Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Just spoke to Michel Rolland: he has signed on to be consultant with Château Figeac with the mission to make it a premier grand cru classé A in Saint Emilion's classification which is revisited every 10 years... Does it need to be said that the two estates promoted last year to that coveted status (Angélus and Pavie) both benefit from his consulting? Details coming later.
Well, the style of the wine will certainly change, and while the latter two are not my preferred style, Figeac as it is now is quite enjoyable, so that's unfortunate.
Apparently I'm lazy, have a narrow agenda, and offer little in the way of content and substance (RMP)
No joke... I rather like Figeac the way it is now. Here a video from the not so distant past, from a vertical dinner in January 2012.
On the bright side, I wouldn't be buying any new releases anyhow so it's already dead to me. It really only makes sense to back fill Bordeaux this point.
This is sort of old news. It was announced a while ago. But regardless, at least to me, today, and probably dating all the way back to 1982, or earlier, Figeac is has been producing one of the most boring wines in St. Emilion. This can only be good news for the estate. FWIW, Figeac is also now receiving advice from the team that produces La Conseillante.
I'm curious... Of all the people in this thread extolling the virtues of Figeac and excoriating Michel Rolland, how many of you actively purchase Figeac?
I buy older vintages at reasonable prices when I can find them.
I'll be a little less cavalier opening them now, seeing as I fear the Pape Clement route for them (another estate whose wines I love - from a certain era - and find undrinkable today.)
Maybe I should put that '95 back in storage.
If you by any chance have some of those boring wines in your cellar that you're not interested in drinking, whether a '98, '95, '90, '86, hell, pretty much any vintage, I'll be happy to take if off your hands so that you don't need to drink those bores, and can focus your energy on more exciting wines.
Jeff, it happened last week; not so old I would say. And I certainly would not call Figeac boring. In any case I respect the work of Rolland without loving everything he does. And I have bought Figeac, including bottles from the excellent 2001, 2004 and 2005 vintages. I would be interested in seeing how Rolland will advise the estate because of its high Cabernet Sauvignon content. In any case I am hardly alone in appreciating the freshness coming from Figeac wines. Not to say there have not been missteps. I wonder about the 2000 vintage, which I also purchased. But there is no question that Figeac can be very exciting and certainly unique.
Last edited by Panos Kakaviatos on March 30th 2013, 4:41am, edited 2 times in total.
Sal, I exchanged them already with a friend that loves their style of wine. Else I would gladly have worked something out with you. The key to a good cellar, is having it filled with wines you like.
Oh come on. The wine hardly tastes like $20 Cab Franc from the Loire (although I agree that pricing since 2009 is nutty, but Figeac is hardly the only "culprit" here). The aforementioned 1986 is great, as has been the 1982. And recent vintages like 2009 and 2010 are excellent. But the pricing that the estate introduced with the 2009 vintage, without the support of high Parker numbers, seemed ill advised. It certainly did not lead to a promotion in 2012. Rolland said that his specific goal is to achieve Premier A status for the château. It is no mystery that Parker likes Rolland's winemaking, which will no doubt lead to more points ... with the hope for greater sales and the coveted A status next time around. So there you have it, the reasoning sans doute behind the decision to have Mr. Rolland as consultant.
Last edited by Panos Kakaviatos on March 30th 2013, 4:42am, edited 1 time in total.
It is incredible how predictable you are.
But please explain this. Why do you seem so much more reasonable and rational in person?
Last edited by Howard Cooper on March 29th 2013, 1:08pm, edited 1 time in total.
"That's what I do. I drink wine and I know things."
86 Pape Clement is quite good; the 2001, not so much. I think my tasting note included the word abomination.
"That's what I do. I drink wine and I know things."
I could not drink the 2001 Pape Clement. It is an atrocious wine. Abomination is a pretty apt descriptor too.
I'm glad you say that about the '86, I have a bottle standing up in my cellar. (Though my '88 and '90 are both buried offsite.)
My thoughts on the 2001. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25920&p=342486&hilit=pape+clement+latour+montrose#p342486
"That's what I do. I drink wine and I know things."
I guess they have gone from boring to completely the same as about fifty other wines around the world. The good news if you can't afford Figeac you can buy a bottle of Long Shadows Pedastal and get the exact same flavor.
Dorfman your name is .. Flounder
Have we achieved a minyan yet?
Save a leg... save a life!
-Dave P 0 u g @ T s C h
With the change in the management team a few weeks ago, it was clear that something like that would happen. I was at Figeac the day the new St. Emilion classification was announced last year. They were very depressed about not being promoted.
Recently tasted 2009 Angelus. Not impressive at all.
Howard, I would make the exact same observation in person. No doubt, Figeac has its fans. I would think you would enjoy the wine, a lot more than I would. Does everyone need to like the same wines?
