These are all subjective:
the most botrytis-displaying → Maybe more vintage specific than producer specific. Maybe 2003, but keep in mind it was also warm.
the greatest acidity → Climens
the greatest length → I would say Fargues
the most overstuffed → Rieussec when young. But also very oaky when young
the greatest delicacy → Maybe Coutet
the greatest complexity → Variable, but another vote for Fargues here.
A lot of these are both producer specific and vintage specific, so it’s not a straight comparison. All of these above are some of my favorite producers.
True, though pricing is high and my experience with Gillette is fairly limited because of it. I can’t say I’ve had a truly great one.
And I wouldn’t presume to know better than you on any wine-related topic! But if you’re ever near SF, I would be happy to talk Sauternes with you over a bottle of Yquem anytime!
I don’t have great experience with it but would love to hear what the Berserkers have to say…
Obviously only small quantities produced and only by a handful of producers:
Château Caillou
Château Cameron
Château d’Arche
Château de Commarque
Château Filhot
Château Gilette
Château Lafaurie-Peyraguey
Château Suduiraut
Divinitus
Domaine de la Gauche
Rousset-Peyraguey
Great list and great descriptions IMO. @OP, Aged Yquem is available for much less coin than most of the other “greatest wines in the world.” I think it is totally worth the occasional splurge. We did six vintages at the Charleston Offlineorama; each bottle was special and distinctive.
With the great big caveat that I’m a sauternes novice, I had a 1950 Chateau Gilette in 2020 and it was “truly great” in my estimation. Even a couple folks that don’t care for sweet wines commented how much they enjoyed it. Now that’s just one small data point for consideration, but it was well worth the price for an admittedly special occasion.
Adding my thoughts in the categories where I have them.
the most botrytis-displaying - Agree this is more about vintage than producer
the greatest length - agree on Fargues
the most overstuffed, - Giraud for fruit density, Lafaurie Peyraguey
the greatest delicacy - Coutet, d’Arche
Doisy-Daene is one of my favourites in good vintages for depth, length and acidity. Have also enjoyed D’Arche across a number of vintages as well as Coutet.
Probably the most overstuffed I have had would be La Tour Blanche 2003, which came in at ~400g/l residual sugar if I remember rightly. Twas like drinking liquid barley sugars.
I’ve never thought d’Arche was something interesting. For me, it has been a “nice wine” but always seemed like an underachiever among many Cru Classés.
Was that number a hyperbole? If it wasn’t, FWIW, I think that amount is technically impossible for any Sauternes, ever. Basically the only styles of wine that can attain that level of residual sugar are Tokaji Essencia and PX. At that RS, making Sauternes would be impossible, since no yeast is able to ferment anything but a tiny bit of glucose (Essencia is typically fermented to 2-3% ABV over many years in oak barrels; PX is fortified to 17-20%). To qualify for Sauternes, the wine must be fermented to a minimum of 13% ABV, which would be impossible at ~400 g/l.
Anyways, it was pretty easy to check the RS for 2003 - it was 178 g/l. I can imagine it would feel pretty cloying, because that number is atypically high for a Sauternes, but that’s still a far cry from drinking a 400 g/l RS wine. Those are a completely different game altogether.
The perceived sweetness doesn’t really track the sugar level in such a linear fashion (talking in general, not about LTB 2003 in particular, I should underline).
Sauternes/Barsac is all about the interplay between bitters (the extract that occurs when botrytis digests the grapes on the vine: the must looks like a purée, extraction from the skins is so high - so in a sense these are the ultimate orange wines) and the sweetness. If you lack botrytis you don’t have much in the way of bitters, so even with less sugar the wine will feel more cloying. Conversely, some of the analytically sweetest wines can be the least cloying/saacharine.
Entirely true. And it’s not just about the extracted bitter elements, but also things like alcohol, acidity, any other elements that come from botrytis (for example an ice wine and a botrytized wine that have similar levels of alcohol and acidity can be strikingly different), etc.
For example a PX at 400 g/l is something completely unlike an Essencia at 400 g/l!
However, a Sauternes is still a Sauternes. A Sauternes at 180 g/l RS must feel pretty lush and even cloying if the normal level one is used to is a Sauternes at 90-110 g/l - no matter how much there are balancing bitter elements. Even if I have not tasted that '03 LTB, I know this much having tasted some Sauternes wines that have clocked in at 150 g/l RS and above. I’m not saying they are unbalanced, buy they have been invariably noticeably sweeter with more richness compared to more typical Sauternes wines that have been hovering at around 100 g/l.
But no matter what kind the wine is, there is no way one could confuse it with a wine at 400 g/l - not because of just the sweetness but because these wines are just so very different from any kind of Sauternes.
Trypical RS in the best vintages of Yquem is 145, with the 1945 the highest they have measured at 164g. So, 180 is definitely very high but equally 90-110 is too low for a great Sauternes picked in tris with good botrytis IMO.
Correct, 90 g/l is maybe a bit too low for a typical Sauternes, but nothing outside the ordinary - checking out some wines I’ve tasted, I’ve had several. Probably not wines that’d classify as “great Sauternes”, though.
But further checking out some data sheets I could find, the typical levels seem to hover around 115-130 g/l; around 110 g/l and below for vintages with less botrytis; 140 g/l and above for hotter vintages and/or those with more botrytis.