Burgundy question re declassification

We had some debate last night, over Rieslings and Burgundy with Peking duck, about declassification of Burgundy. The wines at hand were '99 Drouhin Chambolle Musigny 1er Cru and '96 de Vogue same.

My understanding, and that of another guy who is still ITB, is that you can always declassify fruit to any lower appellation-appropriate category. Thus, you could declassify Musigny to CM 1er or CM or Cote de Nuits Villages or Bourgogne (though not to CM “Amoureuses,” for example). The opposing argument was that Musigny could only legally be declassified to Bourgogne; i.e. you can only declassify into the most-basic bucket.

From Drouhin’s website, I learned they put small parcels of (un-famous) CM 1er vineyards into this bottling (not “declassification,” strictly speaking). In contrast, Dreyfus-Ashby’s website on de Vogue says that their CM 1er is young-vine Musigny (confirming my view).

Can someone let me know what the law on this is? I looked around in some of my books, but couldn’t find a ready answer, and these matters are subject to change, as a general matter.

[Edited to fix spelingk]

well, you are certainly correct that the drouhin wine is a combination of two or more premier cru vineyard chambolles and hence not entitled to a specific premier cru vineyard designation, while the vogue chambolle premier cru is young vine and declassified Musigny. The “opposing” argument is incorrect but I don’t know all the details of the declassification rules - I’m sure Claude does, however.

Thanks Maureen. The Drouhin wine appears to be quite flexible and can include many vineyards. It definitely is a Domaine wine (which is another point I won last night by the easiest of methods: checking the label!). Here is their website blurb on the matter:

“Joseph Drouhin owns several Premier Cru parcels. Since they are too small, these Premier Cru vineyards (Noirots, Hauts Doix, Borniques, Plantes, Combottes) are harvested and vinified together. The name given to this wine is therefore Chambolle-Musigny Premier Cru (since the components of this “cuvée” are all Premier Crus).”

For the record, here is the DA blurb re de Vogue, too:

“Despite owning portions of Les Baudes and Les Fuées in addition to their holding in Amoureuses, there is actually no premier Cru wine in [the Chambolle Musigny 1er Cru bottling], only the declassified juice from the young (under 25 years) Musigny vines—Musigny in short trousers as the domaine likes to call it. The first outing for this wine was the 1995 vintage—before this time quite a lot of juice was sold to the negociants. Today, there are about 2.8 hectares of these young vines, producing around 500 cases of Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru per year.”

When I was in Beaune almost 2 years ago JP Cropsol who doesthe tours and public relations for Drouhin implied that there may be at times a small amount of declassed Musigny fruit in the CM premier cru at times. I’ve not seen this or heard this anywhere else, but I’ve no reason to think JP was fibbing. what else would they do with young vine fruit, or stuff that didn’t make the cut?

Red Musigny can be declassified to Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru, Chambolle-Musigny, or Bourgogne (but not Côte de Nuits-Villages, which is a different, and somewhat peculiar, appellation).

White Musigny can only be declassified to Bourgogne because there is no white wine allowed for Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru or Chambolle-Musigny.

So it looks as though you both were correct (and wrong, too [cheers.gif] ).

Thanks, Claude. Many of us need this kind of nuanced info. Really appreciate it.

You are conspicuously addressing only Musigny, though, which is worrisome. To the point: Is each appellation as specific as this one re de-classification, such that one needs to follow them all temporally (as you do)? Obviously, you have to give a shit, and this is pretty rarefied territory. For example, can Bezes be called St. Jacques but not some other thing…?

This sure reinforces my view that French wine laws are nuts.

I love it when that happens! [snort.gif]

Grand Cru wine from a single vineyard can be (and usually will be) sold under the name of that vineyard, i.e. Chambertin-Clos de Beze. If declassified, it can become 1er Cru of that village without a vineyard name, village wine of that village without a vineyard name or Bourgogne. If juice from two or more Grand Crus were combined in the same wine (rarely happens), the label would be 1er Cru, village or Bourgogne if from the same village. Grand Crus from different villages would be Bourgogne if combined.

Now, Clos St Jacques, for example, is a 1er Cru vineyard and only wine from this vineyard can have that name. No Grand Cru could be declassified to be Gevrey-Chambertin 1er Cru Clos St Jacques. Wine from Clos St Jacques (or any 1er Cru or village vineyard) can be sold with or without the vineyard name. If blended with juice from another vineyard or declassified, there can be no vineyard name on the label.

I think this is quite logical, even if there are a few exceptions to the rule (like white Musigny).

Cheers,
Ville

I am not aware of any exception in the rules here. The thing to remember is that the label on the bottle has to follow the AOC rules. It’s as simple as that.

Check out the 2004’s Leroy… for good examples.

Hi Michael,

Yes, of course you’re right that there’s no exception in the law. It’s more like an exception in the rule of thought, if you get my idea.

In the end it’s just about the fact that red and white wines have their own appellations and there is no appellation for white chambolle or Chambolle 1er Cru.

What Claude says, but each village is slightly different depending on what Appelations are available to them. So a Corton Blanc could be declassified to a 1er Cru or village, but not in Chambolle etc.

Blends of grand crus, I believe can be 1er Cru, blends of 1er have to be village as legally 1er Cru are village + rather than being a separate level.

You can choose to drop to various levels that are legally excepted, so De Vogue Chambolle is their even younger Musigny vines than the 1er Cru, but I can’t remember if they blend other vines into the village as well.

