelation? Unless I somehow missed it, no one, including Mr. Budd, has produced laboratory documents that supports their speculation with regard to Baumard's yields and ripeness levels. Some may think a bit of armchair weather analysis and a few selected photos suffices to conduct a trial in the press, but doing so absent tangible evidence seems a reckless approach to journalism.
Either way, it sounds like Z e e
User avatar
Jim Brennan
 
Posts: 3226
Joined: April 17th 2009, 6:10pm
Location: People's Republic of Illinois

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #34  Postby Jim Brennan » March 5th 2013, 6:22pm

Z. A c s a n wrote:If a crime has been commited, then call the authorities charged with enforcing the rules. Didn't the INAO declassify some 5,000+ cases of Jean-Paul Brun Beaujolais for being atypical of the appelation? Unless I somehow missed it, no one, including Mr. Budd, has produced laboratory documents that supports their speculation with regard to Baumard's yields and ripeness levels. Some may think a bit of armchair weather analysis and a few selected photos suffices to conduct a trial in the press, but doing so absent tangible evidence seems a reckless approach to journalism.


Aside from the pictures, which of course can't convey the general levels of ripeness, what do you think the likelihood is that Baumard alone in the region has achieved such large yields and sufficient ripeness levels?

While i'm not an INAO fan, and certainly agree that AOC politics are often ugly and have lots of negative results, I also think there's some merit in the concept that historical / regional practices also are a component of terroir, and that there's a reasonable case to outlaw some practices. Having said that, it cryo-extraction is not yet illegal in QdC, so the issue is whether Baumard transgressed with regard to yields and ripeness. Given levels elsewhere in the region, it seems like there's a reasonable case to be made that he has done just that.

It seems like Baumard should simply create his own proprietary vin du table blend, using whatever techniques he desires. But then of course, he'd have to accept losing the AOC designation. It seems like he has a choice to make. Frankly it seems he should have established enough of a brand to take this path, and the current hullabaloo would be a great way to get the most marketing impact by making a big announcement.
User avatar
Z. A c s a n
 
Posts: 313
Joined: December 19th 2012, 12:26pm

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #35  Postby Z. A c s a n » March 5th 2013, 10:33pm

Jim Brennan wrote:Aside from the pictures, which of course can't convey the general levels of ripeness, what do you think the likelihood is that Baumard alone in the region has achieved such large yields and sufficient ripeness levels?


Photos viewed on non-calibrated monitors from image files posted on the Internet are problematic in terms of rendering color accurately. Using internet photos to render a judgment based on divining ripeness levels isn't really the best means of supporting this claim of wrong doing. While I don't honestly believe Mr. Budd would stoop to manipulating the photos themselves, there are certain inherent limitations and any number of variables [which is a whole 'nuther can of worms], such that it essentially negates the value of the presented photos for purposes of making such a critical assesment.

Even the rainfall evidence presented by Mr. Budd is suspect. The stats were drawn from a weather station in Beaucouzé, just under 20 kilometers north of the vineyards. Budd minimizes the problem by assuring it "would not be significantly different". Hmm. Across the river and further south and at a different elevation, but it matters not to Mr. Budd. I know that microclimates can be vastly different from much closer proximities than that. While I don't know enough about the area to hazzard an opinion on local microclimates, I defintely would have taken the time to further research such important and relevant information, before publishing a blog entry that basically calls someone a liar on an global platform.

Mr. Budd makes comparisons of yields based on the two French Customs declaration for QdC in 2012. I have no idea how comparable the two different producers are in any given year, so that information, absent a frame of reference, makes it hard to draw any conclusions based soley on the numbers quoted. I did read something on Chris Kissack's blog (winedoctor) about the unique-to-Baumard vineyard spacing and trellising system and wondered if that would be relevant here?

From that blog:

"The Baumard approach to viticulture is a notable one, and it does make it easy to spot the Baumard vines in any given appellation. They are trained in a fashion Baumard describe as vignes hautes et larges (sometimes abbreviated to VHL); the larges refers to the distance between the vines, a remarkable 3 metres between the rows and 0.8 metres between each vine, whereas the hautes refers to the high trellising system employed, taking the vines to a height of more than 2 metres, the object being to obtain a large surface area of foliage. During the vegetative period they see limited leaf-thinning along their base, but otherwise their is little intervention at this time, not even topping-off of the upper shoots as they reach for the sky above. Between the rows, the soil is alternatively ploughed and grassed over, a methodology the Baumards have been following for well over 30 years."

