Mazoyeres or Charmes-Chambertin - interchangeable?

WINE TALK
#1

carried over tangent from: https://wineimport.discoursehosting.net/t/tn-all-33-grand-cru/50512/1

Hi Peter -

I am glad you purchased the book - it is my favorite Burgundy book! My wife had issues with Sotheby’s too when trying to purchase it for my birthday last spring and we live in the US. At first she did not have a button to add the book to the shopping cart, so she called and since the cost of the book was less than their minimum order they would not sell it. She ended up calling Berry Brother’s in the UK [my wife rocks!].

A few weeks after our initial discussion I sent an email to Allen Meadows and he said Mazoyeres and Charmes were interchangeable, but before I did that I sent an email to Clive Coates and he responded that they were not. I did a third thing for clarification which was the most convincing argument for me that they are not, but I prefer to not go until details online [take that for what it is worth].

On page 93 Morris is talking about “surface area” not AC. On page 125 he writes that Chambertin belongs to AC Chambertin and that Clos de Beze belongs to AC Clos de Beze. He also mentions that Clos de Beze can be sold as Chambertin and that it rarely occurs . I only have Rousseau’s Clos de Beze to check and it is labeled as Clos de Beze with an AC of Clos de Beze. I do not own any Chambertin.

For Charmes he writes that it belongs to AC Charmes-Chambertin and for Mazoyeres he writes AC Mazoyeres or Charmes-Chambertin. I would think if the vineyards were fully interchangeable they should have the same AC’s and they don’t.

Ray can you try and label your wine solely sourced from Charmes as Mazoyeres and see what happens?

#2

This is the impression I’m under (would love to hear if I’m wrong or right):
All Mazoyeres is (and can be labeled as) Charmes, but not all Charmes is (and can be labeled as) Mazoyeres.

#3

Hey Ken
I will certainly be keeping these two wines separate. It is difficult to speak of these things without sounding like a commercial, but here is my plan:

Wines that were a result of grapes sourced at Aux Charmes Hautes will be labeled Charmes-Chambertin ‘Aux Charmes Hautes’. This section is the most West (or top when looking at the typical maps) of the two Aux Charmes climats. This section is closest to Le Chambertin and has been classified on a tier above both the lower section of Aux Charmes (Bas) as well as Mazoyères (later becoming Mazoyères ou Charmes).

Our Mazoyères that we just picked up this year is located at the top of Mazoyères, literally starting at the road dividing it from Latricieres, 23 or so rows from the stone vigneron shed. We will label this either Charmes-Chambertin ‘Aux Mazoyères’ or Mazoyères-Chambertin. I’m leaning towards the straight Mazoyères labeling since I believe it to be more historically interesting, more accurate.

As far as these being interchangeable, it seems certain that Mazoyères ou Charmes can be labeled as either Mazoyères or (‘ou’ in French) Charmes. This is very cut and dry. And Aux Charmes has no right to label as Mazoyères.

There are clear reasons why the confusion persists. Mazoyères has a tough reputation and Charmes is easier to sell. As it turns out, very good wine comes from both sections of Aux Charmes and from different sections of Mazoyères. One thing is for sure, blending all of the wines together would result in:

Less transparency
More financial gains if selling under the Charmes name
Confusion in knowing the true origins of the grapes

With these things in mind, I’ve decided to be transparent about it all. I believe each has something unique to offer. Albeit, I know much more about Aux Charmes than I do about Mazoyères since it is difficult to find clear examples of this. Though listing the names of producers who’s Charmes is from Mazoyères would be listing a roll call of some of my favorite domaines.

Of note, since all of Mazoyères can be labeled as Charmes, buying the grapes is the exact same price…based on the reputation of Charmes itself

Cheers

Ray

#4

So, is this accurate…or not? I thought that was the case, but…I never had any problem spelling Mazoyeres… [scratch.gif]

#5

No wines resulting from grapes grown at either of the two ‘Aux Charmes’ sections can be labeled as Mazoyères

There is a very simple and direct way of looking at this.

There are two ‘Aux Charmes’ sections (Hautes and Bas was what they once were known as)
Both of these are Charmes proper as some call them today. They can only be Charmes-Chambertin once they are wines

There are two ‘Mazoyeres ou Charmes’ sections. Literally translated as Mazoyères or Charmes. Take this literally as the resulting wines can be labeled as either Mazoyères-Chambertin or Charmes-Chambertin.

