The Truth about buying Bordeaux (a Bordelais Nightmare)

WINE TALK
1

Just in time for the '10 barrel scores!! [cheers.gif] If you are one of the types who sees financial analysis of Bordeaux as perhaps uncouth, this may not be the thread for you. This is for us who must make decisions based upon opportunity costs and time-value of our money. Five basic tennants about buying the wine and getting the most out of it.

Maxim no. 1: Barrel sample scores as an indicator of individual plays are pure bullshit. They inexorably reinforce a feedback loop about the hierarchy of Bordeaux as they are almost always done non-blind. You may get a handful of scores that buck the trend by one, maybe two standard deviations every vintage, but not enough to steer the supertanker. Anyone who tastes mature claret across a vintage knows the hierarchy never pans out in the glass come year 20. The sleepers and unheralded louts often make a compelling argument for why the hierarchy is bullshit. If you are content gazing into your Latour lion as he extolls the virtue of your 600 dollar purchase, don’t forget that he got smoked by Pichon Baron in 19xx* at 25% the price.

Maxim no. 1(b): Anyone who drinks enough old Bordeaux and has a palate capable of forming his/her own judgments with consistency knows that the progression of a barrel sample is something that is extremely difficult to prognosticate on an aggregate of 100-200 top chateau, in a blind setting. If you want to rate Lafite high because it is Lafite and you have drank splendid examples of old Lafite for your life and the Barons de Rothschild throw the most lavish parties by the water lillies at the Lafite pond, then say that. Don’t attempt to level the playing field as an evaluation of what’s being spitooned; that is a charade, the great charade of Bordeaux.

Kudos to some new critics that increasingly buck the trend, calling barrel scores based upon how they see it and kudos to organizations such as GJE for challenging the establishment. First in my mind would be Neal Martin. I hope for more of this and more blind peer tastings.

Maxim no. 2: Futures are only a lucrative investment in superlative vintages and distressed situations**; preferably both. Otherwise, you are tying up your capital with the hope of securing perfect provenance, something that can be achieved with less time-loss of investment. I’m a huge proponent of proper provenance but a 2 year unsecured downpayment? F that noise. Trust me, I learned the hardway. If you are financially saavy with your money, you know this is a fools errand.

Further, there have been several watermark vintages which propel the myth about futures and the splendor it provides: 82, 89, 96 and 00 are those that most readily come to mind. There is a confluence of idiosyncratic reasons behind the profitability of investing in these vintages and they have indeed performed over time. Remember, just beacuse 82 Pichon Lalande skyrocketed in price doesn’t mean 90 Lalande did. You have to take the uptake over an aggreagate of wines, rather that honing in on the dramatic winners. Further, there have been equal amount of stinker investment vintages such as 83,91,94,99 and 06. They all seem dubious now, but I guarantee the hype machine made compelling arguments about the wines at the time (e.g. 99!). Jury is out as to “all-in” profitability of 05,09 and the impending ’10, the three mega-vintages still in earshot. Caveat emptor!

Maxim no. 3: Unlike Burgundy, Bordeaux wines are ubiquitous. You will never miss out as a result of not buying early. Any bottle/case/jeroboam will inexorably fall back onto the market. This is the reality of (a) how much Bordeaux is flipped and (b) the sheer production volume of the wines, regardless of heightened global demand. I got calls from merchants about 09 Bordeaux futures and their constricted case quantities as a result of the Asian scrouge crippling their supplies, telling me to lock in my purchases before the dragon gobbled it all up and breathed the cassis tinged fire in my face! Guess what? The overpriced*** stuff is still readily available at or near release price. Glad I didn’t eat that worm!

Maxim no. 4: The only way you will get (drinking) value out of your investment is to perform your own dilligence rather than buying on critical recommendations. That means doing verticals and horizontals in tasting/dinner and blind/non-blind formats. Consistently challenge your palate. Challenge the pretty Mouton paintings and ask why Grand Puy Lacoste is multiples less enjoyable simply due to the price. You may adore Haut Brion but ask why Haut Bailly offers at a fraction. You may think Petrus is god’s elixir, but see how it fairs against VCC, Trotanoy and Valandraud blind.