While i'm not an INAO fan, and certainly agree that AOC politics are often ugly and have lots of negative results, I also think there's some merit in the concept that historical / regional practices also are a component of terroir, and that there's a reasonable case to outlaw some practices. Having said that, it cryo-extraction is not yet illegal in QdC, so the issue is whether Baumard transgressed with regard to yields and ripeness. Given levels elsewhere in the region, it seems like there's a reasonable case to be made that he has done just that.


The whole Jean-Paul Brun declassification ordeal was nothing less than a nightmare for the winemaker. I read some of the details in a couple of Joe Dressner rants about the burnt rubber smell Brun's wines were said to posses, yet never seemed to materialize in the declassified wines that were shipped. A very sordid tales of village politics of the worst kind. At any rate, I do understand why the levels may appear as the smoking gun to some, but I have yet to see what other vignerons results have been, other than the Château de Variere numbers used by Budd. I did read (on winedoctor) that "Pithon-Paillé’s fruit in Quarts de Chaume will be declassified into Anjou Blanc." Given that the Mr. Budd seems to want to postion the story like a French version of Brunellopoli (in terms of importance), I'm sure more data will be forthcoming.

It seems like Baumard should simply create his own proprietary vin du table blend, using whatever techniques he desires. But then of course, he'd have to accept losing the AOC designation. It seems like he has a choice to make. Frankly it seems he should have established enough of a brand to take this path, and the current hullabaloo would be a great way to get the most marketing impact by making a big announcement.


Baumard could borrow a page from Argiano with their nose-thumbing Non Confunditur, but losing the AOC designation would create a significant financial loss, which would likely be plenty of motivation for not doing so. Whether Baumard has crossed the ethical/legal line is for more involved parties to decide, but if there are going to be alleogation of wrong doing leveled at the producer, Mr. Budd should at least make an effort to present such claims based on real facts and not extrapolated from data that is stretched to fit an authors presumptions and undisclosed agenda.
Either way, it sounds like Z e e
Michael Powers
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 2688
Joined: March 6th 2010, 2:47pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #36  Postby Michael Powers » March 6th 2013, 5:46am

Everyone seems to take aim at Jim's "agenda" but I don't think he's been unclear. He thinks that Baumard is using suspect or nonconforming methods and hiding it. Clearly he believes this to be a pattern, but I still find it odd that people are so quick to decry his investigation. He has presented the facts as he has them. Baumard has refuted as he sees fit as well. When an interested reporter explores what they think are suspect methods it's odd that so many are antagonistic. If you disagree fine, but some if the quibbling over his presentation seem silly. For instance, if he only has rainfall stats from the nearest weather station, a commonly accepted measure, then how else could he reliably supplement this data? If he used a less accepted measure then he'd risk being called out for a lack of reliability.

I still think he raises a lot of interesting points, and while there are clearly counterpoints, on a pure surface, "sniff test" level, it does seem a bit questionable. For my part I buy a little of the lesser Baumard but would much rather spend my money on Huet for the pricier wines anyway.
User avatar
Jim Brennan
 
Posts: 3226
Joined: April 17th 2009, 6:10pm
Location: People's Republic of Illinois

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #37  Postby Jim Brennan » March 6th 2013, 7:00am

Z. A c s a n wrote:
Jim Brennan wrote:Aside from the pictures, which of course can't convey the general levels of ripeness, what do you think the likelihood is that Baumard alone in the region has achieved such large yields and sufficient ripeness levels?


Photos viewed on non-calibrated monitors from image files posted on the Internet are problematic in terms of rendering color accurately. Using internet photos to render a judgment based on divining ripeness levels isn't really the best means of supporting this claim of wrong doing. While I don't honestly believe Mr. Budd would stoop to manipulating the photos themselves, there are certain inherent limitations and any number of variables [which is a whole 'nuther can of worms], such that it essentially negates the value of the presented photos for purposes of making such a critical assesment.


