I saw the earlier thread regarding traditional 2009 Bordeaux, and while I realize that the 2009 vintage was loaded with high-scoring wines that were either out-and-out Parkerized or coincidentally to his taste at some addresses because of the ripe, high-alcohol, low-acid nature of the vintage, and also realize that the board has from time to time kicked around the changes in winemaking styles in Bordeaux during the Parker era, it seems to me that there is no go-to resource for determining which chateaux still make traditional Bordeaux and which have gone modern. With all of the Bordeaux jocks around here, surely a pretty good job could be done on that analysis, and perhaps it would even spawn a knock-down, drag-out e-fight or two which does NOT involve Maison Ilan. Letâs have some of you folks who taste a wide range of Bordeaux every year step up for the good of the order, and especially the good of the growing number of newbies here. A couple of recent threads did a good job on this for Barolo and Barbaresco, but it would be good to do the same thing for Bordeaux and Burgundy, eh?
Perhaps we should start by distinguishing the differences between traditional and modern, both in terms of winemaking and sensory profile?
By all means. And even if that proves too difficult from a definitional point of view, it being no mean feat to draw the bright line between traditional winemaking that has cleaned up its act a bit with updated techniques and equipment and winemaking that results in wines that may not seem like Bordeaux to some. It would seem to me that, as in other wine regions with many producers, we are dealing with a stylistic continuum, not an either/or situationâŠ
I think Billâs laid it out pretty well in his post. Modern = ripe, high alcohol, low acid. Some might add heavy oak treatment or use of modern techniques like RO, spinning cone, micro-oxygenation. I would argue that itâs not technique but end result that counts, so wines that taste too ripe, too alcoholic, too low acid, or too oaky might be categorized as modern. Then you get into personal preference as to where to draw the line on each of these characteristics, so it gets messy. Which should make for a good argument.
Iâll throw out a couple of easy ones for starters.
Figeac = traditional
Angelus = modern
Anyone who disagrees with these, well, they must have the palate of a yak.
Well, there is a difference between drinking Pavie vs. Leoville Barton, no? Iâm not sure what the cellar routine differences are but assume the Pavie sees a lot more new oak amonst other cellar practice differences.
OK, I agree with those too. And Leoville Las Cases? One of the early adapters of modern technology (was it spinning cone or RO?), but it doesnât drink modern.
Are there any concerns that the modernization will compromise the age worthiness of these wines? For me '09 sticks out but perhaps itâs a larger issue?
Brian, I think that argument regarding shorter life span is out there for every âmodernâ wine on earth, and I am not sure that there is much resolution yet. Not enough time has passed. Part of the problem, already hinted at above, is also that some producers who are categorized as modernists end up making wines that, 20 years later, do not seem so. Parker keeps telling us that every New World wine that he has declared to be ageworthy is, and that is complete and utter BS, but yet, it is true of SOME of those wines. In Barolo, for example, there is no truly modernist wine with 40 years of age on it, and precious few with 30, and I am guessing few modernist Bordeaux with more than 20 years of age. (My rough-justice rationale is that Parker has been around for 30+ years, Rolland and his ilk for less, and while Parker made his splash with the 1982 vintage, he merely called his shot without having any influence at all on winemaking at that time.)
Seems to me that we have exactly the same issue with Cali Cab, both in terms of traditional vs. modern and ageworthiness of the wines of the newer producers, but those issues have already gotten a lot of airplay over the years and that would really need to be a separate thread anyway, as would Burgundy.
Progress has already been made above. I agree that the techniques used may not always show in the final product, and that what we should be concerned with is whether or not the final product possesses that modernist or âinternationally styledâ je ne sais quoi. I assume, however, that most experienced Bordeaux drinkers can line up some bottles and make a traditional or not so much determination on each wine, and also that, even if Pavie is oneâs favorite wine on earth, everyone could agree that, with its color, extraction and other characteristics, it is not what the British like to call âclaretâ.
One other bone to chew: is it not so that Bordeaux has always used more oak, new and otherwise, than most or all other wine regions, and that it did so earlier than the rest? That could mean that making the case that new oak is modernist in Bordeaux might not be easy, or even possibleâŠ
One more and I will watch for a while. The fact that most (all?) Bordeaux are blends has to weigh into this as well. It makes it possible to aim for a consistent âhouse styleâ vintage after vintage that may be more difficult for non-interventionist producers using a single grape variety to achieve. Could that be why LLC does not seem âmodernâ, or could it be the relative austerity of the wines from its appellation, or both?
A bit of a thread drift: there was a recent string reporting a blind tasting of 2003 Bordeaux in which Pape Clement came out first. I donât think that anyone would disagree that Pape Clement is of the modern style. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether or not what someone likes is also something that it is good. And so it goesâŠ
Iâll be interested to hear the thoughts of those with more experience than I have managed in bordeaux. Still, I would toss out Cantemerle, Calon Segur, and Gloria as traditional.
Bill, in addition to what you mention about âmodernâ or âtraditionalâ, you have to mention what may be the most important difference - clean winemaking.
One thing Parker did, and I think itâs a good thing, is he got people to be cleaner. UC Davis gets a lot of credit/flack for teaching that, but you can be âtraditionalâ in that you pick earlier, etc., but still be clean in your winery and cellar, and thatâs going to make a difference. An example from California might be someone like Cathy Corison - her wines are âold schoolâ if you will, but theyâre never bretty or dirty in some other way.
Dr Pascal Chatonnet of the Laboratoire Excell in Bordeaux, a leading expert on Brett, says that it has always been with us. âWhen I started out as a winemaker 20 years ago, I identified what I thought was a typical Graves character, a goĂ»t de terroir. But it wasnât the Graves region that was producing those aromas and flavours, it was Brett.â
So thatâs another consideration.
