Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Message
Author
Sarah Kirschbaum
Posts: 2446
Joined: September 20th, 2010, 11:53 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#51 Post by Sarah Kirschbaum » May 2nd, 2019, 12:39 pm

Josh Grossman wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 12:28 pm
Sarah Kirschbaum wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 11:40 am
Jonathan Loesberg wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 10:57 am

If you don't like a wine, for you it's not a wine of high quality. Wine isn't cognitive but a matter of tasting, and thus a matter of taste, the actual kind and not the cultural metaphor.
Sorry for the thread drift, but I do not believe the above is true. There are standards of quality in wine, regardless of whether an individual taster likes a given wine or not - standards most of us come to recognize the more experience we have. It's often very difficult to separate out the objective from the subjective, no question, and there is a lot of room for argument on what exactly constitutes these standards, but they are absolutely there. High production, industrial wine with little to no care taken in the vineyards, and chemicals added is never high quality, even if you like it. The same can be said of food - no matter how much you like McDonald's, the kitchen is not turning out superb food. While I completely agree that preference is a huge and important part of judging wine, and ultimately what you chose to drink should be heavily dictated by what you like, what one likes personally does not constitute quality, nor vice versa. It is a fundamental aspect of connoisseurship, not to mention criticism, to develop understanding of both and strive to recognize where they overlap and where they don't.
Guigal makes 4,000,000 bottles of their CdR every year--and that is just one of their many bottlings. If you like 42 months of new oak from someone who makes millions of cases a year, by all means, give your money to Guigal. Just like McDonald's though, please don't think that they couldn't have 'billions served' on their sign. I am biased--but at some point, wine switches from being artisan to industrial, passion to commerce. Guigal and Chapoutier are the industrial négociants of the Rhone. I do my best not to support industrial wineries no matter how much lipstick they put on the pig: https://wineberserkers.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=159758
I'm not sure why you quoted my post here - I said nothing at all about Guigal, in terms of quality or preference. My post was about whether objective standards exist at all, or if it's all about personal taste.

User avatar
John Morris
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 16495
Joined: June 21st, 2009, 2:09 pm
Location: Gotham

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#52 Post by John Morris » May 2nd, 2019, 12:48 pm

Josh Grossman wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 12:28 pm
Guigal makes 4,000,000 bottles of their CdR every year--and that is just one of their many bottlings. If you like 42 months of new oak from someone who makes millions of cases a year, by all means, give your money to Guigal. Just like McDonald's though, please don't think that they couldn't have 'billions served' on their sign. I am biased--but at some point, wine switches from being artisan to industrial, passion to commerce. Guigal and Chapoutier are the industrial négociants of the Rhone. I do my best not to support industrial wineries no matter how much lipstick they put on the pig: https://wineberserkers.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=159758
I generally stay away from such producers, but Guigal's CdR has sustained high quality for a very long time. I preferred it when it had more grenache, but it's still good. I opened a bottle of the '03 a couple of weeks ago that I'd cellared since release, and even from that bizarre vintage, the wine was pleasing and showed some evolution. In better vintages, it can acquire some real complexity with 10-15 years of age.

I distinguish (a) producers like Guigal, Jaboulet, Antinori and the old-line Rioja producers who produce inexpensive wines on an industrial scale that are decent drinking even if they're not exciting from (b) Duboeuf, who uses yeasts to give that bubble gum aroma and whose single-vineyard can taste more like Bojo Nouveau than serious cru Beaujolais.

Producing large quantities of cheap wine doesn't necessarily mean you can't make great wines. I think Guigal and Jaboulet on their good days show that, and certainly Rioja producers like CVNE and La Rioja Alta do.
"I'm a Frisbeetarian. We worship frisbees. We believe when you die your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down." – Jim Stafford

"The Internet has resulted in an exponential increase in the number of instances in which humor must be explained." - me, 2019

User avatar
C. Mc Cart
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1810
Joined: December 22nd, 2009, 8:44 am
Location: Ontario

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#53 Post by C. Mc Cart » May 2nd, 2019, 12:49 pm

Josh Grossman wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 12:28 pm
Sarah Kirschbaum wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 11:40 am
Jonathan Loesberg wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 10:57 am

If you don't like a wine, for you it's not a wine of high quality. Wine isn't cognitive but a matter of tasting, and thus a matter of taste, the actual kind and not the cultural metaphor.
Sorry for the thread drift, but I do not believe the above is true. There are standards of quality in wine, regardless of whether an individual taster likes a given wine or not - standards most of us come to recognize the more experience we have. It's often very difficult to separate out the objective from the subjective, no question, and there is a lot of room for argument on what exactly constitutes these standards, but they are absolutely there. High production, industrial wine with little to no care taken in the vineyards, and chemicals added is never high quality, even if you like it. The same can be said of food - no matter how much you like McDonald's, the kitchen is not turning out superb food. While I completely agree that preference is a huge and important part of judging wine, and ultimately what you chose to drink should be heavily dictated by what you like, what one likes personally does not constitute quality, nor vice versa. It is a fundamental aspect of connoisseurship, not to mention criticism, to develop understanding of both and strive to recognize where they overlap and where they don't.
Guigal makes 4,000,000 bottles of their CdR every year--and that is just one of their many bottlings. If you like 42 months of new oak from someone who makes millions of cases a year, by all means, give your money to Guigal. Just like McDonald's though, please don't think that they couldn't have 'billions served' on their sign. I am biased--but at some point, wine switches from being artisan to industrial, passion to commerce. Guigal and Chapoutier are the industrial négociants of the Rhone. I do my best not to support industrial wineries no matter how much lipstick they put on the pig: https://wineberserkers.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=159758
Really? So because Drouhin or Jadot make a sea of bourgogne and are both "industrial", you avoid their Musigny, Petit Monts or Amoureuses and actively seek out a smaller producer?
Chris

User avatar
Josh Grossman
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 30th, 2017, 11:26 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#54 Post by Josh Grossman » May 2nd, 2019, 12:49 pm

Sarah Kirschbaum wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 12:39 pm
Josh Grossman wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 12:28 pm
Sarah Kirschbaum wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 11:40 am


Sorry for the thread drift, but I do not believe the above is true. There are standards of quality in wine, regardless of whether an individual taster likes a given wine or not - standards most of us come to recognize the more experience we have. It's often very difficult to separate out the objective from the subjective, no question, and there is a lot of room for argument on what exactly constitutes these standards, but they are absolutely there. High production, industrial wine with little to no care taken in the vineyards, and chemicals added is never high quality, even if you like it. The same can be said of food - no matter how much you like McDonald's, the kitchen is not turning out superb food. While I completely agree that preference is a huge and important part of judging wine, and ultimately what you chose to drink should be heavily dictated by what you like, what one likes personally does not constitute quality, nor vice versa. It is a fundamental aspect of connoisseurship, not to mention criticism, to develop understanding of both and strive to recognize where they overlap and where they don't.
Guigal makes 4,000,000 bottles of their CdR every year--and that is just one of their many bottlings. If you like 42 months of new oak from someone who makes millions of cases a year, by all means, give your money to Guigal. Just like McDonald's though, please don't think that they couldn't have 'billions served' on their sign. I am biased--but at some point, wine switches from being artisan to industrial, passion to commerce. Guigal and Chapoutier are the industrial négociants of the Rhone. I do my best not to support industrial wineries no matter how much lipstick they put on the pig: https://wineberserkers.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=159758
I'm not sure why you quoted my post here - I said nothing at all about Guigal, in terms of quality or preference. My post was about whether objective standards exist at all, or if it's all about personal taste.
Mostly I was agreeing with you but building on your argument. Should have made that more clear.

