@Howard_Cooper, Señor Carnes and Levenberg keep making me drink DRC and other Burgs whose names escape me every time we go the the secret place in Tampa whose name shall remain unspoken. It’s fairly decent!
2 Likes
Unless one of them really is the equivalent of the Big Mac. I think that is the under text here. Or to put a fine point on it, that is the judgment of many of us for the wine in question in certain vintages.
5 Likes
I opened a roulot for @Robert.A.Jr and now he loves
1 Like
Well done William. This is a terrific write-up that is concise and conveys a level of depth and detail that could easily have taken up 3x as many pages and been harder to digest. I said to a fellow WBer posting in this thread not too long ago that I think you, of all the critics of your generation, have the potential to become the most influential. This article certainly bears that out.
That said, I would also note that the new ways of things do come at a price- although I do not think most current Bordeaux drinkers would agree with me since Bordeaux, for all of its history, has stylistically adapted when necessary to appeal to its current audience and address the realities of surrounding economics - the dark side of the latter being times like the early 1970s where a dreary marketplace gave little incentive for any kind of qualitative upgrades or even maintaining basic, clean practices.
The late Tawfiq Khoury, a Bordeaux collector of immense knowledge who became known to the entire wine world in the mid-1990s when he sold a portion of his collection at auction in what was arguably the first well-publicized “super sale” generating massive interest since the castle sales of the 1970s conducted by Christie’s, addressed my and others’ concern about modern Bordeaux in a WS interview some 25 years ago. I no longer have access to the article, but to paraphrase his final key statement in the interview- he said that the current trends in the making of Bordeaux would yield more good wines, but never again a Mouton 1945. And this was said at the very beginning of what we are faced with today.
And it cannot just be laid at the feet of climate change. For years, we lovers of German wines were fed that line as Spatlesen got bigger and sweeter (and brought great acclaim and press in the mid to late 2000s for the producers most heavily oriented in that direction targeting a new audience.) Well, now GGs and Kabinett are what is popular- and so the wines have shifted to suit customer demand, though the climate trends have not.
I was raised in a household centered around Bordeaux in which almost every vintage had a purpose. 1959, 1961 and 1970 were reserved for grand entrees on the most special occasions. 1966 and 1971 were for less grand occasions, which depending heavily on the dish served. Cheese after dinner? Pair it with a 1967- a role the 1984s are ready for now and the 1991s will be ready for in a few years. Luncheon? A 1980 or 1981 back then, a 1992 until recently, and today- the marvelous 1988s. Casual dinner at home with a heavy meat course- 1987 or 1983. Meanwhile, the 1982s and 1986s are locked away- destined to be drunk by the next generation as it would be wasteful to even consider opening them unless in an academically-driven tasting. And then of course every so often a lovely 1985- always and ever appropriate, beautiful, harmonious and memorable.
Grand tastings certainly took place- but most often they were academic in nature and focused on a carefully planned vertical, horizontal or other theme. Dinners on the scale of Rodenstock existed too- but among a very small group of people and on rare occasion. Today one can attend such dinners with regularity if desired. The span of vintages will likely be more limited- but certainly not the number of wines or their overall cost.
And so the Bordeaux of an earlier time were quite well suited to how they were enjoyed by those who purchased them. Every wine experience did not need to be 95+ points. Instead, every wine needed to be appropriate to the food and the setting surrounding it.
This is not the world of today- a world notably driven by a concept in some cultures (America being a big one) of wanting everything to be the best of the best. It is not true of all citizens, but it certainly is the driving force. It is also a time of tremendous wealth with a great number of newly wealthy people seeking to enjoy and being seen to enjoy luxurious things without necessarily having a deep personal affinity for those things and taking the time to develop a deep personal knowledge and understanding of them.
And in order for there to be that “best of the best” concept from which a large- and thus largely non-expert- audience can derive a false sense of knowledge and security, there must be objective standards applied in a very absolute way. And the first of those is power.
That concept I think is captured in the following statement from your article which speaks very clearly to the broad desire of the current marketplace. And for someone like me who has been at this for 25+ years and spent his formative years learning from wine drinkers whose experience reached as far back as pre-phylloxera times, this is an extraordinary statement- an important one brilliantly restating a long-held comparison of Bordeaux and California wines,
… these techniques enabled producers to set new records for alcohol and pH, crafting wines with a power and richness that had hitherto been the monopoly of the New World.
