I found myself completely lost in the Amazon when I read Parker latest report on Bordeaux 2005. From the top of his chart (see below), there are many unfamiliar names, and although I could recall some of them, they barely existed nor was ever recognized for that level of quality in Parker’s terms ten years ago. Today, names like Pavie, Bellevue Mondotte, Pavie-Decesse, Larcis-Ducasse, Clos l’Eglise, Gracia, Bellevue, Magrez Fombrauge, Marojallia, Clos de Sarpe, La Confession, Peby Faugeres and Croix de Labrie are all elbowing each other vying for the top places and sharing coveted spots with benchmark châteaus like Latour, Haut-Brion, Pétrus, Margaux, Cheval Blanc, Lafleur, Le Pin, and Lafite. Other recently surfaced garagistes like Rol Valentin (Derenoncourt), Fleur Cardinale (Jean-Philippe Fort), Quinault l’Enclos (Alain Raynaud), Destieux (Rolland), La Fleur Morange (Claude Gros), La Bienfaisance (Derenoncourt), Clos St Martin (Rolland), Le Dôme, Lucia (Derenoncourt), Sanctus (Derenoncourt), Joanin Bécot (Jean-Philippe Fort) and Branon (Rolland/Thunevin) are all rated on-par or higher than tried and tested names like Montrose, Ducru Beaucaillou, Léoville-Poyferre and Rausan-Ségla.
Over the past few years, Parker’s notable enthusiasm over limited quantity, super-ripe, wood-smacked, intensely extracted, new-waived garagiste have caused the phenomenon to spread beyond St.-Emilion. In Parker’s 2005 Bordeaux report, wines from satellite regions such as Côtes de Castillon (Joanin Becot, Domaine de l’A, Clos les Lunelles) and Lalande de Pomerol (La Graviere) all received remarkable scores. Even the generic Bordeaux AOC (Girolate), Bordeaux Superieur (Balthus, Reignac) and Haut-Médoc (Servitude Volontair), whenever they are associated with certain star consultants, tend to be given better scores than classic producers like Lafon Rochet, Beychevelle, Trotanoy, Clerc Milon, Pichon Lalande and La Dominique – an observation I personally find hard to reconcile and justify. Can a mediocre soil be better than a top classified growth of the Médoc? Are winemaking techniques greater than terroir?
It is obvious that Parker sanctions winemaking techniques over the effect of terroir. The fact that the world’s most influential palate approves of the generous use of new oak and ultraripe vinous materials has, over time, encouraged a group of consultants who understand his preferences to develop a well conceived formula which can be applied to please his taste. The proliferation of garagistes in St.-Emilion is a case in point for such a development. By the way, many of these garagiste owners did not hail from traditional winemaking roots and often came from previous careers such as the medical business (Alan Raynaud), chain grocery store (Gérard Perse), chain supermarkets (Gracin-Cathiard), négociant business (Bernard Magrez), businessman (Clos Fourtet), or even foreign capital (Lascombe). They therefore have very little traditions to guard or respect and tend to solely rely on their fashionable winemakers to deliver darker and more powerful wines sought after by the international marketplace. Christian Moueix, the owner of the famous Château Pétrus and Château Trotanoy says this about his new neighbor, “The character of those ‘global’ wines is based on extraction. I do not care for them, but newcomers to wine seeking to launch a new label on both sides of the ocean hire fashionable winemakers who make wines that are noticed because they are dark, overripe and overly extracted.” Stephen Tanzer also said in his recent article that, “the huge number of properties in St.-Emilion alone, many of them with very short track records, forces many proprietors and their consulting winemakers to compete for the attention of the international marketplace by building darker and more powerful wines. These wines are widely viewed as more modern in style and more technological.”
It should not escape anyone’s notice that the same phenomenon has been happening elsewhere such as in California (the Cult Cabernet producers), Spain (Alta Expresión Spaniards) and of course Australia (New-Wave Aussie). California’s vintner, Randall Grahm of Bonny Doon has the following explanation for the wine-drinking public’s newfound taste: “In an increasingly international culture, we are progressively less attuned to fine details. We took in our information in gross and broad outline, suitable for mass consumption – somewhat one-size fits all kind of epistemology.” He further added, “The shallowness of such modern winemaking simply mirrors the shallowness of our culture. We can’t seem to get beyond our compulsion to give people what we think they want and ultimately we permit ourselves to be led by an unknown, faceless wave-force that has itself little sense of where it is headed.
