Howard, while in the past I have gotten quite a bit of helpful advice from you, no need for a snarky comment, which seems to be a habit of yours.
[/quote]
The comment is meant to make a point, not to be snarky. When I want a wine to taste like Burgundy, I drink Burgundy. I probably drink 20 Burgundies for every bottle of Bordeaux I drink. When I drink Bordeaux, I am not looking for it to be a Burgundy substitute. I am looking for it to taste like Bordeaux. Similarly, when I am buying a California Cabernet, I want it to age like a California Cabernet, not like a Bordeaux. I really donāt like modern-styled winemaking where every wine is rich and plush and the wines taste like they could be made anywhere. David Schildknecht once said to me when he was in retail in DC that wines of distinction are wines of distinctiveness. I cannot imagine a great Bordeaux that reminds me of a Burgundy or a great Burgundy that reminds me of Bordeaux.
Itās based on a false premise - that Ducru tends to be big. Whatever that means - not sure if that means high alcohol or brawny - itās wrong on both counts.
Then taking the Figeac over Ducru supposition on its face without characterizing Ducru. Also not true. Ducru and Figeac are of very different character, and most people I know who love red Burgundy like both Ducru and Figeac and wouldnāt rank one over the other.
I also wonder if the Pinot reference to Figeac applies post-2013 with the stylist shift. Rolland is now at the helm. You may be better of backfilling, like I have, on older vintages of Figeac.
The comment is meant to make a point, not to be snarky. When I want a wine to taste like Burgundy, I drink Burgundy. I probably drink 20 Burgundies for every bottle of Bordeaux I drink. When I drink Bordeaux, I am not looking for it to be a Burgundy substitute. I am looking for it to taste like Bordeaux. Similarly, when I am buying a California Cabernet, I want it to age like a California Cabernet, not like a Bordeaux. I really donāt like modern-styled winemaking where every wine is rich and plush and the wines taste like they could be made anywhere. David Schildknecht once said to me when he was in retail in DC that wines of distinction are wines of distinctiveness. I cannot imagine a great Bordeaux that reminds me of a Burgundy or a great Burgundy that reminds me of Bordeaux.
[/quote]
I have had a few Bordeaux that blind, could have been Burgundy. Most notable, the 1959 Beychevelle. But I agree entirely with your point, if you want Burgundy, why drink Bordeaux. More importantly, Dinesh, you really need to go out and taste.
In the end, what people say, or write is unimportant. You are the one who will be drinking, and there is nothing so annoying as waking up one morning and finding the wines you bought based on a review or a recommendation are not to your taste. Rather than come on this board and asking for advice, get a group of friends together and interested in wine, buy a few bottles, open them and taste. You see in the end, my words can never accurately describe what YOU taste.
I have had a few Bordeaux that blind, could have been Burgundy. Most notable, the 1959 Beychevelle. But I agree entirely with your point, if you want Burgundy, why drink Bordeaux. More importantly, Dinesh, you really need to go out and taste.
In the end, what people say, or write is unimportant. You are the one who will be drinking, and there is nothing so annoying as waking up one morning and finding the wines you bought based on a review or a recommendation are not to your taste. Rather than come on this board and asking for advice, get a group of friends together and interested in wine, buy a few bottles, open them and taste. You see in the end, my words can never accurately describe what YOU taste.
[/quote]
No, I wouldnĀ“t call Ducru ābigā ā¦ when itĀ“s good (and there were days when it wasnĀ“t ) itĀ“s a balanced wine with a lot of elegance and fragrance ā¦
Figeac had/has always the problem (if it is one) of roughly one third CS and CF each ā¦ and the green stalky flavours is not to everybodies liking - when itĀ“s too green and disjointed IĀ“m no fan ā¦ but the best vintages (like 1990) can turn out to be really fine. The last vintages had shown more flesh and less herbaciousness ā¦ so weĀ“ll see.
I wouldnĀ“t compare any Bordeaux to Burgundy, the texture is so much different, I like Bordeaux for what it is (when itĀ“s good).
