I quite like the 96 vintage - Cos and Ducru. I think 2005 and more so 2009 were the years where things changed
Lafon belongs to Michel Tesseron. Alfred his brother, owns Pontet Canet. Recently Michelâs son Basile, has started working at Lafon Rochet. I would place it halfway on the continuum. Maybe a tad more traditional than that.
Bill, I am surprised nobody has corrected you. The 2009s have high acidity. However, the acidity is slightly hidden by all the other elements of the vintage.
Itâs a mistake to lump Cos and Ducru together.
Cos has really gone the modernist route, and the wines donât show much, if any terroir. The 2009 especially could have come from almost anywhere, and while 2010 was less heavy handed, it still is hard to get any real sense of place.
While Ducru is certainly riper than 1982, the fruit is still red rather than black, and the wine has plenty of personality. For me, the 2010 is probably the best Ducru I have ever tasted, and the 2012 is one of the top wines in the Medoc.
Daleâs list takes the cake although there a fringe few that I vacillate on. I would sadly add Malescot to the list of Mid-Modern/Moderns and (potentially) Palmer as well (say it aint so). I would add Sociando to tradition and Domaine de Chevalier (rouge) to moderate.
With that being said, many over here have duly noted that the âmodernâ style really only came into existence in large swaths beginning in 96 and more recently in the noughts. As a result, itâs pretty challenging to see how many of these wines project as few of the big boys are near maturity.
I do think there are troubling signs with combinations of the modern style wines and the ripe vintages (03, 09 depending on commune/bank).
I also think there is fantastic juice worthy of deep slumber in 01, 04, 08, 09, 10.
Although I have not tasted the 09âs and 10âs extensively, I can say that the same chatter happened with the 00â vintage in which I have tasted extensively.
I am one who doesnât lean toward modern or new wine, but it seems every vintage from every wine region is now âmodernâ, ripeness dialed up, new oak, ect. I am one that actually likes the 00â Sociando but recently enjoyed the 03â Leov. Poy, found it rich but I still found the BDX class in spades.
Saying that, when reading Parkers notes on the 09â Peby faug. and his âPort like, prunesâ, I stop there, not my style even with itâs vaunted 99pts⌠Ugh, no thanks when I want Port, Iâll buy Port.
To me almost any 95+ Parker point wine is made in a âmodernistâ style catering to a ready to drink, smooth tannin wine that becomes lean with time as the tannins start to fall out.
I have almost all but given up on BDX, but thank god there have been 3 not so âvintage of the centuryâ vintages to choose from and discounted!
Besides the one off case of 09â, I only buy âlesserâ vintages as they seem to please me more than over the top wines of the year.
I stand corrected on the acidity. I was not a buyer of the 2009s, nor much interested. Does this mean that the acid was sufficiently hidden for Parker to go ga-ga? 
I would, however, dispute the notion that Bordeaux is all that much about âsense of placeâ. I think that 100% Cabs from, say, a Marthaâs Vineyard, have a legitimate claim to âterroirâ. Blended wines from Bordeaux, Champagne and the Southern Rhone? With only a few exceptions (Clos du Mesnil comes to mind), not so much. In most cases, save the handful of chateaux with arguably special dirt (and specifically excluding those whose âterroirâ is swamp landfill courtesy of Dutch engineers), and single-vineyard, single-grape Champagnes hailing from dirt where ground Parisian trash is not part of the âterroirâ, I think that what we are talking about here is blends, style and production methods. I think that the characteristic aromas and flavors of most Bordeaux are the result of production values, not dirt.
Bill,
Come by some time.
Iâll show you terroir!
The definition is not exactly identical to that in Burgundy, letâs say, but when you stand in the vineyards of Château Latour, you have the same sense of place as you do in Le Chambertin. And the wines reflect that, of course.
The best argument I can make to refute what you say is the (huge) difference between Haut-Brion and La Mission Haut-Brion, owned by the same family and located across the road from one another!
An English MW living in America, Benjamin Lewin wrote a book a couple of years ago called âWhat Price Bordeaux?â. His thesis was, like yours, that terroir doesnât matter in Bordeaux. The book was full of errors.
