OK, here’s my 2 cents. I wrote this for something else a few years ago, but I guess it’s appropriate here. Disclaimer - I haven’t verified the legal reqs for the wines recently. I think they’re correct, but when I was there last fall, I didn’t bother to double check them.
The name “Beaujolais” comes from the house of Beaujeu. That was a noble family of the region first mentioned in the 900s. It lies roughly in the southeast quarter of France, between Burgundy to the north and the Rhone to the south. It is very close to the city of Lyon, which was a major Roman stronghold and which, during the late middle ages, became home to many silk merchants. For a while Beaujolais itself was also a textile center. In any event, Lyon was traditionally the prime market for the Beaujolais wines, from the nouveau to the more expensive bottlings.
Both prior to and after becoming a textile center, the Beaujolais region was a wine-producing area. It’s an area of rolling hills and unlike many red wine-producing areas, it’s actually fairly green. Between the hills are flatter valleys and plains.
Vineyards have been found that date back to Roman times. From the Romans through most of the middle ages, Gamay and Pinot Noir were planted throughout the Beaujolais and Burgundy areas. Gamay can produce larger grapes and some people feel that partly because of that, it can produce a less concentrated wine. But keep iun mind that the wines we are drinking today are nothing like the wines people were drinking several hundred years ago. More importantly however, his own vineyards did not have Gamay, so in 1395 Phillip the Bold of Burgundy decreed that only Pinot Noir was to be allowed in Burgundy for red wine. A generation or so later, Phillip the Good re-emphasized and re-issued that rule and ordered that the Gamay vines were to be pulled out. Had the first edict been successful, there would have been no need for the second. Today the legend is that the rule was made because Gamay is not as good a grape as Pinot Noir and Phillip was a connoisseur. While neither is true, this has become part of wine folklore and IMHO, it’s a shame because it argues that Gamay is somehow an “inferior” grape that one can dispense with. In fact, it’s an argument for terroir, as we shall see.
Gamay is an old grape, but the Pinot grapes are older, since Gamay is a child of Pinot Noir and Gouais Blanc, which makes it a sibling to Chardonnay. Gouais Blanc is the parent of many grapes and since it is believed to have originated in Croatia, although that’s not certain, it’s thought that the Romans brought it to France, where it crossed with the Pinot grapes several times. Both Gamay and Chardonnay probably originated as natural field crosses in the Mâconnais region, south of Burgundy.
Phillip was master of Burgundy, but much of the Beaujolais region was not under his authority. Consequently, farmers there saw no reason to rip out their Gamay and it was was left alone. Both Gamay and Chardonnay are still cultivated there.
As it is easier and more practical to farm flat land, for years Gamay vines were planted on the flat land close to Lyon, which was the Roman capital of Gaul. This allowed for easier farming and transportation to their main market, which was the generally flourishing city of Lyon. Gamay was also easier to grow than Pinot Noir and it produced bigger crop loads, which was another of the objections Phillip had, along with the fact that in his own vineyards, he made better Pinot Noir than Gamay and he preferred to stick with the grape that produced better wine for him.
In the 1600s a canal was built to link the Loire and the Seine rivers. This canal allowed for transport to the much larger markets of Paris. To meet the new demand, wine production had to increase and growers began to plant vines in the hills as well as on the flat lands. When grown in the fertile flat regions, the Gamay can produce a lot of watery, undistinguished wine. But the vineyards that grow up the hillsides are a different matter and they can produce much more interesting, complex wines.
Today Beaujolais grape production covers about 55,000 acres, which makes it quite a bit larger than Burgundy. Approximately 98% of the vines in Beaujolais are Gamay; the rest is Chardonnay, which is used for Beaujolais blanc, and there is also some Pinot Noir. There are really tiny amounts of other grapes too, some white, but I’m not aware of any imported into the US and I don’t know how “legal” they are.
The French regions can be somewhat confusing and Beaujolais is no exception. For wine law, Beaujolais is considered part of Burgundy. For political matters, it is part of the Rhone department. Partly that has to do with the convoluted history of the region, which is fascinating on its own.
