Why is Bordeaux better today?

[Craig Camp]

In the current issue of The Wine Advocate, Robert Parker poses the following question:

Why is Bordeaux significantly better today than it was 25 or 50 years ago?

Mr. Parker proposes the following answers:

1. Vineyard improvements

2. Improved cellar techniques

3. Changes in the wines upbringing and bottling

4. International competition

5. other changes like improved weather forecasting

The first question is do you agree. Certainly improved understanding of viticulture and winemaking have improved wines the world over and of course increased competition always demands improvement.

But there is another fundamental question. That of the influence of Robert Parker himself and the impact of his personal style preferences. To support his position that Bordeaux has improved he cites the dramatic increase in the number of wines he scores highly.

Perhaps he should have included a sixth factor - the Robert Parker factor.

[Kim WB]

Not being as knowledgeable in this as most, but often accompanying my serious wine enthusiast husband to various wine stores, I can tell you that he refers to some bottles as having a "Parker Price"...which sounds closely related to your 'Parker Factor".

[GordonCooks]

The 1976 Paris Tasting (in addition to Parker's 1-5)

[rich]

The '76 tasting destroyed Bordeaux. Now French winemakers (like the majority of American winemakers) make wines that do well in tastings, but not nearly as well with food.

Thankfully, I still have some pre-1980 Bordeaux around. After that, it just isn't the same.

[docsconz]

I believe it is true that more wines of Bordeaux are more consistently good year-in and year-out than was ever the case before and that this is probably due to the factors that parker mentions. The question I have is, are the best wines better than they ever were or are they achieving "greatness" more frequently than they had in the past? I don't have the answer.

[mogsob]

I agree with Parker that technique has dramatically improved and, quite clearly, the effects of a poor vintage are not as keenly felt these days. But better technique does not necessarily make better wine, and as more and more winemakers abandon traditional values in pursuit of the fruit-driven international style, Bordeaux loses its unique identity. I, for one, prefer European-style wines. They are more food friendly and, ultimately, more interesting. So while the factors listed by Parker have all been positives, it is not clear that Parker, rather than science, has been the cause of greater consistency in the south of France.

[GordonCooks]

The '76 tasting destroyed Bordeaux. Now French winemakers (like the majority of American winemakers) make wines that do well in tastings, but not nearly as well with food.

Thankfully, I still have some pre-1980 Bordeaux around. After that, it just isn't the same.

With that said - I'll be over to take all that lousy '82 out of the cellar. I don't know how you put up with it for so long.

[rich]

With that said - I'll be over to take all that lousy '82 out of the cellar. I don't know how you put up with it for so long.

I never purchased it (unfortunately). A friend of mine did and made a fortune re-selling several years later. I did try an '82 Petrus and an '82 Mouton. Both were good, but very "California-ish." Not necessarily a bad thing, but the difference and uniqueness of Bordeaux was gone. Alas, they all became Robert Parker wines (sigh).

[Robin Meredith]

The question I have is, are the best wines better than they ever were or are they achieving "greatness" more frequently than they had in the past? I don't have the answer.

This is an interesting question. I attended a tasting moderated by M. Parker last year, and at some point during the discussion he suggested that many of the truly legendary wines from the first half of the 20th century (e.g. 1947 Cheval Blanc) "could never be made today" because they contained volatile acidity, residual sugar, and other "flaws" that are unacceptable to modern winemakers.

This is all kind of abstract to me, since I haven't been fortunate enough to taste any of those wines, but it raises all kinds of interesting questions - do these "flaws" contribute to the greatness of these wines (which is what Parker seemed to be implying, although he didn't say so directly), or would they have been even better if they were somewhat "cleaner"?

I have no doubt that someone out here will be able to address this based on first-hand experience .

[Scott]

The 1976 Paris Tasting (in addition to Parker's 1-5)

Does anyone know what vintages were tasted - I have always assumed it was 1973/1974

at which point the results become meaningless. After all great californian vintages vs terrible Bordeaux years...

what does it really mean?

[Craig Camp]

THE WINES OF THE 1976 TASTING

Following is a list of wines in the 1976 tasting. California wines are denoted by an asterisk.

Reds

*Stag's Leap Wine Cellars 1973, Napa Valley (127.5)

Château Mouton-Rothschild 1970 (126)

Château Haut-Brion 1970 (125.5)

Château Montrose 1970 (122)

*Ridge Cabernet Sauvignon 'Mountain Range" (Montebello) 1971, Santa Cruz Mts. (105.5)

Château Leoville-Las-Cases 1971 (97)

*Mayacamas 1971, Napa Valley/Mayacamas Mts. (89.5)

*Clos Du Val 1972, Napa Valley (87.5)

*Heitz Cellars 'Martha's Vineyard' 1970, Napa Valley/St. Helena (84.5)

*Freemark Abbey 1967, Napa Valley/Rutherford (78)

Whites

*Chateau Montelena 1973, Napa Valley/Calistoga (132)

Meurault-Charmes 1973, Roulot (126.5)

*Chalone Vineyards 1974, Monterey County/Soledad (121)

*Spring Mountain 1973, Napa Valley/Spring Mountain (104)

Beaune Clos des Mouches 1973, Joseph Drouhin (101)

*Freemark Abbey 1972, Napa Valley/Rutherford (100)

Batard-Montrachet 1973, Ramonet-Prudhon (94)

Puligny-Montrachet 1972, Les Pucelles, Domaine Leflaive (89)

*Veedercrest 1972, Napa Valley/Mt. Veeder (88)

*David Bruce 1973, Santa Cruz Mts. (42)

[ctgm]

Is Bordeaux better today?