I hope this helps

#6

I have never understood why Mazoyères has a tough reputation, esp. having had the wonderful wines from Mazoyeres from Jacky Truchot (labeled Charmes). I have never seen or tasted Charmes and Mazoyeres from the same producer side by side and I look forward to being able to do so in the future, no matter how Ray decides to label the wines.

#7

Taupenot-Merme makes a Mazoyères-Chambertin and a Charmes-Chambertin that are both distinct cuvées. Never had them side by side, but it could definitely be interesting to do! [dance-clap.gif]

#8

Howard [or any else] -

If you see the '01 Perrot-Minot “Mazoyeres” buy it! I am not the biggest fan of Perrot-Minot and was stunned at how much I enjoyed that wine. I am not sure if it was a function of how great the '01 vintage is or the vineyard, but it ranks up there as one of those few experiences all series Burgundy drinkers end up unsuccessfully chasing after…

We enjoyed it at a restaurant [Corduroy in DC] on someone else’s dime to boot!! We inquired about the remaining bottles and it turned out we had the last one.

I will seriously trade someone an equivalent wine/$$ if they will part with one…

Ken

#9

You know, I always got the impression that when one vineyard (say, Clos de Beze or Mazoyères) could be labeled as either itself or another vineyard (say, Chambertin or Charmes, respectively), but where the reverse was not permitted, there was this implicit idea that the one which could be labeled either of the two was considered superior to the other. Although I am no expert, I am well aware that there are usually all kinds of historical reasons why this might be the case. The vineyards may have previously been considered merely different parcels of the same vineyard, or the wines may have been blended together for some period of time, or any of the many land and legal disputes that dot the history of Burgundy could have created such a result. But that history and those disputes were often fundamentally rooted in commercial decisions.

Although it is not an exact analog (in fact it is really the opposite case), take the example of the portion of La Tache that is now known as Les Gaudichots ou La Tache. Although it hasn’t been bottled separately from La Tache proper in many decades (at least not for sale and public consumption), there was a time when it was just sold as Les Gaudichots and was ranked slightly lower in status by some (e.g. Lavalle) than La Tache proper. Meadows goes through the history in significant detail in his book. Part of the point is that there were efforts to label Les Gaudichots as La Tache to piggyback on the commercial success of La Tache, just as there were efforts by the Liger-Belair family to obtain legal protection for La Tache in order to prevent its value from being diluted by others who bottled Les Gaudichots under the same name. Ultimately, I understand that the Liger-Belair family lost, but you could easily imagine a similar historical lawsuit being decided the other way among owners of Mazoyères and Aux Charmes. Perhaps someone who knows more detail about the legal history of these Gevrey vineyards could speak up. This discussion makes me question why the reputation of Mazoyères is slightly lower than that of Charmes, when Mazoyères seems to be the one with tighter legal protection.

#10

OK…Ken - first of all - thanks for starting this thread. Second…thanks for taking interest to e-mailing Meadows and Coates re above. Thanks God that Meadows said : yes - it is inter-exchangeble.

The confusion was caused by the difference ( or failure to understand the difference ) between a climat and a AC. AC system which was born for many purposes but mainly : (1) to confirm or to tranform what had been the traditions there into laws and (2) how one should or is allowed to label the juice in Burgundy.

Climats are born out of tradition which are different than AC which was born in early 30s.

For example : Chambertin is a climat and it is also the name of an offical AC : Appellation Chambertin Controllee.
Clos de Beze is a climant and its official AC name : Appellation Chambertin-Clos de Beze Controllee.

To answer your quote :

On page 125 he writes that Chambertin belongs to AC Chambertin and that Clos de Beze belongs to AC Clos de Beze. He also mentions that Clos de Beze can be sold as Chambertin and that it rarely occurs >

[

Yes - Morris did wrote that.

.

Juice from climat : Clos de Beze has the right to be labelled as AC Chambertin. Please see what Morris wrote on page 125 in that he also wrote :

*******On page page 125 Jasper Morris started his description of each of the 9 g-cru of Gervey-Chambertin.
For Chambertin, he reported the size of : 12.90 ha and with a notion which said : plus 15.40 ha of Clos ede Beze.
For Chambertin-Clos de Beze, he reported the size of : 15.40 ha. ( There is no notion ). *****

Which means for AC Chambertin, its total size is : 12.09 ha ( size of climat Chambertin ) plus 15.40 ha of Clos de Beze = 27.49 ha.

