Red Burgundy Style Guide - A proposal

WINE TALK
1

Last year on Wine Berserkers, Dan Bailey started a thread called Categorising Red Burgundy Producers, and Keith Levenberg’s chart was posted a few times. I think this is really useful, but want to try to take it a step further, based on the wisdom and experience of two wine boards (Wine Berserkers and UK Wine Pages).

I am proposing to select a handful of semi-objective criteria, and then have the board burg lovers apply these criteria to various domaines and negotiants. Wisdom of the crowds meets burgundy!

As an example, I made up sample data for three popular Morey domaines (rated 1-5, with 5 being highest). When plotted, it would look something like this:

640×503 58.8 KB

How to read the chart: Each bar in a spider chart represents one aspect of the domaine, so you can see that Fourrier and Truchot are both rated 2 on the Nose (Floral) scale, whereas Clos des Lambrays is rated 5. This profiling would allow inexperienced burg drinkers who prefer a certain style to find other wines fitting their preference. For example someone who prefers modern, elegant, less structured wines might be steered to Fourrier.

Criteria: My goal in selecting criteria is to come up with a handful of items that are semi-objective, and which might be used in describing one’s preferences. As a starting point, I propose the following criteria:
Criteria (rated 1-5, from least to most):

Nose (floral) - none (1) to floral (3) to overtly stemmy (5)
Nose (savory) - none(fruit-driven) to very savory
Ripeness - lean to very sweet fruited
Density - light to dense (think extraction or fruit intensity)
Elegance - (hard for me to define, but seems to be a popular criterion)
Modernity - rustic to polished (think barnyard to crystal clean)
Perceived Oakiness - none to dominant
Structure (when young) - attractive/easy to unpleasurable/hard

I am a little concerned that elegance might be non-objective, and hard to define what one or five are, but it seems to be a very popular descriptor. I considered adding color and acidity, but I don’t know anyone who makes buying decisions on those criteria. Transparency also seems hard to rate, and is likely a function of the other criteria.

Please note, this is sensory focused, not wine-making technique focused. As an example, while I suspect a warm maceration might add to density, I’d rather not debate this issue, and focus instead on the finished product.

Finally, I understand that different wines within each domaine taste different. This is what terroir is all about, I get it. But, I think it’s hard to deny the existence of a house style as well. If you can’t generalize, then use a nice 1er cru from the domaine’s home appellation as a reference point.

So two questions at the end of a longish post:

One: Does this seem worth pursuing? Would you find it useful or do you know others who would?

Two: Am I missing important criteria? Are any of mine redundant, or not objective enough?

If the answer to the first is sufficiently positive, then I will update the criteria based on board recommendations. Once that is done, I will begin posting domain names and requesting feedback.

Thanks for your consideration.

2

I think this general approach is probably a more accurate way of viewing burg styles than any other way but with this many variables I think a simple short text description is an easier way to visualize it. This is just too complicated.

Either way here are the variables I would use:

Stems - Light to Heavy
Body - Light to Heavy
Ripeness - Lean to Very Ripe
Aromatic Expessiveness - Light to Intense
Purity - Dirty to Clean
Structure - Open to Inpenatrable
Acid - Soft to High Acid
Oak - Unoaked to Very Oaked

The catagory of yours that I least understand is denisty. I dont think fruit nature has anything to do with density at all. I find it coorelates to ripeness.

And I think elegance is a compond attribute and not atomic in and of itself.

3

There’s other ways to achieve density or perceived density, such as (over)extraction and (over)oaking. Last night I poured a (thankfully cheap) 2010 Burgundy down the sink that was simultaneously dense, underripe, overextracted, and overoaked…

4

Based on new release wines mine would be:
Aroma - Savoury to Floral.
Palate - Broad to Tight
Oak - Dominant to Integrated
Fruit - Black to Red
Tannins - Extractive to vinous
Vintage Impact - High to Low

I include vintage impact as some domaines are more reliant on vintage than others… I would rank DRC for instance as Low. I guess it it a general consistency ranking.
Cheers Mike

5

This is my summary of the comments from both boards, with an ongoing request for feedback. Thanks, everybody, for your thoughts so far.