In the world of today- a world in which high end wine is most prominently experienced in large tastings centered around the wine first, with all other considerations secondary, it is the biggest and the prettiest that wins. As is the case for most of us, I experience most wine in these types of settings today- and it is not an easy kind of event to serve a Magdelaine or an interesting old lesser vintage of Lafite. Perhaps this is why I find myself drinking less and less wine with each passing year- focusing instead on the rare occasions where the old ways are more readily employed. To be fair- biggest and prettiest can also be an incredibly good wine. I am just saying not every wine and vintage should ideally strive to meet that standard if we are to look at and enjoy wine in the manner of old.
But I am the rarity. To take Magdelaine- in this great wide world of wine that was one of the very few remaining of the old school, and a very small production estate at that. But even that small production was in excess of the customers clamoring for it. These days the price is going up, but in the mid 2010s even after the demise of Magdelaine was known you could still buy recent and older vintages in quantity for bargain prices well below the original release price. So there is no clear and compelling case to bring back the old ways in any meaningful measure. The market has decided.
Now that I have made my case for the old ways, and in far too long a post, let me please also state that with time many of my earlier concerns have been proven wrong.
There are certainly some top Bordeaux today that are complete train wrecks- but their numbers are few and generally in line with the small number of Napa train wreck. And by train wrecks I mean wines that I have observed going out of balance and becoming more alcoholic and pruny as they mature.
I will never warm up to the modern vintages of Pavie, but they are aging quite well.
And I also think that in recent vintages many top Bordeaux have struck a remarkable balance of modern and traditional- with Palmer and Mouton leading the way. These are going to be very good wines in time.
However they will always be best suited to the methods of consumption most in use today. There will be plenty of good wines for a big dinner at your local storage facility lounge or a BerkserkerFest- but there will be precious few wines suited to a light luncheon on the patio or high acid austere savory creatures to foil a cheese plate. The beauty of a pinkish mid-weight Chateau Latour against which to compare the muscled great years will be lost. But then again, performances like many Chateau put on in 1974 and 1977 will be lost as well- and even I will be hard pressed to lament that.
As my 50th birthday nears and I near the end of a major 2 year sell-off and recalibration of my cellar for the future, the watershed Bordeaux moment for me came a few weeks ago at a small tasting I organized with friends.
The 2008 Mouton was just starting to emerge from its shell, and while there is nothing wrong with the wine- in fact it is exceptional- seeing it on the other side of its hibernation phase, and thinking on the recently tasted 2009, 2015 and 2017 I came to realize that in some subtle ways even these great new Moutons- and they are fantastic- are not going to be quite like what I love most from the old days. And at current prices those subtleties matter.
That same night we had 2001 Latour, and what a beauty it was. Not a grand or powerful vintage, but just perfect and in the manner of the 1978 and 1989, though the 3 vintages are very different on specific points.
The following week I sold every bottle of high end Bordeaux I own younger than 1990, with a couple of exceptions, and I am now quietly backfilling with 1970-1990 Bordeaux to finish out my life.
It is not about what is better or worse- but what one loves most and the setting in which one serves wines of that caliber. For most people, the newer path is the better one- but it is worth everyone taking a little time to explore and see for themselves their preferences- and more importantly, the why behind it.
Apologies for the long post- this topic has weighed much on my mind in recent years. William, thank you for providing the insightful and important commentary that inspired me to organize my thoughts and put them out there.
16 Likes
I think we entirely agree! And if you look at my work you will see an appreciation for a range of styles, from early picking and lots of new oak at Dujac to the inverse at Ponsot, from the (if you want a musical analogy) Glenn Gould of Tertre Roteboeuf to the Andras Schiff of Magdelaine. But at some point, the grapes are overripe, just as the steak is overcooked, and I think it’s incumbent on a critic to take a position. I have two issues with the “we should love every possible style” argument: the first is that it is a great way to evade taking a position on all or any of the subjects of interest in winemaking; the second is that in reality it frequently translates to rating overripe, out-of-balance wines more highly than the alternative.
3 Likes
I too find this subject very interesting! One of the main reasons is that I (correctly or incorrectly) think of yeast as one of critical aspects of reflecting the vintage and add uniqueness to site specific grown wines - I guess to various degrees the inoculation will distort/influence the taste profile of the wine.
