Bordeaux Appellation question

I have always understood that the grapes for a Chateau bottled Bordeaux was grown in their own vineyards and the only way of increasing production was by adding land by buying neighbouring contiguous vineyards.

But, an idle thought.

The Appellation has the name of the commune, e.g. Margaux or Paulillac..

If, for instance, Ch Mouton or Ch Margaux wanted to increase production and bought grapes from other vineyards that were covered by the same appellation, could they include that in their production of grand vin since the appellation would still be AC Pauillac or Margaux?

My understanding is Yes.

I'd think yes that as long as the purchased grapes or wine was from same appellation, they could label accordingly.
However, I'd also assume they could not then put "Mise en bouteille au Chateau" on label, and I doubt any serious estate would risk rep by being known as a negociant wine.

Dale,

Are you sure? I thought mise en bouteille au chateau simply means that the wine was BOTTLED at the chateau and not somewhere else (London, for example).

A wine could be bottled at the Chateau with purchased fruit from another location, couldn't it?

Based on a recent example of Chateau Montrose buying a chunk of vineyards from neighboring Phelan Segur, back in March of last year, according to reports, Ch. Montrose will be incorporating the grapes from the bought vineyards into its 1st and 2nd wines.

Tom, certainly in Burgundy " Mise en bouteille a la propriete" means you own land, grew grapes, made wine, aged, bottled. Pretty sure that holds for the rest of France. If you buy grapes and take from there it's "vinfie, eleve and mis en bouteille par Domaine Tom." If you buy barrels its "Eleve et mis en bouteille par Domaine Troiano."

Ramon, yes if a chateau buys vineyards within it's appellation, they can incorporate -and it doesn't affect classification either- while Burg village/1er/GC are based on the plot, the 1855 is just based on estate. So a 1st could buy part of a 5th growth (or cru b.), and suddenly that terroir is magically 1st growth quality.

In fact Haut-Brion recently tried to buy Les Carmes, and if they had been succesful, it was reported it would have been intergrated into the estate and sold as first growth. The key point here is that I believe the estate must own the land for it to qualify for GCC status.

That bit of news actually has me eyeing Les Carmes (for a few bottles, not the estate) . . . . apparently it was was originally part of Haut-Brion (3 or 4 hundred years ago), and if they're trying to buy it, they must be confident of the quality. So, anybody have tasting experience with Les Carmes and can comment on the quality? Comperable to the-2nd-wine-formerly-known-as-Bahans, at least?

Dale has it right. The declaration is for the estate property, not purchased wine.

Nothing to say that Chateau Cache-Phloe can't release a different label from the AOC, perhaps with a fanciful name rather than an estate name...but they can't label it as estate wine if they use grapes purchased from outside the property.

Ryan, it's possible that H-B may buy Les Carmes and simply integrate into H-B----but it's much more likely that they will do that more slowly, and only after thorough investigation of the property followed by whatever changes are necessary to have the farming practices in accord with H-B's standards.

Doubt they would endanger H-B by just plunking the two together. Maybe maintain the separate entity for the short term, then integrate. Or leave Les Carmes as a "second label" of sorts for H-B. Then, eventually, they could integrate the grapes/wines.

Meanwhile, if H-B was pursuing the property, I would assume there was worth to it. Can't say myself though, as I don't stay current with the growths of Bordeaux...I'm more in the league of Bordeaux Superiieur these days.

It is my understanding that buying grapes from a vineyard you do not own does not entitle you to call any wine made from these grapes "estate" or "château-bottled"
(with one important exception : cooperative cellars).

However, of course, buying another plot of land anywhere in the same appellation *does* entitle an estate to say that the wine produced from there is château bottled.

Dale raises an interesting, but controversial point.
There *are* instances of great growths whose present configuration has little to do with what it was in 1855 (Lascombes is a good example). This, of course, fuels the idea, particularly among Burgundy fanatics, that terroir doesn't count in Bordeaux. Which is, of course.... poppycock.
There are also many instances of where the outlines haven't budged an iota.

