Ch. d'Yquem...Is It Really A Great Wine????

Tom,
I don't agree with your assertion that a "great" wine has to exhibit terroir and varietal character.
Chateau d'Yquem is a great wine because, vintage after vintage, it stands above all the other wines of Sauternes and Barsac in just about every quality dimension you can think of.
-Paul W.

Yup, Paul...this is what I was trying to get my arms around. You listen to many lovers of RedBurg and Barolo/Barbaresco and they'll denigrate the Calif or Valtelline
versions because they don't show the terroir or typicity of those wines. As well they can't.
So the bottom line is that terroir & typicity are requisites for greatness for certain wines, but not for others. There are exceptions. Like Sauternes. Like Port. Like Sherry.
Like Passito de Pandelleria. This was what I was trying to figure out. I'm sorta new to wine and trying to figure this stuff all out. It's a minefield!!!
Tom

Can any wine be considered truly great if Tom hasn't followed it from the very start?

Can any wine be considered truly great if Tom hasn't followed it from the very start?

Hey, Jay.......I don't anoint wines as "great". I leave that to Monktown attourneys and pompous British twits of a wine writer!!!
Tom

A counter-question then, Tom:

If, as you say, Sauternes, Porto, Sherry and Passito di Pantelleria don't have a definable or discernible terroir...then why is it that they seem to be limited to those unique places?

To put it another way: many, many producers make passito wines. Are you saying that all passito wines are alike, or at least undiscernible from each other? That it doesn't matter in passito whether the wine is made from a certain grape or grape blends, or in any particular and specific place that is singular in its terroir?

How many sherries have you had outside of Jerez that were the same as the best of sherry from Jerez? How many were dead ringers? How can sherry be so closely associated with a certain place/variety/style combination...yet possess or exhibit no terroir?

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt you've had at least one taste (if not several, you greedy boy) of Myron Nightingale's hommage to Sauternes, the Sauv/Sem botrytized wine he made into a one-wine category. Would you compare that with a Sauternes? I sure wouldn't.

On yet another note, are you declaring in any way that you can't discern any Sauvignon or Semillon characteristics in a very sweet, heavily botrytised wine---that the noble rot and the sugar cancel out all varietal expression? So that, say, a Sauternes and a TBA Riesling and a Tokay Essenzia are put side by side---you can't tell there are differences because they are sweet and that has cancelled out all sense of variety, of place and of style?

Harrumph.

A counter-question then, Tom:

If, as you say, Sauternes, Porto, Sherry and Passito di Pantelleria don't have a definable or discernible terroir...then why is it that they seem to be limited to those unique places?

To put it another way: many, many producers make passito wines. Are you saying that all passito wines are alike, or at least undiscernible from each other? That it doesn't matter in passito whether the wine is made from a certain grape or grape blends, or in any particular and specific place that is singular in its terroir?

How many sherries have you had outside of Jerez that were the same as the best of sherry from Jerez? How many were dead ringers? How can sherry be so closely associated with a certain place/variety/style combination...yet possess or exhibit no terroir?

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt you've had at least one taste (if not several, you greedy boy) of Myron Nightingale's hommage to Sauternes, the Sauv/Sem botrytized wine he made into a one-wine category. Would you compare that with a Sauternes? I sure wouldn't.

On yet another note, are you declaring in any way that you can't discern any Sauvignon or Semillon characteristics in a very sweet, heavily botrytised wine---that the noble rot and the sugar cancel out all varietal expression? So that, say, a Sauternes and a TBA Riesling and a Tokay Essenzia are put side by side---you can't tell there are differences because they are sweet and that has cancelled out all sense of variety, of place and of style?

Harrumph.

