Following the reclassification of St. Emilion in 2013, when Figeac lobbied, but did not come close to receiving its much, sought after promotion to Grand Cru Classe A status, Figeac made steps to improve their wines, image and position on the marketplace.
The first step in the right direction for the resurgence of Chateau Figeac was the hiring of the wine consultant, Michel Rolland and Jean Valmy Nicolas of Chateau La Conseillante. Bringing in Michel Rolland sparked controversy, as the wine of Chateau Figeac has a very traditional fan base.
Todd, I joked with someone a few years ago that one could write up most of the Bordeaux vintage without tasting the wines. Looking at this it seems like that may be true today.
There are producers, IMO, that have never made better wine in the history of the estate than they made in 2016. FWIW, one super wine to look for that is still selling for nothing, for a wine of its quality is Les Carmes Haut Brion.
It’s just another PR stunt: I think there was a need to get the scores out before most of the competition did, to grab a headline or two and attempt to remain relevant. In the past, it was the other way round: the “market” waited with bated breath until the RMP scores emerged. It’s also interesting that whilst the really big names provided samples, many others did not or were not asked to (I presume, since many lesser CCs are absent).
As for the style of the wines, one can only presume that they’re all made in the same style this year because the 2015 report helpfully put them into three categories, one of which was “full-bodied, rich and powerful”. This year they’re mostly “within the elegant, medium-bodied style categories” apparently, which sounds promising.
I’m sure all the 100 pt wines are great wines, but unless progress is officially over and the glass ceiling has finally been reached, the estates must all be capable of producing even greater wines in the future - and what about the 100 pointers of the past? Are they as good as the 2016s? Or is the system obsolete? Should we actually care?
I hasten to add that I don’t have any axe to grind - I’m just mildly amused.
BTW her name is Perrotti-Brown (not Perotti-B).
Actually, there are a boatload of highly experienced tasters and drinkers that have come to the conclusions they have, based on years of experience tasting and buying. I love Bordeaux. That said, I pine for the days when they were, as a group, diferent than they are now. (That’s for my palate). I have a ton of experience with Bordeaux, I have probably drunk over 50 wines born before 1950. And I have bought futures vigorously up until “the big change”. It is not whim, or a sudden desire, to loathe what once was loved. To eschew Bordeaux just plain sucks. The two gripes (for me): what “professional” criticism had done to the wines/market, and the fairly complete homogeneity that many of the wines that I once chased and drank, have achieved. To be sure, I haven’t drunk many for a little while. But many of those “snarky” commentors, from this and other threads/vintages, have. I glean much from them.
Man I cannot wait to be wrong about Bordeaux and be able to start buying and enjoying again. For the record, I am a little compelled to try a few of these, just to see what the fuss is about. Just realized I’ll be 72 before they should “come 'round”.
Perhaps, but mostly through the lens of a modern, universal perspective on Bordeaux. At least for some of us, perhaps a dying breed, Bordeaux meant tradition, classicism and consistency. Many of the marquee Chateaux have been around for centuries. There was a time when you had your favorite Chateaux that you bought regularly, and you knew what you were getting, vintage variations of course. You bought futures before you tasted them, sometimes before critics even reviewed them (or perhaps you just didn’t care what the critics said, you knew your favorites). Now, who knows. One day Pavie makes elegant wines (you say they sucked, some of us think otherwise), the next day Perse amps them up. He takes them to the big brawny opulent model, and then for whatever reason, perhaps whim, he tries to dial them back to now make “elegant” wines. Reminds me of the Calloway golf model: Every year, make the golf club head bigger and bigger and bigger, and then when you cannot make it any bigger - it was looking like a pumpkin on a stick - then make them smaller and declare its the new shits. Many Bordeaux have become charicatures of Bordeaux as well, just like the pumpkin on a stick.