Things need to be placed within their historical context.
And if Montrose bought part of Phélan Ségur, or Pétrus part of Gazin, this was after a detailed soil survey. They would be nuts to risk their reputation by buying sub-standard vineyards and incorporating it into the grand vin...

Think of it: nothing legally prevents Lafite from "annexing" all of Duhart Milon and calling it Lafite. But this is unthinkable for any number of reasons.

If Burgundy were on the same scale as Bordeaux, or if Bordeaux were as tiny as Burgundy, the picture might be very different...

Best regards,
Alex R.

In fact Haut-Brion recently tried to buy Les Carmes, and if they had been succesful, it was reported it would have been intergrated into the estate and sold as first growth. The key point here is that I believe the estate must own the land for it to qualify for GCC status.

That bit of news actually has me eyeing Les Carmes (for a few bottles, not the estate) . . . . apparently it was was originally part of Haut-Brion (3 or 4 hundred years ago), and if they're trying to buy it, they must be confident of the quality. So, anybody have tasting experience with Les Carmes and can comment on the quality? Comperable to the-2nd-wine-formerly-known-as-Bahans, at least?

Ryan, only Carmes HB I've had was I think the '99, a middle of the road, forward, rather innocuous claret. Think the combination of vintage and the high merlot content. Obviously, if the Dillons are thinking of buying, they think it has potential. But that doesn't mean they're not planning big changes in vineyard management, harvest timing, etc etc. Then of course they also might bottle much/most as Bahans/Clarence, and sell off some (or use for the Clarendelle wines). PLus, of course, the blend is pretty dfferent, so they might be eying solely to up their merlot and/or CF component. Since Carmes is a fraction of the size, even using all the Carmes production in the grand vin would just raise the merlot and cf percentages a point or two.
OK, the new posts since you started writing this feature now tells me Hoke already said all that.

For what it's worth, Les Carmes Haut Brion was not sold to Haut Brion, but to a real estate magnate in January of this year:

http://www.terredevins.com/article-3384 ... Brion.html

A more interesting case is La Passion Haut Brion, a tiny enclave smack, dab in the middle of Haut Brion.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/vins/2009/03/19/ ... enait-.php

Domain Dillion tried hard to acquire this, but did not succeed.

"Just to say I've had it", I'd love to try La Passion Haut Brion one day....

Best regards,
Alex R.

the only Carmes i've tasted was the '06. it was a serious wine with definite 'class'.

Yes, Les Carmes has been a serious wine for a decade at least in my humble opinion.

It is also one of the most beautiful châteaux in Bordeaux, an oasis of vines surrounded by urban sprawl!

Alex R.

I have always understood that the grapes for a Chateau bottled Bordeaux was grown in their own vineyards and the only way of increasing production was by adding land by buying neighbouring contiguous vineyards.

I don't even think the vineyards have to be contiguous do they? Ch Margaux is already spread over 3 or 4 islands of vineyards, but I suppose different islands could be used for different wines.

I did have (enjoy) a bottle of the '98 Les Carmes Haut-Brion, and I've got to tell you that is a wine I will never forget. It was everything you could ask of a wine. We had it with lamb, with friends (the wives drank Rodet Bourgogne and the men drank the Les Carmes). I've had 5 or 6 other bottles that were just "the right wine, at the right time" kind of thing. I foolishly tried to find another, but these moments are meant to be enjoyed, not repeated!

Richard,

You wrote:

"I foolishly tried to find another, but these moments are meant to be enjoyed, not repeated!"

So true!

One is tempted to renew experiences such as that and, even if the wine can be found some way, somewhere, at some cost, far more often than not the result is nowhere near as magic...

However, it is only human nature to try...

Someone has yet to write a book on the psychology of wine geeks, and particularly collectors....

Best regards,
Alex R.

Seems that my simple question isn't as clear cut as I hoped.

Tom says 'mise en bouteille au chateau simply means that the wine was BOTTLED at the chateau', which is what I thought

Dale says that '"Mise en bouteille a la propriete" means you own land, grew grapes, made wine, aged, bottled' - which has a much more specific meaning that I thought.


Hoke says that it is the property name on the label that means it comes only from that property.