Harumph......those are easy ones, Hoke.
1. Sauternes: I've had several of Myron Nightengale's induced botrytis "Sauternes". Maybe a bit similar in style to Sauternes, but, served blind, I'd just identify it as something weird/sweet.
But I've had the Dolce, which I think is a dead-ringer for Sauternes. I've had the ThumbsUp WhiteRiesling '83....which was a dead-ringer (high botrytis,barrel frmtd, barrel aged, new Fr.oak) for Sauternes when it
was young. When I had it a month ago, as an old wine, it was a dead-ringer for an old German TBA.
2. Passito: I recently had the Pecota Passito Muscat of Alexanderia '03. It was a dead-ringer for, maybe better, than the 8-10 Passito de Pantellerias I've had. I would defy anybody to reliably identify, or distinguish
the terroir, of a PecotaPassito and a Passito de Pantelleria. Sure, they will taste different, but to identify the volcanic terroir of the Pantelleria??? I doubt it.
3. Sherry/Madeira: Now this is a whole nuther matter because I cannot think of any in Calif that follow faithfully those production techniques. OTOH: I've recently had the '88 & '89 Ca'Togni (LateHrvst Black Muscat)
which were dead-ringers for an old Spanish PX. Both terroir & varietal character trumped in this case. I've had many old Calif Riesling TBA's that were dead ringers for an old Spanish PX. So don't know that I
can identify terroir in old Spanish PX. Recently had an '84 Shenandoah OrangeMuscat that was a dead ringer for that slightly oxidixed character of an old Moscatel de Setubal.
4. Essenzia: I've only had one of these in my life and don't recall much about it. Back in the '70's. Socialists can't make great wine and this was one of those.
5. HeavyBotrytis: You can taste side-by-side a Navarro GWT & Riesling TBA, a Sauternes, and a German TBA and a Kracher PinotBlanc TBA. Most assuredly, they would all taste different. Little or no
similarities other than sweetness and the peachy/apricotty botrytis character. The Climens would stick out like a sore thumb. Because of the Semillon varietal character?? Nope....because of the oak and
the winemaking technique used. But of the other four TBA's, I seriously doubt if you can identify any varietal character in them. Botrytis...yes, varietal character...don't think so.

Harumph...back to you, Hoke.
Tom

1. Terroir: ... any wine made from very ripe grapes cannot possibly display terroir we are repeatedly told.

Disagree; they (riper styles) show a different expression of their terroir. But it is also debatable whether they are a "more expressive" expression.

2. Varietal character: ... any wine that does not show varietal typicity can never have any hopes for greatness

Surely there are many wines widely considered "great" that don't explicitly show varietal character (especially blends).

3. Botrytis: I have long maintained that high levels of botrytis obliterate varietal character in those wines.

Definitely true.

how the heck can anyone possibly characterize Ch.d'Yquem as a "great" wine???

Perhaps because (1) many people don't agree with those premises, and/or (2) "great wine" isn't just defined by terroir expression and varietal character - it can, for example, be defined by complexity, balance, length, longevity... aswell/instead.

Why can’t a wine with outstanding varietal characteristics (typicity, degree of varietal characteristic) and/or “stylistic” (wine-type) characteristics be considered a “great” wine? Sometimes the only way to distinguish them is by their “stylistic” or wine-type characteristics (as clearly noted by Tom).
As far as “naturally” occurring “Noble Rot”, not all grape varieties have the same exact susceptibility or affinity to the noble mold. Surely certain precursors must exist in the grapes themselves for the mold to do what it does.

Salute

Harumph...back to you, Hoke.
Tom

Well, seems to me you're confusing your ability to taste with your tired old worn out palate with how things actually, taste, Tom.

Okay, I'll be the first to agree that increased sugar and the presence of botrytis can make wines more difficult to distinguish characteristics---but I certainly won't agree that those things "obliterate" variety and terroir.

I could come back with a reasonable analogy to that broad-brush statement by claiming that all methode champenoise really taste alike and it's hard to distinguish one from another. Or that all wines aged in new oak taste alike because the new oak obliterates the terroir.

If that were the case---that sugar/botrytis/handling obliterates all variety and terroir characteristics---then you'd have to convince me that you can't tell the difference among moscato-based, riesling-based, and porto-blend based wines, and so on.

Soooo: I'm not disagreeing with the general statement that sugar/botrytis/process can make it more difficult to perceive the differences among these wine. But I can't agree that it "obliterates" all flavors.

Perhaps if you had more familiarity with specific BA/TBA wines----and this isn't meant as a jibe, but an objective statement---in the way that, say Manfred Prum or such has developed, you would be more perceptive in delineating the differences. I suspect so. But truth is, most of us don't have more than a casual involvement with that high level of dessert wines, so we can't often perceive the fine differences as well as those more practiced.

And your calling all the wines you named "dead ringers" for each other? Is there just the tiniest bit of....I dunno...statement for dramatic effect there? Color me susp icious.

For sure, terroir counts in Sauternes.

You can't make a great fake Sauternes anywhere else.

Impossible.

Best regards,
Alex R.

[James Roscoe]

Perhaps because (1) many people don't agree with those premises, and/or (2) "great wine" isn't just defined by terroir expression and varietal character - it can, for example, be defined by complexity, balance, length, longevity... aswell/instead.

I always thought the complexity, balance, length, etc... were what made a wine great. Terroir is just one of the major components in making up the complexity, balance, length, etc... and taste, let's not forget that little component. (Maybe flavor is the better word in English

The complexity, balance, length etc. come FROM the terroir.