I think Parker, Rolland, Perse, et al, have done a tremendous disservice to the entire region of Bordeaux over the last 20 years. When you have classic stalwarts like Figeac jumping to the dark side, adopting the Rolland magic formula, and then getting 100 points, you know something is wrong. And what happens to Figeac in five years when the next generation, and critics, decide they prefer a return to elegant, balanced wines? Do they fire Rolland and try something new?
Incidentally, I did buy that 2016 Les Carmes Haut Brion, per your recommendation. I’ve been a very loyal fan of this under-the-radar Chateau for 20+ years. The turn to a more modern style seems to have started in 2014, and I have to admit that it’s a very good wine, albeit not as distinct as before. I will try the 2015 and 2016, but am guessing that the riper vintages will produce something beyond my tastes, but who knows, perhaps I’ll like it.
I personally do not find that to be true. But that’s my view, which only differs from yours, and there is no problem with that on either side.
To be sure, I haven’t drunk many for a little while. But many of those “snarky” commentors, from this and other threads/vintages, have. I glean much from them.
I would not be so sure how many of the comments come from people that have actually tasted or drank that many wines. Some folks yes, have tasted, liked, or disliked. Which is fine. But as you can see from this thread, so far, I am probably the only person to have actually tasted the wines. Yet, there sure are a lot of opinions on the subject. It’s nothing new, the Internet has always been like that. I just find it funny that folks have such strong views on wines they have not tasted. This is not only for Bordeaux, I see it often on numerous threads.
Haha, Jeffois, its the internet and a wine forum, plus like you know what, we all have them (opinions and other things)!
And I say that with envy, as Charlie and I are just simple Central Florida country folk, but we cannot all be international playboys flying to France in our private jets with VIP access to all Chateaux.
But in our defense, we have tasted many many vintages of these wines that you adore.
This is nothing new. Honestly, those comments have been made about wines for centuries. Things change. Life changes. Vineyards change. Varietals and blends move. You can date that to the discovery of cork, phylloxera, 1929, the frost of 1956, 1959, 1982, 1989 etc.
You bought futures before you tasted them, sometimes before critics even reviewed them (or perhaps you just didn’t care what the critics said, you knew your favorites). Now, who knows.
Many Bordeaux have become charicatures of Bordeaux as well, just like the pumpkin on a stick.
I know you think that, and you know I find that silly. I still have love for you though.
I think Parker, Rolland, Perse, et al, have done a tremendous disservice to the entire region of Bordeaux over the last 20 years.
And you know I find that even sillier. Wines today are more elegant, silkier, fresher and offer more purity of fruit. They drink younger and age just as well. Plus, today, some second wines are now better than many of the Grand Vin from the same estate in the 70’s and 80’s. You have better vintages more often and best of all, there are now numerous, delicious wines from vineyards and appellations that you never thought of in the past, making great juice for small amounts of money. Yes, those green, unripe, harsher characteristics are for the most part gone, as are high yields and unripe fruits. You are not happy, and so are an extreme minority of folks, but that is not the real world for most wine consumers or producers.
When you have classic stalwarts like Figeac jumping to the dark side, adopting the Rolland magic formula, and then getting 100 points, you know something is wrong.
You know this how? Remind me of the recent vintages of Figeac you have tasted? FWIW, Figeac has not made wines this good since the 1940’s. I found the 2015 to be stunning and the 2016 is even better! It has been mind-blowing every time I have tasted it.
I did buy that 2016 Les Carmes Haut Brion, per your recommendation. I’ve been a very loyal fan of this under-the-radar Chateau for 20+ years. The turn to a more modern style seems to have started in 2014, and I have to admit that it’s a very good wine, albeit not as distinct as before. I will try the 2015 and 2016, but am guessing that the riper vintages will produce something beyond my tastes, but who knows, perhaps I’ll like it.
Thanks for the trust. Let me know. I find this to be a beautiful wine. I bought it for my own cellar as well. The wine began moving forward with the 2012, but things jumped up in 2015. 2015 is a bit lusher and softer than 2016, but it’s just great. 2016 has more depth of flavor, complexity and concentration, and more freshness as well.
