I’ve poured Rougeard Poyeux and Clos with Croix Boissée blind for Matthieu a couple of times. I’ve yet to do it blind with Bourg but have enjoyed them side by side with a meal. It’s an enlightening experience. The quality of Croix Boissée is right there, IMO.
I’ve been thinking of putting together a retrospective of Rougeard and Croix Boissée but given the current market, I might just sell most of my Rougeard.
I could agree with that (with maybe one or two minor reservations). What I meant, though, was not that one is far superior to the other, but simply that I see them as very different wines. To me, Baudry across the range tastes much more like some other top Loire CF wines (if better than most) in terms of “Gestalt” (or whatever we want to call it) than Rougeard ever did.
The Poyeux and Croix Boissée do share a limestone kinship.
I’ve always kind of felt that the Poyeux typically shows a certain type of extra elegance and weightlessness that sets it apart even from its two extraordinary siblings. I’ve always interpreted that (or, rather, it was once explained to me 
) that this particular quality was mostly down to the greater presence of sand and better ventilation in that plot. The Croix Boissee (a wine I greatly admire and have been buying and drinking for about 20 years) has on the whole always struck me as sturdier, more brooding, and less approachable in comparison (at least for the first 15 or so years?).
A couple of highlights from the past two weeks, both from Saumur-Champigny but completely different:
Domaine des Roches Neuves - La Marginale - Saumur-Champigny 2009
Easily the best Marginale I have tried. The bouquet has enticing notes of sweet raspberry and wild strawberry, confirmed by the first sip, which is much rounder, less angular than other vintages, without the crunchy fruit I was expecting. If anything, the expected crunchiness comes next, before a vivid, quite rich middle section. The finish is cool, yet slightly sweet and very beguiling. Much less of a culture shock than Roches Neuves can be.
Great stuff, it coped well with a BAMA 95 served alongside.
Just getting into its stride, this has a long way to go.
Château de Villeneuve - Le Grand Clos - Saumur-Champigny 2016
Unlike Roches-Neuves, Villeneuve has a clear hierarchy of wines, of which this is the top cuvée. It comes from a single vineyard planted on limestone surrounding the château itself. Like Roches-Neuves and virtually all top Loire red producers today, Villeneuve farms organically, but unlike R-N, it is not a bio-dynamic estate.
I was keen to try a recent vintage because older ones (2002 and 2006) opened recently were not very convincing, suffering from harsh tannins.
The nose was already an improvement on the older vintages, showing very clear aromas of blackcurrant and raspberry, with a hint of violet and blueberry. The attack was initially a bit too richly youthful, but three hours in a decanter took the edge off, leaving a bright but crisp mouthful of very pure blackcurrant, developing notes of raspberry and just a hint of blueberry in the middle section, before a long finish. Initially, there was a tannic grip behind the fruit, but this had eased by the second evening and it was never obtrusive. Made in a very classic style, so none of the Roches-Neuves or Antoine Sanzay crunchy fruit, very streamlined and elegant, with considerable depth and persistence.
Overall, very impressive indeed and for 26 euros, really good value.
No notes on it after a long day, but I opened my first of a six pack of Roches Neuves entry level Saumur-Champigny (not the CEP), and it was very enjoyable/crushable. Maybe a little richer and more polished that some of you in this thread may like, but for $26CAD/$21USD/17EUR (incl. taxes), one can do a heck of a lot worse. Even better the second day.
I highly doubt the rest of the case will last the summer. It’s a nice cellar defender for the Les Memoires I just took delivery of. 2018/2019 Franc de Pied coming soon, and I bought an extra bottle of each to do a side-by-side. I’ll be sure to report back on that comparison.
Beyond the limestone similarity, with the Poyeux soil appearing to have more of the sandy component than in the Croix Boissée based on published stuff, the age of vines are greatly different in both, with Poyeux > 40 and Croix Boissée at 15.
Tvrtko captured the differences, in my experiences, with the 2 labels. The silky texture of CR wines amidst complexity had always stood out for me against the sturdiness and sometimes brutish character of LCB, which is still fine within the overall scheme of things.
Yes, there is definitely no sand in Croix Boissée, it’s a very thin topsoil over limestone. The white grapes were planted there by Matthieu because there are spots where Cabernet Franc failed to grow! While I’ve walked Croix Boissée many times, I’ve only been to Poyeux once. My memory of the Rougeard parcel was that it was limestone, but memory is flawed and I could be mistaken. From the Rare Wine Co. website:
Les Poyeaux, half-century-old vines in a south-facing parcel of eroded sandstone over tuffeau
Sandstone is different from sand but maybe decomposed sandstone is sand [shrug]. Tuffeau is a type of limestone. I’ve just perceptually found Croix Boissée closer to Poyeux than the other Rougeard wines. However…
FWIW, some friends and I drank 2005 Croix Boissée and 2005 Rougeard Bourg last Saturday (I opened the Bourg because I found out that one of my friends had purchased most of the Rougeard I had consigned to the last Leland Little auction and I felt a bit bad and wanted to pour an extra special treat). It was blind to them but I was not blind to what was in the decanters. The wine that someone preferred was just that, a preference. The Rougeard was just so silky and a bit more herbal. The Croix Boissée was much more structured with both acid and tannin. It also had a more pronounced and darker fruit component. Myself and one other had a slight preference for the Croix Boissée, but I really like that chalky component. The other two preferred the Rougeard. No one confused one wine with the other, they were distinct aromatically, flavor wise and on the palate while still being in the same general grape based playing field.