Even New World winemakers recognize this...

Alex

Terroir is just one of the major components in making up the complexity, balance, length, etc

The complexity, balance, length etc. come FROM the terroir.

Of course, my point was that the definition of "great wine" doesn't have to refer to terroir explicitly, but is (perhaps better?) defined by a wine's qualities (recognising that those qualities are influenced by the terroir).

[James Roscoe]

The complexity, balance, length etc. come FROM the terroir.

Even New World winemakers recognize this...

Alex

Surely you are not saying terroir is the ONLY component are you? People can ans will argue ad nauseum about the importance of terroir, but I can hardly believe it is the only component in making a wine and therefore a great wine. Thus while it is an important component in Chateau d''Yquem, it is hardly the ONLY factor and may not be the most important factor.

The complexity, balance, length etc. come FROM the terroir.

Even New World winemakers recognize this...

Alex

Surely you are not saying terroir is the ONLY component are you? People can ans will argue ad nauseum about the importance of terroir, but I can hardly believe it is the only component in making a wine and therefore a great wine. Thus while it is an important component in Chateau d''Yquem, it is hardly the ONLY factor and may not be the most important factor.

It depends what you are looking for. If you want 'good' wine, in the sense that it is flavorful and artfully made then sure, the grower and the winemaker are most important.

But you can't squeeze complexity and length from modest terroir. It structures what is possible for the winemaker to do.

>>>Surely you are not saying terroir is the ONLY component are you?

Rahssan has said it very well.

Proof of what we say: take a gaggle of Davis grads and unlimited funds, and have them attempt to replicate Romanée-Conti in California!

CASE CLOSED!!!

Alex R.

[David M. Bueker]

>>>Surely you are not saying terroir is the ONLY component are you?

Rahssan has said it very well.

Proof of what we say: take a gaggle of Davis grads and unlimited funds, and have them attempt to replicate Romanée-Conti in California!

CASE CLOSED!!!

Alex R.

Several points as I am late to this troll:

1. Rip out the Romanee-Conti vines and replant. For several years (perhaps a decade or two) what you get won't be much like the Romanee-Conti you are used to now. Vine age is a critical factor in great wine. There have been some flash in the pan great bottles/vintages from young vines, but older vines win out in the long run every time. It's no good to have a great terroir if the vines have not yet accessed it properly.

2. d'Yquem is hardly superior in every quality measure over the other top Sauternes. Wines like Rieussec, heck Climens (!) are within a hair's breadth of d'Yquem, and I will venture that it's the aura & price of the latter that gets it placed higher on the ladder in these days of vastly increased overall quality in Sauternes/Barsac. In the distant past perhaps that gap was actually meaningful, but not now.

3. Tom - even bringing up the '70s in a discussion about California typicity is laughable. The time frame of California wine (at least modern/post-prohibition) is so short that I would argue that there is no understanding of true typicity in California as of yet. Sure it is becoming clear that certain vines grow well in certain spots (and some others do not/have not), but typicity? Heck no.

David,

I will accept your statement that there's only a hairsbreadth difference in many instances (hence, the interest in buying wine instead of labels...).

The point is that, insofar as winetasting has, to many people, a competitive connotiation, winning by however slim a margin is still winning!

When Ch. Guiraud was owned by Canadian Hamilton Narby, he rued this fact.
Of course, he was right to a great extent.

Best regards,
Alex R.

2. d'Yquem is hardly superior in every quality measure over the other top Sauternes. Wines like Rieussec, heck Climens (!) are within a hair's breadth of d'Yquem, and I will venture that it's the aura & price of the latter that gets it placed higher on the ladder in these days of vastly increased overall quality in Sauternes/Barsac. In the distant past perhaps that gap was actually meaningful, but not now.

It is an interesting historical note that 11 Sauternes châteaux (including Rieussec and Climens) were classified in 1855 as "1ers crus" with Ch. Yquem being "1er cru supérieur". Compared to that Médoc/Graves got only 4 "1er crus" (Mouton being a later promotion) with no "1er crus supérieurs", though Lafite apparently lobbied for that rank.

Jancis R has written on Sauternes in this weekend's Financial Times http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b503b2b8 ... z1P4y4KUOb .

Well, seems to me you're confusing your ability to taste with your tired old worn out palate with how things actually, taste, Tom.

Okay, I'll be the first to agree that increased sugar and the presence of botrytis can make wines more difficult to distinguish characteristics---but I certainly won't agree that those things "obliterate" variety and terroir.

