The BEST Wine in the World

[Claude Kolm/The Fine Wine Review]

A friend of ours told us of a vineyard in the Languedoc that sought and received permission to grow zinfandel on an experimental basis.

Bux -- I know of at least two (failed) attempts to grow Zinfandel in France. Jacques Seysses of Domaine Dujac attempted it at Domaine de Triennes in Provence and Jean-Louis Chave planted some vines on the Hermitage hill for his own personal amusement. Both found that the climates were too cold and they could not get the grapes to ripen sufficiently.

Best regards,

Claude Kolm

The Fine Wine Review

[GordonCooks]

A friend of ours told us of a vineyard in the Languedoc that sought and received permission to grow zinfandel on an experimental basis.

Bux -- I know of at least two (failed) attempts to grow Zinfandel in France. Jacques Seysses of Domaine Dujac attempted it at Domaine de Triennes in Provence and Jean-Louis Chave planted some vines on the Hermitage hill for his own personal amusement. Both found that the climates were too cold and they could not get the grapes to ripen sufficiently.

Best regards,

Claude Kolm

The Fine Wine Review

What ever happened to Bernard Portet since his return to France ? Clos du Val was the first Zin I ever tasted.

[Claude Kolm/The Fine Wine Review]

What ever happened to Bernard Portet since his return to France ? Clos du Val was the first Zin I ever tasted.

Gordon -- It's called Domaine de Nizas.

I've not tasted the wine, and the description of it as being New World in style and the emphasis on technology don't make me want to taste it, either. Too bad, because Portet made some of the better Zinfandels and Cabernets in California, IMO.

Best regards,

Claude Kolm

The Fine Wine Review

[GordonCooks]

Too bad, because Portet made some of the better Zinfandels and Cabernets in California, IMO.

Ditto !

[Scott]

Craig,

referring back to your original post, I think it almost disingenous to compare the fortunes of Burgundy & Bordeaux and to try and draw parallels to other trends in the wine industry today. I agree your facts, not your conclusions though. Yes Burgundy is going from strength to strength, and Bordeaux is waning at present, but if we consider just a couple of basic points:

Bordeaux: production often exceeds 20,000 cases

Burgundy: production often below 500 cases

Bordeaux: Prices offensively speculative & opportunistic

Burgundy: Prices generally consistent.

My point being that Bordeaux is a speculative industry winning friends & enemies depending on prices, vintage and relative availability of stocks.

Burgundy behaves much more consistently and given the vintage quality we have seen since about 1994 it behave much more like a classical luxury product. One gains directly from the other as a result of decisions made by the other - I don't think we can parallel that outside this peculiar axis.

I firmly believe the upper echelons of the world's great wines are still largely french majority. In many cases the greatest examples of a given grape variety are french, native examples excluded of course.

my 2 cents as they say

[hollywood]

Wait a minute. 500 cases of burgundy? Really? We could drink all that on this board.

[Scott]

Wait a minute.  500 cases of burgundy?  Really?  We could drink all that on this board.

Some producers make a lot less than that.

Roumiers' Musigny is good for about 30 cases total.

Dugat-py Chambertin - not much more.

Mouton Rothschild can be up to 27,000 cases...

[Craig Camp]

It the argument that Bordeaux is more 'industrial' while Burgundy is an artisan product?

[Scott]

It the argument that Bordeaux is more 'industrial' while Burgundy is an artisan product?

Broadly speaking, yes I think so.

[ctgm]

It the argument that Bordeaux is more 'industrial' while Burgundy is an artisan product?

Broadly speaking, yes I think so.

Not sure about that. How do you measure "industrial"? Presumably it is how many hl/ha they get. I would have thought Bgy is generally higher than Bdx due to the needs to try and make a living off smaller amounts of land. I would be very interested to know if anyone has any figures to compare.

As for the question about the best wine in the world, I think that this is unanswerable. It comes down to a question of what is wine supposed to taste like?

[Scott]

It the argument that Bordeaux is more 'industrial' while Burgundy is an artisan product?

Broadly speaking, yes I think so.

Not sure about that. How do you measure "industrial"? Presumably it is how many hl/ha they get. I would have thought Bgy is generally higher than Bdx due to the needs to try and make a living off smaller amounts of land. I would be very interested to know if anyone has any figures to compare.

As for the question about the best wine in the world, I think that this is unanswerable. It comes down to a question of what is wine supposed to taste like?