Best regards,
Alex R.
This doesnât necessarily speak to terroir. They could use different wine-making processes with the two estates. Iâm not saying they do, just that your argument is insufficient without more information.
Brady,
You make a good point.
Let me confirm, though, that the winemaking procĂŠdures are not very different at all.
Best regards,
Alex R.
One other problem with your thesis, Alex: you use as your examples three of the chateaux that can actually make a claim to having the generally accepted notion of terroir. And, as I thought that I noted above, there are some others, but not many, and never to be mentioned in the same breath with Burgundy in that regard. Wines made exclusively of Chardonnay and Pinot Noir in Burgundy and produced in either a non-interventionist manner or according to defined regimens regarding new oak, destemming and the like allow some fair apples-to-apples comparisons and fair tests of terroir. You will never be able to do that with blended wines whose grape composition changes every year, and whose winemakers seek, at least in the case of the best addresses, to deliver a consistent, identifiable style. There is no question that Latour and Haut-Brion have distinct signatures that make them relatively easy to pick out of blind lineups. It is undeniably part of the greatness and legend of both wines. One can even detect the âLatouricityâ in completely atypical vintages. However, now, more than ever, Bordeaux is a brand and commodity first, and a beverage called wine an increasingly distant second, which is primarily why I started this thread.
That said, your Haut-Brion/La Mish example is the best possible argument for the existence of at least some terroir in Bordeaux, and in that case and a few others, I think that terroir exists, but as Brady points out, there are too many other factors that can account for differences. In addition, you do not have the critically important test opportunity that Burgundy and even California do: multiple winemakers making wines from the same grapes. It is true that Producer X can take some Musigny grapes and turn it into something not recognizable as Musigny, but more often than not, in the hands of skilled winemakers, the terroir and characteristics of Musigny shine through the detectable stylistic differences involved. This state of affairs does not make Burgundy âbetterâ than Bordeaux; indeed, Burgundy has never produced as much wine, nor has it ever been as popular worldwide as Bordeaux (although Bordeauxâs claim to being the worldâs most popular wine could be in jeopardy in an increasingly fluid wine world).
As to Lewin, there may indeed be some errors in his book, but I suggest to you that they are few and far between and of no consequence to this discussion. Bordeauxâs wine history is as factually clear as any I know. It makes a weak and unconvincing case for terroir there. It makes a compelling case for the triumph of winemaking, at least until now. And that is why I raise the question that I have in this thread.
There is no problem with my thesis, Bill. Fine wines are all about terroir, and Bordeaux is no different here. Think about it for a minute: what makes some wines worth, literally, one hundred times more than another??? Winemaking you say?! No way!
Oh, there are a few examples of Parkerized wines on steroids, but these are anecdotal when you look at the Big Picture.
The Burgundian definition of terroir, need I remind you, is not the only one that exists in the world, nor is it necessarily the best⌠(Donât know how you Eyetalians view things). Furthermore, the notion of âclimatâ is also rather complicated.
On the face of it, wines made exclusively from just one grape variety (Chardonnay and Pinot Noir) could be viewed as rather one-dimensional compared to the subtleties of the assemblage in Bordeaux. In fact, that is not my point of view, but it is a potentially valid counter argument in the tiresome discussion of which wine is âbetterâ or âmore authenticâ.
Burgundian winemakers, please donât forget, are as varied as their terroir. It is simply laughable to maintain they are all natural and ânon-interventionistâ whereas we in Bordeaux are not.
You are mistaken (the same mistake that Leuwin made in his book) to say that âBordeaux is a brand and commodity firstâ. As though the Burgundians were part of some religious sect, and never think about money!
You obviously know very little about the region. Iâd be glad to take a day off work and have you meet winemakers every bit as passionate and terroir-oriented as anyone in Burgundy.
I must disagree with your statement âAs to Lewin, there may indeed be some errors in his book, but I suggest to you that they are few and far between and of no consequence to this discussionâ. On the contrary, his thesis (apparently the same as yours) is at the very heart of the discussion, or at least the one between you and me and the turn this thread has taken. I think too that there is a certain amount of jealousy here too. How can those Bordelais sell wines that expensive? They must have done something untoward. Now, let me thinkâŚ
I love the idea that you, Bill, a confirmed terroirist in Piedmont and Burgundy feels that there is none in Bordeaux. Usually this argument are with the non-believers, who say it just doesnât exist.
