WTN: Chidaine; Guion; Baudry Croix Boisee (some 07s)

2007 Chidaine Montlouis Les Tuffeaux: At first, disjointed. The sugar was over here, the acidity was over here, and the rest was over there. But then it integrated into a balanced, elegant, and--both concentrated and light--downright gorgeous (how's that for specificity) wine. The sweetness was fully justified by, and of a piece with, the firm acidity. Firm yet forgiving; mineral; cool fruit. Amazing stuff. At this price (@$23)... WOW.

2007 Domaine Guion "Cuvee Prestige" Bourgueil: Band-Aids greet you on the nose. On the palette a light-bodied wine, with nevertheless apparent tannins, and a refreshing acidity that suggests, along with the tannins ageability. Some of the Brett gives way to a very pleasing wild-berry aroma. But on closer inspection... a profound fecal smell. Dumpster. Baby diapers. WOW is this bretty! For me, a Brett bench mark! If you smell the wine when it's still, it smells clearly like a cross between my cat's litter box, freshly visited, and the dumpster at the urban market across the street from me. BRETT BOMB SCALE (1-5): * * * * * (5 bombs)

2007 Baudry Chinon Croix Boissee: Made the mistake of serving this too cool, which at first served only to emphasize the Brett; I knew it the moment I opened. After some time, the wine gave more than just funky baby diapers though. Minerality on the nose; dark fruits. On the palette, velvety and rich--a sense of concentration; a lovely fresh wild-berry basket impression; elegant acidity. Overall though the funk wins, making this a real disappointment, especially for the price--not to mention the hype of online-types that routinely confuse Brett with terroir. So sad. BRETT BOMB SCALE (1-5): * *.5 (2.5 bombs, adjusted for serving too cool, but probably deserves more)

All Loire-heads are hiding in a corner!! At least the white was decent.

All Loire-heads are hiding in a corner!! At least the white was decent.

Bob, I think that Ed is more brett sensitive than many of us. And don't forget that its intensity can vary from bottle to bottle. I will try these wines and see how I like them.

Tim, I was not aware of brett problems chez Baudry?

Ed, have you tasted many reds from Baudry in the past?

By the way, any thoughts on the RdVdF website Tim?

Tim, I was not aware of brett problems chez Baudry?

Bob, leather and animal notes are quite common in Loire Cabernet franc and I, for one, would be very sad if the squeaky-clean brigade were to chase them away. Occasionally some bottles have them in excess, e.g. in the last of my S-N B La Mine 05 from Amirault; ironic really because Amirault seeks to eliminate these notes.

I have never been in the slightest bit worried by brett in B. Baudry's wine (Chistophe is another matter). That is not to say that 07 Croix Boisée is completely free of it but I am sure that Ed's intolerance threshold is much lower than mine.

Yes, Ed seems to either have questionable retail sources or a very sensitive brett palate. I consider myself mostly brett-averse but the small leathery flavors I have gotten in Baudry over the years have rarely been enough to offend me.

The low sulfur crowd however is usually painful for me to drink because of brett, va, oxidation.

I'll plead guilty to being Brett sensitive! Although I will point to a post earlier this week on Wine Lovers where somebody poured out a bottle of Baudry Granges for being too Bretty (I've never done that!).

Of course, I'd also argue that given how Brett obfuscates terroir, how it affects aging, and given how many wines there are out there for your consumer dollar free of Brett, I argue that one *ought* to be sensitive to Brett (unless, of course, one genuinely knows what Brett is and likes the taste of it). But I see a lack of understanding of what Brett is and an inability to identify it--rather than sensitivity to it--as the bigger issue. The "received wine board culture" I think often either 1. can't identify Brett, 2. ignores it, or worse 3. confuses it with "terroir."

I think lots of people out there were raised on very bretty old bordeauxs and burgundies and were led to believe that the distinct tastes that came from these wine were resultant of terroir...

This all sounds far more combative than I mean it. Please understand that in fact I greatly respect the "received wisdom" of the wine culture, which is why I've lurked for so many years without posting anything; it's just that I'm compelled to argue for a better understanding (and why not, given how the wine boards go over all things wine with fine-toothed combs all day long?). Although obviously (as most of my posts point to) there is a sense of frustration behind my posts at having been let to wines by both wine board personalities and of course critics that were horribly bretty, a real problem given my very limited financial resources.

The wines were from, where else, Chambers Street (aka Brett Grand Central Station).

All Loire-heads are hiding in a corner!! At least the white was decent.

Bob, I think that Ed is more brett sensitive than many of us. And don't forget that its intensity can vary from bottle to bottle. I will try these wines and see how I like them.