That is not to say that Parker and the like do not offer evaluative research of any merit. They do and I do read their work to get an idea of how the vintage characteristics have made a gestalt impact on the wines. However, if you buy on Parker points alone, you are adhereing to the game and reinforcing the misguided view that a single palate can speak many tongues. If you are content with that, then you either have very similar tasting preferences, or you are training yourself to go with the perceived normative. While the second is the easy path to take, it is the less rewarding and the more onerous in terms of cost.

Maxim no. 5: pricing is decoupling from historical norms. Many make an argument that nouveau-wealth interested in fine wine are not as aware of historical pricing norms of Bordeaux and are willing to plonk down the serious cash for the best claret. I call bullshit! There is a degree of opacity with regard to wine quality and price, but when the dust settles (can take years to decades) most of the true juice comes through more expensive for a reason. Sure, labels will sell for princely sums, but fools are born every day. Don’t be one! Further, when you do your own digging, you find those gems that got buried in the hype manure. This is where you find value in drinking great wine!!

When it takes such a long time to reach meaningful evaluative maturity for a luxury good such as Big Bordeaux, this elasticity phenomenon is to be expected. New breed drinkers who do not perform their own dilligence will often fall into the herd of normative thought. To do otherwise would be contrary to human psychology (in effect, reprimanding their own frivolous purchasing, something most humans tend not to do). Tack that on to the percentage of purchasers who lack degustatorial precision (blokes such as myself) and you have a connondrum. Don’t get swept away in a rising tide. Always look for the fundamentals when making a judgement of whether or not that 400 dollar bottle of barrel juice is worth its weight.

Now if you want to call bullshit on my banter, your white knight likely resides in the ability to sell any lucrative Bordeaux that may not tickle your tongue, at a princely profit. While this may be true, be ever cognizant of the cost of transaction with illiquid, regulated assets**** such as wine.

Cheers!



*do your own research neener
** e.g. 2001 post 9/11 and 2008 post financial disaster
***overpriced in the sense that it has not escalated in value, hence not worthy of an investment.
****I can speak for the U.S. versus In Bond investments in England

2

GREAT post.

Incidentally, while I agree that GPL and Trotanoy are wonderful alternatives to Mouton and Petrus, respectively, I have yet to find any wine that scratches the itch for the distinctive character of Haut-Brion (at any price!). The closest approximate I can think of is older vintages of Pape Clement before the Magrez style change. Haut-Bailly is one of my favorite clarets but it is a unique thing all its own, nothing at all like Haut-Brion.

3

Some good points - one thing I would mention - I buy a lot of stuff in formats (halves, dble mags, etc), a lot of which is difficult / nigh on impossible to get afterwards, as the estates don’t keep any for themselves normally, and they just bottle to order en primeur. Halves in particular are very hard to get afterwards.

4

Well you could buy 03 and 05 at “futures” pricing on release. Not the top 12 (which at this point have become just speculation plays), but all the others were to be had, so why tie up your cash for 2 years?

5

Maxim no. 1: Barrel sample scores as an indicator of individual plays are pure bullshit.

Emile Peynaud, possibly the greatest Bordeaux expert of all time, told me pretty much the same thing. The scores are fairly accurate, but for the reasons you describe, not the tasting.

6

I have bought futures for the last decade and have never been burned. Certainly the wines may stay around the same price on release but that has not been the norm - in general they do tend to escalate at least slightly over the two year hold period. Granted, I did not buy any 06 or 07 futures initially because I thought they were too high to begin with for what I expected in the bottle. I have bought a little at a later date as some prices have backed up.

I also believe Martin is a bit of fresh air at times with a different view. Even critics like Jancis who sometimes seems like the antithesis of Parker at times, doesn’t really rate the top wines any different - in fact if everything she almost always has the firsts as her top wines on the left bank with rare exception.

