2005 Clos Rougeard Poyeux: Ugh

Despite the fact that the only Foucault Bros wine I've had before (the 2003 clos) was too bretty for my tastes, I was really excited to try this wine because of the vintage: indeed, so excited that I pulled it out of the cellar, no doubt, too early.

This wine has everything going for it, including lots of wine-geek cred. Plus that really fun sun quote from Joguet. Cool fruit, leather, both a chalky and salty minerality, and a remarkably silky palette and inner-mouth perfume with an elegant acidity. Just what I'm looking for. But also... and all the way through... stinky baby diapers, medicine cabinet, and band aids. BRETT, again. No wonder Joguet like this winery so much.

I don't get to buy many $90 bottles of wine, and when I do and find them troubled by brett, it breaks my heart. It probably won't be too bretty for everybody's tastes, but how can one feel good about aging this?

[David M. Bueker]

If it's bretty in youth it will likely be more so later. Of course brett bloom is one of those things that is significantly affected by temperature, so distribution, retail and home storage can be a big factor.

I've had a couple dozen Foucault wines and never thought of them as the worst brett offenders in the region. And overall the wines are pretty 'polished'.

But, there have been slight 'seasonings' of brett in some of their wines and it sounds like you got a couple of bad ones. (For what it's worth, I'm pretty sensitive to brett and don't like very much at all).

That is such a pity. Whlst I haven't tried the 05, I have a few of the 01 still left and none so far have suffered from the Brett Demon. Can you return the bottle?

Ed, sorry for the expensive disappointment, what is the "fun sun quote" from Joguet?

Joguet's new commercial manager wants to go squeaky clean; pity IMO because I have rarely been troubled by excessive animal flavours (NB I am quite tolerant).

I haven't drunk a lot of Rougeard and my reproach is perhaps too much polish. Again I haven't been troubled by brett but I haven't had the 03 or 05. It is my observations the brett levels can vary a lot from bottle to bottle, even in the same lot subject to identical storage and transport conditions.

Ed, sorry for the expensive disappointment, what is the "fun sun quote" from Joguet?

Here's the quote: Charles Joguet, the great winemaker of Chinon, once said: “there are two suns. One shines outside for everybody. The second shines in the Foucaults’ cellar.”

It's true that I have a low tolerance (close to none, these days) for Brett, so that has to be a factor here too. Alas, the critics are completely useless in letting me know which wines are affected with Brett, which to me is rather shocking given the ways Brett can manifest with age. I'm increasingly realizing that the industry is marred with Brett and people that can't recognize it even at the "highest levels."

I'm personally happy Joguet is cleaning up (in fact, I'm happy to say I had my first ever non-Bretty Joguet last night! On the other hand, it was rather over-extracted and not "correct" in my opinion. But promising).

Alas, the critics are completely useless in letting me know which wines are affected with Brett, which to me is rather shocking given the ways Brett can manifest with age. I'm increasingly realizing that the industry is marred with Brett and people that can't recognize it even at the "highest levels."

Ed, don't be too hard on the critics, because as I said above, brett levels are quite variable from bottle to bottle; but they should certainly mention it when they perceive it. IMO it's far worse when they don't point up a high level of oak which is man-made and not variable from bottle to bottle.

Those who, like me, think that moderate "animal" flavours add an attractive dimension of complexity to wines like Northern and Southern Rhône and some Loire would be sad if the clean-up eliminated them. That said, the bottle and, even more, bottling run variability of brett levels is a dimension which makes the wines in question somewhat unreliable even for those, like me, who like a mild presence of leather and other animal, but not faecal, flavours.

Alas, the critics are completely useless in letting me know which wines are affected with Brett, which to me is rather shocking given the ways Brett can manifest with age. I'm increasingly realizing that the industry is marred with Brett and people that can't recognize it even at the "highest levels."

Ed, don't be too hard on the critics, because as I said above, brett levels are quite variable from bottle to bottle; but they should certainly mention it when they perceive it. IMO it's far worse when they don't point up a high level of oak which is man-made and not variable from bottle to bottle.

I really don't mean to sound so cynical, especially in early postings on this board, but this is just the problem; they never or rarely mention if the wine has Brett. And moreover, I'm coming to believe this is because most of them can't perceive it with any regularity, which is to me completely unacceptable if we are going to take them seriously. It seems to me that a critic that is up front about Brett and oak regimines (I'm also 100% with you on the oak) will not only provide a more useful way for consumers to talk and think about wine, but will cause the established critical structure (not to mention some sales structures) to topple over (which is probably why it hasn't happened--too many interests).

Here, just for example, is the review from Schildknecht over at WA. I went back to the wine today, and it is pumping out Band Aid flavors. Yet nothing in this tasting note even suggests brett (conversely, and this is why I began to listen to Schildknecht, there is some decent information about oak).