I have always thought that such internationalization of wine styles fetch better in emerging wine producing countries like Argentina, Chile and South Africa where they have yet to establish their regional distinctions. Wine regions like California, Australia, and Spain also provide the perfect ground for those avant-garde consultants to exercise more experimentation. Bordeaux, however, is a place of tradition; a place that the concept of terroir is truly valued. All existing hierarchy on classified growths is based on an old classification system that had existed since 1855. Not much has changed ever since then (except for the fact that Mouton Rothschild was upgraded in 1973 to first growth). I like “terroirist” winemaker, Randall Grahm interpretation on terroir – “it is the sum total of the natural features of a site (topography, geology, exposition, microclimate) which impart a distinctiveness (or perhaps I should say despite) to the wine, independent of the stylistic imprint of the wine maker. The terroir of a site is its qualities that outlive the winemaker.”
Parker’s crediting the role of those consultants who seem to be capable of turning an unknown piece of land to challenge or even surpass the quality of their well-established neighbors and later commands a higher price has completely disregarded the spirit of terroir. Randall Grahm however has defended with the following statement, “Terroir speaks quietly and there is very little in modern culture that is apprehended beneath the blare of the superficial and the obvious.” He further added, “For those who have grown to appreciate it, the expression of terroir is arguably the most interesting element of a wine, one that provokes intellectual engagement. But perhaps as a culture, intellectual engagement with our wines is no longer what we seek.”
In the last two years of UGC (Union des Grands Crus de Bordeaux) tasting during en primeur campaign periods, I have attended sessions presented by Jean-Luc Thunevin and Stephane Derenoncourt where they showcased all the wines made under their consultation. Frankly, I could hardly remember any of these wines. My impression was quite similar to what Tanzer had said in his recent report: “Many of those small production wines are essentially experimental ‘winemaker’s wines…the negative is that, they are usually very international in style, so it is often not clear where they come from.”
In fact I do have problems associating these wines with Bordeaux and frankly, their individual differences are very marginal. It is very tempting to say that perhaps these wines reflect their consultants more so than its terroir (if there were anything special to begin with) and it is also true that it reveals the reviewer’s taste rather than the wine itself. I was once served wines (in blind) from Gerard Perse whose wines include Pavie, Pavie-Decesse, La Clusière and Monbousquet. Honestly, I could hardly discern their differences except for which was richer, or heavier, or which was more oaky and riper. Josh Raynolds of International Wine Cellar has echoed my thought and concerns. He said, “It’s not even about grape anymore, much less the terroir…I can however, often guess what type of oak was used and even who the winemaker or consultant was. My experience is that there is sameness to the wines that makes a taster think more about who made it, who consulted on it, what the alcohol level must be and where the wood came from – not to mention what it must have cost.”
The episode of 2003 Château Pavie where the famous British wine writer Jancis Robinson vocally opposed Parker’s view and was but one of the many public signs of resistance to such a growing trend. However, this was not the first time that Parker’s views were under fire or put to the test. His enthusiasm over Alta Expresión wine in Spain incites protests by many veteran traditional winemakers. Many disagreed with Parker’s judgment on quality and on “the bigger the better” mentality in the modern, internationally styled Spaniard. Some say, “Great wines are made from vineyards that have been properly cultivated, and fine wines from such vineyards have finesse and complexity…those so-called alta expresión wines lack complexity, which is something you can’t add to the wine, and they stress power over subtlety.” I agree totally with the following remarks: “…those wines are made primarily to show well in blind tasting and impress certain reviewers, rather than for consumption with food.” (For full report on this article, you can view it at http://www.thewinenews.com/aprmay01/cover.html)
In Australia, the famous Melbourne-based wine writer, Jeremy Oliver too defies the high Parker-point, port-like new sensations which fetch higher prices than the classics such as Penfold’s Grange and Henschke’s Hill of Grace. Those “dead grapes” wines delivered from fruits with ultra-ripeness often taste cooked, dehydrated and dried fruit flavors that suggest prunes, raisins, treacle and jam. In its youth, some of these wines could almost get away with it, since its initial burst of intensity and texture is very appealing to many drinkers, trades, judges and the media. However, once the fruit subsides with time in the bottle, it loses liveliness and focus, alcohol becomes more dominant and its tannins become more aggressive as balance and harmony are lost, said Oliver. He further added, “…too many of these reds are high in pH and were made without adequate racking, acid and sulphur – as many such so-called cutting-edge winemakers pride themselves for making “hands-off”, natural wines – and as a result regrettably often impart their wines with unnatural flavors and technical faults.” As a case in point, I have witnessed that more and more modern red wines today are flawed by Brettanomyces or excessive of volatile acidity. In another example, the problems which plagued some white burgundies made in the first half of the 1990 decade whereby many wines suffer from random oxidation were all large conceived by the misguided practice of not ensuring adequate acidity and applying sulphur. All these problems could seemingly be linked to one person, Parker, who frequently promoted and thereby influenced the winemakers with theories such as non-interventionist, no-sulphur, etc. The truth be told, I would rather blame this on the idiocy of the winemakers who foolishly listened to Parker’s voice in this regard. The point is: how could a trained winemaker or oenologist blindly follow a critic (his highly influential voice notwithstanding) who has no previous experience or training in winemaking?