Greg K
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 791
Joined: December 21st, 2013, 3:16 pm
Location: New York

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#55 Post by Greg K » May 2nd, 2019, 12:54 pm

C. Mc Cart wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 12:30 pm
Greg K wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 11:31 am
C. Mc Cart wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 11:23 am
Per the OP, you could say the same of Chapoutier these days, non?
I almost posted earlier that at least Guigal isn't Chapoutier [snort.gif]

Guigal wines are definitely not my style, whereas I think Chapoutier wines are just not good.
I don't taste enough of them to comment on current quality.
Regardless of their style, I think Chapoutier along with Penfolds must be the most impressive wine producers globally over the past 2 or 3 decades. Large holdings across multiple regions and top to bottom make good wine including some at the very top of the chain.

I've only bought minor amounts of any Chapoutier wines over the last 10 years but without doubt, some of the very best wines I've ever had were the various Chapoutier Hermitage(s) and C.R.'s from the past 4 decades. Some were/are legendary wines which turned me onto the region.
Sorry for the drift.
As I say to any of my friends who ask me about wine, drink what you like. If you like Chapoutier wines, fantastic. When I started getting into Northern Rhone wines, I bought a bunch of Chapoutier, because it was easy to find/cheap. Since then, I have poured out half empty bottles of 1990 Chapoutier Hermitage because no one at dinner wanted to finish them (and they were no in way corked/spoiled). I just think they're bad wines.
Greg Kahn

User avatar
Josh Grossman
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 30th, 2017, 11:26 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#56 Post by Josh Grossman » May 2nd, 2019, 1:07 pm

C. Mc Cart wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 12:49 pm
Josh Grossman wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 12:28 pm
Sarah Kirschbaum wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 11:40 am


Sorry for the thread drift, but I do not believe the above is true. There are standards of quality in wine, regardless of whether an individual taster likes a given wine or not - standards most of us come to recognize the more experience we have. It's often very difficult to separate out the objective from the subjective, no question, and there is a lot of room for argument on what exactly constitutes these standards, but they are absolutely there. High production, industrial wine with little to no care taken in the vineyards, and chemicals added is never high quality, even if you like it. The same can be said of food - no matter how much you like McDonald's, the kitchen is not turning out superb food. While I completely agree that preference is a huge and important part of judging wine, and ultimately what you chose to drink should be heavily dictated by what you like, what one likes personally does not constitute quality, nor vice versa. It is a fundamental aspect of connoisseurship, not to mention criticism, to develop understanding of both and strive to recognize where they overlap and where they don't.
Guigal makes 4,000,000 bottles of their CdR every year--and that is just one of their many bottlings. If you like 42 months of new oak from someone who makes millions of cases a year, by all means, give your money to Guigal. Just like McDonald's though, please don't think that they couldn't have 'billions served' on their sign. I am biased--but at some point, wine switches from being artisan to industrial, passion to commerce. Guigal and Chapoutier are the industrial négociants of the Rhone. I do my best not to support industrial wineries no matter how much lipstick they put on the pig: https://wineberserkers.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=159758
Really? So because Drouhin or Jadot make a sea of bourgogne and are both "industrial", you avoid their Musigny, Petit Monts or Amoureuses and actively seek out a smaller producer?
Most certainly I'd seek a more artisan producer on those two examples. It's almost impossible to keep track of who owns what, and I'm not sure where the line is, but it's really pretty easy to find small family owned wineries, with passionate land stewards, making wonderful wine.

User avatar
Jay Miller
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 13777
Joined: June 19th, 2009, 5:18 pm
Location: Jersey City

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#57 Post by Jay Miller » May 2nd, 2019, 1:08 pm

Greg K wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 12:54 pm
C. Mc Cart wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 12:30 pm
Greg K wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 11:31 am


I almost posted earlier that at least Guigal isn't Chapoutier [snort.gif]

Guigal wines are definitely not my style, whereas I think Chapoutier wines are just not good.
I don't taste enough of them to comment on current quality.
Regardless of their style, I think Chapoutier along with Penfolds must be the most impressive wine producers globally over the past 2 or 3 decades. Large holdings across multiple regions and top to bottom make good wine including some at the very top of the chain.

I've only bought minor amounts of any Chapoutier wines over the last 10 years but without doubt, some of the very best wines I've ever had were the various Chapoutier Hermitage(s) and C.R.'s from the past 4 decades. Some were/are legendary wines which turned me onto the region.
Sorry for the drift.
As I say to any of my friends who ask me about wine, drink what you like. If you like Chapoutier wines, fantastic. When I started getting into Northern Rhone wines, I bought a bunch of Chapoutier, because it was easy to find/cheap. Since then, I have poured out half empty bottles of 1990 Chapoutier Hermitage because no one at dinner wanted to finish them (and they were no in way corked/spoiled). I just think they're bad wines.
I don't think Chapoutier makes bad wines, just incredibly boring ones.
Ripe fruit isn't necessarily a flaw.

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 32215
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#58 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » May 2nd, 2019, 1:27 pm

Josh Grossman wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 1:07 pm
Most certainly I'd seek a more artisan producer on those two examples. It's almost impossible to keep track of who owns what, and I'm not sure where the line is, but it's really pretty easy to find small family owned wineries, with passionate land stewards, making wonderful wine.
While he was the winemaker for Jadot (until recently), not the vineyard manager, I don't think you could have ever found someone more passionate than Jacques Lardiere.
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

User avatar
A. So
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2833
Joined: July 19th, 2011, 7:58 pm

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#59 Post by A. So » May 2nd, 2019, 1:46 pm

Jay Miller wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 1:08 pm
I don't think Chapoutier makes bad wines, just incredibly boring ones.
I'll disagree. Given the quality of dirt they own, the wines are actively bad. Shameful, at the very least.
エaイdドrリiアaンn (93 pts.)

Mike Evans
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2950
Joined: January 30th, 2012, 9:22 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#60 Post by Mike Evans » May 2nd, 2019, 1:53 pm

I’ve long been critical of Guigal, but recent bottles in blind tastings of the 1995, 2000, and 2008 La Landonne and a 2008 La Mouline have ranged from very very good to exceptional. The 2000 La Landonne is particularly interesting, as the last one was quite nice and not showing a lot of wood while a different bottle about a year ago was numbed by the oak.

OTOH, I’ve been consistently disappointed to repulsed by Chateau d’Ampuis bottlings, most recently by a vile 2012. The Vignes de l’Hospice St. Joseph has been more ripe and woody than I prefer, but drinkable.

Chapoutier for me sets the standard for pleasant but generic wines totally devoid of any sense of place, which I find quite worthy of contempt.

R Greene
Posts: 38
Joined: May 27th, 2017, 4:22 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#61 Post by R Greene » May 2nd, 2019, 1:57 pm

As someone who has bought (and continues to buy) both older and newer LaLas, I find the premise to this thread questionable. There is no doubt that older LaLas have increased in price over the past few years. If you follow wine-searcher prices (and don't just look at the average), as I do, you will find that the majority of older LaLas like the 1989 Mouline are much more expensive these days. The 89 Turque was around $600 two years ago; the least expensive bottle on wine-searcher is now $899. Around the same time, 95 La Turque was around $350-400; it's now $600+. On the other hand, young LaLas have remained somewhat stable, with the exception of some newly released vintages like 2015. The reason for this? LaLas take 20 years to even begin starting their mature phase, so once they start to reach 20 years old, the prices increase. Auction prices have remained high as well. Every now and then, you'll see a LaLa as a passed lot, but not often. And if you're lucky to get a 98 Turque at a low price, as one commenter did, consider yourself lucky. That doesn't happen often in vintages like 1998. Finally, the older early and mid 80s LaLas are often well over $1,000 per bottle.