I think you misread my statement. I specifically stated that photos could not accurately convey the general levels of grape ripeness.

Z. A c s a n wrote:Even the rainfall evidence presented by Mr. Budd is suspect. The stats were drawn from a weather station in Beaucouzé, just under 20 kilometers north of the vineyards. Budd minimizes the problem by assuring it "would not be significantly different". Hmm. Across the river and further south and at a different elevation, but it matters not to Mr. Budd. I know that microclimates can be vastly different from much closer proximities than that. While I don't know enough about the area to hazzard an opinion on local microclimates, I defintely would have taken the time to further research such important and relevant information, before publishing a blog entry that basically calls someone a liar on an global platform.


Yes, best to not question anything without absolute conclusive proof, despite the fact that this a reasonable datapoint upon which to base a theory. I think Michael Powers has already adequately made this point. I would add, moreover, that I think you completely overdo the supposed baselessness of Jim Budd's hypothesis. I think the visibility he has brought to the issue will be important in ensuring that a thorough investigation results.

Z. A c s a n wrote:Mr. Budd makes comparisons of yields based on the two French Customs declaration for QdC in 2012. I have no idea how comparable the two different producers are in any given year, so that information, absent a frame of reference, makes it hard to draw any conclusions based soley on the numbers quoted. I did read something on Chris Kissack's blog (winedoctor) about the unique-to-Baumard vineyard spacing and trellising system and wondered if that would be relevant here?


Speculation is only valid when it's yours, eh? ;)

Z. A c s a n wrote:Baumard could borrow a page from Argiano with their nose-thumbing Non Confunditur, but losing the AOC designation would create a significant financial loss, which would likely be plenty of motivation for not doing so. Whether Baumard has crossed the ethical/legal line is for more involved parties to decide, but if there are going to be alleogation of wrong doing leveled at the producer, Mr. Budd should at least make an effort to present such claims based on real facts and not extrapolated from data that is stretched to fit an authors presumptions and undisclosed agenda.


Real facts? It seems like Budd has posted "real" factual data, but that hey are not of sufficient quantity and breadth to dispel your presumption of reasonable doubt. And that's fine. But let's not pretend that he's posted made up data or posted specifically misleading data where data to the contrary is known to exist (e.g. - he posted the nearest weather station data, not some random or factually inaccurate datapoint).

As for financial impact, I guess that means Baumard has a choice to make.
Doug Schulman
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 3806
Joined: October 21st 2009, 9:42am
Location: MA

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #38  Postby Doug Schulman » March 6th 2013, 9:28am

Alex Rychlewski wrote:Doug,
You wrote: “Maybe that says more about the high end Bordeaux wine industry than it does about the appropriateness of those techniques”
There are so many châteaux with so many different ways… Anyone would be hard put to generalize!
Things are done in California that would land people in prison here. One needs to tread carefully before finding someone else’s techniques reprehensible!

What I said was only partially serious, mainly in that I know such generalizations are unfair. Yes, things are done in California wine production that are illegal in France. Many things are also done in French wine production that are illegal in France. I'm very much okay with saying I am against certain techniques in most situations, particularly for high end wines, whether or not they are legal. I wasn't so clear before.
ITB - retail sales and education
Doug Schulman
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 3806
Joined: October 21st 2009, 9:42am
Location: MA

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #39  Postby Doug Schulman » March 6th 2013, 9:36am

Z. A c s a n wrote:
Doug Schulman wrote:To be clear, I'm fine with using the techniques that are allowed, even if I might not be fond of them, but I also think meeting the legal requirement for minimum ripeness at harvest is extremely important. Comparing wines made from grapes frozen inside to wines made from heavily botrytized grapes or grapes frozen on the vines shows the huge difference in quality between the two methods, and requiring a high level of ripeness at harvest is a way to ensure a certain level of quality.


If the end goal is to "ensure a certain level of quality", then wouldn't the critics/market response eventually confirm whether the wines are less than excellent? I think the winery is hugely aware of their 'standard-bearer' status for the entire region and would likely not do something to compromise the quality of the end product and risk diminishing their long-standing reputation for excellence - like bottling a QdC that isn't worthy of that designation.

