2019 Château Cambon La Pelouse - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Haut-Médoc (12/28/2022)
– popped and poured –
– tasted non-blind over 1 - 2 hrs. –
NOSE: quite oaky; ripe purple fruits with a hint of earthiness; no funk; no pencil shavings; a touch stony; expressive aromatics, overall.
BODY: medium-full bodied.
TASTE: oaky — medium; a bit flat and one note; significantly oakier than I prefer, but it is a young Bdx., after all … perhaps this needed more air or time; or, perhaps, it’s just simply a solid-but-basic wine. Not a rebuy for me at $22.
1 Like
My take on the 2016 as well. Bouard now involved. I’m out.
There seems to be an attitude here towards Bordeaux consultants in general, Bouard in particular.
Are there any cases where the “consultant” comes by once a year for 15 minutes, tastes a few samples, goes ‘hmm’, leaves, gets a check and the Chateau trades on the name for consumers slightly less geeky than some on this board? Viticulture and winemaking stay essentially the same.
Kinda like Pele playing for the New York Cosmos?
I’ve had Cambon La Pelouse in a dozen vintages, probably not for a dozen years, flat out loved the stuff and the value. Not quite Lanessan, but in the same league (usually broader, more generous but without the same muscular intensity). The only reason I’m buying less of these wines is that I like my Crus Bourgeois at 15 - 50 years and I probably don’t have the time. Backfill? Good idea, thank you.
Dan Kravitz
1 Like
The 2010 Cambon was awesome, case worthy QPR.
I very much suspect that for many Bordeaux climate is more influential than consultant.
1 Like
Got a case +3 of 2010’s off K&L auctions last year for $22 a bottle. I really didn’t need that much wine to add to a crowded cellar and assumed my bid would get topped. It just seemed silly not to bid for that money.
1 Like
About consultants, I tend to agree with Robert that it is an indication–but only an indication. Before Cambie died, I would take note of whether he was a consultant for a given Southern Rhone wine. And there was a high correlation between his being a consultant and the wine not being to my taste. But it was far from a perfect one. Partly, what Dan said is right, that there are different levels of consulting. For his minimal price, he would show up at some domaines, make a few suggestions and leave. They were largely buying his name. For others, he was deeply involved. Even this wasn’t a perfect indicator. I know that Cambie was involved at Saint Damien Gigondas, and I read once in Parker that he was virtually the winemaker, or something to that effect. And I have always liked their wines. Maybe my palate is not consistent, but there it is. On the other hand, the number of wines where Cambie’s presence did correlate with what I found to be overripe wines with slushy tannins and more polish than I prefer was quite high. So I don’t think noticing their presence is random.
To create thread drift, what will happen at all those domaines now that he has died? Did he have a group of people working with him who will carry on his work? Will domaines that worked with him simply continue the style? Can we look forward to old friends returning to their methods of the old days? Anyone have insights?
2 Likes
Exactly, well said Jonathan. It is an indication, and a correlation generally speaking. If you have had many wines that have been touched in some form or fashion by the modernist consultants, whether it be Rolland, Bouard, Cambie or some other acolyte, and did not like them, why on earth would you take fliers on your releases that they have touched as well? Wine is too expensive for that risk, in my humble opinion, and there are way too many other options available in the marketplace. Sure, I have had some wines by these consultants that I have enjoyed, and some are quite fine, but I have also had wines from them that are ubiquitous, average, poor to even horrid. Not worth my time. So I actually do care who made the wine.
How is it? Happy with your bulk purchase?
Just to get super pedantic about this. … You care to know who made the wine and you care about what the wine is (i.e.: it’s characteristics). But, per your own admission, you don’t care who made the wine (“I have had some wines by these consultants that I have enjoyed, and some are quite fine.”)
Like you, I either like a wine, or don’t. I’m not going to like a wine, or dislike a wine, based on who made it; rather, I will like or dislike a wine based on the wine, itself. (now there are at least a couple wineries I’d never buy from because I have strong objections to the owner/winemaker/whatever — that’s not what I’m talking about here).
I am not following the pedantry. I do care who made the wine. I was just acknowledging that I have had wines made by these guys, not sure how you interpret it to mean that I do not care. I have bought wines made by or in consultation with these guys, largely to see what difference there is, if any. I have also unwittingly had wine made by these guys, as I was buying my normal wines during a time when so many Chateau were turning to the darkside. Hard to stay abreast of all of these changes, and hard to assume that stalwarts like Lanessan, Figeac, Conseillante, La Louviere, et al, would ever do that.
Brian’s distinction is a standard philosophic based on what is one known as the genealogical fallacy. A proposition is true or false regardless of who uttered it. If it happens to be the case that Hitler once said two plus two equals four, it is still true that two plus two equals four. If you like wine x and it turns out it was made by Rolland and Cambie in Frankenstein’s laboratory, it is still the case that you like the wine. Who made the wine matters, though, more than as a curiosity, because despite the truth of the genealogical fallacy, it is still the case that Hitler said more astonishingly false things than the average bear, and Rolland and Cambie, even working with actual grapes and vineyards, produce more than their share of chocolate milkshakes.
3 Likes
[just having a laugh, I liked your post]
2 Likes
Jonathan understands what I was trying to say.
Let me go about it this way:
Robert, let’s say you taste a wine without knowing who made it. You like the wine. Then, after deciding you like the wine, you find it was made by the human embodiment of all that is evil: Rolland. Once you learn of this, do you still like the wine?
Sure. I even said so upstream.
1 Like
Happy is relative of course. I didn’t really want 15 bottles of one wine but at that sort of value I could not not bid. I had taken a flyer on one off WineBid I think the year before after other good experiences with the producer in years passed. I liked it well and good. Very nice value. I’ll bring one to Frank’s when I’m likely scheduled to see you.
Its funny because the lot was an OWC plus the three extras. So I not only had to deal with storing the bottles but had this random wood case to handle.
On the consultants, even if they just stop by to bless the barrels, there is a reason a winery wants that person’s name associated with their wines. They are trying to sell to people that would be attracted to wines made by consultant X. So its highly likely that the wines will at least be in the general range of wines associate with that maker.
As in I can’t imagine say Lopez de Heredia or Chateau Musar paying to have Rolland’s name on their masthead.
1 Like
So, once you know you like the wine, do you care who made it?
This concept could be stated another way: Let’s say I don’t like a wine, but then after deciding I don’t like it, I learn that one of my favorite winemakers made it. Do I then switch from not liking the wine to liking it? No. Of course not. Why? Because I don’t like the wine, and because it does not matter who made the wine. All that matters is that the wine is what it is, and I either do, or do not, like it.
I understand the utility attendant to knowing who made a wine before tasting it. But, once tasted, it doesn’t matter who made it (setting aside the instances where one’s hatred or love for a particular winemaker literally influences one’s organoleptic perceptions and/or emotional feelings about the wine). If one’s love or hatred for a winemaker literally influences whether one likes the liquid in the glass, then I’d submit one needs to take a step back a bit. YMMV.