I think what's happened is that whereas wine drinkers were focusing on few Northern Rhone producers in the past, which included Guigal, now that has broadened. Other producers like Jamet are now hot, as evidenced in recent auctions. And I can understand that many people don't like the LaLas. They definitely have their own style that some people won't like. But I don't think there's been some universal epiphany that the LaLas are bad wines now that Parker has retired. There will always be trends that occur in the wine world, but I don't think the popularity of the LaLas (or most other Northern Rhone wines) will significantly change anytime soon. If it does, great! I would absolutely love the prices to come down.
R y @ n

User avatar
Jay Miller
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 13777
Joined: June 19th, 2009, 5:18 pm
Location: Jersey City

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#62 Post by Jay Miller » May 2nd, 2019, 1:58 pm

A. So wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 1:46 pm
Jay Miller wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 1:08 pm
I don't think Chapoutier makes bad wines, just incredibly boring ones.
I'll disagree. Given the quality of dirt they own, the wines are actively bad. Shameful, at the very least.
I'm willing to go with shameful. But I'd happily pay $5-10 or so for their Hermitage before considering it overpriced so I wouldn't call them bad.
Ripe fruit isn't necessarily a flaw.

User avatar
R@y.Tupp@+sch
Posts: 2557
Joined: February 19th, 2009, 8:22 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#63 Post by R@y.Tupp@+sch » May 2nd, 2019, 2:28 pm

R Greene wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 1:57 pm
As someone who has bought (and continues to buy) both older and newer LaLas, I find the premise to this thread questionable. There is no doubt that older LaLas have increased in price over the past few years. If you follow wine-searcher prices (and don't just look at the average), as I do, you will find that the majority of older LaLas like the 1989 Mouline are much more expensive these days. The 89 Turque was around $600 two years ago; the least expensive bottle on wine-searcher is now $899. Around the same time, 95 La Turque was around $350-400; it's now $600+. On the other hand, young LaLas have remained somewhat stable, with the exception of some newly released vintages like 2015. The reason for this? LaLas take 20 years to even begin starting their mature phase, so once they start to reach 20 years old, the prices increase. Auction prices have remained high as well. Every now and then, you'll see a LaLa as a passed lot, but not often. And if you're lucky to get a 98 Turque at a low price, as one commenter did, consider yourself lucky. That doesn't happen often in vintages like 1998. Finally, the older early and mid 80s LaLas are often well over $1,000 per bottle.

I think what's happened is that whereas wine drinkers were focusing on few Northern Rhone producers in the past, which included Guigal, now that has broadened. Other producers like Jamet are now hot, as evidenced in recent auctions. And I can understand that many people don't like the LaLas. They definitely have their own style that some people won't like. But I don't think there's been some universal epiphany that the LaLas are bad wines now that Parker has retired. There will always be trends that occur in the wine world, but I don't think the popularity of the LaLas (or most other Northern Rhone wines) will significantly change anytime soon. If it does, great! I would absolutely love the prices to come down.
Retail asking prices are irrelevant. Auction prices are a much more accurate barometer. To use a couple of your examples, '95 La Turque pretty consistently sells for just over $400 including buyer's premium while '89 La Turque is around $600. Based on my memory, those prices haven't changed much over the past 15 years especially when compared to the wine market as a whole.
Killer, Staggering, Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor ®

R Greene
Posts: 38
Joined: May 27th, 2017, 4:22 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#64 Post by R Greene » May 2nd, 2019, 2:57 pm

R@y.Tupp@+sch wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 2:28 pm
R Greene wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 1:57 pm
As someone who has bought (and continues to buy) both older and newer LaLas, I find the premise to this thread questionable. There is no doubt that older LaLas have increased in price over the past few years. If you follow wine-searcher prices (and don't just look at the average), as I do, you will find that the majority of older LaLas like the 1989 Mouline are much more expensive these days. The 89 Turque was around $600 two years ago; the least expensive bottle on wine-searcher is now $899. Around the same time, 95 La Turque was around $350-400; it's now $600+. On the other hand, young LaLas have remained somewhat stable, with the exception of some newly released vintages like 2015. The reason for this? LaLas take 20 years to even begin starting their mature phase, so once they start to reach 20 years old, the prices increase. Auction prices have remained high as well. Every now and then, you'll see a LaLa as a passed lot, but not often. And if you're lucky to get a 98 Turque at a low price, as one commenter did, consider yourself lucky. That doesn't happen often in vintages like 1998. Finally, the older early and mid 80s LaLas are often well over $1,000 per bottle.

I think what's happened is that whereas wine drinkers were focusing on few Northern Rhone producers in the past, which included Guigal, now that has broadened. Other producers like Jamet are now hot, as evidenced in recent auctions. And I can understand that many people don't like the LaLas. They definitely have their own style that some people won't like. But I don't think there's been some universal epiphany that the LaLas are bad wines now that Parker has retired. There will always be trends that occur in the wine world, but I don't think the popularity of the LaLas (or most other Northern Rhone wines) will significantly change anytime soon. If it does, great! I would absolutely love the prices to come down.
Retail asking prices are irrelevant. Auction prices are a much more accurate barometer. To use a couple of your examples, '95 La Turque pretty consistently sells for just over $400 including buyer's premium while '89 La Turque is around $600. Based on my memory, those prices haven't changed much over the past 15 years especially when compared to the wine market as a whole.

I disagree that retail prices are irrelevant. The initial post didn't specify auction vs. retail. Also, retail prices do influence the auction market. You listed a couple of examples that could be the case at times. But I can tell you that I tried to buy 90 La Turque in an auction two weeks ago, and it went for over $900 per bottle. I'm bidding on many of these auctions, and I would buy 89 Turque at $600 per bottle; unfortunately, it never goes that low. 95 Turque does has more variability in auction, but I have seen it start to steadily increase. 98 Mouline is another great example.
R y @ n

Sarah Kirschbaum
Posts: 2446
Joined: September 20th, 2010, 11:53 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#65 Post by Sarah Kirschbaum » May 2nd, 2019, 3:40 pm

R Greene wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 2:57 pm
R@y.Tupp@+sch wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 2:28 pm
R Greene wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 1:57 pm
As someone who has bought (and continues to buy) both older and newer LaLas, I find the premise to this thread questionable. There is no doubt that older LaLas have increased in price over the past few years. If you follow wine-searcher prices (and don't just look at the average), as I do, you will find that the majority of older LaLas like the 1989 Mouline are much more expensive these days. The 89 Turque was around $600 two years ago; the least expensive bottle on wine-searcher is now $899. Around the same time, 95 La Turque was around $350-400; it's now $600+. On the other hand, young LaLas have remained somewhat stable, with the exception of some newly released vintages like 2015. The reason for this? LaLas take 20 years to even begin starting their mature phase, so once they start to reach 20 years old, the prices increase. Auction prices have remained high as well. Every now and then, you'll see a LaLa as a passed lot, but not often. And if you're lucky to get a 98 Turque at a low price, as one commenter did, consider yourself lucky. That doesn't happen often in vintages like 1998. Finally, the older early and mid 80s LaLas are often well over $1,000 per bottle.

I think what's happened is that whereas wine drinkers were focusing on few Northern Rhone producers in the past, which included Guigal, now that has broadened. Other producers like Jamet are now hot, as evidenced in recent auctions. And I can understand that many people don't like the LaLas. They definitely have their own style that some people won't like. But I don't think there's been some universal epiphany that the LaLas are bad wines now that Parker has retired. There will always be trends that occur in the wine world, but I don't think the popularity of the LaLas (or most other Northern Rhone wines) will significantly change anytime soon. If it does, great! I would absolutely love the prices to come down.
Retail asking prices are irrelevant. Auction prices are a much more accurate barometer. To use a couple of your examples, '95 La Turque pretty consistently sells for just over $400 including buyer's premium while '89 La Turque is around $600. Based on my memory, those prices haven't changed much over the past 15 years especially when compared to the wine market as a whole.

