OK, I was thinking, considering there’s so many of us here, with a lot of knowledge of different domains ,that it would be great if we make a thread where we talk of different domains and their approach to wine making. While I do believe that Burgundy has more of a great writers/critics than any other region, one thing I think they all omit is different wine making styles top domains use. I think it would be great if we start a thread for each producer, lets say DRC~ winemaking techniques and then list lets say:
Viticulture
Clone selection
Age of wines
Vineyard sites
yields (tricky one)
Harvest ~ machine or hand
Destemming
Whole Clusters
Cluster/Stem/Whole berry Management
Maceration and Fermentation Regimes
Cold soaking
Saignée / Bleeding
Yeast wild or cultured
Carbonic maceration
Fermentation maceration
Pressing
Barrel fermentation
Délestage (de l’estage)/ Rack and return
Extended maceration
Post fermentation maceration on the skins
Malolactic Fermentation (MLF) ~ Blocked, partial or full
Racking
Sur Lie & Bâtonnage
Oak~ type, age, toast level, time spent ageing, flavour influence
Fining and Filtering
Flash-heating / pasteurising
I don’t expect that a single person will have all this information, but collectively I think we can do a heck of the work. I think one person should start a thread and put all the info’s and then constantly update the first post as the additional information becomes available.
Please let me know what do you think and how can we make this work. Please give any suggestions you have and once we agree on the format we can start the threads.
I think a round-table discussion to try to describe the domaine’s wine style is more useful than collecting gobs of data about techniques. The two are often related, of course, but no data tech sheet really establishes what the style is. There are many producers, for example, that I have never tasted, or not recently, or maybe only a couple of tastes, and so I may not have an accurate picture of the style.
I find that a meaningful description of a producer’s style is very difficult, and this is one reason so few critics do it with any regularity. As a collective group, with our differing opinions and arguements, we may be able to actually move the ball forward.
At a measured pace of one domaine per week, which would encourage broader participation, this could go on for several years… which would be great.
Eh, not sure I agree, if previous such discussions are any indication. Techniques are fact; style interpretations are subjective. A lot of people will describe any producer they like as “elegant” or whatever.
Yes, that is the problem, if you like it, then it is called “elegant” and “pure” which seem to be the in-vogue descriptors of late. That is why I referred to discussion and argument (hopefully debate more than argument). Most previous discussions have not really moved the ball forward in terms of coming up with descriotions of style that actually differentiate between different domaines. But if we could, that would be very useful IMO.
I think it’s a balance, though surely Keith, some indication of relative oak regimes or whether (some quantity of) stems are used will give you some clear and useful pointers to the anticipated presentation of the (young!) wines.
I think Leo’s list is full of dead-ends though - even a fact like ‘80 year-old (pre-clone) vines’ would be meaningless if they turned out to be indifferent material (even pinot fin)…
No, I haven’t bought Inside Burgundy yet but I want to. $75 is in the pain threshold for me for a book that I haven’t had a chance to see in the flesh. But if the enablers on this board tell me it’s worth it…
For example “if it saves you from making one grand cru purchase mistake it pays for itself several times over” would be particularly effective in this instance.
It is kind of interesting the assumptions people make about technique from drinking the wines. A lot of my Burg friends (me included) tend to go for wines that have a lot of finesse and “purity”, hence we tend to think poorly of lots of new oak (at least high toast). I know a lot of people who adore Bachelet and aren’t big Vogue fans, thinking that Vogue uses lots of new oak and Bachelet doesn’t. But for the 1er and up wines, I think Bachelet uses something like twice as much new oak as Vogue.
Whatever the differences in style between those domaines, and they are very different styles and I do greatly prefer Bachelet’s style in general, it’s not because of new oak. I think he uses something like 50% new oak, which suprised me when I heard that as I don’t get a huge amount of toasty or vanilla flavors in his wines. The guy just knows how to use it apparently.
Inside Burgundy is definitely worth it. Not necessarily a buyer’s guide (e.g., saving you from particular expensive wines), but it is just a great, great reference. I felt like I knew a fair bit about Burgundy before reading it and I’m still learning a lot from it.
I agree. In fact, Morris’ book is about my favorite of the burgundy books I own (ok, Bill, I haven’t gotten to yours yet). I like his voice very much. I read it cover to cover and enjoyed every little bit.
And by the way - great production values on the book itself - love those silk ribbons!
It’s a great idea. I would still like to add the winemaking techniques. I think there’s no better place on earth to understand how winemaking influences the final product. In burgundy you have a wine made from the same piece of dirt, two rows next to each other yet they taste different.