Too roasted and high in alcohol...
Too roasted and high in alcohol...
Ver mensaje de Juan SuchTanzer approaching Jancis?...
Judge for yourself form this brief comment (the only one available free) from the new Tanzer newsletter:
Focus on California’s North Coast
Following three lean years, vintages 2001, 2002 and 2003 brought warmer conditions and a return to the ripe, fleshy wines for which California is best known. But is the stylistic pendulum at an extreme right now: are some of today’s flamboyantly rich California wines a bit too roasted and high in alcohol for their own good?
Re: Too roasted and high in alcohol...
Ver mensaje de Juan SuchNay, maybe it simply is ...too roasted and high in alcohol!
BTW, did you see his 93-95 rating for Pavie 2003? ;^)
Broadbent on the Pavie (and Bordeaux) debate
Ver mensaje de GastronautaI have read on www.Jancisrobinson.com (7 may 04) the comments from Michael Broadbent MW on the Pavie 2003 and the Great Bordeaux Debate. I reproduce it here for its great interest:
";Jancis Robinson, tasting blind, awarded the 2003 vintage of Ch Pavie a meagre 12/20. It would seem, not surprisingly, that M Perse, the proprietor, has taken offence and his friend, the redoubtable Robert Parker, has raised his mighty cudgel on his behalf, inferring not for the first time that his, and fellow American, tastes are vastly more valid and significant that those of the old-school English.
It is also suggested that new style wine making better expresses the terroir whereas, in my opinion, it does precisely the opposite, it suppresses the terroir.
So where does Pavie stand? Again, in my opinion, uneasily, for it is merely one of a handful of nouvelle vague châteaux amongst the literally hundreds of properties in the very extensive Saint-Emilion district, and its satellites, which from time immemorial have been producing wines of a recognisable traditional style at very reasonable prices: decent claret for drinking. I am reminded of the old army story of the new recruit who insists he is the only one marching in step!
More importantly, the Pavie affair opens up a more wide-ranging debate which exposes, and might bring to a head, a long-simmering controversy: ‘new world’, the American-led global taste ranging from otherwise innocuous, deeply-coloured, sweet, fruit- and alcohol-laden, over-oaked reds to the self-conscious, over-the-top, over-extracted, overpriced, cult wines, the ‘garagistes’ (wines that, once bought and cellared, might never again see the light of day – too expensive to drink) versus European – not just English – taste preference for lighter, stylish wines with finesse and typicity marketed in a fair price range for actually – wait for it – drinking.
But back to Pavie. M Perse’s first vintage was the 1998 which I first tasted at the chateau in April 1999 and noted ‘New style: too sweet, fleshy and ‘roasted’.” It was certainly controversial, some experienced tasters finding it impressive, even admirable, others quite the opposite. My rating was ** (out of five stars), conceding that for others it might warrant ****. I disliked it so intensely that I slipped out of the chai to avoid discussing it with M Perse.
Of the 1999 vintage, first tasted in the spring of 2000, I wrote “all the talk is of the huge transformation made by the new owners. Frankly I much preferred the wines made by the much-liked Jean-Paul Valette. But this is the (new) 100-point Côte Rôtie style of Bordeaux much, well somewhat, in vogue. Opaque, tarry, liquorice (nose); fairly powerful, concentrated. singed, with a finish of tar and tannin. It will be most interesting to see how this turns out. (Again) for me ** and **** for some. “
The 2003 Pavie I tasted – not blind – in a line-up of 16 Saint-Emilions at a Union des Grands Crus tasting in March 2004. My note reads: “very deep, extraordinary (nose), slightly fishy, tarry; fairly sweet, full bodied, powerful, dense and again tarry.” I did not give the wine a score but it would have been roughly 14/40, rather less harsh than Jancis’ 12/20. The Pavie-Decesse, also M Perse’s, was even deeper: “opaque core, intense purple rim; similar to Pavie on the nose and palate. Drier, powerful with a hot, dense finsih.” Frankly, I did not like either.
My feeling is that adventurous tasters, particularly newcomers, will eventually get tired of the new style wines. They are being produced – doubtless well intended – by ambitious, ego-driven, winemakers seemingly everywhere, and in a similar over-the-top style. At a less ambitious level, reds and whites are becoming too uniform, leading to a battle of the brands.
There are barbarians at the gates. Let us encourage the individual, the distinctive, the undramatically drinkable.";
At the gates?
Ver mensaje de Juan SuchSays the venerable Mr. Broadbent: ";There are barbarians at the gates. Let us encourage the individual, the distinctive, the undramatically drinkable.";
I’m concerned that, by noticing the Barbarian stragglers who may sill be at the gates, so way behind, he may have failed to notice the Barbarians that are already among us in huge numbers.
I will not discuss the merits of either critic and his or her ";school of thought) in the Pavie debate. As I clearly and sincerely stated in the Spanish side of Verema that I refuse to discuss professional critics, hoping once again to focus on the wines I taste without their--often unsolicited and utterly undesirable--interventions in my judgment processes, directly, or indirectly through disciples.
I am somewhat concerned by another of Mr. Broadbent’s statements, where he draws a clear binomial separation between a ";New World"; and a ";European"; aesthetic for the appreciation of wine. Either he has not met the new breed of Spanish, Italian or French wine consumers, the novices and the adventurous polymorphous enoperverts who do believe that ";quality wine"; is produced al over the world and prefer to drink labels and points rather than wine, or his idea of ";Europe"; involves only a handful of places, to the exclusion of the broader markets.