What is being argued here, is the method by which they create their product. While Mr. Budd may feel he has Baumard cornered and is seizing an opportunity to right some grave injustice, this is quickly becoming a blur of village politics to most of the rest of the world. The area is not especially large in size and the number of producers relatively few, so it's understandable that the objections seem mostly grounded in partisan bickering to control whatever vested interest the complaining party is protecting. None of which can be good publicity for the entire region, which is probably better served gaining notice for the quality of their wines than their ability to point fingers at each others.

My objection here, is that this appears (at least to me), to be little more than a smear campaign orchestrated to unseat Baumard as the standard-bearer for the region. Having just read a NY Times article from a year ago that presents a far more balanced assesment (though no doubt, far less detailed) than I have read from any of Mr. Budd's blogs regarding Baumard, I came away with a very different frame of reference.

If a crime has been commited, then call the authorities charged with enforcing the rules. Didn't the INAO declassify some 5,000+ cases of Jean-Paul Brun Beaujolais for being atypical of the appelation? Unless I somehow missed it, no one, including Mr. Budd, has produced laboratory documents that supports their speculation with regard to Baumard's yields and ripeness levels. Some may think a bit of armchair weather analysis and a few selected photos suffices to conduct a trial in the press, but doing so absent tangible evidence seems a reckless approach to journalism.

I would say Baumard is likely using such techniques to produce larger quantities than is naturally possible of such wines. The quality may be high (I've never seen otherwise from this domaine), but is it kept so high through actions that distort a natural expression of terroir (mainly the weather in a given vintage)? I think it might be. I agree that this is a matter for the authorities, but I don't know if or to what extent Budd has tried that. Maybe he has reason for being so public about things. I doubt he has reason to use such extreme efforts, but that does not detract from what seems like probably a sound argument. I agree that we do not know for sure.
ITB - retail sales and education
User avatar
Peter Muto
 
Posts: 272
Joined: May 1st 2010, 9:53am
Location: Toronto

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #40  Postby Peter Muto » March 6th 2013, 10:21am

I don't understand; why is Mr. Budd posting on his blog about illegal violations of the AOC, instead, of, oh, telling the AOC authorities?
And if the answer is, that he has, and the AOC has done nothing, well, then, he is on a witch hunt. He should be trying to be convincing the authorities, not the wine-buying public, which only brings into suspicion Mr. Budd's motivations. The AOC are laws, after all. Not criminal but civil laws. If you think someone is breaking the law, do you just run a smear campaign on your blog? If you have evidence, take it to the appropriate authorities.
User avatar
Jim Brennan
 
Posts: 3226
Joined: April 17th 2009, 6:10pm
Location: People's Republic of Illinois

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #41  Postby Jim Brennan » March 6th 2013, 11:12am

Peter, whether you agree with him or not, Jim Budd definitely fancies himself as an investigative journalist, and his approach is similar. He's also been involved in exposing Campogate, 1855.com futures non-delivery, several wine-related investment scams, etc.
User avatar
Z. A c s a n
 
Posts: 313
Joined: December 19th 2012, 12:26pm

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #42  Postby Z. A c s a n » March 6th 2013, 11:57am

Michael Powers wrote:Everyone seems to take aim at Jim's "agenda" but I don't think he's been unclear. He thinks that Baumard is using suspect or nonconforming methods and hiding it. Clearly he believes this to be a pattern, but I still find it odd that people are so quick to decry his investigation. He has presented the facts as he has them. Baumard has refuted as he sees fit as well. When an interested reporter explores what they think are suspect methods it's odd that so many are antagonistic. If you disagree fine, but some if the quibbling over his presentation seem silly. For instance, if he only has rainfall stats from the nearest weather station, a commonly accepted measure, then how else could he reliably supplement this data? If he used a less accepted measure then he'd risk being called out for a lack of reliability.


Budd is clearly a wine blogger that fancies himself an investigative reporter. The accolades he trumpets at the top of his blog are for such things as: "investigations into Champagne for the Millennium investment scams" and "No Pay No Jay – best investigative wine story". He states in a reply to a reader, "Writing about good wines etc. is only part of my job as a journalist it is also to try to expose malpractice." He informs the reader, "I do not feature Baumard on the site as I'm not confident that the contents in the bottle always match what is on the label". These are, of course, unsubstantiated allegations, but the man is entitled to his opinion. However, I do believe his 'reporting' should fairly disclose his personal bias against Baumard.

