Traditional vs. Modern Bordeaux?

I no longer taste widely of Bordeaux wines, but certain ones still stick with me as speaking of the Bordeaux I learned to love many years ago:

Leoville Barton
Sociando Mallet
Montrose

Alex brings up the huge amount of Bordeaux that never sees the light of day on internet discussion forums. Sure a lot of it is dreck, but that’s true of every wine region. That being said there are some lovely wines that do not taste like oak infused cough syrup. Maybe they won’t go 30 years, but it’s nice to have something to drink while we wait for the big guns to reach maturity.

It would be ironic if, in “advocating” for wines which were high in fruit esters and high in alcohol but low in excess water and low in naturally-occurring contaminants, Parker had pushed a style of wine on the public which necessarily required 30 or 40 years of cellaring before it softened down to the point that it could be considered a “Vin de Table” - a proper accompaniment & complement to the food served with dinner.

If that were true, then in essence Parker would have spent his entire career “advocating” for something which would be of great value to the grandchildren of “The 1%”, but which would be essentially useless to the common man.

This is where I have a problem with the Bordeaux terroir argument. If you believe in micro-climates, how do you have a true sense of place when the “place” has twenty micro-climates? How do have a true sense of place on a 1,000 acre farm that includes multiple different geological formations? What you have is a bunch of tiny “places” that are blended together to create a house style. I know that this does not apply to ever estate, but it does include many of the great growths- which, frankly, are what we can easily locate in our local stores.

Also, I think there is a terroir problem with how vineyard integration is handled. If a great growth buys up other vineyards in their village, then they automatically can sell them under their name- regardless of differences in grapes, soil quality, drainage, geological formations, micro-climates, etc. that means it is hard to track the “terroir” in the bottle year to year as vineyards are integrated and removed. Using burgundy as an example, clos du tart can’t buy a bunch of premier cru vineyards next door and rename them clos du tart and double production.

G

Of course that’s pretty much the exact opposite of what he has done.

In general the wines are much more approachable than they were in older vintages.

Again, do not misquote me. I said that there MAY WELL BE A MAJORITY of Parkerized wines, but I concluded that you were wrong in saying that there were only a few examples. The point of this exercise is to attempt a rough-justice measurement of the extent to which modernism has impacted Bordeaux, and with all due respect, it will take a whole lot more than your opinion, a quite particular one that is often not on the same page with many others here, to get us there. Alex, I understand that you are a passionate advocate for the “no-name” wines or whatever you choose to call them. I have no doubt that there are some lovely, traditionally made wines to be found. However, what David B. said is demonstrably true…a lot of dreck, too, and wines that no reviewer has found compelling enough to feature. At the low end, distilled for the alcohol rather than bottled. Gross overcropping and production of wine for which there is no market. In that regard, those wines are likely to stay off the radar, just like plonk in California. Nobody cares. We have to limit this discussion to wines that reviewers and collectors care about if it is to make any sense or have any value to the posters. And finally, I absolutely can, and will, quarrel with success. Success is often irrelevant. Reviewers have sometimes foisted virtually undrinkable wines on their reading publics. The reviewer sold the reviews and the producers sold the wine. They were all successful. The failure came when the consumer poured the wine down the sink. Does that happen often? No, probably not. What happens more often is an unsuspecting consumer buying a case of 2009 Cos on the say-so of the likes of Parker and Jeff Leve, and then tasting it, and dumping it on the secondary market as quickly as possible. Now, you can point me to a bottle of 1961 Haut-Brion, among many, many other Bordeaux (I do have Bordeaux in my cellar, by the way, but a smattering of first-growths only at this point, as Cabernet and Merlot-based wines are not my favorites), and I will agree that there is success there that I will not quarrel with. However, I will also tell you that nothing becomes “the world’s most popular” anything unless there is a significant lowest-common-demoninator effect, and I find that in Bordeaux. If Bordeaux were not easy to understand and enjoy, if it were Nebbiolo, for instance, it would not be nearly as popular. And many of those who make Bordeaux are in the business of making it even easier to understand and enjoy, and sooner, too. That is what modernism is all about. That may be a measure of economic success for the producers, and it may buy Bob Parker’s Flannery ribcaps and Tesla S, but it is not success for those who love the long-aging, traditional Bordeaux of yesteryear…

Except for Ausone! By the way, I never got an answer to my question as to where the Ausone of the new milennium, a notoriously long-ager, falls on the traditionalist-modernist spectrum. Maybe nobody has actually bought and opened a bottle? :slight_smile:

I know I have not. I cannot afford Ausone!

Well apparently I misunderstood what you said a few minutes ago.

Bill, you may be the only one of us poor schleps that can afford Ausone!

And Bill and Alex, don’t make me jump in and moderate you heavyweights - keep this discussion good and not personal, it’s been a fun read so far.

Cheers folks, I need to go work to pay for some Lanessan . . . . :wink:

Robert, its longevity, even more than the price, became the controlling factor in my case. I ordered a half-bottle of the 2005, only to discover that there were no half-bottles of it! (Got my money back plus pro-rated appreciation on a full bottle, by the way; it was a misunderstanding, not a scam.) I had one bottle of the 2000 and traded it away. My interest is purely academic. Unless you have an authentic half-bottle of the 2005 to sell or trade…

Bill,

I think you are talking from limited experience, so your opinion must be taken with a large grain of salt.
You need more than bluster to persuade.
Y
ou need arguments and examples.
We haven’t seen these.

When I talk about a region about which I know little, I do so with a modicum of humility.
Not you.

