Mazoyeres or Charmes-Chambertin - interchangeable?

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

This map helps to visually explain the point I’m making in the post immediately prior to this one.

See? There is a portion of Charmes-Chambertin (namely, Aux Charmes) that (apparently) cannot be labelled as “Mazoyeres-Chambertin.” I’m just trying to clear this up for other newcomers to the board.

[Peter_Chiu]

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

This map helps to visually explain the point I’m making in the post immediately prior to this one.

See? There is a portion of Charmes-Chambertin (namely, Aux Charmes) that (apparently) cannot be labelled as “Mazoyeres-Chambertin.” I’m just trying to clear this up for other newcomers to the board.

Brian…please follow my logic closely - if I may ask ?

Point 1: do you agree with me that the official authority to solve this dis-agreement should be the offical text of AC governing Gervey-Chambert ?

Point 2 : let say you agree with my point 1 …then please note tht I already said : even if you examine the official AC text, there maybe still be confusion because the way AC authority present the list of the 9 g-crus with a table.

Point 3 : I asked Ray the question to see if the climat Charmes has 2 or 3 sub-climats. My understand of Ray’s reply is : yes. There are …see what he said in his post No. 38 ; now come to the following point ( which is point 4 ) :

Point 4 : if a legal text of Gervey-Chambertin is confusiong…needless to say : looking at a map…would add more confusion - am I right ?

Please see what I had posted in Post no. 14 :

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

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 ).

[Peter_Chiu]

I’m just trying to clear this up for other newcomers to the board.

Brian…I like your comments as stated above.

I sound like me ( Peter Chiu ) is talking…so may I add the following comment :

Berserkers is famous as a discussion forum for Burgundy-geeks and I like to keep it this way.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

@Peter Chiu

Brian…please follow my logic closely - if I may ask ?

Peter,
I am trying to follow your logic, but it doesn’t make sense to me. I think something may be getting lost in translation.

Point 1: do you agree with me that the official authority to solve this dis-agreement should be the offical text of AC governing Gervey-Chambert ?

I don’t know. I think the official authority to provide an answer to the question stated in this thread should be whatever authority it is that has the legal power to decide the matter. I don’t know what authority that is.

Point 2 : let say you agree with my point 1 …then please note tht I already said : even if you examine the official AC text, there maybe still be confusion because the way AC authority present the list of the 9 g-crus with a table.

O.K… Yes, it is confusing — I agree with that, but whether the table is confusing has absolutely no bearing on the answer. It’s irrelevant.

Point 3 : I asked Ray the question to see if the climat Charmes has 2 or 3 sub-climats. My understand of Ray’s reply is : yes. There are …see what he said in his post No. 38 ; now come to the following point ( which is point 4 ) :

Peter, with all due respect, I think you don’t understand what Ray said in Post No. 38. He’s basically saying the same thing as I.

Point 4 : if a legal text of Gervey-Chambertin is confusiong…needless to say : looking at a map…would add more confusion - am I right ?

No. What’s confusing about the map?

[Peter_Chiu]

Hi Brian…another point of my observation.

Mr. Romain Taupenot took his time and posted his No. 1 post in this disussion. See below of what he said.

I maybe wrong…but I believe Mr. Roamin Taupenot is an associate with Domaine Taupenot-Merme. He posted his comments here ( which is his No. 1 post in this Board ) because of Mr. Oliveir Landry the author of post No. 7 in this thread which said Domaine Taupenot-Merme made a Charmes-Chambertin and also a Mozoyeres-Chambertin.

@Romain Taupenot

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…

A votre santé !

Romain

[Peter_Chiu]

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

@Peter Chiu

Brian…please follow my logic closely - if I may ask ?

Peter,
I am trying to follow your logic, but it doesn’t make sense to me. I think something may be getting lost in translation.

Point 1: do you agree with me that the official authority to solve this dis-agreement should be the offical text of AC governing Gervey-Chambert ?

I don’t know. I think the official authority to provide an answer to the question stated in this thread should be whatever authority it is that has the legal power to decide the matter. I don’t know what authority that is.

Point 2 : let say you agree with my point 1 …then please note tht I already said : even if you examine the official AC text, there maybe still be confusion because the way AC authority present the list of the 9 g-crus with a table.

O.K… Yes, it is confusing — I agree with that, but whether the table is confusing has absolutely no bearing on the answer. It’s irrelevant.

Point 3 : I asked Ray the question to see if the climat Charmes has 2 or 3 sub-climats. My understand of Ray’s reply is : yes. There are …see what he said in his post No. 38 ; now come to the following point ( which is point 4 ) :

Peter, with all due respect, I think you don’t understand what Ray said in Post No. 38. He’s basically saying the same thing as I.

Point 4 : if a legal text of Gervey-Chambertin is confusiong…needless to say : looking at a map…would add more confusion - am I right ?

No. What’s confusing about the map?

Ok…Brian - I think I better take a rain-check in our discussion as I do want to get into an argument with anyone.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

@Peter Chiu

Hi Brian…another point of my observation.

Mr. Romain Taupenot took his time and posted his No. 1 post in this disussion. See below of what he said.