The River Nizerand divides the area into Haut-Beaujolais in the north and Bas-Beaujolais on the south. Bas-Beaujolais is the flatter area, with soil that is mostly limestone and clay. This area also produces most of the wine. Moving north, Haut-Beaujolais is hilly, with granite and schist soils that are believed to make better wines than the flatter, more fertile areas in the south. This is also the area with the Beaujolais-Villages and the 10 Beaujolais Cru appellations.
The region has warm summers and fairly cool winters. While the hills provide some protection from cold, rain and snow, there can be late summer hail storms that will ruin a vintage.
In the Beaujolais region there aren’t large landholders or chateaux as there are in Bordeaux. Instead, there are many small grape growers who sell their grapes to négociants to make the wines. During harvest, at the better vineyards, the pickers generally use small containers to ensure that the clusters arrive at the winery uncrushed. Gamay grapes have fairly thin skins and the idea is to keep the fruit intact as much as possible. Grapes are often put into the fermentation tanks whole and the fruit at the bottom of the tank is eventually crushed by the weight of the fruit above. The fermentation then commences and the alcohol and CO2 created causes the whole grapes to pop. This method is called carbonic maceration and it is part of what gives the wines from Beaujolais their bright, fresh fruit profile. It’s not unique to Beaujolais, but it’s what many people think of when they think of the wines from the region.
One other point worth mentioning is that carbonic maceration is not necessarily used simply for wine that’s to be consumed quickly. I’ve had Syrah made that way and the winemaker assured me that the Syrah would be drinking well for at least five years, maybe more. Based on what was in the glass at the time, I believe her.
For wines that will be sold as nouveau, the Gamay juice is left on the skins for a few days. For wines that are considered more serious, the skin contact may last a week or more.
There are also winemakers who choose not to use the carbonic maceration method and who make their wine like any other red. These tend to be the most “serious” of the wines. Someone like Brun for example, will destem, crush, and macerate his grapes 3 weeks to a month with periodic punch downs. They may put the wine in oak or cement. That doesn’t mean the wines are “oaky” for the people who get hives if they notice some wood, it just means that the wines have spent time in containers that are slightly porous.
One of the characteristic notes of Gamay, no matter how it’s fermented, is a “grapey” quality. I don’t know how else to describe it but I also find it a characteristic of Pinot Noir. With time, it changes into something quite different, but in a young wine, it’s frequently very pronounced.
The wine categories of Beaujolais are:
Beaujolais – wines from the southern area, including the nouveau wines. Minimum alcohol is 9%
Beaujolais Superior - slightly riper than nouveau, minimum alcohol is 10%.
Beaujolais Villages - made from a blend of any of the 39 different villages. Approx 25% of the region’s production. Usually best from 1 to 3 years.
Cru Beaujolais - from better sites in the north part of the region. More saturated and darker color than the other Beaujolais, more full-bodied and much longer-lived, some with great aging potential. They usually do not usually show the word “Beaujolais” on the label but are instead named after the respective cru.
In the more southern area is the region called the Pierres Dorées, or the Golden Stones. That’s a bit of poetic license IMHO. The area is made of limestone that has some iron oxide in it, so the stones are a kind of yellow. It’s nice enough, but a far cry from gold. Still, it makes for a nice romantic name.
Just to add a note about food - the cuisine of the region is surprisingly hearty. One might think that it would be lighter fare, but that’s more likely to be found down around the Mediterranean coast. In Beaujolais they’re happy to have beef and pork, but also a lot of rabbit and chicken, often cooked in cream sauces, with mushrooms and local vegetables and fruits. Lyon is of course one of the gastronomic centers of France, and it’s from there that much of what Americans consider the French haute cuisine comes. Paul Bocuse has his restaurant close by and many chefs trained and work at restaurants of the region.
Some notes on the 10 crus
Crus that are considered delicate:
St. Amour – 900 acres, the northernmost cru. Soil is granite, sand and clay. Usually has a lighter, red-ruby color with a nose of cherries & spice, sometimes even peaches, sometimes also floral. This is a huge seller during February. I find it to be one of the lightest of the crus. It can be quite nice, but rarely exceptional.