Hl/Ha - no i don't think this has anything to do with the analogy whatsoever.

age of vines, soil, climate, vintage conditions, variety will all impact yields.

[ctgm]

Scott,

You are most probably right and I should have read your post more slowly!

However the point that I was trying to make was that just because the Burgundians sometimes only produce 30/500 odd cases rahter than the 20000s of Bdx purely comes down to the actual property size that is possible to obtain (partially as a result of Napoleonic law). The ha/hl was just to show that the same ethos was there. Seeing as I raised the topic I have copied some of Clive Coates' wise words as below. I think that it shows that in the better areas of both that Burgundy generally produces less than Bordeaux.

The other difference with Burgundy properties is that they often cover many different AOCs. Taking Roumier for example, he has a total of 35 acres which should make a total of about 6500 cases, I presume that his vineyards in Musigny cover a few rows.

The 2001 red Burgundy harvest was large but not nearly as huge as 1999. The average yield in the grands crus, for red wine, was almost exactly 39 hl/ha (2000: 39.3 hl/ha), while except in Volnay, the village and premier cru wines produced about one hectolitre per hectare less than in 2000 at around 45 or 46 hl/ha.

The 2001 Bordeaux vintage produced, in comparison with recent years, as follows:

2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 2001/2000

AOC Rouge & Rosé 5773 5989 5927 5695 5749 –4%

AOC Blanc 787 816 879 884 934 –4%

TOTAL (000 Hl) 6560 6805 6806 6579 6683

This represents an overall average of 55.4 hl/ha for red wines over the whole region.

On the face of it, then, another large crop. It was not so long ago that three million hectoliters of red wine was considered abundant. But these statistics are misleading. Five or six years ago the yield even among the first growths in the Médoc was 55 hl/ha or more. Led by the example of the Libournais, who have been actively reducing their crop for a decade, the classed châteaux on the Left Bank have followed suit. A relatively humble property in Pomerol such as Château L’Enclos has aimed for 45 hl/ha for some years (in fact Hugues Weydaer produced 39 hl/ha in 2001, owing to millérandage); L’Évangile produced 40 hl/ha, the same as in 2000. So did Vieux Château Certan. Ausone, however, produced 30 percent less than in 2000.

These sort of yields are rare in the Médoc/Graves. Yet both Lafite and Latour made 47 hl/ha in 2001, a lot less than in 1995 and 1996. Elsewhere the 2001 crop was even lower: 42 hl/ha at Mouton-Rothschild and Margaux; as low as 37 hl/ha at Château Pontet-Canet, 36 hl/ha at Brane-Cantenac, 35 hl/ha at Malescot-Saint-Exupéry, 32 hl/ha at Montrose and 31.62 hl/ha (what precision!) at Léoville-Las-Cases. That it was as high as 54 hl/ha at Beychevelle helps to explain why this château, which could be fine, is merely, boringly "good."

[Claude Kolm/The Fine Wine Review]

Top winemakers all over France nowadays refer to Bordeaux with disgust as "industrial." They use the word to describe the approach of many of the Bordelais to wine -- as something to be manipulated to please a certain critic's taste, and not as an expression of a vintage, a terroir, and an individual. As an example, I suggest you take a look at Jancis Robinson's website, clicking on the wine news link, and then on the Wines that are Organic and Taste Good link, where she contrasts the difference in approach between Etienne Grivot of Vosne-Romanee and Frederic Engerer of Chateau Latour.

The top producers in Burgundy understand the problems inherent in use of herbicides and chemical fertilizers and are going organic (I count biodynamis as a species of organic) or as close to organic as they can; in Bordeaux, outside of Pascal Delbeck, Christian Moueix, and a handful of others, producers laugh if you ask them about stopping the use of chemical fertilizers and herbicides.

Best regards,

Claude Kolm

The Fine Wine Review

[Claude Kolm/The Fine Wine Review]

Scott,

You are most probably right and I should have read your post more slowly!

However the point that I was trying to make was that just because the Burgundians sometimes only produce 30/500 odd cases rahter than the 20000s of Bdx purely comes down to the actual property size that is possible to obtain (partially as a result of Napoleonic law). The ha/hl was just to show that the same ethos was there. Seeing as I raised the topic I have copied some of Clive Coates' wise words as below. I think that it shows that in the better areas of both that Burgundy generally produces  less than Bordeaux.

