Are the best Clos de Vougeots as good as the top wines from Vosne, Chambolle and Gevrey?

[Peter_Chiu]

John…nice post.

Make me wonder what would the result be : for a tasting of Drouhin : CdV, Chambertin, RSV and Musigny - all from 1993.

[Peter_Chiu]

@Peter Chiu

@alan weinberg

@Peter Chiu

When the monks were the sole owner of CdV, they often said the lower part was for the poor, the middle part for the bishops and only the upper part was fit for their Highness : the Pope.

where did you read that–or are you that old? I always thought they blended the entire vineyard.
alan

Alan…let say that I am not old but matured.

There was a mistake in my above statement . It should read the upper part was fit for their Holiness ( not Highness ) : the Pope.

where did you read that

I read that many years ago when I first got into Burgundy. I will do some dippings and will report back.

OK…here is what I found. CdOr by Coates - 1st Edition - page 116 ( in the middle part ). It said : Tradition as it that the original ecclesiastical proprietors produced three wines : from the top or best land came the Cuvee de Papes; from the middle the Cuvee des Rois; and from the lower slops the Cuvee des Moines, and only this one was sold commercially.

Sorry that my memory is not that good and my translation is off.

[John_Morris]

@Peter Chiu

OK…here is what I found. CdOr by Coates - 1st Edition - page 116 ( in the middle part ). It said : Tradition as it that the original ecclesiastical proprietors produced three wines : from the top or best land came the Cuvee de Papes; from the middle the Cuvee des Rois; and from the lower slops the Cuvee des Moines, and only this one was sold commercially.

Sorry that my memory is not that good and my translation is off.

In his book, Morris dismisses this notion of three levels of wine (for the Pope, the King and the public), saying that the notion appears to have been a story made up by Dr. Denis Morelot, who began classifying the vineyards in 1831. Morris says it is likely that historically the wines were blends from across the clos.

[W_Leonard]

@alan weinberg

@Peter Chiu

When the monks were the sole owner of CdV, they often said the lower part was for the poor, the middle part for the bishops and only the upper part was fit for their Highness : the Pope.

where did you read that–or are you that old? I always thought they blended the entire vineyard.
alan

+1, I was about to say how many old timers and yes the monks believed that since CdV is so large that blending the bottom, mid-slope and top resulted in the best expressions. I do not think any producer does this. Also, not sure if anyone has mentioned how soil expression in CdV can be extremely variant not just because of producer but agricultural practices. There a lot of producers in an enclosed area with many different approaches. I am always baffled at talking about soil in vineyards where row by row can be dramatically different vine healths, spray applications, soil health, vine age, etc. Can you make a logical equation of terroir to soil if it is just frayed, barren land. NO

[Howard_Cooper]

@W. Leonard

@alan weinberg

@Peter Chiu

When the monks were the sole owner of CdV, they often said the lower part was for the poor, the middle part for the bishops and only the upper part was fit for their Highness : the Pope.

where did you read that–or are you that old? I always thought they blended the entire vineyard.
alan

+1, I was about to say how many old timers and yes the monks believed that since CdV is so large that blending the bottom, mid-slope and top resulted in the best expressions. I do not think any producer does this. Also, not sure if anyone has mentioned how soil expression in CdV can be extremely variant not just because of producer but agricultural practices. There a lot of producers in an enclosed area with many different approaches. I am always baffled at talking about soil in vineyards where row by row can be dramatically different vine healths, spray applications, soil health, vine age, etc. Can you make a logical equation of terroir to soil if it is just frayed, barren land. NO

I don’t know but could you both be correct. We are talking about almost 1000 years, could things have changed at different times.

[john_richards]

we tasted a CdV vertical last winter. Same producer, wines from 1988/90/95/99/01/02 (may have a date or two wrong) selected by Potel. What I took away was the signature of CdV. It is a very strong, vigourus wine that needs a ton of time to come around. Granite mineral driven fruit. Seemed to me more like the Hermitage of Burgundy.

I can suggest that medium aged CdV might not show to its best potential, as opposed to some of the prettier Vosnes and Chambolles. But I can see it great in time.

Just my 2C.

[Mike_During]

@Mark Golodetz

A week or so ago, we had a 1964 Gros CV, and it showed beautifully. It was so good, I realized that there must be dirt probably close to the Musigny which is comparable to the Chambertins, Richebourgs etc. For example I would have expected although the Gros Musignis to be much better than they are. Thoughts?

I agree the Gros Musignis should be better. Occasionally you get a hint of real Musigny in the wines, I am thinking 2002 Gros Frere.