When the juice from two or more 1er Cru vineyards from the same village are blended, they can be labeled 1er Cru of that village. I don’t know all the details of AOC laws, but 1er Crus are a separate level of their own, at least so far as the labeling goes.

Also, I’ve never heard of Vogue’s village Chambolle being from Musigny. Don’t know if there is some, but at least the majority of it comes from village vineyards and a few small 1er Cru plots.

Claude is completely correct (as usual).
Musigny (rouge) can be declassified to all levels below that exist in Chambolle-Musigny …
that´s C-M 1er Cru, C-M. Village or Bourgogne (Pinot Noir).
Cotes-de-Nuits-Village is an Appellation only possible for Brochon/Fixin in the North - and Premeaux/ Comblachien/Corgoloin in the South of the Cotes-de-Nuits.
This is different to Cotes-de-Beaune-Village which covers almost the complete CdBeaune (with exceptions).
Because theres is no white Chambolle-Musigny Appellation (neither 1er Cru nor village), Musigny blanc can only be declassified into Bourgogne blanc.

Reg. Vogüe: the C-M 1er Cru is exclusively young Musigny vines, the C-M Village includes small percentages of 1er Cru Fuées and Baudes.

Correct.
But I often wonderd how it is possible that (for instance) Moillard put the juice of its small parcel Vosne-Romanee Gaudichots into its V-R Malconsorts … and Dujac does the same now?
It should be V-R 1er Cru without a vineyard name.
There are other examples …

Does anybody know ? Claude?

Gaudichots is one of those strange ones. There is a small slither that is only 1er Cru. It may actually be Gaudichots or Malconsorts? When blended with Grand Cru Gaudichots it can be 1er Cru Gaudichots, if not it becomes Malconsorts??, but all of the Grand Cru is 99% (not a true figure) owned by DRC and thus La Tache!

With the 1er Cru. All my reading says it is legally village +, hence calling it village 1er Cru with the vineyard as an afterthought. You are probably correct in that two 1er Cru can be blended and be a 1er Cru, but I know of so few.

With de Vogue that was a contact who told me, but I can’t remember what percentage is Musigny under 15 year vines. It may be all, it may be blended.

\

I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=22.289340,114.041792

Gerhard – If someone wants to take the time to search, I believe that there is an old post on this board by Jeremy Seysses explaining that Dujac combines the Gaudichots with its Malconsorts because geologically they really are the same and are contiguous/continuous, and because Moillard did it and so it fits the tradition requirement. As for Moillard’s getting away with it for a long time, I guess the INAO just looked the other way. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of other examples (at least that I can publicly say). I do know of one producer of Vosne-Romanée who owns a very, very small sliver of a particular premier cru vineyard that he does not label, and I’ve always wondered if the small amount of grapes from that vineyard go into his separately-labelled premier cru from a neighboring vineyard, into his village wine, or if the vines are leased out to another producer with more vines in that particular vineyard.

Don’t forget, too, that there can be a limited mixing of vineyards (and vintages), as frequently occurs with topping up.

Claude,
Do you have any information on when Vogue plans to make Musigny Blanc again? Also what is your take on Forey especially gaudichots?

Sorry for the disordered question in #6, above. I was definitely falling asleep!

And thanks for the answers, all. There are real complexities in this, obviously. For example Clos de Bezes can be labelled Chambertin, but not vice-versa, correct? Mazoyeres can be Charmes, but not vice-versa. And, per Jasper Morris, a “thin stripe along the southern edge” of Gaudichots is “declared … as Malconsorts.” What I was trying to ask in that post was: are there a whole lot of carve-outs where juice from one named vineyard can be declared as coming from another named vineyard?

It makes sense that juice can be made generic, which is not declassification necessarily, e.g. Fuees becoming CM 1er. Thinking about it, my curiosity has morphed from “Declassification” to one about “Reclassification.”

Sorry if I confused you.
There are 3 small pieces of Vosne-Romanée Les Gaudichots classified as 1er Cru - all together some 0.8 ha. The remaining Gaudichots has been upgraded to Grand Cru La Tâche - and is NOT part of this posting.
One piece is a small strip between “Gaudichots ou La Tache”" (GRAND CRU) and Malconsorts - it is 1er Cru Gaudichots - and is blended by Dujac into his 1er Cru Malconsorts … usually it should then become a Vosne-Romanée 1er Cru WITHOUT any vineyard designation … but still is Malconsorts.
That was my question.

It is NOT possible to blend it into the Grand Cru (La Tache).

Two 1er Cru vineyards in the same Village can be blended together and still remain 1er Cru, but loose a definite vineyard designation.
The same when blending two Village sites.

Again Dujac:
In 1991 the domaine blended all of the Bonnes Mares into Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru Gruenchers …
and it still remained Gruenchers !
[scratch.gif]
BTW: a very fine wine indeed !

There is a 3rd example - but I really cannot remember which one at the moment - sorry!

Some vineyards have a slither that is part of Grand Crus. So for example, Montluisants has a part that can be called Clos de la Roche. As such if you blended plots from either side of the divide, as they are both from the same vineyard, could you not thus call it 1er Cru Montluisants?? I think Gaudichots would be the same if DRC didn’t own all of the Grand Cru section!!

The Gruenchers question is a bit different as It doesn’t neighbour Bonnes-Mares and thus doesn’t have any Grand Cru sections… So perhaps it is as noted above something to do with percentages and how much blending in allowed in particular villages??

\

I am here: Google Maps