So what really is “terroir”?
“This wine shows exactly the terroir of plot XYZ, after winemaker added sugar, oak, sulphur, stems, pressed it with his bare unwashed feet”. Where do we draw the line?
2 Likes
It’s really besides the point whether Burgundy is or isn’t faithful to the notion of terroir in reality. The point is that the contemporary wine world has taken on terroir, wholesale, as its unifying theory; and that Burgundy is widely considered to be ground zero for terroir (whether you agree or not), as the place where the concept was the most fully elaborated, defended and exemplified. Essentially, the rest of the wine world decided to play the game by Burgundy’s rules.
7 Likes
So what exactly is “terroir”? For example, what “terroir” is there when you can have two village wines from same village from two producers that are stylistically completely different. What or who sets the “baseline” that is the “correct” “terroir” for a given plot?
My comment wasn’t about agreeing or disagreeing about it, just trying to understand what exact thing we are talking about when talking about “terroir”. I often have trouble understanding terms that don’t seem to have a commonly agreed definition.
1 Like
While I enjoy reading your views on Bordeaux, this response sounds like what the big houses of Champagne used to say when trying to downplay the growers.
The big Champagne houses have now copied more than a little of what has has been done by the growers.
2 Likes
And a lot of it still has quite a lot of new oak. See DRC!
“Oak horror” (I should trademark that) is IMO a red herring in fine wine discussions. There are too many details involved to use the word “oak” simply as a pejorative.
5 Likes
I love oak and have very high tolerance for it. But at what point do we stop calling it “terroir” (whatever that means?)
Never.
p.s. I don’t consider oak to the part of the terroir. I just don’t think oak automatically disqualifies a wine from showing its terroir.
5 Likes
So what does “terroir” mean, and who got to decide what “terroir” a given plot of land should be like?
For example, Jadot’s Marsannay Clos du Roy and Sylvain Pataille Clos du Roy are totally different animals. But which one is “correct”?
2 Likes
A journalist on german radio asked a catholic priest, a protestant minister, an iman and a rabbi what God meant to them.
The priest, the minister and the iman gave elobarate arguements. The rabbi laughed and said only a christian can ask such a question. Every jew knows their God is the only and correct God. The same with terroir, it can be anything you want to it to be.
I would understand the burgundian model as one grape, one site and one vintage, what happens after that is in the hands of the producer.
4 Likes
Had a Pontet Canet about 5 years ago that was amazingly focused and great. Can’t remember the vintage unfortunately, as it wasn’t my wine. But that winemaker buddy had visited the estate and loved it - biodynamically farmed with no tractors, just horses.
1 Like
Both and neither.
1 Like
I do think it would be interesting if you took the top ten Bordeaux’s and they each bottled their best spot of vineyard so that it was literally 1% of their grand vin output (Pomerol excluded as its smaller but could be done just in different ratios).
I’m not saying it would be better or the right thing to do but I would love to taste them. Too bad you’d have to age them 25 years to have a true opinion and the bottles would probably be priced like $10,000 a piece.
I don’t know anyone other than you who has ever considered oak terroir. Congratulations on starting an argument with yourself.
2 Likes
To me, Burgundy and Bordeaux are the two best red wine regions in the world (and I love the wines from California). I have loved both Burgundy and Bordeaux for over 40 years. I don’t know why anyone would want to pigeon-hole themselves as loving only Burgundy or Bordeaux and I have no earthly idea why anyone would feel defensive about loving wines from either region. Frankly, I have no idea why anyone would limit themselves to only drinking wines from one of the two regions and not the other. You do so and you are losing a lot (Mark, I know you drink wines from both regions).
Frankly, for the people who did not buy Burgundy 10-20 years ago, you blew it. Does not matter if you were too young, too poor or whatever to buy Burgundy then, but you likely will never see prices again for wines that were seen for vintages like 1999, 2001, 2002, 2005 and 2010. Unfortunately, unless you get rich, you will not ever be able to taste some of the greatest wines in the world unless you have generous friends. Yes, there still are excellent affordable Burgundies out there that are wonderful, but they are not in the same class as the wines that used to be affordable. You can complain and kvetch all you want but people who bought Burgundy 10-20 years ago have a treasure trove of wonderful wines.
While we also will never again see prices like many of us saw for wines from Bordeaux vintages like 1982, 1989, 1990, etc., there are values today in Bordeaux that people should grab if they are of an age where they have the time to let the wines mature. Yes, the ship has sailed on affordable prices for first growths, etc., but there are an awful lot of wines that are terrific and are well priced. Last Saturday night, I had a wonderful 2005 Chateau D’Issan. One can still buy more recent vintages of this wine for good prices. My sense is that the appellation of Margaux today is a hot spot for wines with fabulous values. Margaux seemed to be a relatively underperforming region in the 1980s and 1990s (of course, I am not talking about Chateau Margaux, Chateau Palmer and one or two others) and the prices for a number of classified estates there have lagged behind those of wines in Pauillac and St. Julien even today when quality has increased for a number of estates. Just like prices have caught up with quality in Burgundy and with first growth and super-second Bordeauxs (and a few others), they will with the current values in Bordeaux.
Does not mean Burgundy will go out of favor - the cat is already out of the bag and I doubt wines for producers like Rousseau, Roumier, Mugneret-Gibourg, etc., will come down unless and until quality comes down because of the tiny quantity of wines produced by these people. But, right now the sweet spot for buying wines is in certain under the radar classified Medoc estates that sell at much lower prices than most comparable California wines (Mount Eden Cabernet is an exception here). Eventually, prices for these wines will catch up with quality. So, while I am too old to buy too much of these wines, anyone younger should grab them. Otherwise, in a number of years you will be complaining about how expensive these wines are and trying to convince yourself that wines from lesser regions are just as good or better than wines from Bordeaux.
7 Likes
I do not agree with you at all. And I am positive growers in other regions as well as the few consumers that it matters to do not agree as well. It’s a bit elitist IMO.
I’m sorry but I don’t understand your reply. Many of my favorite Bordeaux are produced by small houses. Could you please elaborate?
1 Like
is this Enogea Bordeaux app available in the US? When I search the App Store, I only see their Barolo and Barbaresco apps . . .
Your statement: The identity of Bordeaux is the blend. Blends are more than grapes. Blending also takes into consideration, clones, vine age, terroir, various degrees of ripeness, vintage character and more. It’s the merging of all the parts that gives the wine its character.
You could replace the word Bordeaux with the word Champagne, and it would be exactly what the big houses used to say to demean the growers.
I do not know how you take any of what I said as a negative. It’s a statement of facts about the identity of Bordeaux, for small estates and First Growths.
2 Likes
In the context of saying that Bordeaux Chateaux should not do a micro-parcel bottling you sound very old school - like someone whose time/vision has passed.