[Lewis_Dawson]

@Claude Kolm

Older texts list Clos-Vougeot as one of the five greatest wines in Burgundy. With the division of the Clos into multiple holdings, much depends on location and producer now, but the wines can be great for those who know how to choose and are willing to let the wine age for a long time – exactly as is the case with Corton.

Great comparison to Corton, Claude. And of course, the 2 crus together account for about 40% of all grand cru surface area (rouge only). Add in Echezeaux and Charmes/Mazoyeres and the total is nearly 60%. There are great QPR values to be found in these 4 crus, and it is fun and challenging to search for them. Of course, many disappointments as well.

[Lewis_Dawson]

@Keith Levenberg

@Lewis Dawson

Mark, rankings are odious at this level, IMO, but if I were to rank the grand crus, I could not put upper-slope Clos Vougeot at the same level as Musigny, Chambertin, or Richebourg.

I couldn’t either, but 100 years ago everybody did, and they probably had a good reason for it. My hunch is that if it were possible to taste a Clos Vougeot today made from the entire vineyard, we’d have a better understanding of why it used to be so highly regarded.

Indeed, a good point, Keith. It boggles my mind to think of the entire 50 ha being made as one wine, and that wine earning the high regard that it did. Imagine for a moment if 50 ha of Morey or Chambolle or Gevrey were to be defined as a single cru, stretching from the upper slope all the way down to the RN74… what would that wine be like? Would it be as good as Clos Vougeot was (judging from the old texts)?

[Brady_Daniels]

Yesterday I got my copy of Bill Nanson’s “The Finest Wines of Burgundy”. I am digging it so far. Here’s what he has to say about CV:

For years, it was common shorthand to say that the higher vines returned a better wine than the lower vines, yet time and again producers make great wines from vines predominantly at the bottom of the slope wines that are far better than the village or premier cru Vougeot (or village Vosne-Romanee, for that matter) that lie outside the walls of the clos. The clos does not lend itself to categorization: I would always choose the producer before any discussion of the vine’s location.

[Peter_Chiu]

@JonoBeagle

I was just looking through my notes on Anne Gros’ 2010s as I was writing her section on my blog and my scores for Clos de Vougeot versus Richebourg are the same but perhaps with a more complex future for the Richebourg. In terms of quality, they are for me identical, and the difference is in the mineral/terroir characters. In many ways, I do believe that Clos de Vougeot can be the equal of the great names but that it is just different but then certain parts are good enough, others are not!

I found more info re Anne Gros CdV and Riche. Her holdings are approx. 0.9 ha for CdV with vines age average 50 years old and 0.66 ha for Riche with wines age average 70 years old. In Quebec, Canada it is 2 bs of CdV 09 for 1 b of Riche 09.

[Peter_Chiu]

@john richards

we tasted a CdV vertical last winter. Same producer, wines from 1988/90/95/99/01/02 (may have a date or two wrong) selected by Potel. What I took away was the signature of CdV. It is a very strong, vigourus wine that needs a ton of time to come around. Granite mineral driven fruit. Seemed to me more like the Hermitage of Burgundy.

I can suggest that medium aged CdV might not show to its best potential, as opposed to some of the prettier Vosnes and Chambolles. But I can see it great in time.

Just my 2C.

Brovo…John. Nice to see you and that you are enjoying life and also take time to post.

Life is good, isn’t it ? I always tell my Chinese friends that I am happy to get hooked in Burgundy. It is more enjoyable than other habits. For example : spending money and visiting Casinos ( like my many Chinese friends ).

If I do not like Burugndy wines which I spent my money to buy them, I could always open them and share with them to see how stupid I was !!

Cheer

[ekovitch]

@W. Leonard

I was about to say how many old timers and yes the monks believed that since CdV is so large that blending the bottom, mid-slope and top resulted in the best expressions. I do not think any producer does this.

Actually Bichot-Clos Frantin has ownership in all 3 sectors. As a friend of mine is the local distributor, I have been fortunate to have had this in multiple vintages going back to 2002 when he started the relationship with them. While Bichot may not be in the top tier of producers, this is a very high quality wine.

[Mark_Golodetz]

@Peter Chiu

@Lewis Dawson

@Mark Golodetz

Therefore let’s assume that we are talking about a top producer, who knows what he/she is doing. Are there any areas of CV wines, where the wines will be the equal of a Mugnier Musigny, a Rousseau Chambertin or a DRC Richebourg?

Mark, rankings are odious at this level, IMO, but if I were to rank the grand crus, I could not put upper-slope Clos Vougeot at the same level as Musigny, Chambertin, or Richebourg. I would have it higher than numerous other fine grand crus, however. I regard the middle and lower portions as second division grand cru, but the upper one-third of CV as first division, in my own personal classment of the crus.