7

Keith- agreed, Haut Brion smoke is utterly talismanic, but I was just talking about the merits of the pairs blind. I would love to put on tastings between 2/3 similar wines of an appelation from divergent price points across 3-4 vintages and see how the chips land. I’m thinking Mouton/GPL and Baron etc…

Tom - while it may be a bit challenging to find particular formats years in the future, I tend to find it easy to find splits/mags of any top chateau. What may be more difficult is finding a particular wine and particular format for an event- say a 6L of 85 Gruaud Larose…

Philip - great to have some backup from the master himself [cheers.gif]!

Jack - 06 and 07 are the stinker vintages from a futures standpoint this decade. But 00 falls into the seminal category, 01/02 were the distressed plays, 04 was a wash and the rest remains to be seen. What will be interesting is the price movement of 08-10. There is always a tendency for anxious consumers to react to expensive futures by backfilling out of fear, but is that a tenable business strategy? Further, it’s still too early to project which wines will flesh out. I continue to buy from the 00 vintages from chateau I enjoy irrespective of Parker superlatives and the like…

F

8

Faryan,

Regardless of the lack of connection I feel for your avatar, your post is well received here. Your reasoning is pretty much why I have never participated in Bordeaux EP offerings. Of course, my preference for Burgundy makes the finite money game at my address a factor as well. I’ve always been able to rationalize it thusly:

I can always go to auction for Bordeaux when I find the ones I like; I may have a harder time finding the Burgundies, so a buying relationship is more important.

Cheers,
fred

9

Are people still buying Bordeaux? That is so passe.

10

People are still buying Bordeaux, believe me…

In any case, an eloquent and thoughful post, Faryan. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Yes, Bordeaux is the master of marketing. And now that some allocations are limited to keep prices high, and said prices are introduced already very high, so that the chateaux make a more direct profit, rather than seeing the business/negoce raise prices after release, much of the raison d’etre of buying en primeur is gone, at least for some of us. And then there is the vintage of the century fatigue which I have talked about on my website and confirmed in interviews with people far and wide.

OK, we have seen since 2005, some prices go up from the en primeur offering price, but that is more the exception than the rule.

Furthermore, blind tastings show that wines like Reignac can impress. Or that Grand Puy Lacoste can hold its own against wines which have a higher classification.

But my caveat here, as expressed by other posters in this thread, is that terroir matters in Bordeaux, in the long run. And not only for Haut Brion but also for wines like Petrus, Cheval Blanc and others.

Let’s just talk about Latour. If we were to hold a blind tasting in 2025 of Latour 2000 and Grand Puy Lacoste 2000, I would bet you the price of a 12 pack of Latour that Latour would be picked as the superior wine. There is something to be said about terroir in Bordeaux. No, it is not as intricate and arguably as meaningful at terroir in Burgundy, where one grape is used and the microclimates and exposures are so much more defined. But there is the terroir effect for superior or unique estates. Figeac’s gravel for example.

For all the publicity raised over Reignac, let’s taste the 2000 vintage blind in 2025 against the first growths, and see how it would fare…

Now price/quality differentials is another story, and an important aspect of your post. I get it. And I am the first person to get annoyed by the outrageous prices that the first growths charge, not to mention that Latour for me represents one of the worst, most arrogant ‘welcomes’ in Bordeaux: a Fort Knox like ambiance. So much so that I just could not be bothered to taste it from the barrel this year. Grand Puy Lacoste on the other hand is run by the very friendly Francois Xavier Borie; it is a wine I adore. I have a six pack of the 2000 and love that wine. Still, there is no denying the greatness of Latour.

So far as prices have developed over the last few years, I would rather spend my hard earned cash on expensive Burgundy over expensive Bordeaux, because at least with Burgundy, there is a finite number of wines, as you and later Fred Bower correctly point out.

But let us not forget that there is a reason why Bordeaux is so mythological, so popular. And why it always spawns a new generation of followers. People - whether in Asia or in the UK, in Germany or in the US - will lap up 2010 futures, whatever criticism we make on this and other chat boards. It is based at least in part on the fact that it can be DARN GOOD, as we have seen in so many tastings in Washington D.C.

11

Apparently.

I can’t understand why, except that perhaps they missed the last 6 vintages of the century, and now want in on the act.

