What could be the good representation of a Bordeaux red wine ?

There is an immense variety of Bordeaux wine, so, to try to find a wine which could be the representation of the intimate DNA of Bordeaux wine could be judged as a risky exercise.

It is just a game, an intellectual game, to name one wine as being representative of what Bordeaux wine is. Some people could say that it is nonsense. But it is just a game.

If I had been asked before last week, I would have named Haut-Bailly. And, to try to find also an optimal maturity, I would have said 1990 Haut-Bailly. There is an elegance in this wine which corresponds to the grace of Véronique Sanders, who makes the wine nowadays, after her father, and even if the wine today does not belong to her family anymore.

But during the two crazy days in Bochum with an overdose of canonic wines, I had drunk two wines which led me to think of what the archetypal Bordeaux could be.
I drank 1955 Vieux Chateau Certan which was of an amazing perfection. This wine was considered by many of my friends as a 100 points wine. But this wine had in hand the flag of Pomerol, more than the flag of Bordeaux.

And I drank a 1955 Pontet-Canet. This wine cannot pretend to be a 100 points wine. This would be inappropriate. But it had a balance, an elegance, a sense for proportions which struck me. I was extremely moved by this wine, I would say abnormally moved, and while I was drinking it, I thought : “this wine is what an archetypal Bordeaux wine should be”.
And I went further : this age for this wine is the optimal form of maturity.

So, after this experience, I thought : “if I had to name what a Bordeaux should be, with an optimal maturity, I would name 1955 Pontet-Canet”.

This does not mean that this wine is the best. No. It means that it represents a sane image of the archetypal Bordeaux. With that, I do not pretend that Pauillac should be the archetypal Bordeaux, as for my taste, the archetypal Bordeaux would be a Pessac-Léognan, if I had to name one sub-region.

But at one moment, I had this encounter, and I thought that a definition of Bordeaux in a dictionary of taste would be 1955 Pontet-Canet.

Have you ever had once, this sensation of finding that a Bordeaux wine was fully corresponding to what a Bordeaux should be ?

Great question, Francois.

I was actually thinking about this question last night when I happened to stumble across a Cellartracker tasting note from Keith Levenberg on a 2008 Ch. Cantemerle:

A classic Left Bank Bordeaux in a condition of perfect drinkability: if you don’t like this, you don’t like claret, period. > It’s got the ideal Goldilocks density of fruit, a classic scent of pencil shavings seasoning the winey aromas, and no evident structure to get in the way of guzzling it if you were so inclined, although the elegance and sheer comfort-factor make it a wine you want to savor and relax with. It’s also a pretty good example of how Bordeaux pulls off oak so well. If I had a Burgundy with the strong cedary flavors on display here I’d surely think it overoaked, but in a Medoc it just works. It’s not toasting the wine or drying it out or imparting any sweetness or unwelcome coffee flavors, it’s just a sophisticated and perfectly integrated cedary tinge to the wine.

It seems when I have had these epiphanies that I am now drinking a classic claret, it has been from Bordeaux from either less-heralded vintages or less-heralded estates.

Some that have recently conveyed this impression:

1994 Pontet Canet
1994 Leoville Barton
1993 Mouton
1995 Poujeaux
2004 Montrose

None of these wines were outstanding, but they each conveyed a clear sense of place that was so evocative of Bordeaux. The impression was neither intellectual nor overly-sensational. It was like slipping on a really comfortable pair of slippers on a cold morning. It just felt right.

I am now looking for some of that Cantemerle. I’m sure the '55 Pontet Canet is above my pay grade!

François,

This thread reminds me of the French word “typicité” used to describe wines.
It means that a wine tastes as it ought to taste and reflect the terroir of its origins.

I often come across tasting notes saying the wine is “très typé”.
And I ask myself “Well, duh, isn’t that kind of normal, am I supposed to be impressed with that”?
as well as “doesn’t it matter more whether a wine is good or not than whether it is true to its origins”?

The whole basis of French wine law revolves around respecting a number of legal parameters with designated grape varieties in delimited areas, among a galaxy of other regulations.
These regulations take precedence over quality.
Oh, I know, there are tastings in which wines are eliminated from appellation status. However, if Bordeaux is anything to go by nationwide, the percentage of rejected wines is microscopic…

Getting back to the main thrust of your comments, Bordeaux is so vast and varied, that it seems to me impossible to say that any one wine epitomizes it.

For most English speakers, the ultimate Bordeaux is a fine Médoc.
But is Château Margaux any less médocain/bordelais than Châteaux Latour, which is, of course, very different in style?