Over the past few years, Parker’s notable enthusiasm over limited quantity, super-ripe, wood-smacked, intensely extracted, new-waived garagiste have caused the phenomenon to spread beyond St.-Emilion. In Parker’s 2005 Bordeaux report, wines from satellite regions such as Côtes de Castillon (Joanin Becot, Domaine de l’A, Clos les Lunelles) and Lalande de Pomerol (La Graviere) all received remarkable scores. Even the generic Bordeaux AOC (Girolate), Bordeaux Superieur (Balthus, Reignac) and Haut-Médoc (Servitude Volontair), whenever they are associated with certain star consultants, tend to be given better scores than classic producers like Lafon Rochet, Beychevelle, Trotanoy, Clerc Milon, Pichon Lalande and La Dominique – an observation I personally find hard to reconcile and justify. Can a mediocre soil be better than a top classified growth of the Médoc? Are winemaking techniques greater than terroir?
It is obvious that Parker sanctions winemaking techniques over the effect of terroir. The fact that the world’s most influential palate approves of the generous use of new oak and ultraripe vinous materials has, over time, encouraged a group of consultants who understand his preferences to develop a well conceived formula which can be applied to please his taste. The proliferation of garagistes in St.-Emilion is a case in point for such a development. By the way, many of these garagiste owners did not hail from traditional winemaking roots and often came from previous careers such as the medical business (Alan Raynaud), chain grocery store (Gérard Perse), chain supermarkets (Gracin-Cathiard), négociant business (Bernard Magrez), businessman (Clos Fourtet), or even foreign capital (Lascombe). They therefore have very little traditions to guard or respect and tend to solely rely on their fashionable winemakers to deliver darker and more powerful wines sought after by the international marketplace. Christian Moueix, the owner of the famous Château Pétrus and Château Trotanoy says this about his new neighbor, “The character of those ‘global’ wines is based on extraction. I do not care for them, but newcomers to wine seeking to launch a new label on both sides of the ocean hire fashionable winemakers who make wines that are noticed because they are dark, overripe and overly extracted.” Stephen Tanzer also said in his recent article that, “the huge number of properties in St.-Emilion alone, many of them with very short track records, forces many proprietors and their consulting winemakers to compete for the attention of the international marketplace by building darker and more powerful wines. These wines are widely viewed as more modern in style and more technological.”
It should not escape anyone’s notice that the same phenomenon has been happening elsewhere such as in California (the Cult Cabernet producers), Spain (Alta Expresión Spaniards) and of course Australia (New-Wave Aussie). California’s vintner, Randall Grahm of Bonny Doon has the following explanation for the wine-drinking public’s newfound taste: “In an increasingly international culture, we are progressively less attuned to fine details. We took in our information in gross and broad outline, suitable for mass consumption – somewhat one-size fits all kind of epistemology.” He further added, “The shallowness of such modern winemaking simply mirrors the shallowness of our culture. We can’t seem to get beyond our compulsion to give people what we think they want and ultimately we permit ourselves to be led by an unknown, faceless wave-force that has itself little sense of where it is headed.
I have always thought that such internationalization of wine styles fetch better in emerging wine producing countries like Argentina, Chile and South Africa where they have yet to establish their regional distinctions. Wine regions like California, Australia, and Spain also provide the perfect ground for those avant-garde consultants to exercise more experimentation. Bordeaux, however, is a place of tradition; a place that the concept of terroir is truly valued. All existing hierarchy on classified growths is based on an old classification system that had existed since 1855. Not much has changed ever since then (except for the fact that Mouton Rothschild was upgraded in 1973 to first growth). I like “terroirist” winemaker, Randall Grahm interpretation on terroir – “it is the sum total of the natural features of a site (topography, geology, exposition, microclimate) which impart a distinctiveness (or perhaps I should say despite) to the wine, independent of the stylistic imprint of the wine maker. The terroir of a site is its qualities that outlive the winemaker.”