The 2005 Saumur-Champigny Les Poyeux – in half new and half one-wine barriques – offers an intense, high-toned nose of ripe blackberry and machine oil. Deep, rich and expansive on the palate, featuring stock-pot meatiness, ripe blackberry fruit, alluring, Chambertin-like rose petal inner-mouth florality, and subtly salty minerality, this should be worthy of a decade or more of bottle age. The mixture in the empty glass of rose, blackberry, black cherry, and elusive carnal and mineral nuances worthy of a great Pinot should alone prove worthy of what is bound to seem by local standards a hefty price.

Here, just for example, is the review from Schildknecht over at WA. I went back to the wine today, and it is pumping out Band Aid flavors. Yet nothing in this tasting note even suggests brett (conversely, and this is why I began to listen to Schildknecht, there is some decent information about oak).

The 2005 Saumur-Champigny Les Poyeux – in half new and half one-wine barriques – offers an intense, high-toned nose of ripe blackberry and machine oil. Deep, rich and expansive on the palate, featuring stock-pot meatiness, ripe blackberry fruit, alluring, Chambertin-like rose petal inner-mouth florality, and subtly salty minerality, this should be worthy of a decade or more of bottle age. The mixture in the empty glass of rose, blackberry, black cherry, and elusive carnal and mineral nuances worthy of a great Pinot should alone prove worthy of what is bound to seem by local standards a hefty price.

Ed,
Here's the rub: humans vary significantly not only in their sensitivity to Brett but also in how it's perceived. The way I parse it, the highlighted phrase in Schildknecht's review indiciates a (to him) modest level of Brett. Given the caveat that Brett levels vary widely depending on storage conditions, you now know to use this as a key to avoiding what to you are overly Bretty wines. In your shoes, I'd avoid any wine whose description uses words such a meat or game. "Earthy" and "forest floor" notes are different in my experience. For the record, I have to do the same thing with the descriptors used for oak by certain critics: when I read of a "spicy" or "creamy" (let alone "vanilla") wine I avoid it like the plague.

HTH
Mark Lipton

Ed,
Here's the rub: humans vary significantly not only in their sensitivity to Brett but also in how it's perceived. The way I parse it, the highlighted phrase in Schildknecht's review indiciates a (to him) modest level of Brett. Given the caveat that Brett levels vary widely depending on storage conditions, you now know to use this as a key to avoiding what to you are overly Bretty wines. In your shoes, I'd avoid any wine whose description uses words such a meat or game. "Earthy" and "forest floor" notes are different in my experience. For the record, I have to do the same thing with the descriptors used for oak by certain critics: when I read of a "spicy" or "creamy" (let alone "vanilla") wine I avoid it like the plague.

HTH
Mark Lipton

I understand this on one level (and I certainly have become good at picking out the terms that denote over-extraction and over-oak, like "gobs" and "hedonistic" and even more neutral terms like "incense"). And I can play this game a bit with Brett too: "funky" and "gamey" of course (although sometimes people use these descriptors to indicate terrior and not Brett, as I just found in a winedoctor review of a Breton "Trinch" which is clearly Brettless), and sometimes, I've found, "iodine" (which is a shameful misinterpretation of this taste in my opinion). While I understand on one level what you are saying, I just don't think "meaty" is a reasonable indicator of Brett (especially as he uses it here as a pallete impression). If critics are supposed to help us purchase, say, $90 bottles of wine, why can't they be more precise?

Further, I have a real hard time believing that there was a point where this wine did not reveal 4-ethylphenol aromas of Band Aid. But if even if I give him the benefit of the doubt, I don't think that "meaty" is a fair code. If he *meant* Brett by meaty, certainly he could have found some of the 4-ethylphenol flavors right around the corner; or otherwise, why not just make this association overtly? In other words, why can't critics let people know if wine has Brett or not (also for those who claim they *like* Brett), and perhaps, if you like, be more clear about wood treatment? This, to me, would be far more useful than what we have. And even further, if the reviewer *is* finding Brett, how can he recommend aging this wine? Or how can he at least not give us a recommondation with a caveat attached? This is a dangerous game with $90 bottles of wine, and I'm certain of one thing: there are endless highly rated brett bombs just waiting to go off in people's cellars. I seriously doubt that even those who like some Brett want this, and given the way it can evolve in the bottle, they shouldn't.

If you are a wine reviewer with a low sensitivity to Brett, given it's affects on wine, you should not be a wine reviewer.

Reviewers give taste sensations, not lab reports. Obviously there is a correlation between these two, but the correlation is less than perfect by some. Sometimes I don't notice oak even when it turns out the treatment is intensive enough so that I should have. People sometimes report the taste of wood in wines that I know don't see a speck of it. Beaucastel has long had a reputation, merited, for brett. But people also regularly mistake mourvedre aromas for brett. Your real complaint about Schildknecht is that he didn't quite respond to this wine as you did. That just tells you why all wine review should be considered interpretations and not reports of basic realities, if for nothing else because there would be a lot less ire on wine boards.

oops. See next post.

