I couldn’t find the thread where we discussed this before but there was some debate on wether Beaujolais is formally part of the burgundy region.
Part of the confusion is that alot of books state that Beaujolais is part of Burgundy and some Beaujolias producers put “Red Burgundy Wine” on their labels. Additionally, it seems legal for Beaujolais producers to label their wines as Bourgogne.
On the other hand Beaujolais is mostly in a different department (Rhone) and Beaujolais is its own AOC.
Today I was reading a new book I bought called “The Wines of Burgundy” by Sylvain Pitiot and Jean-Charles Servant. In it they state that Beaujolais produces over half the wine in the “Bourgogne Viticole”. I looked up this term and most results are in french. One of the results was in the french language wikipedia page (Vignoble de Bourgogne — Wikipédia). I translated it and found this text:
Legally, the vineyard of the Beaujolais wine is attached to the vineyard of Burgundy by the judgement of April 29, 1930 of the civil court of Dijon, taken again by the decree of July 31, 1937 [139] creating l’ AOC Burgundy (including for the reds of gamay of the Saône-et-Loire and the Beaujolais wine), modified by the decree of February 24, 1942 which limits it to the only white beaujolais wines, then extended again to the reds resulting from the gamay on May 6, 1946 for fourteen beaujolaises communes (vintages)
Then there is more
The trade union of the burgundies lodged a request with l’ INAO to modify the schedule of conditions of Burgundian regional names [145]: according to this request, only the communes of ten names of (villages) of the Beaujolais wine could be displaced in Burgundy name, with l’ indication “gamay” on l’ label [146]; the production of the other beaujolaises communes could be asserted in “Burgundian slopes”, a new name replacing Burgundy-ordinary the or Burgundy-large-ordinary one
LOL. While some of the “cru Beaujolais” communes have the legal right to label their wine as AOC Bourgogne, that hardly makes Beaujolais part of Burgundy.
In that thread there is documented proof that Beaujolais is not considered part of Burgundy by BIVB, nor by the Office National Interprofessionnel des Vins, nor by INAO. All of these official bodies classify Beaujolais as its own category, not part of Burgundy, not part of Rhone Valley, not part of Bordeaux or Champagne or anything.
It is curious that several authors state that Bojo is part of Burgundy. It is perhaps convenient to do so. There are commercial ties between many Burgundian negociants and Beaujolais. There is a certain logic that says Beaujolais is the red wine brother to the Maconnais white wine sister, and all these bodies regard the Maconnais as part of Burgundy. But the official bodies don’t put Beaujolais there, and the documentation of that seems very clear.
I was in Bugundy in March, and it was explained to me that there is a move to create a new regional appellation called “Coteaux Bourguignons” that would encompass more than just cru Breaujolais.
There is no doubt that Beaujolais is “legally” part of Burgundy.
The Burgundian wine growing region consists of 5 parts:
region of Yonne (Chablis etc.)
Cote d´Or
Cote Chalonnaise
Maconnais
Beaujolais
Proof is that wine from Beaujolais can be blended with wine from any other region … and be called Bourgogne (Passe-toutes-grains, - grand ordinaire).
You can grow Pinot Noir in Beaujolais and call it Bourgogne, just as you can grow Gamay in the Cote d´Or …
Sure there are huge differences, but the same applies for Sauternes/Graves/Pomerol/Medoc … (all Bordeaux)
or for Cote-Rotie/Chateauneuf-du-Pape/Costieres de Nimes (all Cote-du-Rhone)
Completely makes sense geographically. Excluding Chablis, all of Gerhard’s stated regions are located in an approximately 5 mile wide strip to the west of the river Saone, all associated with the same “valley” running north-south between Lyon and Dijon.
I disagree. As an exception to the normal rule, growers in several communes have the right to declare a wine two alternative ways. If a wine is declared as Morgon, it is a subset of Beaujolais. If declared as Bourgogne, that does not move the village or the vines. It is an anomaly of the label.
Gerhard, what is your source of this “fact”? It is not BIVB. It is not INOA. According to both, there is no doubt that Beaujolais is not part of Burgundy. Your list of five regions should just be four. Beaujolais is separate. Did you read the thread I linked?
And this leads to the commercial ties I mentioned above, and the writers’ logic I mentioned above. But the French organizations that look after wine define it differently.
If Bojo is part of Burgundy, then all the statistics about Burgundy vineyards and wine production are wrong by a factor of two. If Bojo is Burgundy, then the production of red Burgundy wine has more than doubled from what the BIVB and INAO have published. Someone should tell them…
Lewis,
any citation in wikipedia hardly can be an “official” definition.
See here:
(hope it works)
and click on “Aire geographique” and “Zone de production du raisin” - and all communes belonging to Burgundy will be listed alphabetically, including whole of Beaujolais.
Guess I’m having a little trouble understanding why it makes a difference?
The current lines of either the political departement or the winegrowing appellation of Bourgogne are only loosely based on the historic kingdom, and later duchy, of Burgundy, and back before the modern nation-state when there were a people known as the Burgundians, the land they settled in included present-day Beaujolais, right? So, culturally the place is to some extent Burgundian no matter what the government of France or the AOC control board says.
I think that is exactly what it means. What else could it possibly mean?
But that wasn’t even the meat of my post. To again quote the article I linked to above:
Legally, the vineyard of the Beaujolais wine is attached to the vineyard of Burgundy by the judgement of April 29, 1930 of the civil court of Dijon, taken again by the decree of July 31, 1937 [139] creating l’ AOC Burgundy (including for the reds of gamay of the Saône-et-Loire and the Beaujolais wine), modified by the decree of February 24, 1942 which limits it to the only white beaujolais wines, then extended again to the reds resulting from the gamay on May 6, 1946 for fourteen beaujolaises communes (vintages)
Unless the author is just making this up there would seem to be indentifiable goverment actions that explicitly state that Beaujolais is part of Bourgogne.
The thing is that it is not several, its the vast majority, including French authors.
Based on Gerhard’s link it seems the INAO does consider it as part of Burgundy.
I can’t even parse your logic here. A bottle of Morgon, from Beaujolais, can be labelled Bourgogne because the INAO considers Morgon a part of Beaujolais (otherwise, they wouldn’t allow it to call itself that). Consequently, it legally is Burgundy. You can call this a label anomaly if you like, but it won’t make your position any less counterfactual.
If you were to say that the wines from Beaujolais ought not to be classified as Burgundy, for this or that reason, regardless of legal rulings or the history of geographical reference, you of course could make any case you liked for that claim. I am guessing from your entrenchment in the face of all that is getting cited, that that is your real position. I think you should fall back on it.
![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}