Mazoyeres or Charmes-Chambertin - interchangeable?

WINE TALK
21

really? new comers need this knowledge because?

you hear/read things that supports your argument and ignore everything else. i could have stopped with coates [ray saw the email] but i asked meadows weeks later in a minor question with a different purpose email all-togeher just to get his interpretation. i don’t have to share that…

when morris talks about the ac for the wines - the only thing that matters on what can be on a label he is inconsistent. when i made my initial assertion it was not because of morris or coates but the beaune broker. i used morris later because i sincerely interpret what he writes for charmes and mazoreyers on p127 demonstrates they are not bidirectional because of their AC’s.

i was able to get confirmation to what that broker told me year’s ago very similar to ray’s experience with labeling from another burgundian! i did this as the tie breaker for me between coates and meadows…

22

Welcome, Romain and thanks for your clarifying comments. I hope we see more of you here.

Ray – You’ll note that Lavalle classified only 3ha of Charmes, not the current 12+ that exist of Aux Charmes.

23

Thanks for the comment. He actually sized tem up fairly close to what we have today. He has Charmes Bas at 9ha, Hauts at 3…12 in total at that time and around that today. Mazoyeres is at 18 ha 36 a. So, What are your thoughts on this data?

24

Yes, the rest of Charmes and all of Mazoyères are classified as Deuxièmes Cuvée de Finage – what we today would probably call the better premiers crus. I can agree with that. Incidentally, although he classifies Clos St-Jacques, Grande-Chapelle, Charmes, Grillote, and Casetiers all as Premières Cuvées de Finage, he says that they all have lesser parts that should only be Deuxième or Troisième, yet Charmes is the only one where he specifically indicates part as Deuxième.

25

It is the upper side, the western side that is classed as higher. Or do you see it another way? I guess I am just confused as to why you wanted me to notice it says 3ha for Charmes (Hauts)…

26

Yes, he specifically says “hauts.”

27

Also Charmes wasn’t the only Climat he did this with. He mentions Ruchotte (basse) at 1 ha 40 a in deuxieme cuvée as well. He did the same with Chapelle. With Chapelle (haute) in premiere cuvée and Chapelle (petite) on Deuxieme

28

Yes, but he didn’t mention them in the text, just in his listing (Mazy, too). He also did it with Grillotte, but like Charmes, mentioned it in the text.

29

Was that what you mentioned a few posts up? Sorry I can’t understand where you are going with this

30

Read his paragraph after the listing of the vineyards.

31

I’ve read the book a few times, Claude. I also just read the section you mentioned again. I don’t see what connection you are trying to make. Do you mind filling everyone in on it?

32

Ken said : **** really? new comers need this knowledge because? ****


Ken…I quote the following message ( see below ) in a polite ( repeat : polite ) way and it means what it say : that Burgundy is complex ( and that if there are new comers to this Board ) that they will notice that there are 2 views as follows : (1) your view ( which share with Roy Walker ) that Charmes and Mazoyeres are not inter-ex-changeable and that only Charmes is allowed to be labelled as Mazoyeres; and (2) my ( and cluade view )…that they are inter-exchangeble.

The purpose is not ( repeat not ) to win any contest ( or disargeement ) but to make sure that new comers to this Board has a better understanding of the complexity in Burgundy


Ken …thanks for positng your comments as quoted here :

you hear/read things that supports your argument and ignore everything else. i could have stopped with coates [ray saw the email] but i asked meadows weeks later in a minor question with a different purpose email all-togeher just to get his interpretation. i don’t have to share that…

Please do not mis-understnad what I said…we do have disargeement but that is OK as Burgundy is as complex as it could be. If I posted too many stories re what happened in the Town Hall in Gervey to support my view then I am sorry. I do it just to have fun. That is my nature…if I cause any confusion ( or up-set anyone ) …I am sorry again. [bow.gif]


The purpose is not ( repeat not ) to win any contest ( or disargeement ) but to make sure that new comers to this Board has a better understanding of the complexity in Burgundy

33

Ray…the sizes of which quoted in your messages and Claude messages are very closed to what Morris reported in his book and ( also that of Coates 1st Edition of CdOr ). I do not own…Coates 2nd edition of CdOr.

One small question : did you own and read Morris Inside Buargundy. I love the book. I tried to order the Book from Sotheby ( in NY ) earlier but they do not ship to Canada. Surprising I got it from Berry Brother in UK very fast (and love their services ).

Why I post above message ?

Just to let you know about Jasper Morris as he is one of many Burgundy writers with whom I admire and trust ( sorry Claude - you and Meadows are also my admirer too ). Jasper started in Burugndy since 1981…and his mentor is Becky Wasserman.

34

Ray…when happend in the days of Laval …is ( or was ) an important part of history. Like Romain said ; strange evolution in history ( in Burgundy ). Please remember that I said in my previous post. AC was created in the 1930s to confirm or tranform traditions into laws - which is not that easy to do.

