Point taken, but isn’t Baumard still seeking to have the decree annulled in the French Supreme Court, or has that appeal been denied?
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.
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.
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…
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.
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?
Jim,
I may agree with your 2nd statement, but do not think the comparison you make in your first one is appropriate.
Alex R.
Be more forward thinking Alex. It’s about what’s in the glass!
Maybe that says more about the high end Bordeaux wine industry than it does about the appropriateness of those techniques. ![[stirthepothal.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f40faec63ca1018898a40805efbf9f0066a3d205.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]"){kind=small}
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think you misread my statement. I specifically stated that photos could not accurately convey the general levels of grape ripeness.
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.
Speculation is only valid when it’s yours, eh? 
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.
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.
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.
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.