Last monday, we had a very special GJE session in Paris where Reignac, a simple “Bordeaux Supérieur” was tasted blind inside the following names :
All first growths
+
LMHB, Angelus, Cheval-Blanc, Ausone, Petrus.
You may know that in the tasted vintage 2001, Reignac reaches level 2, just after Angelus and before every other names. Fine : this was discussed at lenght here and there. Wilfred and Kevin Shin were there. All the session was under scrutiny of a legal entity (Huissier in France) and 100 % recorded for a DVD, including debriefings and writing the scores under our usual excel spreadsheet.
On this post, I just want to discuss 3 other points.
First subject of discussion.
If Reignac was the last one, nobody would even care and will find that normal, whatever the Reignac’ score in points would have been. I mean, I cannot imagine anyone writing : hey, guys, we have a problem here ! IMO Reignac 2001 is superior to… !
But when a simple Reignac beats the big guns, then this is a kind of earthquake in our mind since we simply do not like (at various levels, of course) that our preferred personnal hierarchy, built over the official one for the vast majority of us, is on fire.
Second subject of discussion :
Why do we accept more easily to integrate in our pantheon new names in Burgundy or Rhône or Alsace than we do for Bordeaux ? I have numerous examples in mind of young producers who are fully respected as the very best names while they were not producers just 20 years ago (or just starting).
Why it is more difficult for us (and, trust me, I am inside this group) to accept the fact that new producers in Bordeaux areas, such as Jean Guyon (Rollan de By, Haut-Condissas), Yves Vatelot (Reignac, Baltus), Droulers (Haut-Carles) may be able to find some good terroirs, to work hard like hell on those terroirs, to spent substantial amount of money to make the best possible, why these new Producers are not considered not at the level, but “close to” the big historical names ?
After all, in 1855 only a tiny part of Bordeaux was under vines and certainly the properties were dispatched near roads and rivers (easy transportation) and not always according some geological survey ?
Well : you will tell me some exceptions to that like Thunevin on Valandraud. Thanks first to Michel Bettane and then Robert Parker, this property was put under the radar and Thunevin was able to collect a very good financial value for his wine. At a more discret level, François Mitjavile on Tertre Roteboeuf.
Third subject of discussion :
“Well, OK Reignac had the chance of its life, but, you will see, in 5 or 10 years from now, the wine will get back in the anonymous basket”
You are probably right, though I am the kind of guy who want to wait and see. This lunch, I did open a médoc 1985 “Les Ormes Sorbet” from Jean Boivert. This wine has 24 years. Trust me or not : I have tasted many classified, many times from this vintage, and they just do not come closed to this cru that I discover thru Bertrand Le Guern (see his huge statistical analysis at : Bertand Le Guern" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Jean Boivert was an exceptionnal winemaker.
So, do not consider me as a destructor of the classified. Most of them are truly gems from Bordeaux areas. But I just cannot find any arguments under which it is a crime to compare a simple new wine, well done, with them ? And if it cames well out of the tasting, inside the GJE system, I just can say :
“15 top tasters cannot make the same mistake, the very sm day, on the same wine”
This si something a free brain is able to understand !