I could come back with a reasonable analogy to that broad-brush statement by claiming that all methode champenoise really taste alike and it's hard to distinguish one from another. Or that all wines aged in new oak taste alike because the new oak obliterates the terroir.

If that were the case---that sugar/botrytis/handling obliterates all variety and terroir characteristics---then you'd have to convince me that you can't tell the difference among moscato-based, riesling-based, and porto-blend based wines, and so on.

Soooo: I'm not disagreeing with the general statement that sugar/botrytis/process can make it more difficult to perceive the differences among these wine. But I can't agree that it "obliterates" all flavors.

Perhaps if you had more familiarity with specific BA/TBA wines----and this isn't meant as a jibe, but an objective statement---in the way that, say Manfred Prum or such has developed, you would be more perceptive in delineating the differences. I suspect so. But truth is, most of us don't have more than a casual involvement with that high level of dessert wines, so we can't often perceive the fine differences as well as those more practiced.

And your calling all the wines you named "dead ringers" for each other? Is there just the tiniest bit of....I dunno...statement for dramatic effect there? Color me susp icious.

Shocked I am, Hoke.....that anyone would ever/ever accuse me of overstating my case for dramatic effect!!!

So...I would suggest that you line up a btl of dry Semilon, dry SauvBlanc, dry PinotBlanc, dry Riesling, dry GWT, dry Chard, dry Muscat. Than line up the equivalent BA/TBA/passito level wines from the
same grape. And then see if you can make a one-to-one pairing of the same varieties. I doubt that I could do it. The passito/Muuscat would probablly not be difficult. The Sauternes would stick out because of the
winemaking style (particularly the oak), but I doubt you could pick out which one was primarily Semillon and which Sauternes primarily SauvBlanc.
Now in the case of ManfredPrum.....he's not your ordinary bloke. I don't know if he makes anything other than BA/TBA Riesling. Maybe somebody else's BA/TBA Scheurebe and Riesling and Kerner he could
reliably identify the variety. Maybe...because he's had vastly more experience w/ BA/TBA wines than your average Joe.
GWT has a very distinctive hair-oil/lychee aroma in the dry version. I have yet to pick up that character in any BA/TBA GWTs I've ever had; either Alsace/Austria or Calif.
Tom

[David M. Bueker]

Tom,

While I agree that botrytis can sometimes obscure varietal characteristics, I find that well made BA is not so obscured most of the time, and that Scheurebe does a great job of showing its distinctive traits even in a TBA setting.

And as for Manfred (and his daughter) Prum - he only makes Riesling.

Hi Tom,
Why can’t a Gewürztraminer dry version have its own “typicity” and a Gewürztraminer BA/TBA version have their own “typicity”? (Since when do you pay attention to the so-called experts?)

Salute

So maybe a great wine is one that, bottle after bottle, vintage after vintage, is guaranteed to make you sit there saying, "Man, that tastes really, really, REALLY good."?

So...I would suggest that you line up a btl of dry Semilon, dry SauvBlanc, dry PinotBlanc, dry Riesling, dry GWT, dry Chard, dry Muscat. Than line up the equivalent BA/TBA/passito level wines from the
same grape. And then see if you can make a one-to-one pairing of the same varieties.

Probably a better exercise would be to take each of those varieties and have a series of samples---dry, off-dry, sweet and botrytised. Best to have each sample come from the same general area too.

Then you might be able to make a case because you might have a chance of tracing the developing phases the wines go through and what they might characteristically display.

Still, I'm pretty much willing to believe---because I've seen people do it; good people who have spent their entire professional lives working with the wines you speak of---identify wines, and tell me fine details of them, to find out later they were absolutely correct. Could I? Not on your life. Could they? Sure convinced me they could.

Likewise, if you put me in front of 50 different CS/Merlot blends, I could safely clarify the blend in (possibly) a handful, and those out on the extremes. But I don't say it can't be done, or there can't be discernible differences...because I've seen other people do it with a high degree of accuracy, over and over again. So just because I can't determine them, I don't say there's no difference.

Once had a winemaker from Sauternes (one of the great producers) sit and list the different qualities of the wines of differing chateaux in great detail. That was his job...and his life...and he spent a great deal of focused time figuring those things out. Me? I drink Sauternes every great once and a while, and then only in very small quantities, and usually only one producer at a time. So I'm not very good at distinguishing those things.

David: saying Manfred Prum (and his daughter) "only makes Riesling" is like....like saying Poilane "only made bread" or Jack Daniel's "only made whiskey."