I learned a trick that often works in distinguishing Brett aromas. If you really want to see what's going on in that Guion... hold your nose right above the rim of the glass without having swirled. I promise you there that the *nastier* parts of Brett will reveal themselves to you! From there, you'll begin to see what's also being affected on the nose when you swirl and activate the other aromas.

I'll plead guilty to being Brett sensitive! Although I will point to a post earlier this week on Wine Lovers where somebody poured out a bottle of Baudry Granges for being too Bretty (I've never done that!).

Of course, I'd also argue that given how Brett obfuscates terroir, how it affects aging, and given how many wines there are out there for your consumer dollar free of Brett, I argue that one *ought* to be sensitive to Brett (unless, of course, one genuinely knows what Brett is and likes the taste of it). But I see a lack of understanding of what Brett is and an inability to identify it--rather than sensitivity to it--as the bigger issue. The "received wine board culture" I think often either 1. can't identify Brett, 2. ignores it, or worse 3. confuses it with "terroir."

Ed,
Speaking as one of the less Brett-averse people here (or elsewhere, for that matter) I'll add that there are different strains of Brett and different perceptions of Brett. I dislike any wine that smells fecal to me, but few of the wines I try do smell fecal, even many of those that are obviously "tainted" by Brett. The more attractive forms to me give a meaty/gamey note to the wine that I find attractive. As it gets more intense, I get a Band-Aid tang to it that I am neutral on: it neither adds to or detracts from the wine. Should the Band-Aid note get insistent enough then it becomes a problem, but that is true of any secondary or tertiary note in a wine. When one then throws in the variable amounts of Brett in a given wine it becomes tricky to dismiss any wine as too Bretty when another bottle might show quite differently.

Mark Lipton

[Jenise]

Although obviously (as most of my posts point to) there is a sense of frustration behind my posts at having been let to wines by both wine board personalities and of course critics that were horribly bretty, a real problem given my very limited financial resources.

The wines were from, where else, Chambers Street (aka Brett Grand Central Station).

The brett thing seems to divide a number more than any other single feature of wine. At least, in my circle. I mean, I can be with my posse of dedicated old-world, European wine fans with tons of experience--and I acknowledge they likely have more than I do--and yet we will not agree on whether THAT smell is brett or not, and futher whether or not it enhances the wine. Usually a little barnyard running around in the playpen of fruit is a good thing for me, but if it instead smells of sulfur I'll DETEST it, and if it obliterates all other aromas I'll detest it. Meanwhile, Coop will love it all, and Bill Spohn is usually somewhere between the two of us, maybe not loving it but not minding it so much either.

Ed,
Speaking as one of the less Brett-averse people here (or elsewhere, for that matter) I'll add that there are different strains of Brett and different perceptions of Brett. I dislike any wine that smells fecal to me, but few of the wines I try do smell fecal, even many of those that are obviously "tainted" by Brett. The more attractive forms to me give a meaty/gamey note to the wine that I find attractive. As it gets more intense, I get a Band-Aid tang to it that I am neutral on: it neither adds to or detracts from the wine. Should the Band-Aid note get insistent enough then it becomes a problem, but that is true of any secondary or tertiary note in a wine. When one then throws in the variable amounts of Brett in a given wine it becomes tricky to dismiss any wine as too Bretty when another bottle might show quite differently.

Mark Lipton

Mark, I believe you are actually describing the same strain of Brett here. If you smell animal, band-aid and fecal and medicine cabinet is (more or less, and eventually) right around the corner. But there are indeed two major strains of brett: 4-ethyl phenol and 4-ethyl guaiacol. And the "other" strain of Brett (guaiacol) can indeed be more pleasing: it gives off sandlewood and/or insense/ "exotic spice" aromas (if you see either of these descriptors, this is a tell-tale sign, although critics like Parker don't seem to be aware of it and think of it as "terroir.")

Nevertheless--and I don't really like words like "taint" because it implies an ideal or "correct" way, and as I say if you like Brett, bully for you!--it is clearly the case that both strains obfuscate terroir. And if you detect any Brett at all, you should in my opinion probably immediatly have some real concerns about aging the wine. All of this leaves me pining away, wondering, as with that Baudry above... "what if."

The brett thing seems to divide a number more than any other single feature of wine. At least, in my circle. I mean, I can be with my posse of dedicated old-world, European wine fans with tons of experience--and I acknowledge they likely have more than I do--and yet we will not agree on whether THAT smell is brett or not, and futher whether or not it enhances the wine. Usually a little barnyard running around in the playpen of fruit is a good thing for me, but if it instead smells of sulfur I'll DETEST it, and if it obliterates all other aromas I'll detest it. Meanwhile, Coop will love it all, and Bill Spohn is usually somewhere between the two of us, maybe not loving it but not minding it so much either.

