So…it is pretty much a given that for a wine to be characterized as “great” it must:
Show its individual terroir where it was grown.
Show the varietal character of the grape from which it was made.
To whit:
Terroir: RedBurg afficianados argue, ad naseaum, the subtle differences in the terroir of Richebourg and Romanee-Conti.
I was reading PaulGregutt’s 2’nd edition (BTW, an outstanding read it is) and he trots out the standard shibboleth that when you allow
the grapes to become very ripe, 15%-16%+ potential alcohol, that that is the death knell for any wine to display terroir. (Is that known truth
really the “truth”?? I’ve had plenty of Lodi Zin and Syrah at 16% that shows the classic earthy/mushroomy Lodi terroir). I’ve had plenty of
passitos de Pantelleria that taste like nothing but super-ripe grapes and have never/ever been able to detect even the slightest hint
of their volcanic soils…their terroir.
So…any wine made from very ripe grapes cannot possibly display terroir we are repeatedly told.
Varietal character: We are also repeatedly scolded by the authorities that if a wine does not taste like the grape from which it is made,
or blended, it cannot possibly be good. This is why StaRitaHills Pinots will never be regarded as a “great” PinotNoir…they all have such long hang times
and are all harvested at such high sugar levels that they taste like Syrahs. This is why a Peay or a Dehlinger or a Radio-Coteau Syrah will never be regarded
as a “great” Syrah…they are delicate & elegant and taste like a Syrah made by a Pinot producer. So…any wine that does not show varietal typicity
can never have any hopes for greatness we are told.
Botrytis: I have long maintained that high levels of botrytis obliterate varietal character in those wines. Any number of times, I’ve tried Navarro
BA & TBA GWTs and Rieslings, side by side, and get nothing but that peachy/apricotty botrytis character. I defy anybody to taste these two TBAs side by
side and reliably identify which is GWT and which is Riesling. And if you can’t get that perfumed/lychee varietal character in GWT…then something is the matter.
I’ve tasted plenty of Sauternes over the yrs and I’ve never once got that green-olive/figgy character of Semillon or that herbal/cat-pee character of SauvBlanc
in any of those wines…just that peachy/apricotty character of botrytis and often that caramel/buterscotch of new oak.
So…given these three “truths”…how the heck can anyone possibly characterize Ch.d’Yquem as a “great” wine??? You never hear anyone arguing the nuances
of the terroir in Ch.d’Yquem vs. the terroir in Climens or Suduiraut. You can’t possibly identify any varietal SauvBlanc or Semillon character in d’Yquem.
So…when we call d’Yquem a “great” wine, are we really just cutting it a lot of slack because we have been assured by the “authorities”, be they
Monktown attourneys or some pompous twit of a British writer, that it is “great”. Or is Ch.d’Yquem really a “great” wine even though it violates the above truths.
Curious minds want to know. [pot-stirring/rabble-rousing/trouble-making/authority-questioning.gif]
"So…it is pretty much a given that for a wine to be characterized as “great” it must:
Show its individual terroir where it was grown.
Show the varietal character of the grape from which it was made.
"
I disagree. A great wine elicits an aesthetic experience. How you want to quantify that as degustatory, emotional or religious is up to you. Yquem has been known to turn the trick.
Your criteria for terroir seems quite narrow too. I don’t have to know about the soil when smelling old Haut Brion to know its old Haut Brion, or to nitpick about how its blending is obfuscating the nature of cabernet, or the soul of what graves should be. The wine’s roots bring the taster back to roost. The same could be said for Climens and Yquem. If the edges becomes hazy as a result of the sugar, well that’s up to your palate to decide. I understand your point though…
Well, if Yquem doesn’t show any terroir character, then tell me - where else can you make something else that tastes like it, and why hasn’t anybody done it?
That said, I am a little sympathetic to your position. The issue for me is that it isn’t all that hard to make a sweet wine taste delicious. We are humans, after all. We like sweet things. For me, the pleasure that can be had from an Yquem, at least if it’s less than 30 years old, isn’t vastly different from the pleasure that can be had from a late-harvest riesling or a vidal ice wine or any number of sweet wines (I know, I know, Sauternes fans get touchy when you call them “dessert wines”). I have a feeling that I am not alone in this given that Yquem is the only first growth whose prices are still hanging on to nearabouts what they were five years ago. That’s not to say I don’t recognize what Yquem offers that these don’t, just that the difference isn’t something I’m inclined to dedicate my limited resources to.
Tom,
I am not a terroir expert but Chateau Yquem is situated the highest elevation in a rather flat landscape. I was lucky enough to stay at the Chateau and you can see miles away. At least for me there is Yquem and the rest whether blind or not. When tasted blind Yquem has the incredible texture and banana note.
Ch.d’Yquem really is a “great” wine even though it violates the above truths. Yquem is varietally correct and the varietal is Yquem.
It is one of the few wines that rings a bell in my head. When i drink a merely great Sauternes like Suduiraut or Rieussec 2001, or an off vintage of Yquem, or Yquem in an awkward phase like the 1986 right now, no bell.
