I think we share an affinity for the great 20th-century classics, but I would not be so sure about attributing their greatness to less precision, less perfect ripeness and less control. I mentioned earlier that Burgundy is the great example of the fact that homogenous maturity delivers complex wines: in many cases, the parcels are so small that their ripeness is necessarily homogenous; and a hallmark of the best Pinot genetics on the best terroirs is a rapid and even véraison followed by even ripening. As a producer myself, I really do think that the idea that the best wines are made from a mix of underripe, perfectly ripe and overripe fruit is an error. Historically, the best Bordeaux vintages saw very even maturation and that shows in the seamless, harmonious profile of years such as 1959 and 1953. Similarly, there may have been less control, but the best wines were the results of fermentations that went seamlessly, a division clearly seen in the most extreme vintages such as 1921 and 1947, when some wines are excellent and others ruined by runaway fermentations. And when we talk of “less precision”, I think we do a disservice to the artisanal craft of the cellar workers who tended the great wines of the interwar and post war vintages, who I venture knew a lot about what they were doing and when it needed to be done (I’m convinced a lot of savior faire in élevage was lost as the region modernized in the 60s and 70s).
I quite understand your reservations, in short, but I think it’s a mistake to write off the new school of wines as a “chemistry experiment”, especially when so many of the people behind them share you admiration for the historic reference points. The technical director of one leading Right Bank château, for example, has a Magdelaine collection that would make you weep, and that’s always the estate that Baptiste Guinadeau cites when he speaks of the inspiration behind the Perrières project.
I think you are taking what I’m saying to too great an end. Less is not “none” and I certainly didn’t intend that. And I appreciate the remarks about homogeneity of ripening in the past. But nevertheless there has been a shift in paradigm and process.
On wine in the bottle as a chemistry experiment, it always was and always will be. That is its nature. I disagree that it’s at all pejorative to speak of wine that way if that’s how folks are taking that comment. Certainly all good winemakers wanting to make vin de garde have sought to make a wine at bottling that will develop favorably in bottle—in my sense of chemistry experiment, to set the initial conditions to end up somewhere as good or better down the road.
No sadly he doesn’t. I did suggest to Stéphanie at Clos du Jaugueyron that they take a look but I don’t think he used organic farming methods so probably no go. I just hope someone good takes them on - I don’t believe he owns the land anyway.
Not how I see it at all. Very few wines offer purity as it’s quite difficult to obtain. While purity is only one element of greatness in a wine, every great provides purity. YMMV
This article is phenomenal. Among my red purchases, I’ve historically been very focused on Burgundy. But given insane pricing and paltry availability, for a while now I’ve been planning to shift some of my money to Bordeaux, which I also like very, very much (although it doesn’t reach the same heights as Burgundy, for my palate). My conundrum is I just haven’t consumed nearly as much Bordeaux as I have Burg–not even close. So while I have my favorite producers (Pichon Lalande! VCC!) I don’t have the same frame of reference. WK’s thoughtful approach and identification of innovative producers is exactly what I’ve been looking for. I’m all ears.
Sociando Mallet is no longer making the same wines. Durfort is one of the most modern thinkers in Margaux today and Magdelaine is for the most part, Belair Monange.
BAMA has probably not moved much, but I don’t follow it.
Easily. It’s all jus a matter of degree. And keeping the things that worked before, while trying incrementally with some minor changes, etc. You can increase ripeness without setting out to obliterate pyrazines once and for all. Isn’t that what the oxymoron “Contemporary Classicism” is driving at?
You are laying out goals, not how to achieve them.
That said, I am not sure it’s in the best interest of wineries that make 15,000 cases of wine per year to cater to a tiny handful of uber-traditionalists.
Older than old. Older than you! And maybe now, gone. Sad to hear about Boyer.
Have you tried a BAMA? I love them to death, but like Sociando, not all traditionalists love them. Mark G does not. Just like Neal M does not like Sociando.
I know that you have written a series of posts (complete with pictures) of newer farming practices in Burgundy. I found those articles fascinating. Have you put those articles together in some form on the Parker web site as a comprehensive view of farming practices in Burgundy (sort of similar to what have done here on Bordeaux)? I tried to search the web site today but could not find anything (but then, I probably did not look that well).
I have not had BAMA. Never have seen it. Would be interested in trying it even with the disgusting and offensive abbreviation of the name of the winery.
Did the owner die? Have not seen that. If so, wouldn’t they have a ton of vintages of the wine to release?
I’ll be honest and say that I’m a bit allergic to “best-everness” in critical articles about Bordeaux. It’s been a non-stop critical trope about Bordeaux for going on 20 years now, and not just from Parker. But if you’re dealing with a region like Bordeaux which has had spectacular successes in the past and where wines need to age 15-25 years to peak, how can you say with any confidence that todays wines are the best ever? I had a fantastic 2000 Montrose recently. How confident can anyone be today that the 14.5% alcohol 2019 Montrose is going to be better than that in 20 years? I’m not even saying it will be worse, how about “just as good but in a different style”? That seems like a possibility too.
Have to say I’m less suspicious of it when it comes to Burgundy because frankly it matches my personal experience better. I don’t drink at the high end of Burgundy, but recent vintages just do seem clearly superior to my experience of past vintages. I feel much more ambivalent about that when it comes to Bordeaux. I haven’t tried wines past 2016, but I don’t feel the same level of difference. Smoother tannins when young, yes.