I disagree that retail prices are irrelevant. The initial post didn't specify auction vs. retail. Also, retail prices do influence the auction market. You listed a couple of examples that could be the case at times. But I can tell you that I tried to buy 90 La Turque in an auction two weeks ago, and it went for over $900 per bottle. I'm bidding on many of these auctions, and I would buy 89 Turque at $600 per bottle; unfortunately, it never goes that low. 95 Turque does has more variability in auction, but I have seen it start to steadily increase. 98 Mouline is another great example.
That is incorrect regarding auction prices. The average price per bottle for 1989 La Turque at auction since 1997 was $580 per bottle, including vig, according to Wine Market Journal. Ticks in 2019 so far around the world have been from $559 to $640 over 8 different lots in various auctions. WMJ does not capture all auctions, but it captures enough of them to be a very good indicator. They include Christies, Sothebys, Acker, Zachys and Hart Davis Hart. So "never goes that low" is just flat out wrong.

R Greene
Posts: 38
Joined: May 27th, 2017, 4:22 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#66 Post by R Greene » May 2nd, 2019, 3:54 pm

Sarah Kirschbaum wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 3:40 pm
R Greene wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 2:57 pm
R@y.Tupp@+sch wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 2:28 pm


Retail asking prices are irrelevant. Auction prices are a much more accurate barometer. To use a couple of your examples, '95 La Turque pretty consistently sells for just over $400 including buyer's premium while '89 La Turque is around $600. Based on my memory, those prices haven't changed much over the past 15 years especially when compared to the wine market as a whole.

I disagree that retail prices are irrelevant. The initial post didn't specify auction vs. retail. Also, retail prices do influence the auction market. You listed a couple of examples that could be the case at times. But I can tell you that I tried to buy 90 La Turque in an auction two weeks ago, and it went for over $900 per bottle. I'm bidding on many of these auctions, and I would buy 89 Turque at $600 per bottle; unfortunately, it never goes that low. 95 Turque does has more variability in auction, but I have seen it start to steadily increase. 98 Mouline is another great example.
You are incorrect. The average price per bottle for 1989 La Turque at auction since 1997 was $580 per bottle, including vig, according to Wine Market Journal. Ticks in 2019 so far around the world have been from $559 to $640 over 8 different lots in various auctions. WMJ does not capture all auctions, but it captures enough of them to be a very good indicator. They include Christies, Sothebys, Acker, Zachys and Hart Davis Hart. So "never goes that low" is just flat out wrong.
No, I’m not “just flat out wrong”. You can use the Wine Market Journal data if you want, but I’ve actually been bidding on these bottles for years. Also, I just checked the most recent HDH auction. Most of the LaLas went at or above high estimate. The 90 Turque actually went over $1000 per bottle (10 bottles). The purpose of my initial reply is just to dispel the idea that Guigal interest is dying because of Parker leaving. My main point is that it’s wrong. And I’m not saying that the Wine Markwt data is useless (it’s not), but that there are other factors to consider.

Do you believe interest in LaLas is waning, and if so, what is your basis for this? Again, if there has been any change, I think it’s due to a broader wine market, which is not a bad thing.
R y @ n

User avatar
Dave English
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 576
Joined: July 3rd, 2012, 3:19 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#67 Post by Dave English » May 2nd, 2019, 4:01 pm

I wish someone would tell all the retailers in Sydney about this, they are still $800-1000AUD a bottle here and I daresay no-one is buying them.

Sarah Kirschbaum
Posts: 2446
Joined: September 20th, 2010, 11:53 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#68 Post by Sarah Kirschbaum » May 2nd, 2019, 4:08 pm

R Greene wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 3:54 pm
Sarah Kirschbaum wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 3:40 pm
R Greene wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 2:57 pm



I disagree that retail prices are irrelevant. The initial post didn't specify auction vs. retail. Also, retail prices do influence the auction market. You listed a couple of examples that could be the case at times. But I can tell you that I tried to buy 90 La Turque in an auction two weeks ago, and it went for over $900 per bottle. I'm bidding on many of these auctions, and I would buy 89 Turque at $600 per bottle; unfortunately, it never goes that low. 95 Turque does has more variability in auction, but I have seen it start to steadily increase. 98 Mouline is another great example.
You are incorrect. The average price per bottle for 1989 La Turque at auction since 1997 was $580 per bottle, including vig, according to Wine Market Journal. Ticks in 2019 so far around the world have been from $559 to $640 over 8 different lots in various auctions. WMJ does not capture all auctions, but it captures enough of them to be a very good indicator. They include Christies, Sothebys, Acker, Zachys and Hart Davis Hart. So "never goes that low" is just flat out wrong.
No, I’m not “just flat out wrong”. You can use the Wine Market Journal data if you want, but I’ve actually been bidding on these bottles for years. Also, I just checked the most recent HDH auction. Most of the LaLas went at or above high estimate. The 90 Turque actually went over $1000 per bottle (10 bottles). The purpose of my initial reply is just to dispel the idea that Guigal interest is dying because of Parker leaving. My main point is that it’s wrong. And I’m not saying that the Wine Markwt data is useless (it’s not), but that there are other factors to consider.

Do you believe interest in LaLas is waning, and if so, what is your basis for this? Again, if there has been any change, I think it’s due to a broader wine market, which is not a bad thing.
I said (and I even used quotes to make it clear) that the words "never goes that low" are indeed flat out, meaning completely, wrong, since it has gone that low several times already this year. And I've been bidding on and watching LaLas since around 2004. Just because I used data from WMJ doesn't mean for a second that I have not been in the trenches as well. So has Ray T. I bought 1989 La Turque (the bottle that "never goes that low") in 2005 for $485, and in 2008 for $550. It's still selling around there with some regularity, which looks like stagnant pricing to me. I've followed prices closely because I would love to sell my remaining bottles, but the upside has not been enough to bother. I can't speak as to why this is the case when other top cuvees have appreciated wildly in other regions.

User avatar
R@y.Tupp@+sch
Posts: 2557
Joined: February 19th, 2009, 8:22 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#69 Post by R@y.Tupp@+sch » May 2nd, 2019, 5:17 pm

Auction: 185 Jun 20, 2018 (NY)
Lot #1144 Cote Rotie 1989
La Turque, E. Guigal

12 bottles $7,750.00

Lot #1145 Cote Rotie 1989
La Turque, E. Guigal

5 bottles $2,381.00

Auction: 191 Feb 1, 2019 (NY)
Lot #1110 Cote Rotie 1989
La Turque, E. Guigal

10 bottles $6,200.00

Last three sales for '89 La Turque that weren't in mixed lots at Acker sold per bottle for $620, $476 and $645.

I'll stand by my statement that '89 La Turque has been selling at auction for around $600/btl.

Are you going to stand by your statement that "I would buy 89 Turque at $600 per bottle; unfortunately, it never goes that low"?

Also, do you really think that WMJ gathers and publishes erroneous information?
Killer, Staggering, Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor ®

User avatar
Mark Golodetz
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 6070
Joined: May 29th, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#70 Post by Mark Golodetz » May 2nd, 2019, 6:05 pm

R Greene wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 2:57 pm
R@y.Tupp@+sch wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 2:28 pm
R Greene wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 1:57 pm
As someone who has bought (and continues to buy) both older and newer LaLas, I find the premise to this thread questionable. There is no doubt that older LaLas have increased in price over the past few years. If you follow wine-searcher prices (and don't just look at the average), as I do, you will find that the majority of older LaLas like the 1989 Mouline are much more expensive these days. The 89 Turque was around $600 two years ago; the least expensive bottle on wine-searcher is now $899. Around the same time, 95 La Turque was around $350-400; it's now $600+. On the other hand, young LaLas have remained somewhat stable, with the exception of some newly released vintages like 2015. The reason for this? LaLas take 20 years to even begin starting their mature phase, so once they start to reach 20 years old, the prices increase. Auction prices have remained high as well. Every now and then, you'll see a LaLa as a passed lot, but not often. And if you're lucky to get a 98 Turque at a low price, as one commenter did, consider yourself lucky. That doesn't happen often in vintages like 1998. Finally, the older early and mid 80s LaLas are often well over $1,000 per bottle.