And Michel Rolland.
According to Stacey Slinkard (cool name) at About.com, there are around 10,000 producers in Bordeaux. I have no clue whatsoever whether sheâs right or not, just liked the name.
Anyhow, if you take away the 9567 that Rolland consults for, the rest are probably âtraditionalâ.
Of course, Iâm far from being any authority on Bordeaux. What I will note however, is that last week when I was tasting through the St Emillion Grands Crus from 2009 and 2010, a lot of them were stating 15% alcohol on the labels. When they came out I was struck by how ripe some of them seemed and now, after a few years, theyâre nothing if not âmodernâ. There were a few producers I talked to who said they just didnât even send their wines to Bob or anyone else for ratings, one of those was really striking - not oaky, not overly sweet, not overly tannic, just a good example of nice winemaking in a warm vintage but not anything Iâd consider "traditionalâ in terms of tannins, herbal notes, brett, etc.
OTOH, Fleur Cardinale, for example, was so hot I asked what the alcohol level was and they told me 15%. Then I started checking all of them and that wasnât so unusual. Of course the winecellarinsider says: The vineyard management of Fleur Cardinale is traditional, as is the wine making. so again, what do I know, because that would mean hot, alcoholic, and sweet is the result of traditional wine making. Still so much to learn.
Lots to say, but have to sleep soon. Iâll say this, though, Recent the vintages Iâve tried of Lascombes since 2000 and up are so modern they taste nothing like Bdx as I know it.
Best,
N
This is a list I made in 2006 on another forum, I havenât tasted enough recent vintage Bordeaux to know about recent changes. This is probably based mostly on wines produced between 1996-2003.
John Gilmanâs VFTC would give a pretty good idea about who is traditional now.
This list might be dated, and in some cases based on only 1 or 2 data points
More or Less Traditionals
Vieux Chateau Certan
Certan de May
Leoville-Barton
Figeac
Trotanoy
La Louviere
Meyney
Haut-Bailly
Magdelaine
Latour
Lafite-Rothschild
Haut-Brion
Cantemerle
Lanessan
GPL
Talbot
LMHB
LâArrossee
Cheval Blanc
LâEvangile
Lafleur
Moderates (many modern techniques, possibly seem rather modern in ripe vintages and rather traditional in less ripe vintages)
Mouton-Rothschild
Margaux
du Tertre
Ducru-B
Cos dâEstournel
Lagrange (St J)
LLC
Calon-Segur
Lynch-Bages
Pichon-Baron
Pontet-Canet
Gloria
Palmer
La Conseillante
Gruaud-Larose
MidModerns
Angelus
Pavie-Maquin
Nenin
Moderns
Leoville-Poyferre
Pavie
Pavie-Decesse
Monbousquet
Smith-Haut-Lafitte
Giscours
Troplong Mondot
Bon Pasteur
Hosanna
Lascombes
La Confession
Roc de Cambes
Peby Faugeres
Quinault lâenclos
That seems like good stuff to me, Dale, and as good a time period as any. By the 2000 vintage, fully modernist Bordeaux were a discernable realityâŠ
If memory servers me correctly, Lascombes came in first when Francois Maussâ group GJE did their 2005 blind tasting. Maybe itâs true: what people like isnât necessarily good?
In addition to the other factors mentioned (riper grapes, reverse osmosis, micro-oxygenation), I think malolactic fermentation in barrels is another widely adopted technique in recent decades.
In Bordeaux, I have assumed the R.O. increases the alcohol since it is used there to concentrate the wines (rather than to lower alcohol, as it is in California). Is that right? When I visited Graves and St. Emilion in 2001, I was amazed at the number of wineries who matter-of-factly said they R.O.'ed 5 to 10 percent. At 10 percent, if youâre only removing water, youâd be raising the alcohol by 1.2 or 1.3 percent.
Bill, I think about this a lot. For the record I love Bordeaux, and for a time I was steeped in the âParker eraâ that you mention as well. I have quit buying Bordeaux completely with the 2005 vintage, as I just about hated everything I tasted that I had bought -all through futures- for this time period. Some of the worst offenders for me were, in my mind, very modern wines: Cos dâEstournel, Pavie, Pavie Macquin, Leoville Poyferre, Pontet Canet, Peby Faugeres, Leoville Las Cases, Conseillante, Bellevue, Barde Haut, Clos St Martin, Lunelles⊠to name some. So I have been reading Gillman lately -I donât take Wine Spectator or Wine Advocate anymore- and I see some positive notes on some wines that I have, or would have, otherwise given up like Cos, 2010, 2011, and Pontet Canet, 2011 etc⊠OBVIOUSLY there are plenty of guys who like the wines I just said I hate. I donât have a problem with that at all. Itâs just that I am thinking about getting back into the game and am interested in some wines that I used to love.
As to your question: Traditional vs. Modern Bordeaux⊠I really want to know.
This is pretty funny⊠and true for me.
Re: aging and the impact of âmodernizationâ on it, I think it depends on what your time frame is. If we use the '90 vintage as an example, folks like Angelus in Bordeaux and Clerico/Altare/Scavino in Piemonte were all using a modernist approach to winemaking at that time, and in all cases, the wines are still drinking well today (in fact, in getting back to Bordeaux, the pair of '89 & '90 Angelus are both drinking very well).
Now if you are asking if they will still be drinking well at the age of 40 in 2030, I guess the jury is still out. That said, given how much drinking enjoyment my cases of Angelus, Altare Arborina, Scavino Rocche del Annunziata and Clerico CMG have provided me over the past 20+ years, Iâd have to say I donât personally care if the use of âmodernistâ techniques have compromised the wineâs ability to provide pleasure at 40 or 50 years of age.