It exists in Bordeaux, and Alex has already gone for the obvious examples in Graves. But take pre Magrez Pape Clement, Domaine de Chevalier, Haut Bailly etc and each has a very distinct signature, every bit as interesting as Heitz Marthaâs, Barbarescoâs Santa Stefano or Volnay.
There is a problem with your thesis, Alex. It is your opinion, and thinly supported by fact. Not all fine wines are about terroir. Many are, but not all. Full stop. There may well be a MAJORITY of Parkerized Bordeaux on steroids, and this thread alone is ample evidence to prove that there are far more than âa few examplesâ. You do not get to make up a definition of âterroirâ to accommodate Bordeaux landfill and garagiste winemaking. True, people subscribe to various definitions, but the geology of the dirt and the typicity of the wines it produces are central to all. I remind you that I specifically said that this is not a discussion of relative quality. Some single-grape wines are no doubt more one-dimensional than blends. And some blends are muddied messes that tell you nothing about terroir or anything else. Not the point, and the blending argument that you advance (actually, in fairness, you state but do not advance it) cuts against your Bordeaux terroir opinion. Even where blended wines are the result (Cote-Rotie, Chateauneuf-du-Pape, etc.), it is often the case that the success of the wine is driven by the terroirs of the dominant grape varieties (Syrah, Grenache). I have a hard time looking at the slopes of Burgundy or the northern Rhone valley, or my beloved Piemonte or the great German Riesling vineyards, and believing that you can compare Bordeauxâs wetlands to those geological giants under any definition of terroir". Compare the wines favorably; just not the dirt. Burgundy winemakers are probably less varied than Bordeaux winemakers, eh, and unlike Bordeaux, in Burgundy, and Barolo and Barbaresco as well, the power of the terroir makes it easy to identify outlying winemaking technique. It is indeed laughable to say that all Burgundy winemakers are natural and non-interventionist; that is why I did not say thatâŚyou did. I know a reasonable amount about Bordeaux and am always learning more, which is the point of this thread. You, on the other hand, have an intense passion for your region, a good thing, but you quite often show a lack of objectivity as a consequence. Nothing wrong with that, we all do it sometimes. I just have to call it out in this context. Lastly, letâs put âIs Todayâs Bordeaux, Produced By The Likes of LVMH and French Insurance Companies, Among Others, A Brand?â up to a popular vote, eh? That is yet another facet of the traditional vs. modernist argument. We would not be having this discussion if all Bordeaux winemakers were Randy Dunns and the terroir in Bordeaux was Howell Mountain, and that surely is not the best CA contrast that one could makeâŚ
I did not say none, Mark. I am saying decidedly less of a factor in the finished product in most cases than in terroir-driven regions.
Letâs do thisâŚnothing I say will convince you Bordeaux terroirists otherwise, nor am I likely to be convinced that terroir is the dominant factor in most (but again, with feeling, not ALL) Bordeaux that it is elsewhere. The pre- and post-Magrez discussion may just speak volumes about a winemaking style that subverts whatever terroir there may be, but the Magrez phenomenon is just as likely, if not more likely, to support my position regarding the dominance of winemaking over terroir. This really is a thread about winemaking style and technique, however, and regardless of what notion of Bordeaux terroir one subscribes to, the impact of modernist winemaking is undeniable, and perhaps determinative of Bordeauxâs fortunes, at least in the near termâŚ
I think itâs fair to say that terroir is easy to see at 12.5 degrees but hard to find at 15. The definition of ripeness has changed, and if I am being simplistic, itâs interesting that winemakers who talk only of âphysiologicalâ ripeness are generally waiting too long to make interesting wines.
I agree with Bill that St. Emilion has perhaps a handful of chateaux worth buying, and the loss of Figeac is tragic. But Pomerol is still going strong, and I am seeing a few chateaux in the Medoc beginning to move back, but until Parker stops selling their wine for them, it is a hard call to make.
