This is not really MY question (I already have my opinion) but it´s simply to initiate a discussion about this matter:
We all know that GRANDS CRUS are more expensive, more desirable - also much rarer - and (should be) usually of a higher quality than Premier Crus or Village wines.
(I know that not all and always really are “better” …)
What are these qualities a GRAND CRU should have in comparison to a Premier cru or a Village wine?
More powerful? That´s neither always the case nor is it enough. Right?
Is the difference of 2 (3 - 4- 5 … ) times the price of a Premier cru really justified - or only an effect of supply and demand?
I´m talking about RED Burgundies (not St.Emilions) … (but one can also discuss the white ones in addition).
Unfortunately it’s not clear cut. Not all grand crus are created equal: an example is Le Musigny and Bonnes Mares. Le Musigny is one the most highly rated grand crus for a lot of Burgundy lovers and Bonnes Mares often rated lower than the 1er cru Les Amoreuses in the same commune.
As for value I’d say that is a personal judgement call. For many the grand crus will never be attainable while others will hardly notice a dent in their bank account after picking up their allocations.
Unfortunately not the most useful indicator of quality. I’d drink dozens of bottles of Coche or Roulot Meursault (villages!) before even countenancing a Louis Latour Corton Charlemagne.
Bad producers will manage to ruin the wine, no matter how good the dirt.
Grand Cru designations are often relying on historical impressions and I have a feeling that global warming is going have a significant effect in making some “ideal exposures” into “roasted slopes”, while elevating the quality of 1er cru territories that used to struggle to ripen. But that’s all speculation.
Many producers treat their GC differently, with more wood. Don’t necessarily love that.
IMHO, it is about something other than weight or power. If you think about quality in Burgundy as being about weight or power, you are thinking about Burgundy incorrectly and should be drinking something else.
I agree that “weight” and “power” shouldn’t be considered indicators of quality for Burgundy. Maybe “richness” and “intensity of flavor” and “depth” would be better descriptors and the best Burgundies have these with an accompanying finesse and lightness on their feet.
On the other hand, Burgundies were, up until the last few decades, considered to be fairly dense wines, often with Syrah mixed in probably, and often drunk after Bordeaux in the lineup. Alexis de Lichine, writing in 1953, suggested prime rib as the ideal pairing for a Chambertin.
And I have had many GC Burgs, whether from Corton or Chambertin, that were fairly dense, tannic and, dare I offend Howard, heavy. I have rarely had that experience with 1er cru. So much depends on producer…
One of the board’s most experienced Burgundy enthusiast (30+ years) recently said here that he wished he had focused more on 1er’s and villages because he believed the disparity in quality with GC’s was often not as great as many would assume.
Of the relative handful of both red and white Grand Crus I’ve had, in general the whites have given me more satisfaction, they’ve lived up to their category more than the reds in terms of my expectations. I’m not putting that out as a rule, just my experience.
Notice that it states grand cru vineyards have the POTENTIAL for superior grapes and wine. My experience has been that it varies A LOT from producer to producer which is why I lean towards 1er/premier cru wines.
Did I say I have no idea? No! I simply asked the question to the forum …
(please read more carefully next time … and I´m going to drink whatever I like …)
AND - btw - you yourself seem to have no answer (— “something other than” … and WHAT?)
Most people are writing about wines that do not fulfill the expectations of a GC - or that Bonnes Mares is inferior to Musigny …
But my simple question was:
What are these qualities a GRAND CRU should have in comparison to a Premier cru or a Village wine?
To try to realize the difference between GC and 1er cru, you need to taste wines made by the same producer and vinified in the same general manner. But even then in some cases a 1er cru may come close to a GC, but usually the telltale differences for me are the body/texture in the mouth and the length of finish.
On the other hand, Burgundies were, up until the last few decades, considered to be fairly dense wines, often with Syrah mixed in probably, and often drunk after Bordeaux in the lineup. Alexis de Lichine, writing in 1953, suggested prime rib as the ideal pairing for a Chambertin.
Not sure that’s true at all. Lichine was Russian and liked hearty food and wasn’t so far off pairing beef and Burgundy, which was fairly well-known to him because of the famous stew.
Burgundy’s climate makes it pretty hard to imagine producing a big, ripe, Pinot Noir like you might get from Sonoma. The reason you might find some Algerian wine blended into it was because it was considered too light. But that wasn’t done by all producers.
The reason Chaptal suggested adding sugar in the early 1800s was because the under-ripe grapes produced thin, acidic wine. The people writing about things like Volnay described it as transparent, pretty much what we would call a rosé these days, and that’s also why the English called Bordeaux claret, from vin claire.
Historically, in Burgundy they used Noirian (Pinot Noir) as well as several other grapes and also blended whites into it.
But the concept of pairing specific dishes with specific wine isn’t that old at all - it really dates to somewhere around the 1970s. In the 1960s you’d find an article here and there in the Chicago Tribune or NYT that suggested a wine with Thanksgiving turkey, but those tended to be pretty generic recommendations. Even the books I’ve read from the 1970s tended to be fairly generic, partly because there just weren’t that many wines around. So they’d say something like pair Rioja with roast chicken or lamb, pair Bordeaux with lamb or roast beef, etc. Not always vintage recommendations and maybe a few generic producer recommendations, but nothing particularly specific. Lichine quite would likely have been just as happy with Bordeaux, as that was the largest part of the wine world in the 1950s.
Lichine owned and produced wine from both Burgundy and Bordeaux. He mentions that specifically in his book. He was, by no means, isolating French wine to Bordeaux and was a booster of multiple regions of French wine, though he seemed to have a poor opinion of wines from the Languedoc. And multiple books suggested wine pairings far, far, far before the 1970’s, including the aforementioned 1953 version of Wines of France.
Having read about a hundred of Francois Audouze’s reports of Bordeaux and Burgundy wines from the late 19th Century through the 1950’s, I am fairly sure that few of them would be mistaken for roses, and the few that I’ve had with 60-70+ years of them are clearly not pink either.
A few writers who have suggested either the “power” of Burgundy or else pairing with heavier foods:
William Makepeace Thackeray: “…honest, firm, generous Burgundy, that nobly supported the meat” from Memorials of Gourmandising
“If Claret is the queen of natural wines, Burgundy is the king.” George Saintsbury 1845-1933. [English literary critic, professor.]: Notes on a Cellar Book, p. 39.
And, more recently: “The Burgundy, that hearty, earthy, refined wine which has a trace of our soul in each bottle, so that when we drink it we become, all unknowingly, more French than before.”
Iain Pears 1955- . [English novelist.]: The Dream of Scipio
Grand cru and premier cru are designations given to vineyards. Burgundy Wine Classifications | Berry Bros. & Rudd For a producer to label a wine as such, there are various limitation including that the grape has to be Pinot Noir or Chardonnay (depending on the vineyard), harvest cannot begin before a specific date and the grapes going into a wine have to come from the specified vineyard.