The more I read such things as the blog entry titled, "Horsemeat and Baumard's Quarts de Chaume" [trying to draw a parallel between the horsemeat in processed food scandal] and "My ‘inquisitorial’ questions to Jean Baumard", the more his pages start to read like tabloid journalism rather than serious wine reporting. He isn't satisfied with with making a case for the 2012 rain-soaked vintage and the harvested sugars level, he takes it a step further by telling a reader, "Given the evidence the onus shoukd surely be on the Baumards to show that their 2012 Quarts de Chaume is the genuine article. Nor to I think that 2012 is an exception, I have doubts whether their 2011 and 2010 fully satisfied the décrets ripeness criteria – remembering that this would have been the previous décret and not the one that became law on 22nd November 2011." [typos are by Budd]

Budd has yet to present any tangible evidence other than conjecture based on a few photos he took and his interpretation of weather data from a different sub-microclimate than the one he is drawing conclusions about. The photos prove nothing, but Budd assures us they, "demonstrate that it can only have been produced by using cryoextraction and this is confirmed by an unimpeachable and well–placed source. "It would have been far more credible to have information provided by named sources. This really has little to do with quibling over presentation quality, and everything to do with a blogger being reckless by reporting opinions as facts, with little consideration given for the reputation of the person being attacked and the potential impact that might have on their business.

Blog reader 'Simon' posted a reply that nicely sums much of what I'm trying to say here:

"Unless you were at the cellar door in 2012 to receive the harvest, armed with either a hydrometer or a refractometer then I'm not sure how you can be quite so determinedly certain of the potential alcohol of the grapes? You may have lots of photos taken before the harvest but were you actually at the cellar? You claim "it is not in dispute that the grapes that Baumard harvested for their 2012 Quarts de Chaume were below the 18.5% potential required by French law." That seems pretty unequivocal for someone armed with a camera and no sugar level testing equipment don't you think?"
Either way, it sounds like Z e e
Peter Chiu
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 3581
Joined: January 28th 2011, 2:39pm

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #43  Postby Peter Chiu » March 6th 2013, 12:23pm

Jim Brennan wrote:Peter, whether you agree with him or not, Jim Budd definitely fancies himself as an investigative journalist, and his approach is similar. He's also been involved in exposing Campogate, 1855.com futures non-delivery, several wine-related investment scams, etc.



Hmmm....interesting.

Peter - the Chiu.
User avatar
Bill Bøykin
 
Posts: 4439
Joined: May 30th 2009, 2:00pm

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #44  Postby Bill Bøykin » March 6th 2013, 12:27pm

Peter,
Are you the hill,the Zhao,
Who follows the Tao?
Alex Rychlewski
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: August 13th 2009, 5:22am
Location: Bordeaux

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #45  Postby Alex Rychlewski » March 6th 2013, 1:19pm

Doug,

You wrote:

"Many things are also done in French wine production that are illegal in France".

Care to tell us what you actually know about this subject?
Seems like a low blow to me, and what makes you think that the French are any less law-abiding that the Americans, the Australians, the Germans, the Austrians, or anyone else?

Alex R.
Doug Schulman
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 3806
Joined: October 21st 2009, 9:42am
Location: MA

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #46  Postby Doug Schulman » March 6th 2013, 2:28pm

Alex Rychlewski wrote:Doug,

You wrote:

"Many things are also done in French wine production that are illegal in France".

Care to tell us what you actually know about this subject?
Seems like a low blow to me, and what makes you think that the French are any less law-abiding that the Americans, the Australians, the Germans, the Austrians, or anyone else?

Alex R.

Nothing. I did not say or imply that the French are less law-abiding than anyone else.

As far as what I actually know about the subject, here are some things that come to mind immediately:

Cane sugar is widely used as a tool for must enrichment, which is illegal.

Rosé de saignée is regularly made in Burgundy from wine that will then be bottled as village level or above, which is illegal.

In Champagne, red wine is added to white to make AOC rosé, which I believe is technically forbidden (EU regulation), but accepted.