Bill, itâs not actually a question of just my opinionâŚ
I cannot take one thread on Wine Berserkers to prove that a majority of wines from the Gironde are âParkerized Bordeaux and on steroidsâ among other reasons because I have been drinking the stuff constantly and visiting the wine country for most of my life. Call it first-hand experience. It belies much of what you say.
If you want to restrict the meaning of Bordeaux to just the name wines, I will allow that the percentage of Parkerized wines is indeed higher. Yes. But that in no way reflects âthe majorityâ. I also think you need to be more specific here, not talk about your prejudices, but get down to the details. For instance, I go to the en primeur barrel tastings every year. And, yes, I come across the types of wines you describe. There is a market for them. But unsubstantiated sweeping statements such as yours are ultimately sterile and donât carry much weight. Be specific if you wish to further the discussion, please.
The problem with much of what you say is that it overlooks the fact that there are, conservatively-speaking, 6,000 chateaux in Bordeaux. How many of those are âgarage winesâ? Only a tiny handful! As for âlandfillâ, there are some examples (Iâm thinking here of Chx. Bellevue and Terdre Daugay in Saint-Emilion) where the topography has been altered. A discussion of whether or not this denatures the terroir is appropriate. But such examples are very few and far between!
Sorry, Iâve cannot follow the logic of your argument that more than one grape variety detracts from the expression of terroir. It runs counter to everything I have learned about wine. You need to keep in mind that some Bordeaux estates are larger than entire Burgundy appellations. Over many years, different grape varieties were adapted to the soil of individual plots. Thatâs called fine-tuning winemaking according to the terroir. The wine benefits greatly as a result.
As for describing Bordeaux as a âwetlandâ, I donât think you can have visited the region.
Were you to go to Saint-Emilion, among many of Bordeauxâs 57 appellations, you would see slopes galore. What you need to do is look past the Burgundy paradigm. âCroupes gravelleusesâ (gravelly rises) make all the difference in the MĂŠdoc, yet they are not always visible to the naked eye. There is more to wine than Burgundy. As the world market readily acknowledges.
The results are there. You canât quarrel with success ď.
You write âYou, on the other hand, have an intense passion for your region, a good thing, but you quite often show a lack of objectivity as a consequenceâ. Ah, but youâre completely wrong there, jumping to conclusions. Iâve worked in the wine in Napa, Champagne and the Loire Valley. For the past 5 years I have spent one (intensive) week a year in Burgundy and went to CĂ´te RĂ´tie and the Douro valley vineyard visiting this year. I had wines from Alsace, Champagne, Châteauneuf-du-Pape and⌠the Finger Lakes at lunch yesterday. So you really canât accuse me of bias. As for Bordeaux, 30 some-odd years have taught me a thing or to. There is plenty to criticize here, such as the pricing of the great growths, but it is simply absurd to say that this vast area (120,000 hectares) has no vins de terroir.
You consistently fall into the trap of associating one or two estates with the region as a whole. LVMH? They own one château, and Bernard Arnault is part-owner of Cheval Blanc. Has the wine suffered as a result? No. Is such ownership typical? No. Itâs as specious as people here who think that foreigners own most of the châteaux just because this is the case with some of the most famous. Total foreign ownership is a drop in the bucket.
To the extent that any estate, anywhere, is also a brand, Bordeaux wines are brands. But no one can say that they are not vins de terroir.
Alex R.
An argument could be made that traditionalist Bordeaux, pace the contaminants, was a very soft, plush, WATERY wine.
Take away the excess water, which gave it the elegance of mouthfeel, and deprive it of the merde, and a Claret becomes just another fruit bomb?
Thatâs a solid list, Dale. Some of my favorite Bordeaux and standard purchases right there (well, except the for the pricey first growths), including from the recent 2010 vintage.
Loved that you highlighted La Louviere. That was my epiphany Bordeaux - the 1990 vintage, which I had in '93. Was young, for sure, but just absolutely delicious. I had an intuitive, but very basic understanding of terroir from that wine alone. Your post just reminded me I need to go find more from that estate.
We had the 1990 La Louviere last week. It showed beautifully