My assumption was that in Bordeaux with the most industrial approach to farming with chemical treatments and so on negatively influenced among other the yeast, while with the development and improved practices in the vineyard, native yeast should become more interesting.
When I think of some of the better Friulian/Brda low intervention winemakers/growers (such as La Castellada) making red Bordeaux blends, I have not found them to shown bretty character… Do you have any thoughts as to why Bordeaux wild fermentations would be strongly correlated with brett?
Thanks, now I think I understand better what you mean. The Big Mac must have thrown me off!
I’ve often thought about the similarities between rating wine and classical music performances and it’s quite a fascinating comparison. There’s the material, ie. grapes or the music itself (which we don’t have to rate in a performing competition of course) and the interpretation of it which could be divided into elements of ability and aesthetics. Maybe the comparison even works to the extent that taking risks and searching for a better understanding of the material can lead to divisive results. The tradition spanning hundreds of years is strongly present in both fields, as is the need to reinvent it for new generations.
Reducing all of the above to a binary scale of x points is no simple task in either discipline and critic vs. audience favorites are not always the same - looking at Troplong Mondot 2010, CT score 93,8 - Gilman 68 points…
1 Like
To summarize my thoughts regarding much of this post, this sentence certainly does not describe my life.
2 Likes
I did, very much. White Burgs can be outstanding, I just do not necessarily chase the big dogs. I do have a fair smattering of White Burgs at the beach place as we eat a lot of local seafood there. I have a lot of Michel, which delivers so high quality for a fair price.
2 Likes
Fantastic post, thank you Tom!
1 Like
Yes, but you are not tasting 50/60 wines at a time. Somewhere palate fatigue sets in, and then it is certainly the “biggest” although I would argue that “prettiness” counts for little if anything.
2 Likes
Agreed.
I love this comparison, as I often think in musical analogies. I think I understand your comparison of Glenn Gould to Tertre Roteboeuf (refined, yet quirky pushed to the limits), but I’m going to disagree on this as a great analogy as Tertre Roteboeuf has a extravagance and warmth that is very anti-Gould, and the great iconoclast Ignaz Friedman would be my pick. The comparison of Andras Schiff to Magdelaine is pretty good, but I think he’s a bit clinical verging on boring, and when the last Magdelaine I had (the 85) brought to mind Richard Goode, exploring interiors and wearing a smoking jacket!
2 Likes
Lang Lang is the 2010 Troplong Mondot of music. Audiences love him, but anyone with any musical sensibilities recoils in horror at the superficial brilliance but grotesque caricature of what music should be about.
2 Likes
Maybe o Fortuna from Carmina Burana
2 Likes
@ToddFrench needs to get on this discussion with musical analogies. Did y’all know that dude is a concert cellist? Don’t let his big cannons cause you to think otherwise!
2 Likes
Tom, thanks for the fascinating post. I highlight this sentence because I’ve been thinking of doing something similar myself (in my case, selling off most of my post-1998 Bordeaux). What’s holding me back is uncertainty about predicting the future. I know I enjoy the character of 80s/90s Bordeaux as it ages. Will 2000s+ age similarly (rhetorical)?
On your broader theme of buying wine to suit the way you want to drink it - I agree that this is an ideal. If I want to drink at big vertical/horizontal events, buying wine to suit those makes sense. If I want wine mostly to accompany meals, then a different strategy is warranted. The challenge is having enough knowledge of one’s taste - and the wines - to make good decisions. Your story about how you use different vintages of Bordeaux for different applications (lunch vs. cheese course, etc.) was wonderful, and a state of understanding I aspire to. But this is a level of wine knowledge that is not just uncommon but far, far beyond most people’s experience, ability, or interest. Still, it sure got me thinking!
You want band camp stories?
1 Like
That is my point. I typically drink my highest end wines in a smaller setting - usually a dinner party of 6-10 people. Thus, I can taste the wines. None of my wines are ever tasted in a setting of 50-60 wines at a time. The largest group where I typically taste wine is 15-20 bottles (including Champagne and other whites and sweeter wines) and we typically have excellent wines rather than great wines in this setting (in a Burgundy context think premier cru rather than grand crus). And, even in this setting, I have never noticed by anyone in my wine group a bias toward bigger wines.
Am I really that unique? Is Tom correct that we today live in a world where “high end wine is most prominently experienced in large tastings”? How do you guys typically drink 1st growths and super seconds or grand cru Burgs?
1 Like
Yawn…