And FWIW I wasnāt comparing Bordeaux to Burgundy either. I simply stated opinion of one of the so called Bordeaux experts āPeople who like Pinot, tend to like Figeacā.
Rightly or wrongly I interpreted that as Figeac tends to be a lighter wine vs Ducru.
Which, of course, was the fingerprint of Figeac. Now, like Les Carmes, that has changed.
Iām guessing that the wine is now more commercialized, certainly the critics love it more, prices have apparently gone up and I assume more sells. Sadly, though, we are losing a very unique style of Bordeaux, all in the trend of the ubiquitization brought about by these modernist consultants.
I like 1990 Figeac a lot, but it is not the best of the best Figeac, IMHO.
Far be it from me to throw cold water on a good posting-board dust up, but for any one just tuning inā¦ Jeff Leve has been crossing swords with various distinguished board members on the direction of Bordeaux styles since at least 2005, when there was an epic thread on the cheapening vs improvements (depending on your palate) at Pape Clement.
The point is this is an age old debate about shifts in styles (since at least the 60ās with Peynaud) and Jeff is just the latest (and tireless) advocate for the new wave.
One consistency in these exchanges: as far as Iāve noticed, Jeff has been essentially saying for 15+ years without fail that the newest vintage of a now-modernized chateau is the ābest everā (assuming a big ripe yearā¦ first 2000, then 2003, then 2005, then 09, 10, 15, 16 and now 18).
The recipe is quite simple: Take some climate change, add in an especially hot-dry summer, dump in some modern enology, and raise it in 100% new oak, and viola!.. the best ever!
Jeff and his wine writer brethren may be entirely sincere in these pronouncements, but scoring at home (and tasting the wines) this sure seems like shameless boosterism and their contribution to the never-ending hype machine that is contemporary wine journalism (not all are participants in this game ā Gilman and Kissak for example have stayed above this but they get far much less play as a result).
The changes at these ābest-everā Chateau are often so extreme, that the notion it is some qualitative metamorphosis at play is silly ā these are first and foremost stylistic recreations. One may prefer this change in style but to compare it to the prior wine as some sort of quantitative exercise is disingenuous.
Sounds like a very idiosyncratic opinion, whoever said that. If anything, Figeac is less Burgundian than its neighbors. It is, however, a wine that appeals to Loire drinkers.
This was exactly my experience tasting the 2015 DDC, which numerous critics (including some I respect) raved about. It was very (very!) smooth and had a ton of soft, sweet fruit, very easy to drink, but it also felt very slick and international styled and frankly boring. It just lacked interest for me. Maybe that was youthful baby fat which will age off to reveal something more interesting, but I wasnāt tempted to buy any.
This is absolutely dead on. The problem is exacerbated by the ridiculously high scores; how many 100 point scores have been given lately? Perfection is not given for an extraordinary individual wine but for something that hits the formula perfectly.
The aspect of the wine writing being discussed in this thread that I find almost impossible to believe is that someone can declare what is currently a barrel sample as āthe best wine ever madeā at a given estate. How can anyone genuinely assess that at a point in time thatās the furthest itāll ever be from maturity and then showing as specifically intended? It is this sort of superlative statement that reduces a writerās credibility.
I get the value of Jeffās site in that few have such detailed history of so many Chateaux, although our palates are not at all aligned. I sit somewhere in the middle on 1975 - it is a tannic vintage, always has been and always will be. There is a lot of pleasure to be had out of its wines, but I think 78 is far superior and side by side, would win out many times over. Compare with some of the better 80s vintages like 85 and 89, and I think many will understand what Jeff is talking about. I am not one to write off a vintage if it doesnāt have to be and 75 certainly doesnāt fall into that camp. It has its charm. I do see what Jeff is talking about with 1995 though, one Iām starting to struggle with more and more, but Iām hoping these wines are just in awkward teenage-like youth and that they will click out of it. Bordeaux often has a long, awkward stage.
Iāve been buying chevalier for years and is one of my personal bordeaux favorites, both the white and red. Had a 04 white with sushi a couple months back that was fantastic. A 06 red with dinner last week from a magnum that was also drinking very well. An easy case purchase every year.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}