I agree, but it didn’t translate to prices in the 90s and early 00s (I can’t find a definitive chart - wine data is so bad!!!)
In my search I found this slate article which touches on a lot of the things said here…albeit written in 2010
1 Like
[quote=“Alex_Valdes, post:58, topic:297910, full:true”]. Would Bordeaux change course if they put the wine maker more front and center and cut the number of cases offered in the market by 50%?
[/quote]
Sorry but that makes no sense to me. In Bordeaux, it’s the vineyard and chateau that are the star, not the winemaker. There isn’t even a word for winemaker. It’s an oenologist.
As for cutting production, production of the Grand Vin by effective yields is down by 30%-50% or more at the top estates.
Frankly, what Bordeaux offers is its ability to produce large amounts of wine with the ability to for decades which is easy to find in the marketplace.
1 Like
But it is! Just because Burgundy was favored 250 years ago doesn’t mean it’s been favored all 250 years since. These things ebb and flow. A hundred some years ago the hot thing was Rhine and Mosel.
1 Like
Truth
3 Likes
Jay,
That would be fabulous. It would be great if Burgundy prices would come down.
1 Like
Yep. The cool kids drink Burgundy because it tastes better. 
Haven’t you always said that the market tells you perception of which wines are better and worse? 
1 Like
I understand the difference and I was only throwing out a straw man solution to make one look more like the other. While it would be different than the past, would it be more inline with what the market wants and, if it is, would it work and/or be worth it, given trends ebb and flow? I would say Champagne has embraced more of the Burgundy, terroir and winemaker forward approach while not losing sight of its heritage of consistency and quality. It’s not a perfect story, to be sure.
[quote=“Jeff_Leve, post:102, topic:297910”]
As for cutting production, production of the Grand Vin by effective yields is down by 30%-50% or more at the top estates. [/quote]
Down from when? Since 2010, volumes seem to be down in 2019 about 10% and 2020 20%? Burgundy yields are down about the same (depending) but even if flat, still a long way to go before the volumes are similar.
I am interested if this is how people characterize Bordeaux. I’ve never heard it described this succinctly.
The internet has enabled people to go down intellectual rabbit holes and gain intense knowledge on a micro level that before was either not possible or extremely difficult. You see this in all types of online communities, not just wine. Burgundy lends itself really well to this, and Bordeaux just doesn’t. You hit a wall fairly quickly in Bordeaux, while Burgundy just keeps going and going.
6 Likes
While the market will stay the same, I really think age plays a factor. The younger you are, the more chances you take (wine purchase wise). But after 40+ years of drinking and collecting, you eventually figure out that Bordeaux is just more trustworthy long term. And a hell of a lot less expensive. $50 still gets you a great bottle of Bordeaux, you are lucky to get a nice Bourgogne Rouge for that price nowadays.
2 Likes
No. I’ve always said the market sets the price. It still does.
1 Like
[quote=“Alex_Valdes, post:107, topic:297910, full:true”]
I understand the difference and I was only throwing out a straw man solution to make one look more like the other. While it would be different than the past, would it be more inline with what the market wants and, if it is, would it work and/or be worth it, given trends ebb and flow? I would say Champagne has embraced more of the Burgundy, terroir and winemaker forward approach while not losing sight of its heritage of consistency and quality. It’s not a perfect story, to be sure. [/quote]
If you ask me, no. Winemakers come and go. The vineyard and the chateau should be the star of the show.
As I only drink Champagne, I did not know they even had star winemakers. The stars of Champagne to me, and almost everyone I know is the house. But that’s just me, YMMV.
[quote=“Jeff_Leve, post:102, topic:297910”]
As for cutting production, production of the Grand Vin by effective yields is down by 30%-50% or more at the top estates. [/quote]
Down from when?
Good question. Starting with 1982. In those days, as an example, a quality vineyard might make 10,000 cases of Grand Vin. Today, that same chateau might produce 5,000-7,000 cases of Grand Vin, or even less. Yields at this point are vintage dependent. But it wasn’t always the case.