This is going to sound far more glib than I mean it--please excuse my tone here in the service of trying to advance a point--but these are the very people that I'm arguing don't know what Brett is. If you suspect it, it's probably there. Indeed, it pains me to put it in terms like this because these are the wines that I love most (indeed, the only wines I love), but if you open any two random bottles of wine from France, chances are one of them (at least) will be very bretty. (Sulpher though, of course, is a different problem.)

And I think this is a PROBLEM. At least if the goal of "great European wine" is, as it should be, to articulate terroir. The problem is exacerbated in my opinion by the fact that so much of the "old guard" (and the critics) confuses Brett with terroir.

The thing is, it's not hard to learn to identify it. Once you know it, I'd argue you can come pretty close to 100% certainty. It's a big elephant in the room in the wine world, in my opinion, although so many people simply can't see that giant elephant sitting right there, or have learned to imagine that she belongs in the room with us! One has to at least confess that with wines of any real merit (admitting that some bad or mediocre wines can gain a kind of complexity with funk), the wine would be far better off without bandaid and baby diaper smells (or ANY smell that obfuscates the terroir the wine is meant to express)!

[David M. Bueker]

Interesting case for the Baudry, as I opened a bottle of that same wine for my mom and dad a few weeks ago, and my mom (who despises brett & is very sensitive to it) loved the wine.

Interesting case for the Baudry, as I opened a bottle of that same wine for my mom and dad a few weeks ago, and my mom (who despises brett & is very sensitive to it) loved the wine.

But certainly, if she is very sensitive to it, she picked up on the brett? Or are you saying she (implicitly) did not find brett in it?

Either way, I don't mean to hang my argument on any particular wine. Although I will suggest that--despite and respectful of the tolerance many have claimed for brett in Baudry wines in particular, a tolerance that I share to an extent as a huge fan of Baudrys non-bretty wines--there is ample evidence that many (not all!) wines from this domain are pretty bretty (e.g., see the Wine Lover, I forget who, that dumped a bottle last week).

The wines were from, where else, Chambers Street (aka Brett Grand Central Station).

Ouch!

The brett thing seems to divide a number more than any other single feature of wine. At least, in my circle. I mean, I can be with my posse of dedicated old-world, European wine fans with tons of experience--and I acknowledge they likely have more than I do--and yet we will not agree on whether THAT smell is brett or not, and futher whether or not it enhances the wine. Usually a little barnyard running around in the playpen of fruit is a good thing for me, but if it instead smells of sulfur I'll DETEST it, and if it obliterates all other aromas I'll detest it. Meanwhile, Coop will love it all, and Bill Spohn is usually somewhere between the two of us, maybe not loving it but not minding it so much either.

Ed, that's a nice simile of yours about the elephant in the drawing room, but surely the above is the best attitude for a wine-lover to have. Namely do I like it? You clearly dislike even the smallest trace element and that is your right.

The one area where I think that you have a point concerns critics. We have probably all experienced brett reaching our personal intolerance thresholds with ageing (though variably between bottles). The critics would be performing a useful service if they could flag up potential brett time-bombs even if they consider the level at the time of their tasting acceptable or even complexity enhancing. That said, I am glad that Parker has not joined the squeaky-clean brigade and I know many people who still love Beaucastel 1990 in spite of the acknowledgedly high levels of brett.

[David M. Bueker]

But certainly, if she is very sensitive to it, she picked up on the brett? Or are you saying she (implicitly) did not find brett in it?

No brett. Zero.

Ed, that's a nice simile of yours about the elephant in the drawing room, but surely the above is the best attitude for a wine-lover to have. Namely do I like it? You clearly dislike even the smallest trace element and that is your right.

That's reasonable of course, but while making room for outliers and exceptions (Beaucastle, perhaps--I'm *more than happy* to admit some wine outliers where Brett truly adds character and complexity), I just don't see how one could be happy to find Brett, even if one "doesn't mind the taste," and even if one actually "likes it." Given that it works against the unique expression of terroir, even given the vicissitudes of taste, don't you end up wondering what the wine would be doing *without* brett? Wouldn't the wine world for the most part be better off--*all other things being equal*--without it? And given that there is so much wine out there to drink, isn't it just best to move on to a wine that does transparently express the terroir and the grape? (This is *certainly* not to say that all brett-free wines better express terroir than all bretty wines; and because taste is opaque, I'm certainly not trying to make any claims to objectivity about what constitutes deliciousness).

Of course I'm being very reductive about all this, but only so I can draw some general conclusions.

As with the Baudry above, I'd be happy enough to drink it again, I suppose. After all, it is doing so many other (rare) things that I like wine to do. And for these reasons, it had merit. But it's heartbreaking to me to think about what it *could have been* if it was cleaner and a more transparent expression of soil and grape, in the way truly great Baudrys are. And certainly I won't buy more of it given this condition, and given how many other great wines are out there.