The other difference with Burgundy properties is that they often cover many different AOCs. Taking Roumier for example, he has a total of 35 acres which should make a total of about 6500 cases, I presume that his vineyards in Musigny cover a few rows.

The 2001 red Burgundy harvest was large but not nearly as huge as 1999. The average yield in the grands crus, for red wine, was almost exactly 39 hl/ha (2000: 39.3 hl/ha), while except in Volnay, the village and premier cru wines produced about one hectolitre per hectare less than in 2000 at around 45 or 46 hl/ha.

The 2001 Bordeaux vintage produced, in comparison with recent years, as follows:

                              2001  2000  1999  1998  1997  2001/2000

AOC Rouge & Rosé 5773  5989  5927 5695  5749    –4%

AOC Blanc                787  816    879    884    934      –4%

TOTAL (000 Hl)        6560  6805 6806  6579  6683 

This represents an overall average of 55.4 hl/ha for red wines over the whole region.

On the face of it, then, another large crop. It was not so long ago that three million hectoliters of red wine was considered abundant. But these statistics are misleading. Five or six years ago the yield even among the first growths in the Médoc was 55 hl/ha or more. Led by the example of the Libournais, who have been actively reducing their crop for a decade, the classed châteaux on the Left Bank have followed suit. A relatively humble property in Pomerol such as Château L’Enclos has aimed for 45 hl/ha for some years (in fact Hugues Weydaer produced 39 hl/ha in 2001, owing to millérandage); L’Évangile produced 40 hl/ha, the same as in 2000. So did Vieux Château Certan. Ausone, however, produced 30 percent less than in 2000.

These sort of yields are rare in the Médoc/Graves. Yet both Lafite and Latour made 47 hl/ha in 2001, a lot less than in 1995 and 1996. Elsewhere the 2001 crop was even lower: 42 hl/ha at Mouton-Rothschild and Margaux; as low as 37 hl/ha at Château Pontet-Canet, 36 hl/ha at Brane-Cantenac, 35 hl/ha at Malescot-Saint-Exupéry, 32 hl/ha at Montrose and 31.62 hl/ha (what precision!) at Léoville-Las-Cases. That it was as high as 54 hl/ha at Beychevelle helps to explain why this château, which could be fine, is merely, boringly "good."

ctgm -- Be skeptical of the reported figures -- that represents what is in the bottle, not what was in the vineyard. If you eliminating a large part of your crop for a second wine, or if you are eliminating water through reverse osmosis or evaporation, then you still have the degradation of the fruit that comes from large yields.

Best regards,

Claude Kolm

The Fine Wine Review

[ctgm]

ctgm -- Be skeptical of the reported figures -- that represents what is in the bottle, not what was in the vineyard.  If you eliminating a large part of your crop for a second wine, or if you are eliminating water through reverse osmosis or evaporation, then you still have the degradation of the fruit that comes from large yields.

Best regards,

Claude Kolm

The Fine Wine Review

Claude, I think that you are right about scepticism. Figures can be massaged quite easily and funny things do happen. I suppose the mose widespread one concerns chaptilisation. The powers that be control is fairly tightly but the supermarkets do a roaring trade!

However I seem to remember from my time in Bordeaux that you had to fill in loads of forms stating the yields from the vineyards and I seem to remember having spot checks every now and then. Of course forms can be filled in as desired!

Out of interest, how much can be lost

- reverse osmosis - 1 or 2%???

- evaporation - say for a cellar with 1005 oak - 2%pa ???

[Claude Kolm/The Fine Wine Review]

ctgm -- For reverse osmosis, I am told that 7% is considered moderate, and I have heard of cases up to 20%. By evaporation, I meant the technique of removing water that competes with reverse osmosis. I imagine the percentages are the same.

The yields that are commonly given out are measurements from the wine in cask, not the weight of grapes harvested (much less an estimate of what was on the vine which would include what was not harvested and what was eliminated in a triage). Moreover, as the yields increasingly ballooned in Bordeaux, I began to notice a practice of giving the yields by what goes into the grand vin. So you harvest, say 60 hl/ha, discard 5hl/ha, have 55 hl/ha in the cellar, make a 60% selection for the grand vin, and voila, you tell the world that you did only 33 hl/ha! (Moreover, the spacing in Bordeaux can vary significantly. What matters is grapes per vine, not per ha. This is why I laugh when one of my colleagues goes on and on about the low yields at Chateauneuf-du-Pape -- where there is very low density of planting.)