I think what's happened is that whereas wine drinkers were focusing on few Northern Rhone producers in the past, which included Guigal, now that has broadened. Other producers like Jamet are now hot, as evidenced in recent auctions. And I can understand that many people don't like the LaLas. They definitely have their own style that some people won't like. But I don't think there's been some universal epiphany that the LaLas are bad wines now that Parker has retired. There will always be trends that occur in the wine world, but I don't think the popularity of the LaLas (or most other Northern Rhone wines) will significantly change anytime soon. If it does, great! I would absolutely love the prices to come down.
Retail asking prices are irrelevant. Auction prices are a much more accurate barometer. To use a couple of your examples, '95 La Turque pretty consistently sells for just over $400 including buyer's premium while '89 La Turque is around $600. Based on my memory, those prices haven't changed much over the past 15 years especially when compared to the wine market as a whole.

I disagree that retail prices are irrelevant. The initial post didn't specify auction vs. retail. Also, retail prices do influence the auction market. You listed a couple of examples that could be the case at times. But I can tell you that I tried to buy 90 La Turque in an auction two weeks ago, and it went for over $900 per bottle. I'm bidding on many of these auctions, and I would buy 89 Turque at $600 per bottle; unfortunately, it never goes that low. 95 Turque does has more variability in auction, but I have seen it start to steadily increase. 98 Mouline is another great example.


I am just about to sell one bottle of La Turque 1989. The auction estimate is $500-700. Estimates are based on previous sales. Seems like $600 is reasonable; in fact I will go further. If you want a bottle for $600, you can have it. Don’t even have to pay VIG.

As for retail prices, they are irrelevant, as you see one side of a possible transaction. You know the price that a vendor is prepared to sell but not what a buyer will pay. It is obviously not a market at all.
ITB
I could agree with you, but then we both would be wrong.

pnitze
Posts: 65
Joined: February 13th, 2012, 7:32 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#71 Post by pnitze » May 2nd, 2019, 7:34 pm

Count me in the camp of those who think La La’s are now underrated relative to the quality of the wine. It’s a harder call to say they are “underpriced” because they remain quite expensive. But among groups of highly knowledgeable wine collectors, I find that most people now fall into one of two camps: either they think the wines are uninteresting/flawed due to style, or they think the wines were good up to a point (usually up to sometime between 1989 and 1995) and have gone way downhill since then.

IME, when people actually drink the wines these days, they are often pleasantly surprised. To my taste the 1988’s and 1989’s are glorious wines. Just as a data point, Sotheby’s did a presale dinner for the Koch auction, with a group of about 60 people drinking wines from Bill’s cellar. The lineup was formidable, including a mid-90’s vintage of DRC RSV, older La Mission Haut Brion, and a vintage of a Domaine Leroy grand cru (the Clos Vougeot or Latricieres if I recall). Against that lineup, when I polled a half dozen people at the end of the dinner on their favorite wine of the night, everyone agreed it was the 1988 La Mouline.

As another data point, two summers ago I was with a group of serious collectors in Maine and we had a lineup that included old Lafarge, Raveneau, 1996 Krug, and a 2009 Arnaud Ente Seve du Clos among others. I brought a bottle of 2000 La Turque just for fun, and most people said it was the second best wine of the night after the Lafarge.

I don’t think all recent La La’s are winners, but when they’re on, they are really good.
P@ul N!tze

pnitze
Posts: 65
Joined: February 13th, 2012, 7:32 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#72 Post by pnitze » May 2nd, 2019, 7:40 pm

I would add that I see a vast difference between recent high end Chapoutier and recent La La’s. Something has gone seriously wrong at Maison Chapoutier and they don’t seem to be trying to fix it. The wines are lifeless, seem to be excessively filtered, and are on a terrible trajectory. IMO they should be avoided at almost any price.
P@ul N!tze

User avatar
Pat Martin
Posts: 2576
Joined: May 22nd, 2011, 11:38 pm

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#73 Post by Pat Martin » May 2nd, 2019, 8:06 pm

pnitze wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 7:40 pm
Something has gone seriously wrong at Maison Chapoutier and they don’t seem to be trying to fix it. The wines are lifeless, seem to be excessively filtered, and are on a terrible trajectory. IMO they should be avoided at almost any price.
Since when? Just curious.
P@ tr!ck M 8rt!n

R Greene
Posts: 38
Joined: May 27th, 2017, 4:22 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#74 Post by R Greene » May 2nd, 2019, 9:48 pm

Sarah Kirschbaum wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 4:08 pm
R Greene wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 3:54 pm
Sarah Kirschbaum wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 3:40 pm


You are incorrect. The average price per bottle for 1989 La Turque at auction since 1997 was $580 per bottle, including vig, according to Wine Market Journal. Ticks in 2019 so far around the world have been from $559 to $640 over 8 different lots in various auctions. WMJ does not capture all auctions, but it captures enough of them to be a very good indicator. They include Christies, Sothebys, Acker, Zachys and Hart Davis Hart. So "never goes that low" is just flat out wrong.
No, I’m not “just flat out wrong”. You can use the Wine Market Journal data if you want, but I’ve actually been bidding on these bottles for years. Also, I just checked the most recent HDH auction. Most of the LaLas went at or above high estimate. The 90 Turque actually went over $1000 per bottle (10 bottles). The purpose of my initial reply is just to dispel the idea that Guigal interest is dying because of Parker leaving. My main point is that it’s wrong. And I’m not saying that the Wine Markwt data is useless (it’s not), but that there are other factors to consider.

Do you believe interest in LaLas is waning, and if so, what is your basis for this? Again, if there has been any change, I think it’s due to a broader wine market, which is not a bad thing.
I said (and I even used quotes to make it clear) that the words "never goes that low" are indeed flat out, meaning completely, wrong, since it has gone that low several times already this year. And I've been bidding on and watching LaLas since around 2004. Just because I used data from WMJ doesn't mean for a second that I have not been in the trenches as well. So has Ray T. I bought 1989 La Turque (the bottle that "never goes that low") in 2005 for $485, and in 2008 for $550. It's still selling around there with some regularity, which looks like stagnant pricing to me. I've followed prices closely because I would love to sell my remaining bottles, but the upside has not been enough to bother. I can't speak as to why this is the case when other top cuvees have appreciated wildly in other regions.
Hi Sarah,
So I have found that 1989 Turque has never gone that low recently, at least in the auctions in which I participate. Granted, it doesn't come up in auction very often. I took a few minutes to look at HDH, and the last three 1989 Turque lots were:

12/13/2018 -- $840 per bottle
9/13/2018 -- $860 per bottle
5/13/2016 -- $600 per bottle

I included the 2016 auction to show you that I'm being fair, and I honestly don't care about being right or wrong. You are correct that a 1989 Turque has been sold for $600 per bottle, albeit three years ago at HDH (and possibly at other auction houses more recently). I still contend that LaLas sell for a lot of money, and my initial point was that Guigal isn't a "casuality of Parker's retirement." If it is truly a casualty, then why did the 89 Turque sell for $840 a bottle recently?
R y @ n

Mel Knox
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1767
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 8:46 am
Location: San francisco

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#75 Post by Mel Knox » May 2nd, 2019, 11:21 pm

The idea of certain producers suffering because of Parker's retirement is worth pursuing. If Marcel and his son are selling 4,000,000 bottles of Cotes du Rhone every year, maybe we shouldn't worry about them.I met the Guigals around 1977 and I still remember Marcel's father taking us around the vineyards. I always think of Marcel as the ultimate wine geek, but I can't say I've had much wine from them lately. Guigal was the locomotive for a lot of producers in the Northern Rhone.

Who would suffer as a result of Bob's retirement?? Cult Napa wines?? Marcassin?? Bordeaux?? Or would it be the people Parker would have promoted but never will??