My initial post had a poor explanation of density. I updated it a few minutes later. Sorry if it confused anyone.

Verbiage versus graphs - First, I agree that words or a well written paragraph describing house style would of tremendous value, but have yet to find anywhere that it has been done. All the books I have describe winemaking technique, but only vaguely talk about a house-style. This is understandable, given the nature of writer’s relationships with domaines. Second, there are many data driven folks out there, who might apprecaite the shorthand. Finally, I expect that one could take Fourrier’s spider chart and write, “Fourrier’s house style could be characterized as clean, acidic, emphasizing fruit over savoury elements, while showing great elegance.” (Don’t worry about the specifics, this is just an example)

Project Size - Yes, I agree this could be very big. But, I’m in no hurry, and I will use the boards to do the hard work. My job will just be to summarize and clean really.

Goals - Hopefully we can keep this as objective as reasonably possible, and also reasonably simple. The fewer, more easily understood attributes, the better.

Discussion of Attributes

Elegance - There seems to be agreement that elegance is hard to describe, with everyone having different definitions. I am inclined to drop it. Any suggestions on what to replace it with, if you want to capture the spirit?

Density - It was pointed out that fruit intensity is not the same as extraction. While I agree, I think is hard to explain or define. Personally, I think of Roumier as generally featuring great fruit intensity, and several domaines that I don’t favor featuring extraction. But it is very difficult to define, and even more difficult to put on separate scales.

Modernity - I chose this word over cleanliness or hygiene given that the low end of the cleanliness scale would be dirty, which is rather pejorative, and something I strived to avoid. I am open to alternative nomenclature. Would rusticity be better?

Rustic (on modernity scale) - Does this mean unhygenic or less-manipulated? Both, I guess. I think of Truchot or Jouan for this. I don’t have the expertise to know whether the gamey, mushroomy flavors I sometimes find in their wines are due to a lack of cleanliness, but I do know I’ve had other wines from the same terroir that lacked the same degree of rusticity. I also don’t think of it as a negative.

Stemmy - I put this on the floral axis because it was originally a “stemmy” axis. Some tasters dislike perceptible stems. I thought that if I changed it to floral, then halfway up the scale we could indicate a domaine that probably included some stems, enough to give a floral lift, and a five could represent a domaine whose stem inclusion was overt and noticeable in young wines, like, say Clos des Lambrays. Again, this isn’t necessarily bad, and is meant more as descriptive.

Savory / Savoury - By this I mean a catch-all for the non-fruit, non-floral elements of the aroma such as sous-bois, mushroom, blood, game, hair, etc… I might switch to “savoury” going forward, as Americans know the word, and will give me less grief.

Structure - I thought this scale would be easiest of them all. I think of it as a combination of tannins and acid that might make a young wine difficult to drink. The point of this scale wasn’t whether it was truly pleasurable, but whether it was drinkable. If this isn’t clear, how should I revise it? Should I just drop the words attractive and unpleasurable? Or change to “Open to Impenetrable”? I initially wanted to call it “Youthful Approachability” which I think would be useful for a buying decision, but I thought Structure was pretty much it’s opposite and generally understood.


Proposed additions

Acidity - Several folks are interested in acidity being a factor. Do you have particular domaines that you think make particularly acidic wines, or those lacking acidity? Is there generally an inverse relationship with those domaines who make riper wines? If yes and no, then I am happy to follow the consensus. Just thought I’d probe further.

Vintage Impact - This could be a good addition. Does the domaine seem to minimize or embrace vintage differences? 1 = very consistent style, 5 = Emphasizes the vintage characteristics in their wines

Body - Light to Heavy. Seems a legit addition, especially if folks characterize domaines this way, without meaning structure. I know the two aren’t the same, but if they are highly correlated, I’d rather have fewer scales. Interested in feedback.

Qualitative Overlay - Can we / should we add a metric about the quality of the domaine? I’d suggest not because it is even more subjective than what I proposed, and would be more likely to lead to disagreement. And if I say I think Dugat is a two, then Tom Blach might not have lunch with me again. But hopefully we could come to a consensus as to his style. What do you think?