And I cannot disagree more with your comment “We have to limit this discussion to wines that reviewers and collectors care about if it is to make any sense or have any value to the posters”.
That’s utter bullshit.
f*ck the reviewers, there’s more to life than Parker!
Jesus, I thought you knew better than that…

You have not given the specific examples I asked for. Just hot air.
You have only first growth Bordeaux in your cellar.
‘Nuff said.

I won’t make any outrageous, ignorant comments about your Italian Nebbiolo, which is what you have done with Bordeaux, but I will report on ones I have tasted – recognising my limited knowledge, which you refuse to do for Bordeaux.

To put it politely, you are talking through your hat.
Continue to do so, by all means. I won’t discuss this with you any more because your input is far too shallow.

Have a nice day,
Best regards,
Alex R.

I don’t buy that. I drank a lot of Bordeaux in the 80s – a lot! – and I don’t think cleanliness was a widespread issue for the classified growths or major cru bourgeois properties.

Don’t know John. Maybe you’re right. Heaven knows it’s outside of my sphere or knowledge. So maybe I’m conflating “clean” with “brett management”, which isn’t exactly the same, although it’s related. But you’re right, the issues that come from being unclean aren’t all brett. There are worse problems one can have.

But not long ago, UC Davis professor Linda Bisson, who’s done a lot of work on the various aromas/flavors in Cab/Merlot wanted to look at the subject of traditional vs modern. So she did an online survey for wines that consumers described as “typical Bordeaux”. She bought a bunch of them, tested them, and found that they were full of 4-ethylphenol and 4-ethylguaiacol, which are the molecules responsible for the Brett aromas called “band-aid” and “ash”.

And many Bordeaux that I’ve had from the 70s, 80s and 90s showed a lot of it. Pichon Lalande, Cos d’Estournel, Gruaud-Larose, Figeac are kind of characteristically bretty. Stéphane Derenoncourt is on record as saying he tries to avoid brett as much as possible, even though a little bit can add complexity, but he feels it blots out terroir. Rolland has said similar things. They don’t make all the wines in Bordeaux to be sure, but they are influential and they’ve only become so relatively recently.

As far as terroir goes, I have mixed feelings about it. You stand in a Bordeaux vineyard that stretches pretty much as far as you can see and it’s almost as flat as Kansas and I guess there’s a little deposit of one thing or another, and Peynaud talked about the different soils on the different banks, so that’s there. But Bordeaux isn’t quite the same as mountainsides that have been lifted from the sea or erupted from volcanoes. Places like St Emillion are hilly and Bordeaux is so huge it has hilly regions and flat regions so it’s hard to say that the region as a whole has something unique regarding the soil and microclimates.

In its broadest definition, “terroir” is found every place on earth because that place isn’t someplace else. That’s fine, but a steep mountain or large hill will have very different and unique conditions on the different sides, and will affect the valley below as well, particularly if it blots out noon sun. So I guess you’d get a lot more variance in hilly and mountainous regions than you would in some of the relatively flat areas in much of Bordeaux.

Alex, with that, I hope that you can stop shooting blanks and move on. You are not even comprehending the points that I am making half of the time, simply because you have a general sense that they do not comport with your One True View of Bordeaux. Did you even read Gerard’s concerns about your terroir argument? And have you gone back to read your own posts to see if you can find anything there any less filtered by hat than what you accuse me of? With all of your alleged experience, I see no evidence that you learned all that much from it, or at a minimum, that you are able to craft and express convincing arguments from it. The terroir of gravelly hillocks? Really? And ad hominem attack surely does not help your credibility. (Take it from one who knows! Of course, I never let a little blow to my credibility deny me the joy of a well-deserved epithet.)
We now return to our regularly scheduled topic…

By definition, everything is going to be a blend of different terrors, we are just discussing how much. Each vine is going to have a slightly different character to the one planted next to it. Then in even the smallest vineyards, such as Musigny, there are distinct parcels. One can argue that our cutoffs are artificial, and therefore we add to to the confusion. For instance, there are sections of Clos Vougeot Musigni which probably should be part of Musigny etc.

To some extent, I agree with Bill that many Bordeaux terroirs are probably less intense than Burgundy/Piedmont etc, but there are some very distinct ones, and these are the ones I make a point of trying to find. These are easy to obliterate with overripeness, cellar practices and barrels, but there are still enough making great wines, that I worry don’t have to worry in my lifetime, and I suspect after that, the modern wines will be seen to have aged poorly, and the pendulum will swing back.

You are correct mark, however, at least in burgundy, the soil is static. In Bordeaux, Lafite could tear up their driveway and plant vines over their septic system and use the grapes in their 1st growth…

Never heard anyone raise that issue with them, and when I was drinking Bordeaux I was tasting a lot with some very knowledgeable people. I’m pretty insensitive to brett, so I can’t say I’m the best judge.

When you find a consulting oenologist who champions brett, let me know. :slight_smile:

What I was taking issue with was your suggestion that Bordeaux (at least the classified growths and better cru bourgeois properties) were made in a sloppy manner until recent decades.

I love some brett in my claret, a little goes a long way in adding complexity. And what you find in BDX is nothing compared to (many) Chateauneuf du Pape!

1 Like

What I really dislike is lots of new oak and creamy, flabby wines with too much booze and sugar.

A very experienced taster I know really cannot get excited about Bordeaux because it too often tastes like “dirt” to him.

If that’s not terroir, what is?!

Me too. And in my Chinon, but that’s axiomatic . . . .