And yet, whether we like them or not is totally subjective, Jeff’s statement that we think of as Bordeaux has disappeared, and to our palates, 98% of Bordeaux no longer resemble Bordeaux, is factually incorrect.
If Jeff was correct, I’d no longer be buying Bordeaux. And yet here I am, buying lots of Bordeaux, admittedly way more selectively than in the past. We have learned through trial and error and many mistakes that one must stay on top of what these Château are doing, as many are picking up and flipping modern consultants on a left and right basis, which can dramatically change the style of the wine. Even some classic Chateau that were making perfectly great wines, have moved to the Darkside. My God, even Lanessan went dark, and now I no longer buy it, once my favorite go-to Cru.
Bordeaux is radically different than what it was even as recently as the 80s. Viticulture has changed. Yields are lower. The fruits are riper, blends and vineyard plantings have shifted. Selection is more stringent. Much more of the harvest is relegated to second and third wines.
Parcels are individually vinified. Organic and biodynamic farming are taking hold. Pyrazines are a thing of the past. There is very little greeness in the wines. Tannins are riper, softer more elegant. Most wines are approachable earlier.
This is just a shortlist of some of the changes that have taken place. It’s still early here, I can add more later.
I think everything here is positive. The wines being made today are IMO dramatically better.
So yes, it’s easy to say at least 98% of Bordeaux is quite different from what it used to be.
I have not had enough Bordeaux to weigh in substantively. And I think that if I had to buy a Bordeaux I’ve never tasted before, I’d go with Robert’s or Doug’s palates because they seem more committed to a narrower style and Jeff is more tolerant of new stylistic approaches. Though I’m sure that if I told Jeff I wanted a wine that Robert would enjoy, given that he tastes so widely, he could probably give me a longer list of choices than Robert himself could.
In short, Bordeaux is as Bordeaux does.
Nobody can claim a Bordeaux wine doesn’t resemble Bordeaux or isn’t Bordeaux just because they disagree with the winemaker’s stylistic approach.
Angelus and Pavie, disagreeable though they may be, are as much Bordeaux as Cheval Blanc, even if, for good reason, some don’t like their approach. They have a right to change. We have a right not to buy.
Does this make life harder for consumers? You bet. Consumers who don’t realize there have been stylistic changes over the years that go beyond climate changes (there’s no “New Coke” can here) can and will be mislead, precisely because of how much of what a wine *is or should be like gets ascribed to appellation typicity instead of producer style.
Some very rational and well-thought comments. I am curious, though, do you think you could call Pavie and Angelus, in say years like 2003, 2009, 2010, 2015 2018, etc., as Bordeaux if in a blind flight with similarly-styled wines from other regions, say things from the new world? Sure they are made in Bordeaux, from Bordeaux, so one can posit that they are Bordeaux, but the question is, can you call it as “Bordeaux” blind? I’m not sure that I could.
No slight on anyone, but that is about the taster, not the wine. I see this all the time. I have friends that are super blind tasters and others that never get anything right.
Good blind tasters get it right. It is a skill set that not everyone has equally.
A lot of changes, but the vast majority of wines still taste like Bordeaux. Pavie does not taste like any other Bordeaux outside of a few acolytes in Saint Emilion, and given the quality of the terroir, that is disappointing. I hear though Pavie too is beginning to rethink its winemaking. I have not tasted it post 2014, but I really hope it is so.
Thank you. And LOL, I likely could not. But, if you’re paying, set one up for me and we’ll find out. I can’t think of a more enjoyable way to have my skills proven to be not up to task.
you say what Robert Parker – your mentor – said for as long he was in business. You say that the wine making is always in progress to the better. The wines will always benefit. For different reasons. You forget that Bordeaux is no longer what it was due to climate change. This is something you do not talk about. Ok – if top Napa wine is the poster child for Bordeaux you are right. But if the model is a cool climate top red the problem begins. Be aware that your progress is not the ideal for everybody.
By the way - the problem was obvious in CdP as well. Parker loved the progress as long as he was in business. Then we faced wines with 16% alc. Since he retired most of the producers are aware of the problem. And try to come back to 14,5% alc. or lower.
We are in a different situation today as we were in the 70th, 80th, 90th last century. The problem is no longer to have a year when ripeness is the goal. Quite the opposite.
I have been waiting for this board to erupt into an “Auseinandersetzung” with Mr. Leve about modern Right Bank Bordeaux (and Mr. Leve is holding his own in this debate, for sure), but, yeah, even the Perse empirium (maybe because Bob is in retirement and cannot write the golden prose about every vintage of post-Valette Pavie) has capitulated to a (slightly) more classic approach to vinification post-2014. For myself, I am a sucker (prelude to an admission of an embarrassing predilection from a wine nerd) for the “goopy cherry” flavors (this is how I express it in TN after TN) of Angelus in its riper years. As for Pavie, the best vintage before post-2014 (for me) was 2001, when things had not reached their Rollandesque formulaic chemical laboratory pattern yet.
No, I did not forget. All the things I mentioned are choices people make. Climate is out of their control. There are numerous decisions and experiments being made today in the vineyards and cellars to work with, and combat climate change.
Thanks for the nice words. Pavie continues changing and experimenting. Now, you see less oak, less ripeness, less concentration and much more Cabernet Franc and Cabernet Sauvignon in the blend. As someone who actually tastes the wine every year, it is very cool to see things change in the vineyards and cellars. I also have the chance to taste bottled vintages quite often as well, so I am able to see how the wines are aging, some are aging quite well, others not as well as anticipated.
FWIW, Michel Rolland is not a by-the-numbers consultant. What he does best, (and there is probably nobody better,) is work on the blends. He does not do a lot of work in the vineyards, while Stephane Derenoncourt works much more in the vineyards. Also, just because a chateau hires a consultant, very few take all of their advice. They have visions as well. Most just want an extra set of eyes, ears and palate.
And no slight on Jeff, love the comments and contributions to the discourse, but he glosses over the obvious, as you point out. I think there is a lot of merit to his constant assertions that Bordeaux today is more consistent and arguably better made, but many of the historic, classic estates, like Lalande, Montrose and Leoville Barton, still taste like bordeaux. Even a terrible blind taster like me would know that. That 2005 Montros that I had a week ago was flat out gorgeous, and quite classic. We saw a lot of comments on my thread regarding the inconsistencies and bottle variations in the 1989 and 1990s vintages of Montrose, which is something we will probably be seeing less of in the future given the improvements in winemaking and cleanliness. What Pavie, Angelus, Troplong, Cos, et al, were doing jumped the shark. Glad to hear some are scaling back, but they lost me.
These are my thoughts as well. The fact that the vast majority of Bordeaux is still identifiable in blind tasting as Bordeaux, without using a totally different paradigm for what that means than we would have used 1-2 decades ago or longer, is the reason all of Jeff’s comments about changes (which are true) do not prove his point, and also why this is not a No True Scotsman fallacy.
I’ve had, and have enjoyed, several bottles of the 2001 Pavie. In a group of New World wines, I am not sure I could pick it as an outlier, but that doesn’t engender in me the sort of rage it does in others. It isn’t a wine (or a type of wine) I would go out of my way to buy, and I grant that when I pull a bottle for a specific dinner as “bordeaux” and taste something new world I might be disappointed, but the biggest thing to me is whether I like what I am drinking. I liked the 01 Pavie. Better an atypical wine I like than a typical one that fails to please.