Price Overlay - We could add a price metric from 1-5. One representing “this domaine is significantly less expensive than others from its appellation” to five representing “sell the house.” While it isn’t sensory like the other elements, it seems reasonably objective, and could be valuable. What do others think?

Transparency - This seems somewhat subjective. I could see Kevin Harvey and I throwing down over whether Arnoux shows terroir well. It can be argued that burgundies of all style can eventually demonstrate their terroir. Am I the only one who thinks this is too subjective?

Thanks in advance for all for your thoughts.

6

Hi Brady,

wow you’ve really been thinking heavily about this. Interesting approach and I guess if you want to break it down this is a pretty detailed approach. Interestingly the first thing that came to my mind seems to be what others are hinting at. The thing I look for most in a great burg is depth. Hard to describe but I guess I’d say it’s the density thing but with a little more. Hard to describe but the best way I can is to say it’d the feeling you get from drinking a great wine after the sip has been swallowed. I think the other part missing here is the need for a great burg to show these traits in balance. So structure is fine but too much and it becomes a problem. When does density become overripe ? That type of ting.

7

This is all I think when I see the Fourrier piece:

8

A daunting endeavor, to be sure, but I’m glad you’ve taken up the challenge. Just jostling with the concepts here has already provided some fresh insights for me. I’d suggest not getting discouraged simply because some characteristics are hard to define or don’t allow for important subtleties. Keith’s chart has proven very useful for me, and I’d certainly appreciate an even more extensive one.

I’d suggest that an attribute like ‘transparency’’ would include ‘vintage impact’.

9

Hi all,

Starting this thread during harvest was probably not smart. Many experts are otherwise engaged. Hopefully, they can catch up.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback. Following are the thoughts from the two boards.

General Discussion:

Objective versus Subjective criteria - really they are all somewhat subjective, aren’t they? For the first round (pilot), I think we can include several very subjective criteria, to see what happens. If the information gathered is nebulous or too controversial, we can drop them going forward. First on the list is Elegance. Maybe Quality too. Okay, maybe even transparency, sigh.

Age and Cru - most assuredly these have an impact. Perhaps we should focus on what the wines are like at early maturity, say age 15-20. Alternatively we could think about what they are like young, knowing that they will evolve (converge?) with time. The advantage of the latter is we’d get a bigger sample of board members who’ve tried the wines. Thoughts? Regarding cru, hopefully the domaine has a style that cuts across the cru levels? If this is really a concern, perhaps our mental image should be around the domaine’s average wine? So maybe Fourrier would be a non-CSJ 1er cru.

Other wines - Can this be done for other regions/wines? Sure, why not? But let’s try it in burgundy, first.

Anchor point - Could we compare something like four bourgognes from four houses, and begin to draw conclusions that way? Yes, and that would be fascinating. But, for purposes of this project can we use experienced burg drinkers’ mental image of the domaines? Which leads to…

Individual wines - Can something like this be done for individual wines? You bet. I first learned this technique in doing sensory studies for food. It is normally done one item at a time. The scales would likely be a little different. For example, Body makes a lot of sense when comparing two wines, I am less convinced when comparing two estates. Trying to do this approach for a domaine’s overall style is the innovative part here.

Did I happen to mention that in a previous job I was a statistician for a food quality consulting company? The sensory studies could be very revealing. Ask me about German cream cheese, some day.

Dugat - No Tom, I don’t think I’ve ever had a mature one. Young, they are pretty rough though! I am sure they are brilliant at 20 years.

One more thing - I appreciate nobody pointing out that I am an idiot, having described the first spider graph as being three Morey domaines. Ah, board civility.

Attribute Discussion:

Modernity - There have been a few more comments about the lack of clarity in this term. I will reverse the category and call it Rusticity. 1 = crystal clean and 5 = frequent barnyard.

Acidity - I can include it, but suspect the results won’t be terribly meaningful within the world of burgundy. Everybody’s acidic! Further, if the results are meaningful, I’ll bet there is a strong negative correlation with ripeness,.

Other new attribute proposals:

Depth - “Hard to describe but I guess I’d say it’s the density thing but with a little more. Hard to describe but the best way I can is to say it’d the feeling you get from drinking a great wine after the sip has been swallowed” - this sounds to me like a Wow factor.