I maybe wrong…but I believe Mr. Roamin Taupenot is an associate with Domaine Taupenot-Merme. He posted his comments here ( which is his No. 1 post in this Board ) because of Mr. Oliveir Landry the author of post No. 7 in this thread which said Domaine Taupenot-Merme made a Charmes-Chambertin and also a Mozoyeres-Chambertin.

@Romain Taupenot

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. …

Romain

Peter,

Yes. I am aware of who Romain is. I have tasted his wines with him at his cuverie, and much of my knowledge on this matter is derived from conversation I have had with him on the topic.

Romain said “Charmes can be sold as Mazoyeres, and vice versa.” He did NOT say ALL Charmes can be sold as Mazoyeres.

Peter, question for you: do you at all entertain the notion that you might be wrong about this?

[Claude_Kolm]

@Ray Walker

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?

No big deal, Ray. I was just pointing out that he makes distinctions in the text that he does not do in the tables.

[Ken_McNamara]

@Peter Chiu

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.

My contention is that only Mazoyeres can be labeled Charmes the opposite of what you wrote…

[WKChoy]

INAO is the final say in matters relating to Appellation. INAO’s current documentation on the matter is at AOC Latricières-Chambertin, Mazoyères-Chambertin, Charmes-Chambertin, Mazis-Chambertin, Griotte-Chambertin, Ruchottes-Chambertin, Chapelle-Chambertin

in Art. 1er under the Appellation column it says Mazoyeres-Chambertin ou (and in the next line) Charmes-Chambertin. This does suggest that Mzouyeres-Chambertin and Charmes-Chambertin are interchangable.

I note that INAO has been updating records and I suspect clerical/transcription errors have been introduced into their online documentation. Other examples of errors in the INAO documentation linked above would include:

a) Latricieres-Chambertin. Current documentation does not list Aux Combottes (part) as a climat of Latricieres (but previous incarnations did as far as I can recall)
b) Mazis-Chambertin. Current documentation appears to lists Ruchottes du Bas as a climat of Mazis-Chambertin. I believe this to be an error.

[Peter_Chiu]

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

@Peter Chiu

Hi Brian…another point of my observation.

Mr. Romain Taupenot took his time and posted his No. 1 post in this disussion. See below of what he said.

I maybe wrong…but I believe Mr. Roamin Taupenot is an associate with Domaine Taupenot-Merme. He posted his comments here ( which is his No. 1 post in this Board ) because of Mr. Oliveir Landry the author of post No. 7 in this thread which said Domaine Taupenot-Merme made a Charmes-Chambertin and also a Mozoyeres-Chambertin.

@Romain Taupenot

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. …

Romain

Peter,

Yes. I am aware of who Romain is. I have tasted his wines with him at his cuverie, and much of my knowledge on this matter is derived from conversation I have had with him on the topic.

Romain said “Charmes can be sold as Mazoyeres, and vice versa.” He did NOT say ALL Charmes can be sold as Mazoyeres.

Peter, question for you: do you at all entertain the notion that you might be wrong about this?

Brinn - thanks for posting a question. Let me be serious.

OK - when you said ** all charmes …I need to clarify what is the meaning of … all Charmes **.

From what I read in Ray post : there are a few Charmes - which are actually : lieux-dites ( all sub-climats ) : aux Charmes; bas Charmes and Charmes - proper.

I believe ( but not sure ) : bas-Charmes and Charmes-proper should be sub-climats within the bigger : Climat ( Charmes ) which has a grand-cru status; then the juice is legally allowed to be labelled as : Mazoyeres-Chambertin - which also has a g-cru status.

Now if the sub-climat : aux-Charmes is of a 1ieme cru status - then needless to say, juice from aux-Charmes could be legally labelled as : Mazoyeres-Chambertin - which has a g-crus status.

Of course, if aux-Charmes is also a sub-climat within the bigger : Cliamt ( Charmes ) which has a grand-cru status…then the juice is legally allowed to be labelled as : Mazoyeres-Charmes.

Brian…as I explained in this thread that …before when I was at ParkerBoard…I was new and wrong. Someone took time to explain to me and correct my mistake; and it was for this reason that I am posting here.

Brian…thank for ask me question ( as above ) …which I love to answer it.

[Peter_Chiu]

@WKChoy

INAO is the final say in matters relating to Appellation. INAO’s current documentation on the matter is at AOC Latricières-Chambertin, Mazoyères-Chambertin, Charmes-Chambertin, Mazis-Chambertin, Griotte-Chambertin, Ruchottes-Chambertin, Chapelle-Chambertin

in Art. 1er under the Appellation column it says Mazoyeres-Chambertin ou (and in the next line) Charmes-Chambertin. This does suggest that Mzouyeres-Chambertin and Charmes-Chambertin are interchangable.

I note that INAO has been updating records and I suspect clerical/transcription errors have been introduced into their online documentation. Other examples of errors in the INAO documentation linked above would include:

a) Latricieres-Chambertin. Current documentation does not list Aux Combottes (part) as a climat of Latricieres (but previous incarnations did as far as I can recall)
b) Mazis-Chambertin. Current documentation appears to lists Ruchottes du Bas as a climat of Mazis-Chambertin. I believe this to be an error.