Who might prosper because of his retirement?? The Spectator?? Galloni?? I don't know.
ITB

Jonathan Loesberg
Posts: 1672
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 5:59 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#76 Post by Jonathan Loesberg » May 2nd, 2019, 11:49 pm

So this debate has gone in a different direction since I signed off for the night and I've had this argument many times before, but I will answer Gerhard and Sarah, who both throw the word objectivity around with more casualness than I think the case merits. In Gerhard's case, he says he can tell high quality Barolo even though he doesn't like it. I don't doubt within certain defined parameters he can. But what are the objective criteria that make them high quality. It's probable he can articulate some. It's impossible that he can show them to be objectively based. Sarah's argument tells us why. She says correctly that one can distinguish between wines made in industrial quantitites and wines made with care for the vineyards. She assumes that the second creates high quality and the first does not, but she doesn't say why. If the purpose of wine is to taste good (a simplistic view but not one that is out of bounds), then really the care of the vineyards is irrelevant to the end result unless it always produced better tasting wines. Imagine a star trek replicator that could produce a 1982 Mouton perfectly every time in industrial quantities. Would it suddenly be a worse wine? If the purpose of wine is to be something to drink whose alcohol guards it from being infected (an important purpose in the 19th century), then it is likely that wine produced with care for the vineyards and low yields will be too alcoholic for use. If the importance of wine is to taste of its terroir, then the second method is, of course vital, but why is tasting of terroir an objective good? And what if we found that thinner, highly acidic and bitter wines made from odd varieties that had little taste of their own showed terroir better? Would those be better wines.

My point is fairly straightforward, but it is the one that people avoid. There are objective and measurable elements to wine as there are to anything that has material existence. We can measure numbers of things about them in a laboratory. But tying values to those differences is never an objective act.

Sarah instances the work of connoisseurship as a differently measured objective judgment. I am forced to note that connoisseurs were originally, at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries forms of art critics who made judgments about the provenance of artworks based on their apprehension of its quality and its historical features. Neither museums nor auction houses use them much for this purpose (I emphasize for this purpose; auction houses still use evaluative judgments to enhance the perceived value of the work) because on the objective question of who painted a given work, the reattributions in museums showed how regularly they were wrong and such work had to be done by different forms of historical analysis. The only reason connoisseurship is still a notion in wine is that their judgments can't be proven wrong. And, of course, if you can't be proven wrong, than you can't be objectively right.

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 32215
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#77 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » May 3rd, 2019, 4:07 am

Jonathan Loesberg wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 11:49 pm
The only reason connoisseurship is still a notion in wine is that their judgments can't be proven wrong. And, of course, if you can't be proven wrong, than you can't be objectively right.
Although some noted connoisseurs were proven quite wrong by Rudy K., or at least the exposure of Rudy K..
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

Jonathan Loesberg
Posts: 1672
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 5:59 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#78 Post by Jonathan Loesberg » May 3rd, 2019, 5:06 am

And others by Hardy Rodenstock.

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 32215
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#79 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » May 3rd, 2019, 5:08 am

And the rest of us through blind tasting!
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

User avatar
Jeb Dunnuck
Posts: 366
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 7:58 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#80 Post by Jeb Dunnuck » May 3rd, 2019, 5:34 am

R@y.Tupp@+sch wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 11:16 am
Greg K wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 10:40 am
Gerhard P. wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 10:18 am
The 3 LaLa´s are usually among the very best Cote-Roties you can get ... not in all vintages, but in most.
Sure, if you don´t like oak-influenced Rhones they might not be for you, but the quality of terroir and winemaking is no doubt there.
These two statements are contradictory. It's hard to me to tell the quality of Guigal's winemaking or even the terroir when it's hidden by all that oak.
Older vintages of La Mouline and Brune et Blonde didn't see new oak. The earliest vintages, and in my opinion the greatest vintages of La Mouline were aged in foudres (assuming my memory is correct).
'66 was the first vintage for La Mouline... always in new barrels. Not sure about the Brune et Blonde.
JebDunnuck.com

User avatar
Jeb Dunnuck
Posts: 366
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 7:58 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#81 Post by Jeb Dunnuck » May 3rd, 2019, 5:36 am

Greg K wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 12:54 pm
C. Mc Cart wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 12:30 pm
Greg K wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 11:31 am


I almost posted earlier that at least Guigal isn't Chapoutier [snort.gif]

Guigal wines are definitely not my style, whereas I think Chapoutier wines are just not good.
I don't taste enough of them to comment on current quality.
Regardless of their style, I think Chapoutier along with Penfolds must be the most impressive wine producers globally over the past 2 or 3 decades. Large holdings across multiple regions and top to bottom make good wine including some at the very top of the chain.

I've only bought minor amounts of any Chapoutier wines over the last 10 years but without doubt, some of the very best wines I've ever had were the various Chapoutier Hermitage(s) and C.R.'s from the past 4 decades. Some were/are legendary wines which turned me onto the region.
Sorry for the drift.
As I say to any of my friends who ask me about wine, drink what you like. If you like Chapoutier wines, fantastic. When I started getting into Northern Rhone wines, I bought a bunch of Chapoutier, because it was easy to find/cheap. Since then, I have poured out half empty bottles of 1990 Chapoutier Hermitage because no one at dinner wanted to finish them (and they were no in way corked/spoiled). I just think they're bad wines.
Michel started in 1989 and inherited an old cellar... and more importantly, old barrels, which despite what you'll hear in some circles, are not always good. Don't judge today's wines by those made close to 30 years ago.
JebDunnuck.com

User avatar
Mark Golodetz
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 6070
Joined: May 29th, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#82 Post by Mark Golodetz » May 3rd, 2019, 6:07 am

Jeb Dunnuck wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 5:36 am
Greg K wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 12:54 pm
C. Mc Cart wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 12:30 pm


I don't taste enough of them to comment on current quality.
Regardless of their style, I think Chapoutier along with Penfolds must be the most impressive wine producers globally over the past 2 or 3 decades. Large holdings across multiple regions and top to bottom make good wine including some at the very top of the chain.

I've only bought minor amounts of any Chapoutier wines over the last 10 years but without doubt, some of the very best wines I've ever had were the various Chapoutier Hermitage(s) and C.R.'s from the past 4 decades. Some were/are legendary wines which turned me onto the region.
Sorry for the drift.
As I say to any of my friends who ask me about wine, drink what you like. If you like Chapoutier wines, fantastic. When I started getting into Northern Rhone wines, I bought a bunch of Chapoutier, because it was easy to find/cheap. Since then, I have poured out half empty bottles of 1990 Chapoutier Hermitage because no one at dinner wanted to finish them (and they were no in way corked/spoiled). I just think they're bad wines.
Michel started in 1989 and inherited an old cellar... and more importantly, old barrels, which despite what you'll hear in some circles, are not always good. Don't judge today's wines by those made close to 30 years ago.
I tasted the wines at the property in 1991. He made exactly the wine he wanted, those early Pavilons were not to my taste, but I could tell immediately that they were made to get three digit scores from Parker. Admittedly although that might be your goal, it is not an easy thing to do. He succeeded brilliantly, and I am pretty sure he is capable of changing the wines to whatever current fashion dictates.
ITB
I could agree with you, but then we both would be wrong.

Greg K
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 791
Joined: December 21st, 2013, 3:16 pm
Location: New York

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#83 Post by Greg K » May 3rd, 2019, 8:19 am

Jeb Dunnuck wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 5:36 am
Greg K wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 12:54 pm
C. Mc Cart wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 12:30 pm


I don't taste enough of them to comment on current quality.
Regardless of their style, I think Chapoutier along with Penfolds must be the most impressive wine producers globally over the past 2 or 3 decades. Large holdings across multiple regions and top to bottom make good wine including some at the very top of the chain.