Just something to nibble on.
M.
Divides and personal preferences
Ver mensaje de MCamblorI agree with you that the Broadbent’s divide between ";New World"; and ";European"; aesthetic for the appreciation of wine is too simplistic. On this line there are very interesting comments from David Schildknecht on Jancisrobinson.com. Excerpts:
";Broadbent conjures up a depressingly familiar juxtaposition of ";the American-led global taste ... versus European - not just English - taste preference."; And those who value ";finesse and typicity"; are contrasted with ";ambitious, ego-driven winemakers"; and even ";barbarians."; Such language is as unhelpful as it is misleading and glib. Haven’t we had enough of straw men? Writers as influential and supremely knowledgeable as Broadbent should not be tempted by the T S Eliot-inspired headwear now so fashionable among those who pontificate in wine journals and on web boards.
I read and overhear abundant commentary by American wine lovers who don’t appreciate the style in which Pavie is nowadays crafted. On the other hand, it is evident that Gérard Perse and a great many Europeans do. The Atlantic Ocean does not mark a stylistic rift. All who love wine should cherish sensitivity to style and stylistic freedom, ideals that are compromised by inexactitude or partisanship - and crude nationalism distills both of those vices.
A good measure of the degree to which phoney alternatives lead to dead ends in today’s overheated wine forums is the use and abuse of ";terroir"; or ";typicity";.(...) For one thing, talk of terroir is cheap. The growers of Napa Cabernet or Sonoma Pinot Noir may succeed with wines of bold, ripe flavor and high alcohol, but when cornered by a weakening and over-supplied market, my how they proliferate AVAs and vineyard-designated bottlings! French growers treat terroir as a birthright, but just observe their glee when nature presents them with the opportunity for wine of more typically California proportions!
For another, most so-called arguments on this subject are at cross purposes. ";Terroir"; and ";typicity"; in one sense signify the potential for wines from a certain microclimate to exhibit distinctive flavours. In a categorically different sense, ";terroir"; and ";typicity"; are often wielded by the self-proclaimed guardians of tradition to limit the quality aspirations and stylistic expression of vintners. ";Terroir"; used in the former sense might signal a wine grower’s heartfelt search for distinction; in the latter it can be an excuse for tolerating undistinguished or sloppy winemaking, for booting a visionary colleague out of your winemaking fraternity, or for refusing appellation controlée.
Interesting combinations of grapes and microclimates not to mention styles are legion. Was it a sin, before phylloxera, to have planted Pinot in Sancerre but not Sauvignon; Mourvèdre and Muscat in Cassis rather than mixed whites? If the testimony of Cyrus Redding and other 19th century authorities is to be believed, the Médoc, scant generations ago, was populated largely with Petit Verdot, Carmenère, and Malbec; nowadays it’s Cabernet and Merlot. Against such a discontinuity in the sheer raw materials of wine, can one justify asserting with Broadbent that Bordeaux vintners ";from time immemorial have been producing wines of a recognizable traditional style";?
Although we can read about them and occasionally uncork their bones or catch a whiff of bygone beauty, I don’t think any of us are in a good position to speak about the styles of wine that prevailed a century ago. We can certainly discuss the significant stylistic evolution of Bordeaux wine within our own lifetimes. But a little more scientific spirit and detective ingenuity and less passion and prejudice would render such discussion both more fruitful and more interesting than it usually is. Those folks who compare today’s Pavie to wines from 1928 or 1947 were not around to taste th
Re: Divides and personal preferences
Ver mensaje de Juan SuchJuan, thanks for passing on this reasonable commentary. I thought measured remarks like this were forbidden on wine boards.
Somewhat apropos of this general discussion, I read this weekend the new book, ’Noble Rot: A Bordeaux Wine Revolution’ by William Echikson. Broadly speaking, the book presents the clash between traditionalists and modernists in Bordeaux. The author sides with the modernists, but is not polemical about it. Indeed, the author’s general biases are beside the point. The modernist versus traditionalist debate is largely just a convenient framework for a book that is really about a host of vivid behind-the scenes anecdotes about many of the colorful players on Bordeaux stage. It is quite well written (at least for a wine book). In contrast, the also new ’Accidental Connoisseur: An Irreverent Journey Through the Wine World’ by Lawrence Osborne seemed to me ponderous and pointless book.
Bordeaux wine books
Ver mensaje de WaltZalenskiWalt, have you read ";Bordeaux: People, Power and Politics"; by Stephen Brook (2000)? Good text and pictures about the region.
Frankly, the red wines from Bordeaux interest me less than the wines from Burgundy or Piamonte. The reason is that I think Bordeaux wines are more similar to many top Spanish wines than the wines from the other two regions mentioned.
Re: Divides and personal preferences
Ver mensaje de WaltZalenskiAs usual, I find myself agreeing with you: I’d rather see opinions expressed in the way ";this is not my style, I think that so and so, I do not like this wine"; rather than ";this wine is rubish, undrinkible, utterly horrid";, because the former statement considers the critic taste as merely one more among the miriad possible tastes, while the later presumes the author to be in possession of ";the truth"; and people not agreeing in her/his taste to be wrong. But, of course, this is a matter of personal preferencess :)
Cheers,
MaJesus