The wine canon - a comparative analysis.

I posted this on the “other” BB yesterday, but since Jorge beat me up earlier today at Posner’s place about how I should post on this BB, how about if we test BB quality by posting the same message here and see what happens.

On the train this morning (actually yesterday, by now), I sat next to a kid who was reading The Great Gatsby. I first thought about the classics of Western literature that everyone needs to read, which then morphed into consideration of whether there is, or should be, a wine canon. Wines that everyone who ascribes to be a serious wine hobbyist/expert/collector etc. should try at least once. Not a list of great wines, but a list of classics, exemplars, benchmarks and standards by which other wines must be judged. Thus, although I really like Aquilon and have written about it twice in the past few weeks, the first vintage was 2002 and just hasn’t been around long enough.

Here’s my off the cuff list of nominees, assuming that money is not an issue. I have omitted vintages in most cases, but assume it must be one of the better ones. Comments? What would you add?

Australia: Penfolds Grange

Bordeaux: Lafite Rothschild, Petrus and d’Yquem - although I can make a special case for 1945 Mouton

Burgundy: Any Le Montrachet and any DRC, but probably best La Tache

Northern Rhone: Jaboulet La Chapelle

Champagne: Dom Perignon

Port: Quinta do Noval Nacional

Barolo: Conterno Monfortino

Spain: Vega Sicilia Unico and an Amontillado (in deference to Poe)

US: Montalena Estate; Ridge Montebello

Alsace: Any Z-H SGN

Madeira: Any well-aged D’Oliveras Boal.

Germany: I can’t pick a producer, but everyone should have a TBA.

Since I’ve had almost none of those wines, I certainly don’t deserve to make suggestions.

As an aside, I hardly think that one thread is a way to judge the ‘quality’ of a forum, but that’s just me!

I’m not clear on the criteria. Fame, history, preference? Some of this is of course personal preference (Lafite vs Haut Brion, Dom vs Taittiger Comtes or Krug, Montelena vs Heitz Martha’s, etc). Hard for me to put “any” Montrachet as ideal, there are quite a few producers who vary in rep. Personally I’d go for Clos Ste Hune (and even CFE) before a Zind. I’d think a great Mosel Auslese would be more critical for knowledge than a TBA.
And any canon would have to include Rioja (CVNE, LdH, etc), Loire (Huet!), Tuscany (Montevertine, unless you wanted longer history), etc etc. If criteria things “serious” wine enthusiasts would have tried there are quite a few more regions/types that should be covered.

edited to add Haut Brion, I had Lafite vs and left off HB

I don’t think the concept of a canon works for wine. For one thing, wines change, books don’t. There is also a practical difficulty in that to have tasted enough legendary wines to have an opinion on this question, it’s quite possible it would be necessary to expend a million dollars or more. It’s sad that we’ve come to this place where people who want to experience the greatest in music and literature can do so virtually costlessly but to do the same in wine requires some (or a lot of) wealth… but there we are.

+1

Jay, I agree with Dale in that I’m not sure what you are driving at – perhaps that means this Board is not as erudite as the other

But if what you were trying to do is create a list of iconic wines from given regions, I’d have three immediate reactions to your list:

• as much as I like Olivier’s many wines, I would also say that a Clos Ste. Hune stands alone at the qualitative peak in Alsace

• in Hermitage, I would clearly take Chave over Jaboulet

• In Madeira, Boal is a nice grape, but I actually think that “iconic” wines are more likely to be made from Malvazia or, even more rare, Terrantez or Moscatel.

I have thought about such a list – more a death bed or wish list, but the more I get into this, the more I would like to ‘know’ a region or vineyard, more than a certain producer. I’m currently trying to learn more about Meursault. I’d like to try a handful of producers over a few different vintages, so I could understand the place/terroir. So my canon may look more like Montrachet, Pomerol, the eastern hills of Oakville, etc.

The corollary being that if you’ve discovered a little gem of a wine, then you’re much more apprehensive about publicizing it nowadays.

Apparently Roumier was widely available in the vicinity of $100 [maybe even sub-$100 ???] as recently as eight or ten years ago.

But then word of mouth got so big on the internet that the 1993 Musigny went for $8470 per bottle at “The Golden Cellar” auction in 2007.

$8470 for a 14-year-old wine.

Whew.

That must have been quite a nice return on somebody’s investment.

PS: I thought it odd that the least expensive wine in this canon was the champagne.

If I had to name one Champagne it would be Krug’s basic vintage. Dom is right up there and so is Salon, Philipponnat’s Clos des Goisses, Taittinger’s Comtes de Champagne, the rest of Krug’s range, and probably a few others. Still there is something magical about Krug’s vintage wine. The most amazing wine in Champagne is probably Dom Perignon due to the fact that it is consistently good across vintages and bottles yet is produced in multi-million quantities.

Why debate Hune vs. Zind-Humbrecht when there at at least two other countries that make better riesling?

I read this thread on the other board, glad the consensus here is more along my thought process.

Let alone any changes in the wine itself, I hate the idea that to be experienced in the wine drinking world (or a serious wine drinker) one needs to spend tens of thousands of dollars. In my mind, I can see the value in trying wines from all over the world and at all price point before really feeling like you have the frame of reference, but not that you need to have tried the best of the best in every niche.

On a related note, in your mind how much of any one of these wines would one have had to drink before they could cross them off the list? A glass, a bottle, a case over a few decades? Meh, for me I’m more interested in my own education of how wines change, how wineries change, and how wine changes over time than feeling the need to drink drops of showcase wines. I still stick to the idea that I’d rather have a dozen $100 of wine open in front of my than one $1,200 bottle. We shall see how this changes over time, of course.