I am interested if this is how people characterize Bordeaux. I’ve never heard it described this succinctly.
Whether consumers think about it, or not, its true and it’s truly unique to Bordeaux. That doesn’t mean you should like the wine, or not, but no other region competes in this regard. You see notes on this board all the time on the longevity of lesser or moderate producers, let alone the top wines.
As an example I had a fabulous bottle of 61 Siran at the end of last year. That’s a 62 year old wine from a vineyard capable of producing 10,000 cases of wine yearly.
4 Likes
Aren’t these two different views actually reconcilable? My sense from Jeff’s comment is that he meant that generally speaking, and probably does apply to 97.5% of the wine buying population. Howard and his burgundy crew clearly take a far more intellectual approach to wine appreciation, hence the focus on terroir.
2 Likes
I am not sure I agree with this. I look for complexity and balance, and find most of the complexity comes from the terroir. I prefer VCC to the few bottles of Le Pin I have tasted, because it does seem to show terroir more. It is not an intellectual exercise, it tastes better.
1 Like
I tend to focus a lot more on producers than terroir. Only once I find producers I like do I think about which of their wines I want to buy based on terroir.
We are on the same page, but you are the 2.5%. I exaggerate. It’s prolly less than 1%,
1 Like
I knew I could get you guys going! 
That wasn’t really the point I was making. I took the OP’s question to be about which region dominates our wine culture, which isn’t the same as what ordinary people like to drink. On the contrary, it’s an inherently intellectual question. If you look at the world of wine over the last decade, the “Burgudian turn” is in evidence everywhere. New World producers who emphasized varietal are now discovering their “terroirs”; in Champagne it’s the growers who have taken the initiative from the big houses; micro-production single vineyard wines from Piemonte dominate the Italian wine conversation whereas two decades ago it was Super Tuscans. In short, “terroir” has been accepted as the guiding concept of contemporary wine discourse (perhaps, indeed, to an excessive degree - I’m simply making an observation rather than arguing in favor or against this particular optic), and that tends to enshrine Burgundy in its present place. That isn’t to say that ordinary consumers care, and plenty of people will continue to enjoy varietal wines and Super Tuscans and so on; but the fact remains that pretty much the whole wine world has embraced a conceptual framework which finds its highest elaboration and historical origins in Burgundy, and it will take more than Burgundy getting very expensive to change that.
8 Likes
I think Bordeaux producers should each make a micro production specific terroir wine on their vineyard annually. The best spot or the spot that exhibits the most terroir. Whether it’s one grape or a blend. For example I’ve read the unquestionable best part of latour is l’enclos. If Bordeaux did this it would bring in a lot of intrigue to the terroir wine lover world and Bordeaux would have a piece of their story that would compete perfectly with burgundy. The only downside is the cost of the wines would probably be a lot more.
The grand vin of Latour does come exclusively from l’Enclos… the rest goes into Forts de Latour (mostly from holdings near Batailley) or the Pauillac de Latour.
Blending is part of the essence of the great estates of the Médoc. Sure, 100% Cabernet Sauvignon from the plateau of Caruades would make a great wine, but it wouldn’t be as complete as the blend of Lafite. (That’s true of the top, middle and bottom of La Tâche, incidentally - many of the great monopoles of Burgundy combine the advantages of a blended wine with the identity of a cru).
I do think that if Bordeaux estates did a better job of communicating about their work in the vineyards and winery, and if the press did a better job of going into all of that, then it would help consumers to think about Bordeaux differently. I’m confident it will happen over the next couple of years. Right now we hear too much about architects, visiting artists, special commemorative labels, etc and not enough about the stuff that matters.
13 Likes
And not too long ago, the consultants. Hopefully the reign of the modernist consultants is waning as well. Perhaps you write about that as well. We can defend you.
2 Likes