12

Thanks Faryan, a brilliant post, informed, opinionated and pointed. Just what we want! [cheers.gif]

There is a lot of truth in there, and not many points I would strongly disagree with, but if I can contribute on a couple.

First, on the issue of scores being irrelevant because they permanent reflecting the 1855 hierarchy, I think the example you have selected is a weak one. There might be quite a few examples where, historically, super-seconds have out-stripped the firsts, but I think there are far more examples where the firsts have proved themselves, at 20+ years, in blind tastings. This is my personal experience. That is not so say they have always done so, no way, but they are up there at the top far more than your post suggests. Try and come up with a few more examples from recent decades and you will have difficulty making a long list. And I’m not looking for examples where we all know the estate underperformed - like Margaux in the 1970s, before Mentzelopoulos arrived, for instance - let’s have examples where, in a decent vintage, a first growth was embarrassed by over-performing seconds and thirds.

I’m also doubtful about taking a first/second split because, having tasted the firsts from barrel in recent vintages I think quality is going up and up. The bar is being raised higher and higher, making it far less likely that Latour and similar will be “smoked” by Pichon Baron in very recent or future vintages. Hence you can’t apply examples from 1982 or 1990 to the wines of today - the phenomenal pace of change in Bordeaux over the last two decades has made this inappropriate. Today wee benefit from so many improvements as Bordeaux has evolved, everything from better vineyard management to more refined work in the cellar, from horses and pheromones to optical sorting machines and temperature-control - quality is up across the board. Sure, this applies to the seconds as well as the firsts, but when quality is maxed out (which probably never happens…wouldn’t it be sad if it could?) they fall back on the immutable differences…i.e. the terroir that Panos mentions above.

OK, I should wait 20 years before I can say this with any certainty, and maybe you will dispute my belief that there is a genuine 1st/2nd divide here - but this is what I taste in the samples I have encountered in recent visits to Bordeaux (I’ll come back to opinion based on samples being “bullshit” in a minute).

Where I would have agreed with you is the hierarchy being wrong at a lower level; between the second and fifth growths there is a lot more variability I think. Fifth growths regularly prove this; the Lynch-Bages of old and maybe of today too - quality from recent samples and the wine in bottle has been super, Grand-Puy-Lacoste - the 2010 is stellar, and many would say Pontet-Canet too. But these are obvious examples. What about over-performing Lagrange, St Pierre, Langoa-Barton and even the unclassified Gloria in St Julien for instance - lots of ammo for your argument here. At this level, you definitely need to taste and review what is in the mouth, not what level of cru classé the label states. Anything goes!

On the issue of sample scores being “bullshit” I can understand where this barb is coming from. On an erudite board like this I don’t need to reel out the problems that negate the relevance of barrel scores, everything from unfinished malolactics to the absence of élevage, and of course the old “Parker barrel” favourite to name just three of dozens of appropriate criticisms. But take this from someone who spends a little bit of time critiquing medical literature in my other life. To be aware of the criticisms, the issues/problems/flaws/whatever in assessing “wines” from barrel, is to allow oneself to look at the scores with an appropriately critical eye. That is how they should be viewed. That is why when I score barrel samples I always give a rather broad point range. It is a flawed process, imperfect, that needs to be communicated by the taster but in needs to be borne in mind by the reader. The words and numbers need “interpretation” (just like medical literature)…but to me that doesn’t make them “bullshit” (in just the same way a poorly designed medical study is not usually “bullshit”). You can always get something from it, as long as one remains aware of these flaws when one is reading the scores (and the notes too, of course). But neither, as I am sure you would agree, can you take it as gospel. Unfortunately I know that when Parker’s scores are published later today/this week, that is how they will be seen by many.

Hope some of this makes sense! [basic-smile.gif]

13

Nice analysis on tasting barrel samples Chris. I have only been doing it since the 2000 vintage, with a hiatus in 2001 and 2002, and then regularly since 2003. I agree that bullshit is too strong a term. Tasters like yourself are thoughtful and take care with broad ranges, for example. But, I too, understand where Faryan is coming from. I know this is not a popular opinion, but I really try to stray away lately from giving too exuberant scores en primeur… It is indeed a flawed process - samples not really true to what will be in the bottle, timing of the tasting, sample variation et al.