Darn Sephardim, mispronouncing everything...
1998 was, IMO the turning point vintage and the last one (though already moving towards an undeniably modern style) that I enjoyed.
Ripe fruit isn't necessarily a flaw.
Message retracted. My mistake and apologies.
Last edited by Brad England on March 30th 2013, 6:15am, edited 1 time in total.
Brad.. Where are you getting those scores? For example, 2000 Figeac is 87 and 84 Pts... 2005 is 87 Pts as well... I do not even have notes for 02, 03 or 04! No time to look the rest up as I am about to catch a plane....
For a quick look at my notes on Figeac
http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/bor ... on/figeac/
Ah, Panos, you do not understand. Jeffois' squeaky little ego demands that HE be the bearer of all such news, and when he is scooped by you or Lempert-Schwartz, his petty, knee-jerk reaction is to denigrate your content. Shame on you, Jeffy, you little ITB pimp, you! Maybe your BORING Asimov interview or lame coverage of the Parker-Galloni litigation caused you to miss this golden opportunity to break the Figeac-as-Frankenwine-to-be story!
Bill, I do not see Jeff denigrating my content... And I do not take any credit for this news per se as it was already apparently published on the Parker board last week, and then there was a Tweet from John Gilman. I first heard about it on Facebook. In any case, tis true that Jeff and I do not always agree about wines - now that would be truly boring. Jeff is a good man who is passionate about the wine he likes, although he does not generally like Burgundy, which I find a bit nuts . But occasional polemics make life interesting .
Here by the way is my initial "take" on this story, with several relevant links, including an earlier "opposite case" at Latour Martillac, which used to have Michel Rolland as a consultant but has since hired Denis Dubourdieu for their reds, since the 2006 vintage. I really think that this is a big wine news story, in that it signifies a small sea change in the world of Saint Emilion implicating a high profile château with a specific style and unique terroir (for Saint Emilion) and a talented international winemaker with a different style. We should not put any carts before the horses. Because Figeac has so much Cabernet, which is harder to make "ultra ripe" than Merlot, it will be interesting to see how the wines might change with Michel Rolland consulting.
http://www.connectionstowine.com/bordea ... au-figeac/
You are right, my sincere apologies. Somehow I was in CT on Pape Clement, not Figeac. And I can't even blame wine - there was no drinking last night as I had to pick up my daughter at the airport at midnight. I should have known your fairly amazing memory for ratings would not have allowed this mistake. Again, apologies.
PS. I was kind of surprised at your (wrongly attributed) ratings, as I'm not a Figeac fan, and they seemed way too high. Again, sorry for the mis-attribution.
It's no surprise to see who posts what here as agin all of our own preferences in wine come into play. I obviously tend to like "bigger" wines than many posting here. I don't know if it use "boring" to describe Figeac as Jeff said, but for MY preferences they missed the mark on some vintages where I didn't think such was necessary. But a large part of this was their style and the related tendency to harvest quite early. 2000 is a classic example to me.
I will say that Jeff makes interesting point in asking if those of you that decry the change have bought the wine over the past 10 vintages. It seems to me that SOME of the people that rail against "these" wines are not necessarily bordeaux enthusaists anymore. My point is, right or wrong, Figeac is now $240+ per bottle. So that is obviously their target audience. The fact is that the preferences of group that will buy Figeac at $240, may be different than those that will/have bought at $100 (adjusted). I wonder if some of you that liked the pre-2000 Figeac (and they have already chnaged over the past half-dozen years without Rolland) would pay them $200 if they bottled the wine as you like it?
My initial reaction to the change was that, even though I will probably like the Rolland changes, in the big world of wine it might be nice for there to remain a wide variance in styles and the IPOB camp need some bordeaux to drink. But Figeac would have to be able to sell the wine at their target price to justify the choice of style. Yes they could lower the price significantly, but that probably isn't in the cards.
I think what is interesting about it, is that despite many threads on this board about Parker's waning influence, here is someone who looked at the recent classification and realized how closely the promotions were tied in to the high Parker points. As a result he decided that if he wanted the promotion, he needed to make similar wines, hence his decision to go with Rolland. It will be interesting to see what comes out of it; I am not quite ready to say Kaddish yet.
Oh please. First you condescend to Figeac fans, wondering if they're actually buying it, while calling it boring. Then you want to claim that hey, it's cool, can't we all like different things?
Your first point implied that no one who buys it would actually like it.
A little myopic.
I think Figeac is one if the most misunderstood wines in Bordeaux for a variety of reasons that beguiles a linear narrative. I find this to be very sad news as I'm in The camp that all things Rolland/Parkerised will lead to inferior wines at age 30+ which is where Figeac truly shines.
Clearly this is a move for PGCC A status; a move that I believe Mssr Manoncourt would have eschewed. For shame.