Some Gamay finds its was into some Sancerre Rouge, which I am told is happening at several domaines and is illegal.

I'm sure there are people here who could add a lot of other things, and that a longer list could easily be compiled for Italy. Really, I have nothing against the French or their practices (at least no more against their practices than I have against the practices elsewhere). You have misunderstood my tone.
Last edited by Doug Schulman on March 7th 2013, 11:06am, edited 1 time in total.
ITB - retail sales and education
Michael Powers
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 2688
Joined: March 6th 2010, 2:47pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #47  Postby Michael Powers » March 6th 2013, 7:25pm

Z, we will just have to agree to disagree with what sort of evidence passes muster. After all, this isn't court, it's merely the court of public opinion.

Peter, I don't think I understand your point at all. If you are a blogger, or not for that matter, believing yourself to be in possession of facts which indicate some misdeed within your chosen field of interest, you may or may not choose to notify the authorities, but wouldn't you almost certainly also expose those facts to similarly interested individuals? Also it is probably an effective way or notifying relevant authorities who might otherwise ignore you. Plus, I'd expose someone to the public before ratting to authorities, but that is just me.
User avatar
Peter Muto
 
Posts: 272
Joined: May 1st 2010, 9:53am
Location: Toronto

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #48  Postby Peter Muto » March 6th 2013, 9:07pm

Michael, I think we just don't see eye to eye on this.

I, for one, will be continuing to buy Baumard. In fact I recently just snagged some 08 Clos du Pappillon. I love their wines.
User avatar
Z. A c s a n
 
Posts: 313
Joined: December 19th 2012, 12:26pm

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #49  Postby Z. A c s a n » March 7th 2013, 12:50am

Michael Powers wrote:Z, we will just have to agree to disagree with what sort of evidence passes muster. After all, this isn't court, it's merely the court of public opinion.

Peter, I don't think I understand your point at all. If you are a blogger, or not for that matter, believing yourself to be in possession of facts which indicate some misdeed within your chosen field of interest, you may or may not choose to notify the authorities, but wouldn't you almost certainly also expose those facts to similarly interested individuals? Also it is probably an effective way or notifying relevant authorities who might otherwise ignore you. Plus, I'd expose someone to the public before ratting to authorities, but that is just me.


No problem agreeing to disagree, but I do think we need to distiquish between stating something is fact and offering an opinion based on a supposition only believed to be true. The former is incontrovertible and the latter is debatable.

In the case of Mr. Budd, he could have offered up his observations to support an opinion that Baumard's 2012 QdC shouldn't qualify for AOC labeling, based on the rules that all QdC producers must abide by; but instead, he choose to proclaim that his observations were indisputable. His observations are open to debate by virtue of the subjective nature of what was provided to support his claim. If one holds themselves out to be an investigative reporter, I believe there is an implied obligation to offer an objective and unbiased account of an event. To do otherwise, marks an investigsative reporter as the ethical equal of a tabloid journalist.

I'm at a loss to understand why you would choose to "expose someone to the public before ratting to authorities". If you're in possesion of facts you only 'believe' indicate some misdeed, I think it makes greater sense to let the proper authorities have the first crack at righting the wrong; and if what you 'believe' to be true isn't, then at least you haven't made a fool of yourself publicy and damaged the reputation of someone undeserving of such treatment. If the authorities refuse to run with it, then perhaps offering up your information publicly would then be warranted. Had Mr. Budd simply shared his opinions and observations about Baumard on a wine forum (like this one), I would have viewed that as very different from posting the same information as fact on a wine blog where one holds themselves out to be an investigative reporter.

Like Peter, I'm also now inspired to seek out a few more bottles of Baumard for the cellar. [cheers.gif]
Either way, it sounds like Z e e
Michael Powers
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 2688
Joined: March 6th 2010, 2:47pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

Post #50  Postby Michael Powers » March 7th 2013, 6:09am

Z. A c s a n wrote:
Like Peter, I'm also now inspired to seek out a few more bottles of Baumard for the cellar. [cheers.gif]


Thats funny, because reading that article makes me want to check out the producers who chose to declassify rather than manipulate.
Last edited by Michael Powers on March 7th 2013, 7:48am, edited 1 time in total.

Return to Wine Talk

logo
Food Advertising by