And when one takes into account the hype of near 100 - or in James Suckling’s latest foray, some exactly 100 point barrel samples - I can see how Faryan - and many others - can get dismayed with the whole hyping process. So, no, one should not take it as gospel. But many do. From consumers to, especially, sellers who want to make money off the whole numbers and points. It is human nature to get excited about early tastings, and when Robert Parker comes out with his scores today, as you wrote, the Gospel will be followed by many a merchant. So then you have other writers and critics and hacks like myself who follow suite and issue notes and scores. Do I sound a bit cynical. I suppose I am. Or at least have become skeptical.

It used to be that high ratings were often accompanied by decent or at least somewhat logical en primeur pricing that would benefit an early purchase - it would be worth one’s while to tie one’s money for two years, taking a slight risk on how the wine would finally be in bottle. But recent en primeur prices, with the notable exception of 2008, have not been on balance worth the while of too many consumers.

Whatever the case, the best way to taste is, once again, over time and in bottle. Because some of the wines have become so expensive, I think that certain ultra trophy estates are irrelevent to me, personally, however much I may admire the quality, because I cannot afford them. But tasting from bottle is the true test for all of the wines, and then tasting them over time and in well organised blind tastings - to really compare across classifications and rankings, and to test the wine’s performance with age, which is what truly great Bordeaux is supposed to do.

14

Panos and Chris,

Thank you for chiming in as you are two actual critics who I respect and listen to intently and appreciate the professional feedback. Panos, I respect your guarded approach to scoring as well as the “beta” you provide in your scoring distributions. Chris, I also enjoy reading your scores as you provide a decidedly different spin on many of the wines that are traditionaly categorized in the normative hierarchy and your palate has consistently shown a classical approach to wines, eschewing manipulation, a trait I highly cherish.

If I offended your work by calling the corpus of barrel scores “BS”, I sincerely apologize. That was not my intent and perhaps shock factor was an intrinsic part of my rhetoric.

I’d like to retort a few points though:

-I am indeed a firm believer of the importance and prominence of terroir. Once Bordeaux comes to maturity, a lot of the make-up and dressing that can obfuscate your view on a wine in its youth is usually stripped. If the wine is of substance and retains harmony and balance, I believe the terroir comes through very clearly. Panos, I can distinctly reminisce on the singular smoke quality of that 78 Haut Brion, or the exuberance of the olive component seen in the infantile 98 Figeac and the ethereal aged 82 Figeac. I’ve had a handful of 61 Bordeaux and while Domaine de Cheavlier’s was very nice, it didn’t quite stackup to some of the prodigious efforts of the vintage which I’ve been fortunate enough to taste. There is no doubt, the top wines produce ageworthy splendors that often vindicate their status over time. These are the wines I want to focus on drinking. I open young Bordeaux of substance mostly for the academic experience, to attempt to understand how the wine fits into its family lineage and when it will progress to an optimal drinking window.

However, when we taste barrel samples, which I admit not to have a wide breadth of experience with, can we truly taste the terroir of Latour versus GPL? I tend to find that extremely hard. I can sense concentration, balance and purity, some basic complexity…but not much else. As such, when we taste barrels, do we consistently rate Latour higher than GPL because of what’s in the glass or is it our pre-conceived notion that Latour will be amazing in 30 years? I think the later factor is a huge component in how barrel sample scores come out for most of the professional critics. It is almost a direct threat to their credibility to rate the lesser growth higher than the firsts, because in time, that terroir will likely shine making their objectivity look foolish…but is the critic being honest with his or her evaluation of what’s truly in the glass? As it is never done blind, I don’t think we can make that statement, and that was the point I was attempting to drive the most.

Cheers to you both and do keep up the good work,
Faryan

15

To expand things a little:
This whole idea of barrel tasting (maybe in 10 years critics will be tasting the grapes on the vine) is actually pretty recent and part of the vulgarization of wine. Just as television and movies have descended to the lowest common denominator, wine has become much more of a commercial “competitive sport”.