Lewis…right on.

I think we are getting a little too prissy with our disdain for scores and ranking. Ranking exists; it’s been going on since the mid nineteenth century, although some of the stuff makes sense and some doesn’t. The stuff that doesn’t, we substitute our own judgement and rank accordingly; I buy Clos St. Jacques most years, because I like it as much as second tier grands Crus, and the QPR is right. Clos Vougeot is another case in point. Because it includes some parts which are not worthy of being Grand Cru, or even Premier, the whole vineyard is suspect, and one can buy well. My original question was not whether there are values here, but whether any wines are capable of reaching the heights of other top grand crus. My feeling is that it is capable, has been in the past, but I haven’t had a wine made in the last twenty years which I thought was as breathtaking as that 1964 Gros freres and Soeur which I described in my original post.



Ultimately, my bias’, scores and ranking translates into what I will pay for a wine. For example, will I pay the tab for my favorite CV, Hudelot, at $130, and what is a Rousseau Chambertin worth to me; without some internal scoring, no decision is possible.

[JonoBeagle]

Peter, the age of the vines explains the extra depth and restraint of the Richebourg over the CV from Anne, but the intrinsic quality is the same in both and they both receive the same treatment, one is rounder, the other is more rigid… Just different and reputation/demand will play a part in the pricing of any wine.

\

I am here: Google Maps

[Berry_Crawford]

@W. Leonard

the monks believed that since CdV is so large that blending the bottom, mid-slope and top resulted in the best expressions.

This is apocryphal. I can find no evidence that they did this. It is unlikely that they did any concerted blending but rather just sent wine out cask by cask.

[Gerhard_P]

@Berry Crawford

@W. Leonard

the monks believed that since CdV is so large that blending the bottom, mid-slope and top resulted in the best expressions.

This is apocryphal. I can find no evidence that they did this. It is unlikely that they did any concerted blending but rather just sent wine out cask by cask.

Right.
Think about it: the CdV has a difference of elevation of some 30+ meters from top to bottom, a distance of more than 500 m. That causes a lot of temperature differences, and the grapes are rarely ripe at the same time.
The monks for sure didn´t harvest row by row from bottom to top, but rather parcel by parcel - also much easier to work. They also filled the fermentation vats parcel by parcel (otherwise they won´t have experience differences between top and bottom parcels).
After completed fermentation they filled the wine into barrels - and they had simply no possibility to blend them (back into the vats) without risk of oxidation.
Before 1700 there were also no bottles, so they sold/shipped it in barrels one by one - or drank them right from the barrels.
I simply doubt the rumor of regular blending.

[Berry_Crawford]

@Gerhard P.

@Berry Crawford

@W. Leonard

the monks believed that since CdV is so large that blending the bottom, mid-slope and top resulted in the best expressions.

This is apocryphal. I can find no evidence that they did this. It is unlikely that they did any concerted blending but rather just sent wine out cask by cask.

Right.
Think about it: the CdV has a difference of elevation of some 30+ meters from top to bottom, a distance of more than 500 m. That causes a lot of temperature differences, and the grapes are rarely ripe at the same time.
The monks for sure didn´t harvest row by row from bottom to top, but rather parcel by parcel - also much easier to work. They also filled the fermentation vats parcel by parcel (otherwise they won´t have experience differences between top and bottom parcels).
After completed fermentation they filled the wine into barrels - and they had simply no possibility to blend them (back into the vats) without risk of oxidation.
Before 1700 there were also no bottles, so they sold/shipped it in barrels one by one - or drank them right from the barrels.
I simply doubt the rumor of regular blending.

And even after bottles became more common place is was still the usual practice to deal with wine barrel by barrel. In fact until fairly recently (1860) in england it was illegal to ship or sell wine in the bottle. France had a similar law but I cant remember the date off the top of my head. A book about the history of Bouchard Aine & fils states that most wine was sold by the barrel right up till WWII and then customers and shippers would do their own bottling.

[Berry_Crawford]

@Gerhard P.

After completed fermentation they filled the wine into barrels - and they had simply no possibility to blend them (back into the vats) without risk of oxidation.

Besides risk of oxidation the logistics would have been nearly impossible.

[Peter_Chiu]

@JonoBeagle

Peter, the age of the vines explains the extra depth and restraint of the Richebourg over the CV from Anne, but the intrinsic quality is the same in both and they both receive the same treatment, one is rounder, the other is more rigid… Just different and reputation/demand will play a part in the pricing of any wine.

\

I am here: Google Maps

Well said.