Jonathan,

I know for a fact that you have far more well-developed ideas about the role of the critic than I do (or anyone for that matter). But I'm confused about what you mean here.

So why is technical information or basic realities at odds with an interpretation? In other words, why can't an interpretation of wine state its case both in terms of sensory impression and more technical information? If it's true, as was stated above, that Schildknecht detected Brett infection in the wine, why should he not state this--or his suspicion--in straight-forward language? My problem with Schildknecht (who I like far better than most critics) is that, if he suspected this wine had Brett, that he didn't relate this to me. If a critic suspects a wine has Brett, for one thing, then they should know that an interpretation built only on their immediate sensory impression will potentially not be of much use given the way Brett acts in the bottle. Given this fact, what is the use of this kind of interpretaion?

In addition, I'm unclear how because "some people" can't detect Brett of confuse it, we should think this is okay with a wine critic. It's really not hard to learn to detect Brett with a pretty high degree of accuracy (in my experience). I would think a good critic, once some facts are on the table about the wine, should be able to offer information on whether a wine has Brett in it or not with some certainty. (While it's true about mourvedre, anybody can tell the difference between mouvedre and Brett when expressed as 4-ethylphenol; in any event, this can be controlled for in evaluating a wine.) Of course I'm not saying that the role of the critic should be reduced to this, because clearly the job of the critic is much broader.

[edited for clarity]

Jonathan,

I know for a fact that you have far more well-developed ideas about the role of the critic than I do (or anyone for that matter). But I'm confused about what you mean here.

So why is technical information or basic realities at odds with an interpretation? In other words, why can't an interpretation of wine state its case both in terms of sensory impression and more technical information? If it's true, as was stated above, that Schildknecht detected Brett infection in the wine, why should he not state this--or his suspicion--in straight-forward language? My problem with Schildknecht (who I like far better than most critics) is that, if he suspected this wine had Brett, that he didn't relate this to me. If a critic suspects a wine has Brett, for one thing, then they should know that an interpretation built only on their immediate sensory impression will potentially not be of much use given the way Brett acts in the bottle. Given this fact, what is the use of this kind of interpretaion?

In addition, I'm unclear how because "some people" can't detect Brett of confuse it, we should think this is okay with a wine critic. It's really not hard to learn to detect Brett with a pretty high degree of accuracy (in my experience). I would think a good critic, once some facts are on the table about the wine, should be able to offer information on whether a wine has Brett in it or not with some certainty. (While it's true about mourvedre, anybody can tell the difference between mouvedre and Brett when expressed as 4-ethylphenol; in any event, this can be controlled for in evaluating a wine.) Of course I'm not saying that the role of the critic should be reduced to this, because clearly the job of the critic is much broader.

[edited for clarity]

Ed,

I'm contesting your claim that Schildknecht, you, I or anyone can know the presence of Brett save via lab reports. What we know is sensory information that, with more or less reliability, we translate into interpretations about the presence or absence of x in wine. To be more specific, I am further contesting your confidence that if you taste band-aids as opposed to barnyard, you know with lab warranted certitude that what you are tasting is Brett and further that when you taste band-aid, Schildknecht tasted band-aid as opposed to stock-pot meatiness. Those things don't taste the same to me (well, I've never eaten a band-aid) but I've been at too many tastings where the same taste was expressed through numbers of analogies that led in different directions. Technical information isn't at odds with interpretation. But the basic realities you are getting from a critic isn't technical information but "tastes to me like," and that's what you should expect.

Of course, you can make it as a condition of being an adequate critic that one be able to detect brett through sensory information with the certitude of lab testing and further that one be able to express that information in a way that, without slippage, tells all readers that this is brett and nothing but, but your difficulty in finding such a critic will be indicated by your difficulty in naming a current critic who meets these criteria.

I see.

All I have in response is little more than a reverse polemic because I can't say for certain that some individuals can detect Brett with near (near!) lab-like precision (perhaps others here know more about this?). Nevertheless--and I'm stepping out of my expertise, for certain--my understanding is that there are plenty of people that can detect Brett with a very high degree of accuracy, and this is especially true if you limit this ability to a certain region (say, a critic on the Loire). After all, if I understand right, oenologists make these assessments without testing all the time (not that I'm arguing that an oenologist would therefore make a good critic). And I do know some people that I believe, based on my experience, can come close to lab-test accuracy. Frankly, I've become pretty good myself--it's a very learnable "skill."

So I would argue that the reason we don't have critics that are calling out Brett regularly is not due to the fact that it is not possible, but for other reasons (among them that most wine drinkers don't care/can't detect Brett themselves). Further, while I understand that this presents its own sets of problems, if I had to, I would settle for critics that merely register their suspicion, given the fact that there are always plenty of other purchasing options.