1 reply to this topic

[mogsob]

A few months ago, I had dinner at a very nice bistro in Paris, which has a wine list chock full of aged Bordeaux. We had a lovely 82 St. Emilion, and over the last year or so have enjoyed several wines off of their list -- all old wines from Bordeaux. None were from "great" name producers, and were nothing to get excited about -- until the food arived. They married so well with the food, and I've been on a Bordeaux kick ever since.

My question is this. I loathe the overextracted monster wines coming out of California, but as America drives the wine business, more and more Bordelaise are copying the New World style. Many on this forum have posited that 1983 was the last true vintage in Bordeaux, and that 89, 90, 95, 00 are not representative of the old-world style. To great extent, I agree. These wines may be stunning on their own, but they overpower the food served with them -- which, for me, is 90% the purpose of drinking wine in the first place.

Have we pursued wine for its own sake, and have lost the magic along the way?

[Jancis Robinson]

Yes - maybe. (Someone seems to have threaded these questions most effectively - each seems to lead into the other.)

BUT I would say that I noticed a real sea change in Bordeaux winemaking with the 2001 vintage. Admittedly this was a vintage difficult to vinify in blockbuster style but it was more than this - I genuinely detected an admission on the part even of many adherents to the BIG school of winemaking that they were going up the wrong track and the best wines have been reined back and are much more vine- than cellar-driven. This tendency continued with the 2002s. So I'm optimistic that you'll find some quite delicious drinking in these younger vintages.