I would like to add that according to AC text. AC Chambertin lists 2 climats : Chambertin and Clos de Beze and that AC Chambertin-Clos de Beze list only 1 climat : Clos de Beze. So…in a way juice from climat Clos de Beze has the right to be labelled under 2 AC ( Appellation Chambertin Controllee or Appleation Chambertin-Clos de Beze Controllee ) whereas juice from climat Chambertin could only be labelled under 1 AC : Appellation Chambertin Controllee.


Ken said :…

For Charmes he writes that it belongs to AC Charmes-Chambertin and for Mazoyeres he writes AC Mazoyeres or Charmes-Chambertin. I would think if the vineyards were fully interchangeable they should have the same AC’s and they don’t.

Ken - I unerstand you point as Morris was not very clear in what he said above ( at the bottom part of page 127 ).

How about let us check what he wrote about the size ( or surface area ) of the AC ( on the same page : 127 ).

For Charmes-Chamebrtin he reported the size of : 12.24 ha with a notion which said : plus 18.50 ha of Mazoyeres-Chambertin; and
For Mazoyeres-Chambertin he reported the size of : 18.50 ha with a notiion which said : plus 12.24 ha of Charmes-Chambertin. >



What Morris really said are :

The size of the climat Charmes is : 12.24 ha and for the AC Charmes-Chamebrtin …one should add the size of climat Mazoyeres : 18.50 ha,
The size of the climat Mazoyeres is : 18.50 ha and for the AC Mazoyeres-Chambertin…one should add the size of climat Charmes : 12.24 ha.

If you add the size fo the above 2 climats the total is : 30.74 ha.

Coates reported the size of Charmes-Chambertin and Mazoyeres-Chambertin ( on page 67 of his 1st Edition of Cote dOr ) : 30.83 ha.

Since the size of both AC ( Charmes-Chambertin and Mazoyeres-Chambertin ) is exactly the same - hence inter-exchangeble.

#11

Peter, I am sure that if the question was posed to Allen in the manner:

“Can you label a wine produced from the grapes of Aux Charmes as Mazoyeres?” his response may be different.

#12

but I believe Maz. CAN be labeled as Charmes. Maz. is actually within Charmes, isn’t it?

#13

Yes…I love your jokes. [pillow-fight.gif]

You question is beautiful …but may I suggested that the question should be amended as follows : Mr. Meadows - under the legal text and in accordance with the AC laws : could the juice from the climat : aux Charmes ( or Charmes proper ) be legally labelled as : Appellation Mazoyeres-Chambertin Controllee ".

Meadows most properly will answer : Yes - Roy…you could. But why are you doing this ? Mr. Walker…guess you are aware that Charmes could be sold for more money becasue it is more easy to say it and not many people could pronounce the word Mazoyeres properly!!

Roy…let me tell you a story at the Town Hall in Gervey during meeting on July 04, 1934 ( or maybe on July 05, 1933 ) when they were drafting the AC laws for the lieux-dites Charmes and Mazoyeres. The arguements so intense and to avoid a fight…the Chairman of the AC Committee agreed that juice from both lieux-dites are free to bottle the way they wish. grouphug

#14

No…not really - the confusion was perhaps cause by just looking a a map and also…because of commercial reasons ( that Mayozeres was considered lower in quality than Charmes - which I do not necessary agree ).

#15

I am certain it is not clear because I realize we are talking about two different things. My initial point’s intention in the previous thread was related to that wines solely sourced from Charmes cannot be labeled as Mazoreyes. I still contend that is the case. You are talking about surface area. Morris interchanges between both as well - I noticed on page 124 in the upper left margin he writes “** The contiguous vineyards of Charmes and Mazoyeres may be sold under either name”. This really contradicts what he writes for the AC of Charmes - further confusing it!! Ray is really clear from his experience you cannot label a bottle solely sourced from Charmes as Mazoreyes. Any and all confusion comes for the fact that no one is trying to do such.

The very first time I heard this concept was from a Beaune broker. This was the first experience I had that enlightened me to the notion there is so much one can learn from a bottle’s label. Being able to read a bottle’s label back and front makes you a more informed consumer. They pointed out a bottle on a shelf and said it was “illegal” for several reasons. It was a white Burgundy and I cannot remember the Domaine. Basically the sizing of the Vineyard’s name was in a font too large with respect to the font of the AC. It had a French tax stamp on the top of the capsule which they contended that French tax was probably never collected. Also their was an image of a pregnant woman with a line through her, which was not approved by the US surgeon general therefore in violation with US ATF labeling. The back label was in French as well. The US import sticker was on the side was in compliance that including the US surgeon general’s warning.

