TN: Chateau Pavie 2001

WINE TALK
1

I had a skeptical and morbid curiosity to try this vintage of Pavie because numerous apologists for the wine insisted that while other vintages of Pavie might be cartoonish over-the-top Parkerized monstrosities, this vintage was a classic Bordeaux. Hey, it won some or another blind tasting, so it must be true. People who like this kind of thing will find this the kind of thing that they like, and I have no problem with that, but it’s mystifying to me how anyone can describe this as some other kind of thing. Classic Bordeaux this is not, as it’s not even remotely recognizable as Bordeaux, not even as modern spoof Bordeaux. I spent a few minutes wondering whether it reminded me of bad Australian merlot or bad California merlot before eventually deciding that it didn’t matter because this isn’t a wine that even seems to have pretensions to an aesthetic based on any place at all. It’s concocted to be a style, and that’s it. A stupid style defined by an obsession with boldness for its own sake with no regard for what is being shown in bold – in this case, anonymous syrupy fruit. Pavie often gets called overripe and it probably is but the fruit here isn’t Bordeaux fruit with sur-maturite; this fruit doesn’t taste jammy so much as burnt… Cajun-blackened blueberry compote with a mouthful of cedar shavings and raw, lumber-yard wood on the back end. That raw wood combined with an even bigger mouthful of dry tannin effectively negates whatever value this might have as a fruit bomb, because they eclipse the fruit. You get the worst of both worlds, a grapey-sweet entry and a woody, dry, astringent finish. And yet, while it’s certainly bad wine, it feels wrong to call it a terrible one, which might unfairly dignify it by implying it’s made in some kind of polarizing love-it-or-hate-it style which would make the accolades it gets from certain quarters understandable. I don’t understand them. While it’s bad wine, it’s not bad in any materially different fashion from any number of New World grape-and-oak based beverages that you can buy for twelve bucks a bottle or order by the glass in a grimy bar.

2

.

3

wow … this wine sure elicits strong reactions from those who taste it. thanks for the note, Keith. [thumbs-up.gif]

4

A median CT score of 94 from 65 notes. Tanzer 92, WS 92… I guess everyone is wrong. blahblah

5

I really like the sucker, but we know I like ripe, spoofy Bordeaux so no problem.

6

Pavie certainly does divide the room. We had a bottle in a blind tasting of 2001 Bordeaux about 6 months ago, and half the people had it as their favorite with the other half placing it last or next to last.

That love it or hate it aspect makes Pavie little different from many other wines.

7

Love the wine and have had it probably a dozen times in the past two years. Couple of thoughts here:

  1. It is not a traditional BDX by any stretch.
  2. In my opinion, it is made in a fashion to cater to the Napa Valley Cab/Meritage crowd.
  3. The wine is well made without any flaws.
  4. Keith, I am sure loads of folks, me included, would spit out the underripe Burgs that you consume on a regular basis.
8

Love this wine, but that’s fine if others hate it.

I don’t care what style it is. It tastes good. I’ll drink it. Keith and I have had this BB discussion before. To each his own, no harm, no foul.

Chris

9

That’s selection bias at work. I could gather several dozen people who would probably give it a median score in the 50s, but almost none of those people would have been inclined to purchase it in the first place. Pavie is an expensive wine so people who are not inclined to like it, don’t buy it. I further note that Sierra Carche has a median CT score of 89 points, or nearly outstanding, in 74 notes.

Meaningless because critics try to score “objectively” and therefore give lots of 90s-ratings to wines they don’t like and would not drink. Well, maybe Suckling would like it.

Nobody’s wrong for liking the wine, because taste is subjective. However, anybody who insists this resembles a classically made Bordeaux is gravely wrong because that’s an issue of objective fact.

[scratch.gif]

10

Great note. I find Monbousquet equally yucky.

11

I’ve never had a Pavie, but I get the impression that it relates to Bordeaux the same way that PU relates to Rhone.

While I sincerely appreciate the intent, something tells me that, in the end, California does California wine better than France.

12

I like it too. Its not traditional Bordeaux as Keith says, but I confess I like that particular vintage of Pavie.

13

.

14

Keith – I’m glad to see that fatherhood hasn’t kept you away from the (wine) bottle.

How soon before you start administering Lopez de Heredia to Sam with an eyedropper? (I assume you’ll keep him away from the Pavie.)

15

Keith, stop playing your cards so close to the vest. Just lay it on us, did you like the wine? I couldn’t tell because I didn’t see any numerical score in there.

16

Keith gave it a solid 66 points.

I am in the camp that enjoys it a lot but I also enjoy those “under-ripe Burgs” that Tex would spit out as well as some tasty traditional Bordeaux that Keith has, from time to time, scored well.

17

66? Ok good, so much easier to understand than ambiguous verbiage like “stupid”, “jammy”, “burnt”, “concocted” and “astringent”! [berserker.gif]

18

Fair enough…and add to that the '06 DRC we popped as well.

19

I definitely agree that the recent wines of Pavie I have tried are very “modern” and are, by no means, traditional Bordeaux that I am partial to. I have a few (e.g., '98, '99, '00 and '01) every so often, but they are from bottles of friends. I, personally, would not spend a single cent on them.

That said, though they are clearly not of a style I prefer, I readily see that they are enjoyable to drink in themselves and that people who like big, rich, extremely ripe/concentrated/extracted reds would like this style a lot. I think this wine is neither intellectual nor deep at all, but, then, not all wines, to me, have to be. Life would be far too boring if all wines were made in the same style.

I wouldn’t refuse a glass if offered; I just wouldn’t buy them. If nobody ever offered me a glass of recent Pavie from now on, I’d feel no loss.

On tangential point, I, personally take no offense at all if somebody writes less than appreciative notes on a wine or style of wine I like. I know and see that some do (even some of my good friends here - and this has happened precisely with Pavie - the '99 in particular, when I was asked directly what I thought of it). I can’t really understand why though. After all, they didn’t make the wine, they just bought and drank it. The worst I would do is make a mental note not to share such wines with such person.

20

[/quote]Meaningless because critics try to score “objectively” and therefore give lots of 90s-ratings to wines they don’t like and would not drink.[/quote]

So true. Even the Burghound. Why John Gilman is now my favorite.