This raises an interesting question for the Beaujolais neophyte — what’s the typical aging curve for bojo? I’m sure there are numerous variables at work in such a question, like vintage, producer, appellation, bottling, etc, but I don’t really have much of a sense on this except that it’s a comparatively early maturing wine.
Can a good producer from a strong year comfortably hold for 5 years? How about 10?
Does bojo ever need age and if yes, does 1-2 years in the cellar do the trick most of the time?
I’ve heard Roilette often needs some age to show best, but is that the exception which proves the rule?
Pat, like any region it’s variable by producer and vintage. I’m drinking a combination of '09, '10, and '12 right now (Foillard, Lapierre, Breton, Chignard, etc.), and find all of them more complex, suppler and more interesting at this stage. That’s not to say that they weren’t slurpable and delicious when young, just that I prefer a little age on most wines. You can drink good Cru Beau young if you like that stage, but it’s not a wine that won’t age well in good vintages. I finished my '08s a little while ago (except a mag or two), and they were all still lovely wines, and I’ve had Cru Beau at 20 years out from vintage that was still wonderful.
If it is “traditionally” made (meaning foot trodden whole bunches, a two week+ maceration, followed by élevage of >12 months in used barrels, foudres or cement), and comes from well-farmed vines and a creditable vintage, the aging potential is considerable! I have drunk many cru Beaujolais from years such as '71, '66, '64, '61, '59, '55, '53, '49, '47, '45 etc that are still in fine form today. I even have some 1964 Beaujolais without cru or even “Villages” status that is still a delicious drink: all its tannins are long melted away but it’s aging on its balance.
However, that’s a big “if”, given the ubiquity of thermovinification for more commercial wines and sans soufre cuvées at the other end of the spectrum. Producers that I think produce cuvées that will enjoy 20-30 years aging (or rather “maturing”, i.e. they improve rather than simply surviving) would include Alain Coudert’s Clos de la Roilette, Louis-Claude Desvignes, Daniel Bouland, Joseph Chamonard (who actually systematically late release), Foillard (off vintages of the early 1990s are still drinking well from good cellars), Jules Desjourneys, J-M Burgaud, and Château Thivin. That’s not an exhaustive list but it’s a good start.
I opened another bottle tonight based on this thread. This wine is awful. I suppose there is a place for it. That place would be the toilet. Over-hot Liqueur cherry meets candied raspberry confiture. It’s as if Robert Parker murdered Foillard halfway through the harvest and then just ran amok. People who quibble over whether a mosel auslese goldkap should be labeled as a mosel auslese goldkap * should stay as far away from this wolf in sheep’s clothing as they can. It’s nuclear Beaujolais. Mother Nature has her own special way fighting back.
Alex
Well, although my TN was not as extreme as Alex’s, I found the wine quite heavy and ponderous with the alcohol coming across as rather boozy most of the time. I dubbed the wine as CdP-CdP (Châteauneuf-du-Pape-Côte-du-Py) for a good reason.
For me it was both bad and unrepresentative. I had to spit it out (that is not an exaggeration). It’s possible that I would do the same with any 14.5% wine, and it’s also possible that part of my reaction was from expecting a certain profile based on the last 20 years of drinking this every vintage and getting something different this time. It’s clearly the vintage and I suppose one way to think about it is that this is what nature gave Foillard in 2018.
A
in 2013 the foillard eponym was 11.7%
who knows if such a wine will even be possible in the future?
i must say tho 14% chez foillard packs a lot more punch than say 14% at dutraive. i was shocked how elegant and etheral the 17 fleurie champagne was despite the elevated alcohol.
Me too… but then I have had folks write me to say they had train-wreck bottles.
Mileage definitely seems to vary—between palates, between bottles, and perhaps between bottlings—more in the Beaujolais than in any other region I review.
Let’s not count it out: I’d bet '16, '14, '13, '12, '10 were all below 12.5%. That still makes for one vintage in two this decade… and would we really willingly swap the super-ripe vintages for the rotten, underripe years of yesteryear? As a niche of consumers we might; as producers we certainly wouldn’t.
The real issue in the Beaujolais will be whether producers can afford to make the viticultural adaptations that would mitigate some of the effects of a warming climate.
I’m not taken aback by Gillette’s and Otto’s comments. I felt similarly about the 2018 Bouland Delys cuvée, the flagship wine that I buy almost every year. Sometimes it just takes a minuscule amount extra to break the elastic, and once it does, it’s done for you. I do not recall finishing the Delys. The 2018 vintage is a big one. I did, however, really really like the Roilette Cuvee Tardive.
What are the viticultural adaptations that can mitigate some of the effects of climate change? Plant Syrah? Move to mars? Seems to me that if you can sell the wines at 14.5% alcohol you just play out the string as long as you can and leave the rest to your heirs.
While I understand the variability of vintages, for sure, I think that vintners can make choices and not make monstrous wines, even in riper vintages. Nature may have leaned the wine a certain way, but somewhat balanced wines can be made in very ripe vintages. I haven’t had this particular wine, but I’m pretty experienced with Foillard and this isn’t normal. The '09, for example is a bigger wine, and while it isn’t my ideal Foillard, it isn’t something that I’d consider “undrinkable” or anything close to that. So I’m surprised by the comments on the '18.
I would understand a stylistic preference of classically crunchy, bright red fruit over this more rounded darker profile, but to call this undrinkably extracted and Parkerized - or even Châteauneuf! - just feels like we’re drinking two different wines. Like I said, I felt it was more than recognizably Gamay and it wouldn’t be my favoured expression of this cuvée but I still enjoyed it.
A great question! Perhaps I would’ve considered a surprisingly great Châteauneuf, since it would’ve shown relatively high acidity for one and although quite brooding and plummy in character, the taste would’ve still been showing more berry-fruit flavors than your typical Châteauneuf would have.
But no. I still would’ve not liked it, since I don’t like Châteauneuf-du-Pape either. I struggle to enjoy lush, super-ripe wines and when alcohol in a wine is so high it starts to taste boozy, it’s more of a flaw than a feature in a wine.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}