Thanks…WK Choy. I know you are the only guy with whom I could treply on…

[Peter_Chiu]

@Romain Taupenot

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…

A votre santé !

Romain

OK Brian…since you know Romain.

I would like to add some comments ( or my observations ) of what he had said above re the following lines :

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…

Why Romain…is saying neither 7, nor 8 GC in Gervey-Chambertin but truly 9…?

Guess we all know legally there 9 official G-crus in Gervey-Chambertin.

When Romain mentioned 7, because some people are counting AC Chambertin and AC Chambertin-Clos de Beze as one; and then AC Charmes-Chambertin and Mazoyeres-Charmes also as one - then the total number as 7.

Romain mentioned 8 - because some people are counting AC Charmes-Chambertin and Mazoyeres-Charmes as one ( and that AC Chambertin and AC Chambertin-Clos de Beze as sepearte one )… hence the total number as 8.

But when he said : but truly 9 - means officially there are truely 9 GC.

[Peter_Chiu]

@Ray Walker

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

Hi Ray…love to talk to you about Burgundy.

I was told that Meadows tasted the Chavel Blanc 47 but spitted it out and said : it is only Bordeaux. Is there any true in this ?

OK…seriously, since you own Jasper Morris Inside Burgundy, please read what Jasper said re Charmes-Chambertin and Mazoyeres-Chambertin on page 93, page 125 and 126.

Thanks in advance…

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

I’m done. I’ve said all I have to say. I will continue to watch this thread with interest, but will resist the urge to post again herein, as I would only be repeating myself at that point.

[Peter_Chiu]

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

I’m done. I’ve said all I have to say. I will continue to watch this thread with interest, but will resist the urge to post again herein, as I would only be repeating myself at that point.

Brian…please ( and love ) to see you post in this thread again - even it is repeative. One of reasons which makes Berserkers Board successful… as we are all passionate Burgundy lovers.

[Ray_Walker]

Yup, I’m out as well. No sense in spinning around the bend again.

I appreciate all of the advice all the same.

Cheers

Ray

[Stuart_BeauneHead_Niemtzow]

This thread has left me more confused on the subject of the thread than I thought I was before it was created. Both the “answer” to the query and the topics discussed within it have left me in the dark.

After reading through this I still don’t know the answer. Other than what the law suggests and what people believe, can all Charmes be labeled Mazoyeres? Do we KNOW the answer? Is there one? (Frankly, I’ve always thought that allowing Mazoyeres to be called “Charmes” --as well as Clos de Beze to be called “Chambertin” were mostly to allow optimum marketing. I can’t imagine why someone would want to “label” their Charmes “Mazoyeres”, though, I guess the question is really more whether the two can be blended and called either one…the choice being by the producer?)

[Ken_McNamara]

@Ray Walker

Yup, I’m out as well. No sense in spinning around the bend again.

I appreciate all of the advice all the same.

Cheers

Ray

I feel the same way - maybe in person the exchanges would be more constructive. I sincerely regret ever posting the observation! I feel like I took something away from the original poster who wants to put together 33 GC tasting because of the tangent that occurred. I do want a thank you / commission from Morris because I did sell a book for him [smile.gif]

[Peter_Chiu]

@Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow

This thread has left me more confused on the subject of the thread than I thought I was before it was created. Both the “answer” to the query and the topics discussed within it have left me in the dark.

After reading through this I still don’t know the answer. Other than what the law suggests and what people believe, can all Charmes be labeled Mazoyeres? Do we KNOW the answer? Is there one? (Frankly, I’ve always thought that allowing Mazoyeres to be called “Charmes” --as well as Clos de Beze to be called “Chambertin” were mostly to allow optimum marketing. I can’t imagine why someone would want to “label” their Charmes “Mazoyeres”, though, I guess the question is really more whether the two can be blended and called either one…the choice being by the producer?)

OK…Stuart. Thanks for posting…as I was feeling bad ( or kind of sweet sorrow).

After reading through this I still don’t know the answer

You own Jasper Morris Inside Burgundy - right ? Please read page 93, 125 and 126. Please read them with an opening mind and I believe you will come to the conclusion that : legally according with the AC text, Charmes and Mazoyeres are interexchangeble and Chambertin and Clos de Beze are not.

guess the question is really more whether the two can be blended and called either one…the choice being by the producer?)

Yes …you are right again; and this is one of the main point for the prodcuers who own land in both Charmes and Mazoyeres. AC allows them to blend and sell them as they wish.

I would to go further with the situation in AC Chambertin and AC Chambertin-Clos de Beze.

Blended juice from Chambertin and Cloe de Beze is allowed to sell as AC Chambertin only ( becasue AC Chamertin lists 2 climats ); but not so as AC Chambertin-Clos de Beze ( because AC Chambertin-Clos de Beze lists only one climat : Clos de Beze ).

When Ramain said…Burgundy is simple - I laugh. Yes for the locals…but not for out-siders.