Anything that rings that bell is to me a great wine for my purposes. Balance and complexity at the same time may be what makes the bell ring for me. But it’s a sudden meeting of the intellectual, physical, and emotional in a wine, usualy when i don’t expect it.
No one will ever convince me that Three Rivers is not a great wine. Bells every time.
Viader “V” 2007, Maybach surprisingly, Fonseca 1977, Bevan 2007 cabernet (but so far not the others), Groth Reserve 1985 many years ago, Hobbs shiraz 2002 one of the bottles I had but not the others, these are wines that really surprised me by ringing the bell and making me think “perfect.” Yquem has done this for me more than once. Margaux 2000 did it and I was expecting it to be too young to enjoy so I guess that counts as a surprise. I’ve had other good wines that I admired (I had a Jadot CdB last week, great wine but no bell…yet…) and might even give 100 points to, but they were not in a place that rang the bell. I’ve had other bell ringers but I’m drawing a blank.
But that’s my definition of a great wine for my enjoyment purposes.
(edited to add: SQN Incognito. Ding ding ding. On Your Toes and JFTLOI I admired as much or more,but no bell).
I guess you would have to throw Port into the same bucket as d’Yquem. Can you really have a great wine that is not only a sweet blend of grapes, but has distilled spirits added?
Could it be, Keith, that d’Yquem spares no expense in making their wine, way more than other Sauterne chateaus, that makes iit like no other Sauternes? And is why it’s
not replicated by anyone else??
OK, Kevin, I’ll accept that 'Yquem has a unique landscape feature. But there are plenty of vnyds that have unique landscape and it doesn’t necessarily transmit into “terroir” of that wine.
I’ve only had 30 or so d’Yquems in my life, but not sure I could identify in their aroma/taste that I would characterize as “terroir”. Every vnyd is unique in one way or another,
but my palate isn’t perspacacious enough to identify “terroir” in every wine.
Your post rests on a false assumption - that terroir is necessary for ANY wine to be considered great. The exceptions to that general rule do not invalidate the importance of place either - they’re merely exceptions, cf. Grange.
once the “terroir MUST exist for a wine to be great” fallacy is tossed, the rest collapses. As, I suspect, you knew when posting.
I just googled this. Yquem is always unique and different that the others.
Yquem’s terroir is said to be first and foremost the key to the estate’s nearly uncontested quality in sweet wine production. The estate’s size is 189 hectares; however, 126 hectares are planted and only 100 hectares are qualified for producing Sauternes AOC. The average age of the vines is 30 years, and roughly 3 hectares of vines are pulled and replanted each year. The composition of grapes is 80% Semillon and 20% Sauvignon Blanc, which, contrary to most estates, correlates almost directly to the final blend of each vintage. The soil is composed of a mixture of clay, sand, and gravel; however, what makes Yquem’s terroir so unique is that virtually every parcel has a unique soil composition. The estate believes that the diversity of the soil is critical to the quality and expression of the wine. Furthermore, the estate’s location and orientation is essential, providing a perfect environment for producing botrytised grapes. The large Landaise Forest to the South, the Garonne River Valley to the North, and the Ciron River to the west, surround the estate on all corners, providing a perfect microclimate that results in cool morning fog and hot, dry afternoons. It would he hard to recreate in a laboratory a better incubator for the botrytis cinerea Noble Rot.
Hmmmmmm…guess I don’t totally understand this, Kevin. “Terroir” in a wine is usually ascribed, in addition to the climatic conditions, the unique composition of the vnyd’s soil. But this says that
the soil composition of d’Yquem varies from parcel to parcel. This would seem to say that d’Yquem cannot display any terroir because the soil composition varies so much and is not unique. As
compared to other vnyds in Sauternes. Or am I missing something?
And d’Yquem’s proximity to the two rivers (not sure how the proximity to a forest promotes botrytis) is unique for formation of botrytis. That is to say, botrytis forms earlier and
with greater intensity than any other vnyds in Sauternes. That’s something that would be easily quantifiable. Is that really true??
Tom
Open plains have more air movement. Tall Trees might block wind. Just a thought.[/quote]
The botrytis elves live in the forest and only come out during cool Fall nights…Note that an elf isn’t the same as a troll, which is clearly what Tom’s OP was…
Agree, Chris…which is to say, then, that terroir and varietal typicity are not necessary for a “great” wine??
Or is it that sometimes they are, and sometimes they’re not?? And for what wines are they important??
Tom
Tom,
I am not a terroirist but I have my own definition based on my observation of my front yard which is very steep and sunny. My plants tend to get greener and flower earlier and longer than my neighbors. The ideal terroir is about the ideal environment to achieve certain objective and the soil composition is only a part of it.
I am not a wine maker either but the key to making a exceptional Sauternes is having the ideal botrytis affected grapes. Perhaps having the various soil types help achieve that and add complexity and also enable to produce good wines in poor vintages. In Sauternes one looks for the complexity and not necessarily transparency and purity in fruit. Perhaps this definition may not work in Burgundy or in Piedmont but it seems to apply here.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
![[stirthepothal.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f40faec63ca1018898a40805efbf9f0066a3d205.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]"){kind=small}