Best regards,
Alex R.

What Cantemerle’s been doing the last few years really does come close to the Platonic ideal of claret for me. They’re not the greatest wines in Bordeaux, but they’re so textbook, and to the extent they’re lacking in profundity they make up for it with their ability to deliver sheer satisfaction. Pichon-Lalande is another chateau that makes me think textbook claret every time I have it. Even though it has a clear Pauillac personality and a clear Pichon-Lalande personality, it also embodies Bordeaux in general in so many ways.

Robert,
I can think that Cantemerle and Poujeaux are very classical Bordeaux.
For Mouton, I do not agree, as it is a very specific wine, far from being classical.
The question is not good or not, as you have well understood in what I wanted to mean, but to go in the direction of what could be an archetyp.
And in a way, Poujeaux has such a quality (if it is a quality)

Alex,
I agree with you about the complexity of Bordeaux, which makes this exercise very difficult or not demonstrative.
But I had such a feeling to find in 1955 Pontet-Canet what I would describe as “the” genuine Bordeaux that I had the impression to have found the archetypal Bordeaux.
And an archetyp cannot be too typed. It should be representative of many aspects of Bordeaux.

1947 Figeac. It is everything that Bordeaux can produce. Gorgeous fruit. Detail and freshness even when ancient. A special balance. I wouldn’t limit myself to Pauillac or Cabernet Sauvignon. [cheers.gif]
As you have so elegantly stated, I didn’t even consider that this wine came from St Emilion. It is just great Bordeaux and it was definitely waiving that flag.

The old vintages of Domaine de Chevalier are another great example of this; I had the 1970 last week; not perfect at the same time it was brilliant.

Disappointed by 2009 and 2010 Poujeaux. Not the great Bordeaux workhorse it used to be, these were a lot sleeker.

This is a great question, but I think may not have one answer. In my mind, the flavor profiles of “classic” Bordeaux change over time, that Francois’s answer for the 55 Pontet-Canet might be right for those who love well aged old Bordeaux (as I do), but it might not work for those who prefer the more fruit-forward profiles of younger wines.

When I think of “classic Bordeaux”, I always end up in Pauillac. For well aged old Bordeaux, my answer is the 1959 Pichon Baron. I’ve had several bottles and the cedar and leather notes make me think Bordeaux terroir.

But for younger wines, I think of the first time I drank the 1990 Lynch Bages in 1996. A big boomer of a wine with a color so deep you could never see the bottom of the pool. The barnyard nose and black fruits were the dictionary description of Bordeaux.

Of all the old great growths that u have experienced through the years only your recent tasting of the '55 pc seems to fit this profile? Wow

The answer lies in Pauillac for me

I knew that it was a difficult question, but the answers even if diverse, are interesting as the wines named correspond to a gentle approach towards Bordeaux.
Domaine de Chevalier, in the great years, tends to be a good definition of Bordeaux red wine, as Poujeaux, as Cantemerle in a way.

To make a comparison, I would say that when I drink Rayas or Pégau, they are not archetypal for CdP.
But when I drink Clos des Papes, I feel that I drink what CdP is.
And when I drank this 1955 Pontet Canet, I had the feeling that it is truly what the Bordeaux soul is.

Thank you for your answers which match very well with the idea that I had.

I don’t know Francois, I think you are asking an impossible question, sort of like “Which actress is the most attractive woman”? [shock.gif] Or even “Which actress is the most typical woman”? (An accolade that no woman would likely want “to win”. [wink.gif] )

Even a question like “What is the most typical Pauillac” seems impossible for me to answer. After all, as a Burgophile, I greatly admire and appreciate terroir, and know that even adjacent vineyards in Burgundy will be different, even if also alike! The same seems to be the case in Bordeaux, where one sees a similarity between Leoville Las Cases and Latour, to cite one example, but more differences as the distance between vineyards increases. [cheers.gif]

You know, I just haven’t drunk enough mature Bordeaux to really answer this question, as interesting as it is. My mind goes to La Mission, or maybe old Cos. I have had more old vintages of these than any others. Also my one experience with 1955, a glorious bottle of Mouton, tells my imagination that the perfect Bordeaux for me would be something like a 1955 La Mission. As an archetypical Bordeaux at its apogee this is all I have to draw from.

1982 Lalande. Obviously bordeaux, and obviously incredible.

Recently shared a 1955 Latour as a birthyear wine for a close friend. Not the greatest Latour but everything a good mature Bordeaux should and can be.