Parker’s crediting the role of those consultants who seem to be capable of turning an unknown piece of land to challenge or even surpass the quality of their well-established neighbors and later commands a higher price has completely disregarded the spirit of terroir. Randall Grahm however has defended with the following statement, “Terroir speaks quietly and there is very little in modern culture that is apprehended beneath the blare of the superficial and the obvious.” He further added, “For those who have grown to appreciate it, the expression of terroir is arguably the most interesting element of a wine, one that provokes intellectual engagement. But perhaps as a culture, intellectual engagement with our wines is no longer what we seek.”
In the last two years of UGC (Union des Grands Crus de Bordeaux) tasting during en primeur campaign periods, I have attended sessions presented by Jean-Luc Thunevin and Stephane Derenoncourt where they showcased all the wines made under their consultation. Frankly, I could hardly remember any of these wines. My impression was quite similar to what Tanzer had said in his recent report: “Many of those small production wines are essentially experimental ‘winemaker’s wines…the negative is that, they are usually very international in style, so it is often not clear where they come from.”
In fact I do have problems associating these wines with Bordeaux and frankly, their individual differences are very marginal. It is very tempting to say that perhaps these wines reflect their consultants more so than its terroir (if there were anything special to begin with) and it is also true that it reveals the reviewer’s taste rather than the wine itself. I was once served wines (in blind) from Gerard Perse whose wines include Pavie, Pavie-Decesse, La Clusière and Monbousquet. Honestly, I could hardly discern their differences except for which was richer, or heavier, or which was more oaky and riper. Josh Raynolds of International Wine Cellar has echoed my thought and concerns. He said, “It’s not even about grape anymore, much less the terroir…I can however, often guess what type of oak was used and even who the winemaker or consultant was. My experience is that there is sameness to the wines that makes a taster think more about who made it, who consulted on it, what the alcohol level must be and where the wood came from – not to mention what it must have cost.”
The episode of 2003 Château Pavie where the famous British wine writer Jancis Robinson vocally opposed Parker’s view and was but one of the many public signs of resistance to such a growing trend. However, this was not the first time that Parker’s views were under fire or put to the test. His enthusiasm over Alta Expresión wine in Spain incites protests by many veteran traditional winemakers. Many disagreed with Parker’s judgment on quality and on “the bigger the better” mentality in the modern, internationally styled Spaniard. Some say, “Great wines are made from vineyards that have been properly cultivated, and fine wines from such vineyards have finesse and complexity…those so-called alta expresión wines lack complexity, which is something you can’t add to the wine, and they stress power over subtlety.” I agree totally with the following remarks: “…those wines are made primarily to show well in blind tasting and impress certain reviewers, rather than for consumption with food.” (For full report on this article, you can view it at http://www.thewinenews.com/aprmay01/cover.html)
In Australia, the famous Melbourne-based wine writer, Jeremy Oliver too defies the high Parker-point, port-like new sensations which fetch higher prices than the classics such as Penfold’s Grange and Henschke’s Hill of Grace. Those “dead grapes” wines delivered from fruits with ultra-ripeness often taste cooked, dehydrated and dried fruit flavors that suggest prunes, raisins, treacle and jam. In its youth, some of these wines could almost get away with it, since its initial burst of intensity and texture is very appealing to many drinkers, trades, judges and the media. However, once the fruit subsides with time in the bottle, it loses liveliness and focus, alcohol becomes more dominant and its tannins become more aggressive as balance and harmony are lost, said Oliver. He further added, “…too many of these reds are high in pH and were made without adequate racking, acid and sulphur – as many such so-called cutting-edge winemakers pride themselves for making “hands-off”, natural wines – and as a result regrettably often impart their wines with unnatural flavors and technical faults.” As a case in point, I have witnessed that more and more modern red wines today are flawed by Brettanomyces or excessive of volatile acidity. In another example, the problems which plagued some white burgundies made in the first half of the 1990 decade whereby many wines suffer from random oxidation were all large conceived by the misguided practice of not ensuring adequate acidity and applying sulphur. All these problems could seemingly be linked to one person, Parker, who frequently promoted and thereby influenced the winemakers with theories such as non-interventionist, no-sulphur, etc. The truth be told, I would rather blame this on the idiocy of the winemakers who foolishly listened to Parker’s voice in this regard. The point is: how could a trained winemaker or oenologist blindly follow a critic (his highly influential voice notwithstanding) who has no previous experience or training in winemaking?
No comments:
Post a Comment