I've only bought minor amounts of any Chapoutier wines over the last 10 years but without doubt, some of the very best wines I've ever had were the various Chapoutier Hermitage(s) and C.R.'s from the past 4 decades. Some were/are legendary wines which turned me onto the region.
Sorry for the drift.
As I say to any of my friends who ask me about wine, drink what you like. If you like Chapoutier wines, fantastic. When I started getting into Northern Rhone wines, I bought a bunch of Chapoutier, because it was easy to find/cheap. Since then, I have poured out half empty bottles of 1990 Chapoutier Hermitage because no one at dinner wanted to finish them (and they were no in way corked/spoiled). I just think they're bad wines.
Michel started in 1989 and inherited an old cellar... and more importantly, old barrels, which despite what you'll hear in some circles, are not always good. Don't judge today's wines by those made close to 30 years ago.
I've also tried the new ones, and I don't like them either. I'm not making the comment based on two bottles.
Greg Kahn

User avatar
John Morris
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 16495
Joined: June 21st, 2009, 2:09 pm
Location: Gotham

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#84 Post by John Morris » May 3rd, 2019, 9:09 am

Jeb Dunnuck wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 5:34 am
R@y.Tupp@+sch wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 11:16 am
Greg K wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 10:40 am


These two statements are contradictory. It's hard to me to tell the quality of Guigal's winemaking or even the terroir when it's hidden by all that oak.
Older vintages of La Mouline and Brune et Blonde didn't see new oak. The earliest vintages, and in my opinion the greatest vintages of La Mouline were aged in foudres (assuming my memory is correct).
'66 was the first vintage for La Mouline... always in new barrels. Not sure about the Brune et Blonde.
The B&B now spends three years in barriques, 50% new, according to the Guigal website. I'm pretty sure that's only slightly different from the regime three decades ago. When I visited in 1988, I believe Philippe said the B&B spent a little less time in oak than the La Las -- I recall 24 or 30 months versus 36. I see it's 42 months, all new oak, for the La Las now.
"I'm a Frisbeetarian. We worship frisbees. We believe when you die your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down." – Jim Stafford

"The Internet has resulted in an exponential increase in the number of instances in which humor must be explained." - me, 2019

Mel Knox
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1767
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 8:46 am
Location: San francisco

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#85 Post by Mel Knox » May 3rd, 2019, 9:32 am

There is a notion here that wine made in quantity at a large winery can never be that good. These wines are said to be industrially made. For example, Gallo, Clos du Bois and Robert Mondavi are held incapable of making anything we would ever drink. Yet these are the wineries with the staff that can manage the vineyards well and take care of the wine through bottling. It's the one man bands who have to be in the vineyard, on the sales trail, and in the cellar all at the same time who have problems.

Another popular notion is that people who made wine to suit Parker's palate are all of a sudden going to pick grapes at 22 brix and throw the drums of mega red in the dump. Really??

The question is, did Parker lead a revolution in taste or was he the oenological equivalent of Billy Bob Briggs, who rated horror movies by the number of naked women and killings??
Bob liked big rich wines and so do most people, just like teenage boys like to see naked women in horror movies.

I too have always wondered if one could make a wine in a lab that tasted like 1983 Ch Margaux and retail it for thirty bucks, what people would think?? Would connoisseurs tell us they had detected a minor flaw?? What would happen??
ITB

User avatar
R@y.Tupp@+sch
Posts: 2557
Joined: February 19th, 2009, 8:22 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#86 Post by R@y.Tupp@+sch » May 3rd, 2019, 9:53 am

Jeb Dunnuck wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 5:34 am

'66 was the first vintage for La Mouline... always in new barrels. Not sure about the Brune et Blonde.
Jeb,

I was told indirectly by the importer that the earliest vintages were not in new barrels.
Possibly the information was repeated to me incorrectly, but I also have a memory of reading the same thing. That said, it was a while ago, so I could be misremembering.
Killer, Staggering, Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor ®

Jeff Leve
Posts: 1664
Joined: August 2nd, 2009, 4:17 pm

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#87 Post by Jeff Leve » May 3rd, 2019, 10:25 am

Jeb Dunnuck wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 5:34 am
R@y.Tupp@+sch wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 11:16 am
Greg K wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 10:40 am


These two statements are contradictory. It's hard to me to tell the quality of Guigal's winemaking or even the terroir when it's hidden by all that oak.
Older vintages of La Mouline and Brune et Blonde didn't see new oak. The earliest vintages, and in my opinion the greatest vintages of La Mouline were aged in foudres (assuming my memory is correct).
'66 was the first vintage for La Mouline... always in new barrels. Not sure about the Brune et Blonde.

Jeb, the first vintage of La Mouline is 1966. There was no new oak used. The first vintage to use 100% new oak is 1971.

And please place me in the camp that finds the La La trio to offer an extraordinary wine tasting experience! I find the wines exciting, sensuous and unique. They age well and my older bottles are some of my most prized wines.

As far as Guigal Cotes du Rhone, IMO, it is difficult to find a better Rhone for $12.

User avatar
Josh Grossman
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 30th, 2017, 11:26 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#88 Post by Josh Grossman » May 3rd, 2019, 10:28 am

Mel Knox wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 9:32 am
There is a notion here that wine made in quantity at a large winery can never be that good. These wines are said to be industrially made. For example, Gallo, Clos du Bois and Robert Mondavi are held incapable of making anything we would ever drink. Yet these are the wineries with the staff that can manage the vineyards well and take care of the wine through bottling. It's the one man bands who have to be in the vineyard, on the sales trail, and in the cellar all at the same time who have problems.
Two points:

1. As a gross generalization, I think there is a growing ethos in the youth (Millennials and Gen Z) of DIY, and if you can't DIY (like make great wine)--then at least support the independents and f*ck the corporate and neoliberal shills. I feel like Trump is the perfect capstone to the end of the Baby Boomer neoliberal rule. In terms of investing (or selling wine), anything you want Millennials to buy, it better be independent.

2. Many of the wineries that people rant and rave about on here are just two or three people--so I call bullshit.

User avatar
Jeb Dunnuck
Posts: 366
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 7:58 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#89 Post by Jeb Dunnuck » May 3rd, 2019, 10:41 am

Jeff Leve wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 10:25 am
Jeb Dunnuck wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 5:34 am
R@y.Tupp@+sch wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 11:16 am


Older vintages of La Mouline and Brune et Blonde didn't see new oak. The earliest vintages, and in my opinion the greatest vintages of La Mouline were aged in foudres (assuming my memory is correct).
'66 was the first vintage for La Mouline... always in new barrels. Not sure about the Brune et Blonde.

Jeb, the first vintage of La Mouline is 1966. There was no new oak used. The first vintage to use 100% new oak is 1971.
I know that’s what your site says.. ;) I’ve been told otherwise from the domaine. Happy to be proven wrong, though.

Just emailed the domain and will follow up.
Last edited by Jeb Dunnuck on May 3rd, 2019, 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
JebDunnuck.com

User avatar
John Morris
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 16495
Joined: June 21st, 2009, 2:09 pm
Location: Gotham

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#90 Post by John Morris » May 3rd, 2019, 10:50 am

Josh Grossman wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 10:28 am
Two points:

1. As a gross generalization, I think there is a growing ethos in the youth (Millennials and Gen Z) of DIY, and if you can't DIY (like make great wine)--then at least support the independents and f*ck the corporate and neoliberal shills. I feel like Trump is the perfect capstone to the end of the Baby Boomer neoliberal rule. In terms of investing (or selling wine), anything you want Millennials to buy, it better be independent.
Clearly you fall in that category (ideologically -- I don't know how old you are), and that's fine as a matter of personal choice. I lean that way myself. But that begs the question of whether big wineries can make good or great wine.
Josh Grossman wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 10:28 am
2. Many of the wineries that people rant and rave about on here are just two or three people--so I call bullshit.
I think Mel's point is just that really small operations are no guarantee of quality, and sometimes they are overstretched when there are problems. I don't think he's saying no small wineries make great wine.
"I'm a Frisbeetarian. We worship frisbees. We believe when you die your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down." – Jim Stafford

"The Internet has resulted in an exponential increase in the number of instances in which humor must be explained." - me, 2019