One needs to look at the official text of the 2 AC : Appellation Charmes-Chambertin Controllee and Appellation Mazoyeres-Chambertin Controllle. One will notice that each of these 2 AC list 2 climats : Charmes and Mazoyeres.

I am not able to find the above mentioned texts ( but even if I do…the way they do is quite confusing ).

BTW…from eading the messages between Claude and you ( which I love to read them ) are you two are saying that the climat : Charmes consists of at least 2 or may 3 sub-climats : which are aux-Camres, Bas-Charmes and or Charmes -proper. Am I right Roy or Claude ?

Please clarify for me and for other new comers to this Board flirtysmile

35

IMO, this issue is not one of “views,” but rather Facts. Two diametrically opposed viewpoints on this matter (whether Charmes and Mazoyeres are interchangeable) cannot both be right, and there’s no room for debate. The law is what the law is, and it seems that some (or all) of us are ignorant as to the details thereof.

Does anybody have a citation to any controlling legal authority on this matter?

36

Hey Peter
I’ve met Jasper a few times and I bought his book early on. As a reference point, I’ve bought nearly every book on Burgundy in French and English that I have been able to find. Please don’t mistake this as a brag or anything along those lines. It is just to mention that I have studied the information that is out there.

Also, I really do mean this in the nicest way, but just a friendly reminder that my name is not Roy. You can feel free to call me whatever you wish however. No worries.

Anyhow, the back and forth with Claude is fine. I have no horse in this race. I am just stating what was written before and what the BIVB says. Nothing more

37

Very sorry - Ray. I believe it was not the first I do that. Very sorry again.

38

Hey Peter
Today there is:

Mazoyères ou Charmes (2 sections)
and
Aux Charmes (2 sections)

Charmes-Chambertin can come from both of these lieux-dits, 4 sections (written just above) in total
Mazoyères-Chambertin can come from the two sections just South of the two ‘Aux Charmes’ sections, those known as ‘Mazoyères ou Charmes’

At the time of Lavalle, there was:

Charmes (Hauts)
Charmes (Bas)
Mazoyères

So, three sections were specified.

We do not today commonly describe these places beyond Aux Charmes and Mazoyères ou Charmes. But, I still appreciate the history of it all

And, no worries. You can call me anything besides a Bordeaux drinker.

39

Hi Brian…thanks you for taking time and interest in follwoing this thread.

In my view the official citation of the controlling legal document is : the text of the AC Laws regarding Gervey-Chambertin.

I remembered in the old days when I was new and posting in ParkerB - an European wine-writter pointed out my mistake ( or misunderstand of the complexity of Burgundy ). He also gave me a link the Official Text of Gervery-Chambertin - which I did not keep a copy. Even if we are able to obtain the link and look at the text - it is confusing. Here are what I remember :

They listed the official names of the 9 G-cru in a table which consists of Lines and Columns.

In Line 1 - Column A ( the official name of the AC ) : Chambertin ; Column B ( the list of the climat ou lieu-dite or lieux-dites ) : Chambertin and Clos de Beze; and then Column C ( the size of the AC or liex-dite ) : 12.90 ha and 15.40 ha.

In Line 2 - Column A ( the official name of the AC ) : Chambertin-Clos de Beze ; Column B ( the list of the climat ou lieu-dite or lieux-dites ) :Clos de Beze; and then Column C ( the size of the AC or liex-dite ) : 15.40 ha.

then :

In Line 8 - Column A ( official name of the AC ) : Charmes-Chambertin ou ( please note here the AC authority add the word ou right behind the offical AC name ) ; Column B ( the list of the climat ou lieu-dite or lieux-dites ) : Charmes et/ou Mazoyeres; and then Column C ( the size of the AC or liex-dite ) : 12.24 et /ou 18.50 ha. ha.

In Line 9 - Column A ( official name of the AC ) : Mazoyeres-Chambertin; Column B ( the list of the climat ou lieu-dite ou lieux-dites ) : Mazoyeres et/ou Charmes and then Column C ( the size of the AC or liex-dite ) : 18.50 ha et/ou 12.24 ha.

From what I read of the above text ( or table ) …my understand is : it is inter-exchangeble.

40

As long as wines made from grapes from “Aux Charmes” can be labeled as “Charmes-Chambertin,” then I believe the map above (if accurate) visually explains how all “Mazoyeres-Chambertin” can be labeled as “Charmes-Chambertin,” but not all “Charmes-Chambertin” can be labeled as “Mazoyeres-Chambertin.”

If wines made from grapes from “Aux Charmes” cannot be labeled as “Charmes-Chambertin,” then I am back to being confused.

So, my question now is this: Can wines from “Aux Charmes” be labelled as “Charmes-Chambertin”? To see what I believe the answer to be, I refer you to Post #11, by Ray Walker. [cheers.gif]