In the old days I would celebrate life over a good bottle of wine with friends. The vintage / score of the wine or whether it was better or worse than Leoville Barton, was not on the table.
An example of this:
I was invited to a dinner, where one of the guests brought two different vintages of Cos D’Estournel, and monopolized a great deal of the conversation with Parkerspeak over these two wines even though most of the guests were not wine geeks. A few weeks later, in Paris, dear old friends opened two bottles ( of a better vintage) of Cos. The wines were not discussed at all during this dinner

A parallel from the world of cuisine was brought to me by a friend. He was an extremely intelligent and skilled chef with a small restaurant in Paris. He knew all the great chefs and probably could’ve become one but was not interested. He described his distaste for these 10 course “tasting menus”. The reason is that the meal becomes the stimulation for the evening and this constant assembly line of plates serves as a distraction from people interacting on a richer level. I can see parallels in wine. I previously went in Los Angeles to some of these “off lines” where 8 or more wines were tasted in the machine gun fashion and most of the conversation was Parkerlike wine speak.


PS great post Panos

16

Panos, Chris;

Great insights and commentary. I will say if you think barrel tasting is inherently flawed due to the myriad of variables involved, then why do we continue to perpetuate this method? I would like to see all wines tasted in bottle with the final blend so that the consumer is getting information on finished product that is representative of what will be sold.

The idea of projecting how a wine will taste 20 years hence is folly no? It is a guess, perhaps and educated guess at best, but I recall a saying in the financial markets that past performance is not an indicator of future performance. I think that can apply to wine. Factor in bottle variation and cork taint and you have a “minefield” for consumers to step in. In essence the consumer is buying on “faith” and the buy-in price is now silly and irrational (as it tends to get in speculative markets). The whole high priced wine market puts too much risk on the backs of consumers, hence, I no longer will play (I am also too old to buy new vintages).

Perhaps “bullshit” is too strong and emotional a term…I offer up goatshit instead. neener [cheers.gif]

17

Thanks Philip for the compliment. And thank you for bringing up FOOD! There is one thing I really dislike is this dismissive remark, ‘Oh that is a food wine.’ Yes, there are wines that are too acidic for example that will taste better with food, but then there is the whole notion of enjoying fine wine with food. Not some big, bold drink on its own. But, as you write, the importance of ‘interacting on a richer level’ to enjoy a fine wine… with food. In any case, that is just a pet peeve that is not really relevant to Faryan’s excellent, thought provoking nightmare post.

Faryan, to answer your question, I think that, yes, even en primeur I can sense greatness from some of the top terroirs. Two examples: the 2005 Petrus en primeur, tasted along with all the other Moueix wines, before ownership changed and thus one now tastes Petrus alone at the estate. I can tell you that while I really like La Fleur Petris and Trotanoy even more in 2005 from barrel, when I got to Petrus, I had an intellectual/sensual wine orgasm, forgive my evocative language. The sample was THAT good. The advantage to being able to taste it along with the other Moueix wines at the time was that I was able to go backwards and compare, again. Believe me that the layers of flavor, the nuances, the depth and the freshness (this was not a BIG BLOCKBUSTER) literally made up a whole greater than the sum of its parts. The 2005 Petrus remains one of my best ever red barrel samples. And I went back to taste it later that year, and that feeling was confirmed… Sadly, I have not had a chance to taste it from bottle, something which must be done to be sure about it.