One interesting exercise is to go to Google! and plug in "Mouton labels". You'll get any number of sites that have the collection of Mouton labels on line. Up through the 1981 vintage, the bottles were numbered and the labels told you how many bottles were produced. Even though 1981 was a small vintage by contemporary standards, compare how much wine was being made then with some of the vintages of the 1940s-1960s. And then came 1982, which was gigantic for the times (but not for today), and guess what, they stopped numbering the bottles and telling you how many were produced.

Best regards,

Claude Kolm

The Fine Wine Review

Edited April 26, 2003 by Claude Kolm/The Fine Wine Review (log)

[docsconz]

ctgm -- For reverse osmosis, I am told that 7% is considered moderate, and I have heard of cases up to 20%.  By evaporation, I meant the technique of removing water that competes with reverse osmosis.  I imagine the percentages are the same.

The yields that are commonly given out are measurements from the wine in cask, not the weight of grapes harvested (much less an estimate of what was on the vine which would include what was not harvested and what was eliminated in a triage).  Moreover, as the yields increasingly ballooned in Bordeaux, I began to notice a practice of giving the yields by what goes into the grand vin.  So you harvest, say 60 hl/ha, discard 5hl/ha, have 55 hl/ha in the cellar, make a 60% selection for the grand vin, and voila, you tell the world that you did only 33 hl/ha!  (Moreover, the spacing in Bordeaux can vary significantly.  What matters is grapes per vine, not per ha.  This is why I laugh when one of my colleagues goes on and on about the low yields at Chateauneuf-du-Pape -- where there is very low density of planting.)

One interesting exercise is to go to Google! and plug in "Mouton labels".  You'll get any number of sites that have the collection of Mouton labels on line.  Up through the 1981 vintage, the bottles were numbered.  Even though 1981 was a small vintage by contemporary standards, compare how much wine was being made then with some of the vintages of the 1940s-1960s.  And then came 1982, which was gigantic for the times (but not for today), and guess what, they stopped numbering the bottles.

Best regards,

Claude Kolm

The Fine Wine Review

Fascinating post -thanks.

[Claude Kolm/The Fine Wine Review]

To give you an idea on the density of plantings: in Chateaneuf-du-Pape, it generally runs about 2500-4000 vines per hectare; in Bordeaux, it goes from 5000-10,000 vines per hectare; in Burgundy, top estates have been at 10,000-12,000 vines per hectare, and some are experimenting with even denser plantation. Given that context, ignoring the differences in varietals (which can be a significant factor), 25 hl/ha in Chateauneuf doesn't look so low compared to 35 hl/ha in Burgundy, does it?

Best regards,

Claude Kolm

The Fine Wine Review

[hollywood]

This 500 cases of burgundy intrigues me. What if Bill Gates or someone tried to buy all of it? Could he?

[Claude Kolm/The Fine Wine Review]

This 500 cases of burgundy intrigues me.  What if Bill Gates or someone tried to buy all of it?  Could he?

Generally, not. The best wines are reserved for regular customers. I suppose Gates could put out a tender offer, and while that would get him some of the wine, it would not get him the entire production -- for some customers, no price would justify parting with the greatest wines.

Best regards,

Claude Kolm

The Fine Wine Review

[Scott]

To give you an idea on the density of plantings:  in Chateaneuf-du-Pape, it generally runs about 2500-4000 vines per hectare; in Bordeaux, it goes from 5000-10,000 vines per hectare; in Burgundy, top estates have been at 10,000-12,000 vines per hectare, and some are experimenting with even denser plantation.  Given that context, ignoring the differences in varietals (which can be a significant factor), 25 hl/ha in Chateauneuf doesn't look so low compared to 35 hl/ha in Burgundy, does it?

Best regards,

Claude Kolm

The Fine Wine Review

Claude,

I never new about the low density plantings in CDP - thanks!

[Robin Meredith]

Wasn't someone publicly busting Madame Leroy's chops a while back for quoting outrageously low yield statistics from vineyards that contained an extraordinary number of dead plants? This sounds like unfriendly rivalry and/or urban (if that word can be applied to Burgundy) myth to me, but it does indicate yet another way in which yield statistics can be manipulated.