But Steve throws a curve by saying that Ch Margaux is already spread over 3 or 4 islands of vineyards, which raises the pedantic question in my mind -- what makes these separate properties become 'Chateau Margaux'?

Thanks to all who answered

I'm pretty certain of my definition, at least as far as Burgundy, and don't think that legal terms such as that mean different things in different parts of France. If "Mise en bouteille a la propriete (or au domaine, au chateau, etc) meant only bottled on property, why would folks bother with LESSER regarded terms such as "rdcolte, vinfie, eleve and mis en bouteille par," "Vinfie, eleve and mis en bouteille par", or "eleve et mis mis en bouteille par"? The least regarded term is "mis en bouteille par (name, but not propriete, domaine,chateau, etc- pure negoce). So if someone bought wine/grapes from elsewhere in Pessac I think you could say "mis en bouteille par Clarence Dillon" but not "Mise en bouteille a la propriete, " "mise en bouteille au chateau" etc -because it's not an estate wine.

All of that is just whether it is an estate wine, doesn't really have relevance to appellation. Of course in Burgundy you can have pure negociant Grand Cru. In Bordeaux you can have pure negociant Pessac or Margaux. But I think if Bordeaux is not estate wine, it wouldn't be entitled to its classification - if Haut Brion added outside grapes, it wouldn't be estate wine, and therefore not a 1st. Maybe Alex could clarify if I am correct.

As to non-contiguous plots, it's certainly the norm in Burgundy. The difference is that the "rankings" in Burgundy are based on the plots, and in Bordeaux on the estates.

Of course, now that I think about it, what about the old practice (I don't think anyone does it now) of negociant-bottled (sometimes in another country) classified wines? What is the language on those labels?

Mis en bouteille a la proprieté (or Domaine or Chateau) only means that the wine was bottled at the premises of the owner of the Property, or trademark as many Chateaux don't physically exist.

If the wine has a French tax capsule, you can see whether the producer has Recoltant (grower-producer) or Negociant (N) status. If it doesn't, you are guessing.

You can try to work it out from the way the producer refers to themselves but many negociants also own properties. So, for example, a negociant called "Jean Ix" who owns one Margaux property could put out another wine under a label which says "Chateau Bitontheside, Margaux, Mis en bouteille a la Proprieté par Jean Ix, proprietaire a Margaux" even though he has bought in the grapes, or even tanks of made wine from other Margeaux growers.

The word Chateau means virtually nothing. Mis en Bouteille can be very misleading and most of the world's wine educators tell the wrong story.

I just had a peek in my cellar and here are some wines which have negociant capsules on them.

Chateau Tour Sieujean, Pauillac. Says "Mis en bouteille au Chateau par C.V.A 33560 Gironde" and yet also says "EURL des Vignobles Lopez a 33112" My guess is that Vignobles Lopez has no property in Paullac but owns several properties in other bits of Bordeaux including the one in postcode 33560 where the trademark "Tour Sieujean" is registered.

La Sirene de Giscours, Margaux Says "Mis en bouteille a la Propriete" par S.C du Chateau Giscours

Chateau Haut Redon, Bordeaux, Mis en Bouteille au Chateau (SCEA Vignobles Zecchini)

Chateau Cantemerle is a Negociant too, which surprised me.

Now it may well be that some of these wines, Chateau Cantemerle in particular, are actually made only from grapes grown on that Chateau's vineyards but the fact that they have registered their business as a negociant says they buy in bulk wine and grapes from other growers and keep that wine in their own cellars and are perfectly entitled to blend it as they wish.

Usually a producer who only uses their own fruit will say "Recoltant" or "Vigneron-producteur" on the label too. I'm pretty certain that membership of "Vigneron Independants" requires the producer to be a true recoltant too.

The reason many producers go to the trouble of spelling out the bits of the process they do control is to be honest. I'm pretty certain that Burgundy is no different and historically it may be true that "Mis en Bouteille au Domaine" was introduced to signify estate-produced-and-bottled. That is not the definition today.

Here's an except from Le Guide Hachette....