User avatar
R@y.Tupp@+sch
Posts: 2557
Joined: February 19th, 2009, 8:22 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#91 Post by R@y.Tupp@+sch » May 3rd, 2019, 10:55 am

John Morris wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 10:50 am

But that begs the question of whether big wineries can make good or great wine.
Dom Perignon
Killer, Staggering, Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor ®

Greg K
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 791
Joined: December 21st, 2013, 3:16 pm
Location: New York

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#92 Post by Greg K » May 3rd, 2019, 11:00 am

R@y.Tupp@+sch wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 10:55 am
John Morris wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 10:50 am

But that begs the question of whether big wineries can make good or great wine.
Dom Perignon
Chave, any large Bordeaux estate, etc. My personal opinion of Chapoutier and Guigal isn't related to their size, but rather the wines that I've had. I do agree that larger estates are more likely to make more homogenized less interesting wine, but that's not a hard and fast rule. There are also plenty of smaller wineries making wine I don't like too.
Greg Kahn

User avatar
Josh Grossman
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 30th, 2017, 11:26 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#93 Post by Josh Grossman » May 3rd, 2019, 11:01 am

John Morris wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 10:50 am
Josh Grossman wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 10:28 am
Two points:

1. As a gross generalization, I think there is a growing ethos in the youth (Millennials and Gen Z) of DIY, and if you can't DIY (like make great wine)--then at least support the independents and f*ck the corporate and neoliberal shills. I feel like Trump is the perfect capstone to the end of the Baby Boomer neoliberal rule. In terms of investing (or selling wine), anything you want Millennials to buy, it better be independent.
Clearly you fall in that category (ideologically -- I don't know how old you are), and that's fine as a matter of personal choice. I lean that way myself. But that begs the question of whether big wineries can make good or great wine.
Josh Grossman wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 10:28 am
2. Many of the wineries that people rant and rave about on here are just two or three people--so I call bullshit.
I think Mel's point is just that really small operations are no guarantee of quality, and sometimes they are overstretched when there are problems. I don't think he's saying no small wineries make great wine.
I do believe there is terroir, old vines, and Serine/different clones that are almost guaranteed to make good wine despite owners best efforts. My question back would be could the Lala's be even better if someone like Marc Sorrel, Clape, or Christophe Billon owned those vines (instead of someone who makes millions of cases a year?)

Jeff Leve
Posts: 1664
Joined: August 2nd, 2009, 4:17 pm

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#94 Post by Jeff Leve » May 3rd, 2019, 11:01 am

Jeb Dunnuck wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 10:41 am
Jeff Leve wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 10:25 am
Jeb Dunnuck wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 5:34 am


'66 was the first vintage for La Mouline... always in new barrels. Not sure about the Brune et Blonde.

Jeb, the first vintage of La Mouline is 1966. There was no new oak used. The first vintage to use 100% new oak is 1971.
I know that’s what your site says.. ;)cJust emailed the domain and will follow up.

I used my favorite source as a reference :)

I am happy to correct if I am in error. What I learned was that wines were made under the name of La Mouline prior to 1966 from the previous owner. I was under the impression that those wines were called Cote Blonde, but I was corrected by Philippe.

User avatar
Jay Miller
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 13777
Joined: June 19th, 2009, 5:18 pm
Location: Jersey City

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#95 Post by Jay Miller » May 3rd, 2019, 11:09 am

R@y.Tupp@+sch wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 10:55 am
John Morris wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 10:50 am

But that begs the question of whether big wineries can make good or great wine.
Dom Perignon
CVNE. Old CVNEs are incredibly beautiful wines yet I know people who disdain them due to the size of the operation. rolleyes

Size (in either direction) is no guarantee of quality or lack thereof.
Ripe fruit isn't necessarily a flaw.

User avatar
A. So
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2833
Joined: July 19th, 2011, 7:58 pm

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#96 Post by A. So » May 3rd, 2019, 11:17 am

Josh Grossman wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 11:01 am
...there is terroir, old vines, and Serine/different clones that are almost guaranteed to make good wine despite owners best efforts.
This is untrue.
Last edited by A. So on May 3rd, 2019, 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
エaイdドrリiアaンn (93 pts.)

User avatar
John Morris
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 16495
Joined: June 21st, 2009, 2:09 pm
Location: Gotham

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#97 Post by John Morris » May 3rd, 2019, 11:20 am

John Morris wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 9:09 am
The B&B now spends three years in barriques, 50% new, according to the Guigal website. I'm pretty sure that's only slightly different from the regime three decades ago. When I visited in 1988, I believe Philippe said the B&B spent a little less time in oak than the La Las -- I recall 24 or 30 months versus 36. I see it's 42 months, all new oak, for the La Las now.
I checked the first edition of Parker's Rhone book (1987, p. 52), which corroborates my recollection that the time in barrel was shorter then. He said the La Las got 30-36 months in new oak then.
"I'm a Frisbeetarian. We worship frisbees. We believe when you die your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down." – Jim Stafford

"The Internet has resulted in an exponential increase in the number of instances in which humor must be explained." - me, 2019

Greg K
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 791
Joined: December 21st, 2013, 3:16 pm
Location: New York

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#98 Post by Greg K » May 3rd, 2019, 11:29 am

Josh Grossman wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 11:01 am
John Morris wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 10:50 am
Josh Grossman wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 10:28 am
Two points:

1. As a gross generalization, I think there is a growing ethos in the youth (Millennials and Gen Z) of DIY, and if you can't DIY (like make great wine)--then at least support the independents and f*ck the corporate and neoliberal shills. I feel like Trump is the perfect capstone to the end of the Baby Boomer neoliberal rule. In terms of investing (or selling wine), anything you want Millennials to buy, it better be independent.
Clearly you fall in that category (ideologically -- I don't know how old you are), and that's fine as a matter of personal choice. I lean that way myself. But that begs the question of whether big wineries can make good or great wine.
Josh Grossman wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 10:28 am
2. Many of the wineries that people rant and rave about on here are just two or three people--so I call bullshit.
I think Mel's point is just that really small operations are no guarantee of quality, and sometimes they are overstretched when there are problems. I don't think he's saying no small wineries make great wine.
I do believe there is terroir, old vines, and Serine/different clones that are almost guaranteed to make good wine despite owners best efforts. My question back would be could the Lala's be even better if someone like Marc Sorrel, Clape, or Christophe Billon owned those vines (instead of someone who makes millions of cases a year?)
I suspect Sorrel would make better wine, but I also think it's very very possible to make bad wine from great grapes/terroir.
Greg Kahn

User avatar
Josh Grossman
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 30th, 2017, 11:26 am

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#99 Post by Josh Grossman » May 3rd, 2019, 11:34 am

Greg K wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 11:29 am
Josh Grossman wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 11:01 am
John Morris wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 10:50 am


Clearly you fall in that category (ideologically -- I don't know how old you are), and that's fine as a matter of personal choice. I lean that way myself. But that begs the question of whether big wineries can make good or great wine.



I think Mel's point is just that really small operations are no guarantee of quality, and sometimes they are overstretched when there are problems. I don't think he's saying no small wineries make great wine.
I do believe there is terroir, old vines, and Serine/different clones that are almost guaranteed to make good wine despite owners best efforts. My question back would be could the Lala's be even better if someone like Marc Sorrel, Clape, or Christophe Billon owned those vines (instead of someone who makes millions of cases a year?)
I suspect Sorrel would make better wine, but I also think it's very very possible to make bad wine from great grapes/terroir.
Anything that spends 33 to 42 months in new oak isn't good wine in my book.

Jeff Leve
Posts: 1664
Joined: August 2nd, 2009, 4:17 pm

Re: Is Guigal a casualty of Parker’s retirement

#100 Post by Jeff Leve » May 3rd, 2019, 11:35 am

Josh Grossman wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 11:34 am

Anything that spends 33 to 42 months in new oak isn't good wine in my book.
That is how you judge a wine?

Post Reply

Return to “Wine Talk”