Balance - I understand this criteria for individual wines. Much like body, does it really apply to an entire domaine’s style?

Purity - I imagine this means purity of fruit? Would purity be the opposite of rusticity? Simon related it to Transparency, so maybe it is purity of site?

Next steps

  1. Take more feedback on this post
  2. Propose initial scales divided into semi-objective and clearly subjective categories, including basic descriptions of the scales.
  3. After feedback on that, start a pilot post listing three different well known domaines that have distinctly different styles. Then the voting and domaine comments can begin.
  4. Look at the results, summarize, and try to drastically trim the number of criteria going forward.
  5. Start doing top domaines, probably grouping within appellations.

How does that sound? For those who want to think ahead, I was thinking Fourrier, Mugneret-Gibourg, and maybe d’Angerville for the pilot. Are they sufficiently different?

Thanks to all, again.

10

Hi Brady,

A few comments below. I am not sure if they are helpful to you, probably not.

“Elegance - There seems to be agreement that elegance is hard to describe, with everyone having different definitions. I am inclined to drop it. Any suggestions on what to replace it with, if you want to capture the spirit?”
I agree, elegance can be read by other attributes – Aroma (toward florals), Palate (tight), Fruit (red), Tannins (vinous), Oak (integrated) Density (medium) would suggest an elegant wine.

“Density - It was pointed out that fruit intensity is not the same as extraction. While I agree, I think is hard to explain or define. Personally, I think of Roumier as generally featuring great fruit intensity, and several domaines that I don’t favor featuring extraction. But it is very difficult to define, and even more difficult to put on separate scales."
I agree, a difficult one but I would add. Would it work to have the scale on the basis of “up-front” to “on-finish”. Roumier, Leroy, Dugat Py all have density up-front. Rousseau, DRC, Mugnier perhaps more on the finish. Both ends of the scale have equal density it just presents on the palate differently?

“Modernity - I chose this word over cleanliness or hygiene given that the low end of the cleanliness scale would be dirty, which is rather pejorative, and something I strived to avoid. I am open to alternative nomenclature. Would rusticity be better?”
I think take it off. Again like elegance the other attributes will identify whether it is modern or not.

“Rustic (on modernity scale) - Does this mean unhygenic or less-manipulated? Both, I guess. I think of Truchot or Jouan for this. I don’t have the expertise to know whether the gamey, mushroomy flavors I sometimes find in their wines are due to a lack of cleanliness, but I do know I’ve had other wines from the same terroir that lacked the same degree of rusticity. I also don’t think of it as a negative.”
I think take it off. It more terroir influenced so not really relevant to domaine.

“Stemmy - I put this on the floral axis because it was originally a “stemmy” axis. Some tasters dislike perceptible stems. I thought that if I changed it to floral, then halfway up the scale we could indicate a domaine that probably included some stems, enough to give a floral lift, and a five could represent a domaine whose stem inclusion was overt and noticeable in young wines, like, say Clos des Lambrays. Again, this isn’t necessarily bad, and is meant more as descriptive.”
I think take it off. Other attributes would highlight this – tannins = vinous, vintage = high impact.

“Savory / Savoury - By this I mean a catch-all for the non-fruit, non-floral elements of the aroma such as sous-bois, mushroom, blood, game, hair, etc… I might switch to “savoury” going forward, as Americans know the word, and will give me less grief.”
I think take it off – already covered by Aroma.

“Structure - I thought this scale would be easiest of them all. I think of it as a combination of tannins and acid that might make a young wine difficult to drink. The point of this scale wasn’t whether it was truly pleasurable, but whether it was drinkable. If this isn’t clear, how should I revise it? Should I just drop the words attractive and unpleasurable? Or change to “Open to Impenetrable”? I initially wanted to call it “Youthful Approachability” which I think would be useful for a buying decision, but I thought Structure was pretty much it’s opposite and generally understood.”
I think take it off – combination of other attributes would highlight this.