In an instant they were able to look at the bottle and gather all that information - truly impressive to me! But until someone shows a customer [those of us at the end of the line of all markups] one will never know. This kind of knowledge educates you on the supply chain, the tiers of markup [coupled with your local alcohol laws] and most importantly potential storage [there are even more signs of storage/provenance]!

In our conversation I remember them mentioning Mazoyeres and Charmes labeling. This is a person who lives in Beaune and brokers for Burgundies that go all over the world - it is there business to know…

So can we agree to, beside the greatness of complexity to Burgundy wines there is sadly an equal negative complexity to Burgundy AC laws and understanding however without them we would not have the enjoyment they bring? [truce.gif]

#16

Perhaps someone who knows more detail about the legal history of these Gevrey vineyards could speak up. This discussion makes me question why the reputation of Mazoyères is slightly lower than that of Charmes, when Mazoyères seems to be the one with tighter legal protection.

Michael…let me tell you a story about what happened during the evening at the Town Hall in Gervey when the AC Committee were drafting laws regarding the climats : Chambertin and Clos de Beze.

One of land owner Roger, who own more land in CdBeze than Chambertin, stood up and demanded - as instructed by his wife Christina : the juice from CdBese …should be allowed to be labelled under the AC name : Chambertin. He knew the proposition could be passed because Chriistina older brother, Pierre, who is a big land owner in Chambertin would not object to it ( since they had talked about it during many dinners conversations which included many people on the Committee ).

After the resolution was passed, Pierre went home and his wife complained to him, why he did not ask the permission to have his Chambertin could also be labelled as CdBeze ( like they did in Charmes and Mazoyeres ). Pierre said : honey - do not be foolish, why should we label Chambertin as CdBeze. Beside…your husband and me know what we are doing ?? [highfive.gif]

#17

Hi Everybody,

To make it simple, both Charmes and Mazoyères are part of the 33 GC of Burgundy, despite the fact you can sell the Charmes Chambertin both under the Name of Charmes or Mazoyères and vice versa. Despite this strange evolution in history (Burgundy is always simple), I strongly believe these are very distinctive and as a defender of the climat in Burgundy I consider there is undoubtedly neither 7 nor 8 GC in Gevrey Chambertin but truly 9…

Usually and in their youth, the CC is quite often more expressive with quite exuberant red fruit but a little more monolitic compared to the MC which is usually a bit more complex more refined with touch of floral notes, spices and black fruit. The MC is definitively even more structured. The MC has usually some touch of delicacy and finesse at a very high level and despite the fact the MC is facing the Latricières, it can be regarded as an elegant Chambertin whereas the CC, opposite to the Chambertin would have certainly more the character of the Latricières.

The best is to try them both side by side I fully agree, in the same vintage of course and preferably when young… [cheers.gif]

A votre santé !

Romain

#18

“** The contiguous vineyards of Charmes and Mazoyeres may be sold under either name”. This really contradicts what he writes for the AC of Charmes - further confusing it!! Ray is really clear from his experience you cannot label a bottle solely sourced from Charmes as Mazoreyes. Any and all confusion comes for the fact that no one is trying to do such.

Ken…one last word from me. If you accepted that they are inter-exchangeble then…Morris is not contradicting of what he said in his book.

I know Ray since he started in ParkerB and then turned Vigeron - but an excellent one ( depsite the fact of only a few vintage ). I admire him a lot [cheers.gif] so I should not say anything more …because it may hurt my admiration towards him.

Perhaps…you could alert Meadows of this thread - not ?

#19

Despite this strange evolution in history (Burgundy is always simple),

I love this comment… [wink.gif]

Simple - but defies logic. Specially to an out-sider who is from China; than maybe not - if I apply the thoughts of grapes-growing with the concepts of rice-farming where we use the Luna Calender.

#20

The right was (asked for and) given to Mazoyeres because of the reasons stated. Aux Charmes didn’t need to have the right to be labeled under a name that was thought to be inferior.

Of note, while Aux Charmes Hauts is classed as Premier Cuvee in 1855 by Jean (Jules) Lavalle, Charmes Bas and Mazoyeres were both classified as Deuxieme Cuvee.

pic from original printed in 1855