And then there is Latour. When I tasted the 2009 Les Forts, the second wine, on the same day I tasted Grand Puy Lacoste, the two were head to head, with Latour being clearly better. Although in 2009 (and in 2005), I found Grand Puy Lacoste to be like Latour in many ways, just not as deep or as layered in texture. Still, I see what you mean about barrel samples and terroir. I think for example that Ausone, being a rather big style of wine, is sometimes hard to appreciate en primeur. Or let’s take Lafite, in many ways a polar opposite to Ausone, but which can sometimes be almost very closed. I recall the 2005 from barrel, where I made a remark to Charles Chevalier to that effect, and his reply was that a marathon runner will not go at top speed at the very beginning of the race… A flippant reply? Perhaps. True, too? I would bet that it is, even though other Pauillacs may have been more expressive en primeur… So you are right to say that some sort of pre conceived notions of ageability for top wines could influence a score, or that we give them more the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps. In the case of Lafite, it was the palate texture that impressed me most. But this happens with super seconds, too. Pichon Baron 2005 from barrel impressed me less than Pichon Baron 2005 from bottle… It was a rather closed sample from barrel, one could sense the greatness, but it was muted. Then, from bottle, wow, it really strutted its stuff.

So, Neal Martin’s high grade of GPL this year is great. I mean, I think it is great that he made that call, because he evidently had an epiphany with that wine. I also like Palmer more than Margaux, but you know what? I could be wrong. And so could Neal about GPL… Once again, proof will be in bottle and, especially, over time. Especially when you spend so much money on these particular fermented grape juices.

Faryan, I took no offense to your bullshit description! I think it was appropriately provocative and discussion inducing. It is just that I meet a lot of tasters for these en primeur events, and most are serious and dedicated in their work. They quietly sip and spit and take notes in rather intense sessions. Certainly it is fun, (at least for me, I love tasting from barrel!) but it is work, too… Just nothing to take over seriously. As John Kolasa of Chateau Canon once remarked: It’s only wine.

18

[basic-smile.gif]

Philip, it may well be a recent phenomenon in the jargon of today’s published wine critics, but barrel tasting has been around for some considerable period of time. In a former
capacity as a wine importer I visited Bordeaux and other wine regions, and tasted literally hundreds of wines from barrel in the course of any year. It’s a most demanding exercise and it certainly depends
a great deal on timing with regard to the condition of the wines in barrel. In most instances it was a prerequisite to purchase and, in putting my money up front, so to speak, it
was important to be right more often than not. Over the years my predictability improved, but I was fooled on occasion anyway. As I think back on the notes made at these barrel tastings,
there were no scores and no flowery prose to “sell” myself on the wines. There was no waiting around in the early days for the reports from published wine critics, because they were
few and far between at that time. Instead I relied a great deal on dialogue with the winemaker as we discussed our impressions and the potential for the future, based upon past vintages.

BS Baffles Brains is an expression often used to describe some who dally in the limelight of verbosity. I couldn’t afford that luxury when buying wines from barrel tasting.

Hank [cheers.gif]

19

I am far less experienced than you with wine (in particular, I simply can’t afford first growths). But I would question your logic here regarding whether quality can be maxed out and indeed whether there can possibly be any “quality” difference between first growths and super seconds that is not about terroir. Can you really turn the wine quality dial up to 11?

Let’s get specific – what exactly do you mean by “raising the bar” or improving quality when it comes to the difference between e.g. Pichon Baron and Latour? What is Latour supposed to do that a high-end luxury winemaker like Pichon Baron is not already doing? Inspect individual grapes in a laboratory with a microscope in order to determine whether to include them in the wine? What is Latour supposed to amp up relative to a chateau like Pichon Baron, which is already one of the best couple of dozen winemakers in the world? Are you referring to amping up wine concentration or sheer size through increased selection or a quest for more perfect ripeness? Well lots of people think there are negative returns to concentration/size past a certain point, and a bigger wine can be a worse wine. As for balance, I don’t think there is any magic formula for balance you can improve by pouring more dollars into the wine…and certainly a chateau like PB has got plenty of expertise to do a balanced wine.

I guess the end result of a quest to amp up quality among a few dozen luxury winemakers would be something like 2009 Cos d’Estournel. I haven’t tasted that wine, some critics clearly love it but certainly there seem to be plenty of people who think that wine ended up pushing things too far.

As I already said, I just have not been able to taste first growths because they’ve become unaffordable to me (I sold my Lafites), so it’s totally possible that there’s an extra level of quality I’m not familiar with. But I know I’ve had very high-end wines that I felt were overdone and more modest wines that struck a better balance.

20

Excellent post Faryan.