Proposed additions

“Acidity - Several folks are interested in acidity being a factor. Do you have particular domaines that you think make particularly acidic wines, or those lacking acidity? Is there generally an inverse relationship with those domaines who make riper wines? If yes and no, then I am happy to follow the consensus. Just thought I’d probe further.”
I think leave it off, more vintage rather than domaine influenced. Also balck fruited wines would suggest less acid whereas red more.

“Vintage Impact - This could be a good addition. Does the domaine seem to minimize or embrace vintage differences? 1 = very consistent style, 5 = Emphasizes the vintage characteristics in their wines.”
Add I think.

“Body - Light to Heavy. Seems a legit addition, especially if folks characterize domaines this way, without meaning structure. I know the two aren’t the same, but if they are highly correlated, I’d rather have fewer scales. Interested in feedback.”
Leave off, density covers it.

“Qualitative Overlay - Can we / should we add a metric about the quality of the domaine? I’d suggest not because it is even more subjective than what I proposed, and would be more likely to lead to disagreement. And if I say I think Dugat is a two, then Tom Blach might not have lunch with me again. But hopefully we could come to a consensus as to his style. What do you think?”
Leave off, agree. Perhaps a “Complexity” measure could work though again that is very much terroir driven though perhaps some domains are more apt at making more complex wines from same terroir.

“Price Overlay - We could add a price metric from 1-5. One representing “this domaine is significantly less expensive than others from its appellation” to five representing “sell the house.” While it isn’t sensory like the other elements, it seems reasonably objective, and could be valuable. What do others think?”
Leave off, nothing about domaine style and changes depending on demand

“Transparency - This seems somewhat subjective. I could see Kevin Harvey and I throwing down over whether Arnoux shows terroir well. It can be argued that burgundies of all style can eventually demonstrate their terroir. Am I the only one who thinks this is too subjective?”
Leave off, covered by combination of other attributes.

It could be that the graph produces different shapes that could then be read to identify whether a domaine is modern, elegant, heavy… without actually having these attributes listed. I guess you could have a key of shapes that indicate a domaine type. The questions designed to create a shape that indicates the domaine type rather than the questions directly designed to do so. My2c. Cheers Mike

11

I’m confused about the modernity/rusiticity thing. If it’s an issue of how “clean” the wines are, are there any significant burgundy domaines that are making notably dirty wines, like in the way for which Beuacastel or Pegau are (in)famous?

I also tend to think of rusticity as meaning something totally different. Rustic to me relates primarily to the textural character of the tannin; tannins that are hard, coarse, rough etc. are what I think of as rustic, and is an opposite of “refined” or “suave”.

I guess in general I’m somewhat skeptical about this project. The great thing about Keith’s chart is it reduced everything to a single data point: you could look at the chart and instantly know the producer’s style and what producers were similar. The issue with models is always the trade-off between explanatory/predictive power and simiplicy/usability. I feel like this proposal takes the idea of graphical representation and adds a very slight amount of explanatory power at the expense of a huge loss of simplicity. I look at those odd-shaped polygons your chart produces and I have no idea what they mean.

I also don’t like the idea of averaging out people’s responses. If four people give Rousseau oak scores of 1, 2, 4, and 5, the average oak score is “3” but that might be a misleading characterization. There’s also no way to account for stylistic differences within a domaine’s lineup – using Rousseau as an example, some people think the CSJ is overoaked but the Chambertin and Beze are not.

I think a more useful approach would be a wiki-type project in which people contribute their opinions. Something like the appellation tasting series, but for producers. Boiling everything down to a graphical representation would be of limited use to me.

12

Paul Pernot reds are absolutely filthy. They can be terrific, foul or anything in between.

13

Thanks all, from both boards, for your feedback. We are ready to go with the pilot. I am not going to add many criteria to be eliminated later, as described in the last post. That would make the project too tedious and annoying for all. Instead I modified the existing criteria per the suggestions and added the two most commonly requested criteria.

Attribute Discussion:

Rusticity / Modernity - Does rusticity refer to grainy tannins? It can, but generally the word means more. It is often applied to “old-fashioned” wines displaying earthiness, barnyard, a general lack of finesse, and over-all lack of refinement. It sounds negative, doesn’t it? But, many folks prefer these wines, thinking them honest and less manipulated. Anyway, I eliminated this scale and replaced it with Perceived Manipulation. When you consider the estate, how strong is the hand-of-the-winemaker versus the terroir and vintage effects? The low end of this scale is often described as “natural” and often includes elements of rusticity. Yeah, this could be controversial too. But it means something to most burg lovers I know.