I disagree about TBA. It is the biggest and richest but far from canon, Spatlese from Wehlener Sonnenuhr by JJ Prum would be my choice.

I am coming around to your position on this one. After giving it further thought, and spending the evening with a Muller Catoir Gimmeldinger Schlossel, I think for the purpose of the canon you need a benchmak Spatlese or perhaps even a Kabinett. Wehlener Sonnenhur is probably appropriate for a canon, and JJ Prum’s should be fine.

As to the appropriateness of a canon altogether, I feel strongly that in order to really appreciate wine, you need to be able to compare each bottle to a classic experience. I searched for 20 years until I got lucky enough to find a Nacional that I could afford, but I finally got one. It also took a long time before I bit the bullet on a bottle of Yquem (I still curse the day in 1976 when I passed on the Yquem and bought the Ausone instead because it was $2 cheaper). I have more wines in my cellar that cost less than $10 than that cost more than $100, but if I had to choose between them, I would certainly toss all the cheapies in the garbage.

Madeira: Any well-aged D’Oliveras Boal.

Actually, Verdelho is what D’Oliveira is famous for.

• In Madeira, Boal is a nice grape, but I actually think that “iconic” wines are more likely to be made from Malvazia or, even more rare, Terrantez or Moscatel.

I think Terrantez and Moscatel are too rare to be icons.
Verdelho is probably the most common of the classic grapes, but even that is rare relative to the amount of grapes grown historically on the island. Vinifera grapes being a minority until recently; and Nerga Mole 80% of the Vinifera variety harvest. Malvasia/Malvazia/Malmsey is the most famous of the grape varieties; but I think most aficianados prefer the drier varieties.

Port: Quinta do Noval Nacional

I think Nacional is also much too rare to be iconic. I’d vote Taylors or Grahams.

I’d also vote for Trimbach’s CSH or the CFE VT as the iconic wine of Alsace; JJ Prums Wehlener Sonnenurh Auslese as iconic for the Mosel.

So, since one can read Dante, Joyce, Shakespeare, Proust, Goethe, Faulkner, etc. for reasonable amounts of money, how about the quasi-affordable wine canon?

This isn’t cheap stuff, but nothing outrageous:

Australia: Grange or HOG aren’t as expensive as some other here,

Bordeaux: Pichon Lalande, Leoville Barton, Figeac, Magdelaine, LLC, Palmer

Burgundy: Rousseau CSJ, Lafarge Chenes, Angerville Ducs, BdMartray Corton-Charlemagne, Dauvissat Le Clos

Northern Rhone: Ogier or Jamet CR

Southern Rhone Beaucastel

Champagne: lots of stuff in same range-Dom, Taittinger Comtes, Krug

Port: Taylor, Graham, Fonseca

Barolo: Giacosa Santa Stefano, Conterno Mont.

Spain: a CUNE or LdH Gran Riserva

Cal Cab Ridge Montebello, BV GdtL (though not so much recently), Heitz Marthas, Shafer HSS, Dunn

Alsace: Trimbach CSH or CFE (value champ!), Boxler

Germany: MSR - Prum Weg. Sonn or W Schaefer GD Auslese, Rhiengau

Loire : Huet, Vatan, either Cotat

Tuscany Montevertine or lots of classic CCRs, Biondi-Santi or

Austria- Hirtzberger Singerriedel

Someone else would have to suggest Tokaji, Oregon, southern Italy, Provence, etc. These aren’t cheap wines, but except for “super” vintages all under $200 (except maybe theRousseau, but that is only a recent develop,emt), , and most undr $100. One could do a $50 and under list, actually.

“As to the appropriateness of a canon altogether, I feel strongly that in order to really appreciate wine, you need to be able to compare each bottle to a classic experience.”

But, is the “classic experience” tasting the wine in the abstract or using a wine as the makers surely intended, to make food and conversation better and vise versa?

I’m still having a little trouble wrapping my head around the concept… The assumption seems to have been, pick a dozen or two important categories of wine and name either the highest high in the category or the most ideal exemplar of it (not necessarily the same thing of course!). But a “canon” sounds like it should be something else… basically composed of things that it’s absolutely necessary to have experienced to have an intelligent, high-level discussion about wine in general. There are definitely a lot of consensus great wines from consensus important regions that don’t fit into that category. In fact, I can’t think of too many cases where an actual specific wine (even if not a specific vintage) is so important that it qualifies. Prum may be the ultimate Mosel but it is possible to carry on a high-level conversation about the Mosel on the basis of many other producers even if you have never had Prum. The only examples I can think that really are that essential, such that they impart essential, basic, foundational knowledge you can’t get from something else, are… the 5 Medoc (+ HB) first growths.

For the most part I have no complaints. Would add margaux to the bordeaux, Beaucastel or perhaps Celestins to the Southern Rhone. I would also scrap Burgundy all together. Damn minefield.

Eric, while I agree with the first portion of your sentence below, I couldn’t disagree more with the conclusion. If what one is drinking is a 3 or 5 year old Madeira, then yes, grapes like Sercial and Verdelho are probably brisker and less cloying than a Boal or Malvazia. But for true, pre-1900 vintage Madeira, in my experience both in smaller groups and even in larger tastings, the sweeter wines always rise to the fore. In fact, one could argue (at least in terms of current availability) that the most iconic Madeira still around is the 1795 Oscar Accaioly Terrantez.

Malvasia/Malvazia/Malmsey is the most famous of the grape varieties; but I think most aficianados prefer the drier varieties.<<<<<<