Brouilly – 3000 acres, sandy soil and granite. The largest and highest –yielding of the crus. Vineyards are on the plains around Mont Brouilly
Grapey aromas and flavors, also generally among the lightest of the wines, again not particularly exceptional but can be quite nice on warm days. I suppose it has a bit more personality than the Villages wines, but some of those can be almost as good.
Côte de Brouilly - granite, sand and clay. Vineyards are on the volcanic hillsides of the 1585 foot Mont Brouilly. These are also somewhat floral, with notes of fresh grapes. They can needs some time to develop but are generally more interesting than the first two.
Fleurie - 2,000 acres. Granite soil, floral aromas, can be lighter and less tannic than Morgon and Moulin-à-Vent but it may be my favorite of the crus. At its best, can be very elegant with aromas of flowers, peaches, currants & berries. Often considered the most floral of the Crus, but when well-done also has a nice acidic backbone. And I think it can age too, depending of course on the producer and the year.
Chénas - 650 acres, the smallest, and therefore rarest, cru. Granite soil. The commune of Chènas is actually in Moulin-à-Vent. Some say these wines are not as long-lived as some, others say they are made for laying down, I think it all depends on the producer and the vintage. These are again, red-ruby colored, often with a floral nose, and sometimes with a bit of a tannic finish.
Regnie – 620 acres on pink granite soil. The newest cru, established in 1988. Wines are generally less hearty than a Moulin-a-Vent or Morgon, but still bigger than a Brouilly - it’s between the lightest and the biggest of the crus in weight. Named after a Roman noble, Réginus, who had a villa in the region. Cherry-colored with nose of currants & raspberries, sometimes some spicy notes.
Chirobles - 850 acres, highest elevation of crus at approx 400 meters, granite and porphyry soil. This is where they first grafted American rootstock onto French vines to fight phylloxera, so it’s very important for historical purposes. I don’t really know how to categorize these - some are really flowery and many people say these are among the most distinctive and balanced wines, but I find them light and acidic sometimes, so you need to decide for yourself.
Crues that are fuller, with more aging potential
Juliênas – 1450 acres on soil is schist, clay and granite. These are some of the more interesting wines in that they are just fine when young, they’re good after a few years in the bottle, and they’re good after even more years in the bottle. Also red-ruby and typically with a really fruity nose, but somehow more body in the mouth.
Morgon – towards the south, soil is the most different and unique of the crus - roche pourrie (rotten rock). Probably the most age-worthy of all. The wines can be funky initially, more deeply colored, with more “traditional” red-wine notes of plums and darker fruits. Good young and can be aged. I’ve had these with 10 - 15 years and they’re just great. There’s a hill there, and the best wines come from the slopes of that hill, called Cote du Py.
Moulin-à-Vent – 1600 acres, soil is granite with manganese. These are the most “prestigious” insofar as any Beaujolais is, and they’re also some of the longest-lived. They also have dark colors, with flowers and spice and sometimes graphite on the nose. At one point, they had a reputation as one of the best red wines of France. Clearly that isn’t the case today.
One more note - people denigrate Duboeuf. I think he’s kind of a half-ass hero. I wouldn’t call his wines brilliant. But you can taste, in each of his cru bottlings, the character of that cru. In fact, I can’t think of a better lesson from any region than you can get from buying each of his cru wines and tasting side by side. He has a great palate, he’s from the region, and he’s focused on expressing the terroir of the regions, as he sees them. He gets criticized from many quarters, partly for using “industrial” yeast and what not. I think that’s a load of crap. He’s acknowledged that he had one yeast that produced a banana-like aroma and he’s stopped using it, but he’s putting out decent wine at dirt-cheap prices. I would suggest that for a basic intro to Beaujolais, you do a tasting of the Dubouef cru bottlings. And whatever is left over can go into a nice coq au vin.
Hope this helps. Cheers!
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