Thanks. The '05 CR-LP and the '05 B-LCB are on a to drink list in a couple of weeks.
“Perceptually” being the key word here, as far as I’m concerned. I’ve always found Le Bourg to be “perceptually” much closer in profile to the Croix B than the Poyeux. I’ve also generally found it to be the better wine, but never by a broad margin.
Quite aside from the fact that it’s simply a great wine, in my experience, the Poyeux is entirely sui generis. Nothing in the Baudry stable (love the producer with no reservations and own relatively massive amounts, particularly of the Grezeaux) even approaches it. For me, the Poyeux is simply the pinnacle of what can be achieved with CF in the Loire valley. It’s that simple… to quote my favourite “wine critic”
Excellent wine. The key, as I think you imply, is to not try and compare it to the first thing that springs to mind. If anything, the style reminds me much more of old Druet… and that’s very high praise indeed, at least in my book
Yes, excellent indeed! I don’t know the older Druet wines well enough to compare, but I would say it is a modern take on classicism. I know you’re not a R-N fan, but I like both styles. Anyway, it was another thumbs up for 2016 in general.
One style I really don’t like is that of the Clos de L’Echo 2011 I tried last night - fine if one is after a Loire red tasting like a Parkerized Saint Emilion, but really not my cup of tea. The 14.5° continues to dominate what is a rather heady brew which will just get more syrupy as time goes on. I think Arnaud Couly has moved away from this style in recent vintages but it’s an example of what a minefield Couly-Dutheil wines can be.
Totally agree. I stopped buying/drinking the Echo quite a while ago after a whole series of really stodgy vintages. Waste of a good vineyard. A different approach, as you suggest, would be good news indeed.
Not that most on this thread care, but the Wine Advocate published a fairly extensive report on the Loire today focusing on CF. Getting ready for the unwashed horde to descend.
Incidentally, the highest scoring wine was an orange wine. New days.
Thanks Chris, you inspired me to take a free one month subscription to have a peek! It’s the first extensive red Loire tasting since…2014 I think. I did enquire last year when the next one would be before cancelling my subscription but never got a reply. It will be interesting to see if this is the start of a new strategy by TWA. The selection is extensive but some big names are missing - presumably they will be in the second report. I have no idea what Stephan Reinhardt’s taste is like but the report reads like something rather hastily prepared with some strange observations - apparently Bourgueils are “deeper and more concentrated” than Chinons, which are “are rather light but round and fruity wines” - seriously?!! 2016, 2017 and 2018 are described as “difficult years, either due to frost or to abundant sunshine or even both” but with no indication as to their styles (2016 and 2017 could hardly be more different compared to 2018). Sadly, he is clearly no WK.
One detail I did like was the new TWA feature that William mentioned recently - you can click on a button which gives you all the organic wines and another one which gives you the bio-dynamic ones.
Chinons, which are “are rather light but round and fruity wines”
![[rofl.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7452fcd8e675af869f8da01174474a545b03944.gif "rofl"){kind=small}
Thanks for saving me from subscribing Julian!
Ha! Actually Mike, you should have a look while it’s free - I haven’t read the notes yet but some of the wines tasted are certainly interesting. For someone like you who knows his stuff they’re worth looking at (they’re at least data points) - my gripe, if I have one, is that as a guide for those who know nothing about Loire reds, which for some TWA readers is probably the case, the report part itself is totally useless. I think it’s great that publications like Vinous and TWA are commissioning reports about the Loire, but this is one instance where Vinous are doing a much better job.
If you haven’t read the notes yet, why would you think the report is useless? That is the bulk of the report. The producer notes frequently contain a wealth of information. Look at the Baudry notes, for instance.
I found the introductory comments in the Wine Advocate article and the Vinous article from 2020 rather similar. Both emphasize that it is a region with a lot of newcomers, excitement and qualitive improvement. Both point out the prevalence of organic and biodynamic growers. Both point out the effects (both positive and negative) of recent warmer weather. Both can be read as laudatory to the point of salesmanship, which may not be a bad thing for a region likely overlooked by the readers of each publication. The Vinous one is a bit longer and better written.
The Wine Advocate article is part one of two. I don’t know what will be in part 2, but I’m guessing it will cover some of the big names missing in the recent article, such as Clos Rougeard (the two highest scoring estates in the Vinous article are in Samur, which is to be covered in part 2).
I’m sorry Chris, I wasn’t clear enough - by “report” I meant the introduction, not the whole thing with the notes and scores. We agree that the Vinous one is better written and I found it more informative, that’s all - I look forward to the second part.
After tasting Baudry’s 2014 La Croix Boissée i am very interested in buying more Cabernet Franc.
Could someone give a quick overview over the last few vintages characteristics (like 2013-2019)? Still in doubt after reading a few vintage reports… would be much appreciated, thank you.