I’m wondering if there are any controls over the usage of this designation, or even conventions. Not sure why, but it seems that almost every “low” to mid range burgundy I’ve looked at recently has this designation. Has it always been thus (maybe I haven’t been paying attention). Or has something changed.
I haven’t followed the marketplace so I don’t know if anyone is abusing the term, but I think that would cause them some problems with their peers in Burgundy. It is logical however that these cuvees would be chosen for export (and import). Old vines should produce a wine with good ripeness, and a bit better than average depth, body, and compexity (though one can’t really expect 1er cru complexity from a village wine, etc.).
While you are correct that “vielles vignes” means nothing legally, monopole does have a legal meaning: The wine comes from an appellation with only one owner/producer. Monopole says nothing about quality, but rather about ownership/production.
That´s unfortunately not correct. In many cases the term “Monopole” is used for only parts of an appellation (e.g. “Clos de Ruchottes-Chambertin” - or “Clos des Ursules” or “Clos St-Marc” … or even for brand-like terms like “Clos des Corton Faiveley” for their property in Rognets …
Vielles vignes is an almost-meaningless term. About the only thing it means is that when a winery makes two cuvees of a wine (e.g., Roumier Bonnes Mares in 1988), the grapes in the one labeled VV are older overall. Otherwise, it’s caveat emptor. And, many people won’t even use that designation on wines, no matter how old the grapes are. In many cases, they are a blend of old and young vines anyway.
Like everything in Burgundy, know the producer is the key strategy.