There are a few estates who might make something along the lines of what you mention e.g. Chauvin and Vieux Chateau Chauvin, La Tour Figeac and some micro cuvee called 45, Croix de Gay and Fleur de Gay, Coutet and the rare Cuvee Madame, and so on. Before Jeff/Mark/William correct/clarify my observation, I’m just saying it’s “sort of” like what you are mentioning.
Personally, I prefer that the best vats/plots are just kept in the main blend, rather than a luxe priced Cuvee de Le Hommage to Grand Critique.
For the most part, no, I don’t! I actually rather deplore the tendency in Bordeaux to produce such small percentages of “grand vin”. Of course, since many of the crus classés have expanded significantly in the last three decades, the second wine is often coming from vineyards that aren’t part of the core historic terroir of the estate. But anyone who is making second wine from prime terroir needs to take a long hard look in the mirror. Unfortunately, the press eats up this narrative, and every time someone tries to explain the quality of contemporary Bordeaux, the first thing to be invoked is “selection”. But in reality, that is one of the least interesting evolutions of the last 15 years.
If you ask me no. For example, the vintages that are close to 100% Cabernet Sauvignon at Lafite, 1961, 1994, and 2013 are not successful. The wines really benefit from the blend of the parcels and varieties.
When I started buying Bordeaux 10 years ago, I believed that the Chateau involved had a single vineyard around it, and they made wines from those grapes. It’s taken multiple critical asides along the lines of “the blend for their wine comes from here, there, and a vineyard that’s waaaay the hell over yonder” to realize that I didn’t understand what’s actually in a given bottle. Beyond things like broad explanations of where LLC, Clos du Marquis and Petit Lion all come from (the geography of which I’m not really 100% clear about), Burgundy might not be transparent in sourcing (though you do often at least get the name of the vineyard involved), but Bordeaux can be pretty opaque too.
on our first ever visit to roumier, we tasted the two bonnes mares terroirs separately (i believe they used to be sold separately?), and then blended in the glass. fascinating exercise in that the two terroirs were quite different AND that the blend was better than each of them alone.
obviously an incredibly edge-case example, but the (current) burgundy paradigm rewards single vineyard wines.
we could easily see this shift with changes in climate wherein the grand cru vineyards are all of a sudden exposed to greater risk as a result of their better exposition, drainage, etc.
William had a great Instragram video about this, where he explained (I think) how one of the reasons La Tache is so great is because it’s a larger monopole holding, which allows blending. Same with Roumier Bonnes Mares vs. Musigny. It’s this dynamic that makes me skeptical that some of the currently-culty micro-production cuvees are actually that great. It’s totally intuitive that it’s harder to make great wine from a tiny amount of grapes (unless you’re Leroy, I suppose). It’s also why large monopole-type holdings–e.g., Clos de Lambrays or Vogue in Musigny or Leflaive in some of their vineyards–hold so much upside potential.
FWIW, Bordeaux is not opaque. Every estate has vineyard maps showing where their parcels are as well as the variety planted. There are vineyards in Bordeaux consisting of a single block of vines. They may make twists and turns, but they are contiguous.
There are also estates with vines scattered throughout the appellation. Some properties always make the Grand Vin from the same parcels, while others vary.
Every vineyard consists of various soil types and exposures. So, being in a single block does not really matter. It just sounds good.
If you are interested, for the Medoc, I think I provide a succinct explanation of the vineyards and their placement in the appellation, as well as their terroir for most of the top estates. I try to do the same when possible for properties in Pessac Leognan and the Right Bank. But it is not always possible.
I was at Chateau L’Eglise Clinet in the summer of 2002, and we did a component tasting of their varietals in test tubes. I remember going on and on over the Cabernet Franc, and why he wasn’t going to bottle a little bit by itself - I remember it being just glorious - of course he then did what was going to be his 2000 blend (70% Merlot and 30% Cabernet Franc I believe) and, of course it was indeed much more put together.
For those of you interested in basically non-blended Bordeaux wines, consider Tertre Roteboeuf, and Pontet Canet. The blends are the same as the plantings and both estates do not produce second wines, as their goal is to provide a pure example of what the vineyard produces. Of course, there are several small vineyards in Pomerol and Saint Emilion that do not make second wines and represent the entire vineyard as well. I picked Tertre Roteboeuf and Pontet Canet as examples because they are well-known estates.
All this talk about how Burgundy is about “terroir”, yet somewhat recently (20 or so years ago?), weren’t even the finest Burgundies often chaptalized and oaked and what have you? So where can you still say you are showing “terroir” after all those tricks, and why is it so materially different from just blending two or three grape varietals like they do in Bordeaux?