Sure the bad vintages tend not to be as bad as they were but are the great years better these days? And who is to say what wine is better than the other? Having said that in order to get rid of the bad vintages the wines have lost a lot of their character - some of my customers say that many of the 1997s taste the same (and I understand where they are coming from but..)

Wines made 100 years ago were undrinkable for the first 10-20 years of its life, and that is perhaps why the bottles of 1865 that we have in our cellar are still drinking exceptionally well. Wines of today are generally made to drink at a much younger age. Does this make it better or worse?

Some people think that the last "true" vintage in Bordeaux was the 1983 before over extraction and over oaking became the norm. I understand this point and to a certain extent agree with it as I find most of the wines from Bordeaux today over the top and lacking the elegance and finesse that they once had. In part this change came about to cater for the American market, who after all make excellent wines themselves which have plenty of weight to them.

Therefore I do not think that Bordeaux is better. More consistent yes, but at a cost of being more mediocre.

[docsconz]

THE WINES OF THE 1976 TASTING

Following is a list of wines in the 1976 tasting. California wines are denoted by an asterisk.

Reds

*Stag's Leap Wine Cellars 1973, Napa Valley (127.5)

Château Mouton-Rothschild 1970 (126)

Château Haut-Brion 1970 (125.5)

Château Montrose 1970 (122)

*Ridge Cabernet Sauvignon 'Mountain Range" (Montebello) 1971, Santa Cruz Mts. (105.5)

Château Leoville-Las-Cases 1971 (97)

*Mayacamas 1971, Napa Valley/Mayacamas Mts. (89.5)

*Clos Du Val 1972, Napa Valley (87.5)

*Heitz Cellars 'Martha's Vineyard' 1970, Napa Valley/St. Helena (84.5)

*Freemark Abbey 1967, Napa Valley/Rutherford (78)

Whites

*Chateau Montelena 1973, Napa Valley/Calistoga (132)

Meurault-Charmes 1973, Roulot (126.5)

*Chalone Vineyards 1974, Monterey County/Soledad (121)

*Spring Mountain 1973, Napa Valley/Spring Mountain (104)

Beaune Clos des Mouches 1973, Joseph Drouhin (101)

*Freemark Abbey 1972, Napa Valley/Rutherford (100)

Batard-Montrachet 1973, Ramonet-Prudhon (94)

Puligny-Montrachet 1972, Les Pucelles, Domaine Leflaive (89)

*Veedercrest 1972, Napa Valley/Mt. Veeder (88)

*David Bruce 1973, Santa Cruz Mts. (42)

I was under the misimpression that the Chateau Montelena on the list was the red. You learn something new every day .

[Craig Camp]

Therefore I do not think that Bordeaux is better. More consistent yes, but at a cost of being more mediocre.

Mediocre or just less distinctive? An area with a higher quality average, but less character?

[mogsob]

Therefore I do not think that Bordeaux is better. More consistent yes, but at a cost of being more mediocre.

Mediocre or just less distinctive? An area with a higher quality average, but less character?

Perhaps all of the above. Great wine must be distinctive, with a firm sense of terrior. If all you wanted in a wine was a well-balanced tasty beverage, your average table wine would do the trick every time. Coincidentally, that is why table wines were invented in Europe. The New World seems to have missed the boat between jug/box wine and fine wine.

[hollywood]

I was under the misimpression that the Chateau Montelena on the list was the red. You learn something new every day .

That's what I'd thought based on the wines Montelena makes today. But you have to remember that it was Mike Grgch who was making the chardonnay for them then.

[robert brown]

How do we know if Parker's ability to taste has decreased with age? Also, is he taking medications that might affect his palate? This is stuff you have to know if you are going to renew your subscription.

[ctgm]

How do we know if Parker's ability to taste has decreased with age? Also, is he taking medications that might affect his palate? This is stuff you have to know if you are going to renew your subscription.

On the subject of Parker, the thing that I find worst about his notes (ignoring the debate about his influence etc) is the way that he changs his opinion about wines so much. If he is such a good taster shouldn't he be able to pick up the potential of a wine when he tastes it?

Am I being unfair on the man, bearing in mind that a certain amount of what he tastes are barrel samples?

[Yaacov]

How do we know if Parker's ability to taste has decreased with age? Also, is he taking medications that might affect his palate? This is stuff you have to know if you are going to renew your subscription.

I don't think so. Parker is not law, or even fact. I respect his opinion in several areas, but still only use him as a guide. His best attribute, for me, is his consistency in his tastes in Bordeaux and the Rhone. And over the past several years, i've been able to somewhat calibrate my tastes to his and find what i'm looking for in those wine regions.

What frustrates me is when he gives monster scores to things like Kongsgaard (sp?) Chardonnay (which was one of the worst wines i've ever had), but also to wines like Lynch Bages and Beaucastel (2 of my loves in wine).

-yb