Pourtant, ces mentions apparaissent sur une proportion bien plus grande de bouteilles vendues dans le commerce, car elles recouvrent des réalités bien différentes. Les caves coopératives peuvent utiliser cette mention puisque les vignerons apportant leur raisin sont actionnaires de la cave et donc propriétaires. Le négociant peut également mettre à la propriété dans différents cas, le plus classique étant quand il est lui-même propriétaire des vignes ou quand il achète des vins sur une propriété qui met en bouteille pour son compte.

[Robin Garr]

Pourtant, ces mentions apparaissent sur une proportion bien plus grande de bouteilles vendues dans le commerce, car elles recouvrent des réalités bien différentes. Les caves coopératives peuvent utiliser cette mention puisque les vignerons apportant leur raisin sont actionnaires de la cave et donc propriétaires. Le négociant peut également mettre à la propriété dans différents cas, le plus classique étant quand il est lui-même propriétaire des vignes ou quand il achète des vins sur une propriété qui met en bouteille pour son compte.

Google's translation features are gradually becoming more sophisticated. It handles this excerpt surprisingly well, if not perfectly ...

French to English translation

However, they shall appear on a much larger proportion of bottles sold commercially because they cover very different realities. The cooperatives can use this term because the winemakers bringing their grapes are shareholders of the cellar and therefore owners. The merchant can also take ownership in various cases, the most classic being when he is himself the owner of the vineyard or when he buys wines on a property that is bottled on its behalf.

Hoke says that it is the property name on the label that means it comes only from that property.

But Steve throws a curve by saying that Ch Margaux is already spread over 3 or 4 islands of vineyards, which raises the pedantic question in my mind -- what makes these separate properties become 'Chateau Margaux'?

Guess I'm being even denser than my usual (which, admittedly, can be pretty dense), but I can't figure out why being discontinous would cause you any pedantic problems with the chateau system in Bordeaux. If the properties owned by Chateau Margaux lie entirely within the delimited area of Margaux AOC, and assuming of course that the Chateau follows all the AOC rules and regs, why shouldn't they be allowed to release a wine labelled both Chateau Margaux and Margaux AOC?

I guess in your mind the lack of contiguity introduces a problem. Of terroir? How so, when it is claiming only to be the "terroir" of Margaux AOC, as produced by the wholly-owned vineyards of Chateau Margaux?

My interepretation of what consititutes a "property" or "estate" does not hinge on a necessarily single and contiguous location. That would be a single vineyard concept more than an estate concept. In America, the only stipulation for "estate" has to do with the owner in question either owning or having direct control of farming on a lease basis, and there is no intimation I know of for the necessity of contiguity of vineyards.

The co-op rules do throw a different light on things, yes; but if I stop to think about, the idea that a "property" may be communally owned, or communally joined and made under the guidance of a single winemaker (or single team, for a single product), is understandable. Certainly that's how I construe other co-ops, such as the old Domaine Wachau or Sanct Valentin or in the Rhone, for some instances. It's a stretch of sorts, but not necessarily an uncomfortable stretch.

Jon,
very interesting. Can you provide an example of an actual negociant wine (I mean where outside grapes are included) that is labeled "Mise en bouteille a la Propriete" or "Mis en bouteille au Chateau"? The ones you cite seem to all be from distinct properties (Tour Sieujean is a Cru Bourgeois, La Sirene is the second wine of Giscours, Haut Redon on is listed on Zecchini site as a 55 hectare property with rather extensive info on cepage, soil, etc). The fact that many properties are owned by negociant firms doesn't mean in itself they are using bought grapes (I mean, pretty sure that Moeuix doesn't bring in grapes to Magdelaine- or Petrus).

I just went through about 50 bottles of Burgundy, the estate/producer bottlings all say mise en bouteille a la propriete, au Domaine, or au Chateau (in the case of Mugnier, where actual property name is Chateau de Chambolle Musigny), none of the negociant bottlings say that.

I understand that co-ops can say that. as the growers are the actual owners. The Guide Hachette translattion doesn't seem to me to indicate that negociants can generally use the term for bought grapes- certainly they can for cases when they own the property (Drouhin and Jafot for instance have large holdings). I'm not sure what is meant by the last phrase- does that mean long term metayer arrangements?