Just so people are clear, I like Robert. We are never going to agree. But he loves wine, and except for voicing opinions on wines he has NOT tasted, he gives it thought and I think we get along great. People do not need to agree. They just need to be into it and give it a bit of thought.
I quitely enjoyed a 375 of 2014 Figeac on release, and they were affordable at $50 per. I noted on this Board that is was very good to excellent. I did not post a more detailed note in an independent thread, was just not compelled. I did not go out and buy more, however, like I did many 2014s. I would not call the 2014 vintage of Figeac, “Rollandized,” but again, having had so many wines of his in so many vintages - including a surprising number of Pavies for a guy that professes to dislike Pavie - the direction to me is pretty clear, and the hand will be shown more in riper vintages. Your scores tell me what I need to know, as well. Of course, this is all idle prognostication by me, not all of us have the luxury to taste these wines before release, and I do not attend large industry tasting events, thinking them a terrible venue for the assessment of wine. I need the bottle. Ha, that sounded wrong, I need time and a bottle to promptly evaluate and hopefully enjoy a bottle. I still really do not comprehend how someone can taste 100 wines in a setting and accurately evaluate, notate and score wines. My simple palate does not have that expertise.
You liked 2014 Figeac! There is hope for you yet FWIW, Rolland had just as much input in the 2014 as he did the 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016. If you can, try the 15 and 16 when it is released. I’d be curious as to your view. Also, there is even better news for Figeac lovers, they are slowly finishing their new, state of the art cellars, so it is possible that you will see even better wines in the years to come from the estate.
Your scores tell me what I need to know, as well.
Thank you. I quite agree
I still really do not comprehend how someone can taste 100 wines in a setting and accurately evaluate, notate and score wines. My simple palate does not have that expertise.
The same way some folks can run 4-minute miles, comprehend complex math solutions, paint, play instruments, make perfect dices in the kitchen, hit three-point shots etc. We all have different skill sets. Just because you cannot, or chose not to do it, does not mean it is not proficiently done by others.
FWIW, I seldom taste 100 wines in a single session. It is too much for me. Plus, it takes me about 2-3 minutes per wine, so if I did, it would be an all-day tasting with a break for an easy lunch.
Don’t know Figeac, but at the Conseillante vertical I went to the 2015 was excellent, very reminiscent of the 2009. Best 2015 I have tasted actually. That’s just one vintage but it didn’t seem like a sharp change in style. Bearing in mind of course that right bank wines from warm years will always express a lot of fruit (in both 09 and 15)
I tend to agree with Robert generally, but not in this case. Like Robert I liked very much the 2014 Figeac, but the 2015 is on another level.
I have tasted both Figeac and La Conseillante 2015s and liked them both. I was afraid for Figeac, one of my favorite Bordeaux, that it would end up the kind of mess of a typical Rolland wine. But the instructions to Rolland were clear, they wanted a great Figeac. And it seems to have worked. Frederic Faye is a tough character and used Rolland i am told mostly in the blending and the result is a splendid Figeac. Bear in mind also that Figeac does have a higher proportion of Cabernet around 70% of Sauvignon and Franc, so even if it was full unadulterated Rolland, he would do less damage here than most.
Conseillante was also pretty strong, although I see far less change than the wines made in the previous era.
Jeff, you are awesome and this is one of the best posts I’ve seen in a long time. Sometimes it doesn’t even matter if people have drank the wines, as when they drink it they already have confirmation bias. With all that said, I totally respect different opinions. The only thing that drives me nuts is when people start confusing the subjective with objective…
FWIW, Rolland had just as much input in the 2014 as he did the 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016. If you can, try the 15 and 16 when it is released. I’d be curious as to your view. Also, there is even better news for Figeac lovers, they are slowly finishing their new, state of the art cellars, so it is possible that you will see even better wines in the years to come from the estate.