Average - “I also don’t like the idea of averaging out people’s responses.” Nowhere did I say that we would take the average of ratings. Rather, I hope to come to a consensus, which is not easy, I know! The results won’t be perfect, as the Rousseau oakiness example on WB demonstrates.

Toughness - I added this descriptor to the Structure scale, it’s a good word that folks will understand.

Acidity and Elegance - added by popular demand.

Quality and Price - excluded for now. We will start off focusing on top estates, whose quality isn’t a question. And, winesearcher makes the price question pretty easy to answer. It might be fun to allow discussions on these two topics while people are posting their values on criteria, though.

Perceived X - The word “perceived” was used on three criteria to avoid the debate about to what degree vignerons include stems, new barrels, or work their wines. Focus instead on what you think when you drink the wines.

Burgundy House Style Guide

Project Goal - to come up with a methodology to provide a broad profile of the house style of burgundy domaines and maisons.

Why? - Learning about burgundy by trying random bottles can be fun, but it can also be expensive and discouraging. If this project works it will help wine lovers, who don’t already know all the domaines, understand the style that domaines generally display. This can be used to try various styles in tastings or to steer enthusiasts to wines they might enjoy.

Methodology - Have burgundy drinkers on two bulletin boards provide feedback on various criteria for individual domaines and negotiants. Posters will give their opinion on how wines in early maturity (say, 10-15 years after vintage) compare to others within Burgundy.

Criteria: For the pilot let’s use these criteria (rated 1-5, from least to most):

Savoury Nose - none(fruit-driven) to very savoury (sous-bois, game, etc…)
Perceived Stems - none (1) to floral (3) to overtly stemmy (5)
Acidity - low (fat) to high (sharp)
Density - light bodied to great fruit intensity / extraction
Ripeness - lean to very sweet-fruited
Elegance - one dimensional / clumsy to very balanced with finesse
Perceived Oakiness - none to dominant
Perceived Manipulation - minimal manipulation to highly polished
Structure - easy-to-drink young to tough/hard/requiring long aging.

How can people use the results - Results can be used in many ways. Intially, I will provide a summary for each estate, including a spider-graph. In the long run, it can be used to answer questions like, “Which domaines are most difficult to enjoy young?” or “I prefer elegant wines, like X; are there any similar in style?”

Pilot Domaines - I selected three that are board favorites to increase the response size. I will try to post the pilot later tonight. I look forward to your responses!

14

Savoury Nose - none(fruit-driven) to very savoury (sous-bois, game, etc…)

‘sous-bois’ as most burg drinkers use the term is the aroma that a wine gains via aging. How could that be considered a producer style?

15

Berry,

Please note that the target age is early maturity, say 10-15 years. With age, some domaines show more savoury elements than others, including sous-bois. If you don’t agree, rate them all 3. If others agree with you, then that criteria will be useless and be dropped after the pilot. Hope that makes sense.

Thanks.

16

If we’re judging the wines based on how they did during the 96-02 period, how do you want to handle style changes since then? That was kind of the high watermark for the lots of ripeness/oak era (to the extent there was one), and a lot of producers are supposedly making wines in a very different style now than they did then. Someone like Pousse d’Or might be a good example here. Or what about Domaine Daniel Rion, where Patrice Rion left after the 2000 vintage? etc. Perhaps we could do 3-dimensional representations that show how the spider-graphs evolve over time.

17

Corey, I suspect that some domaines might have two profiles, for example Faiveley, pre and post 2005. I’m not worried about that now. The three pilot domaines have reasonable continuity.

Regarding maturity, I didn’t say 96-02. Some folks have been drinking burgundy far longer than you or me, and have the experience to know what an early maturity example tastes like.

Finally, let’s worry about the nits later. Let’s see if the concept works now. If it doesn’t work, we’ll abandon it. I’ll post the pilot soon. Give it a try!

Thanks.