Rumblings on wine - part 3 (or is it 4?) of an on-going series

[David M. Bueker]

For every wine I love that has gone beyond my acceptable price range (2006 Leoville Barton being just the latest example), there are two or three that step up to fill the void. Whether it’s red, white or rosé, there’s always something new and interesting to drink. Sure not everything ages into mature Bordeaux, but then aren’t we just looking for something good to drink with dinner? I only eat so much steak and lamb. When it’s burgers on the grill on a hot summer day the Edmunds St. John Bone-Jolly Rosé is so much more appropriate than a big red. The 2005 Beaujolais have the staying power to work with almost any meat dish, and while I hate the pricing of top Wachau wines, a bottle of Muscadet from Pepiere or Luneau-Papin fits the bill nearly as well (and sometimes better).

Want some acid in your Rieslings? Pop a bottle of a 1998 German. I’ve had two in recent weeks (Willi Schaefer Graacher Domprobst Kabinett & Meulenhof Erdener Treppchen Auslese Goldkap) that had enough acidity for 4 wines. The kabinett was perhaps a bit more acidic than most would like, but the auslese really used all the acidity to its benefit. It just stuns me when I read comments on 2003 or 2005 wines that mention the “acidic cut.” While years like 1990 and 1998 (and especially 1996) may have had a little more acidity than was good for them, recent vintages have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction. I’m desperately hoping that as time passes these global warming artifacts won’t just become empty, sweet, shells of wine.

There’s a treasure trove out there for people who like Bordeaux. The 2001, 2002 and 2004 vintages may not have points or praise, but they do have character and flavors. With the exception of the first growths and the equivalent right-bankers nearly everything is still out there for the taking, cellaring and drinking. The prices are nowhere near the stratospheric levels of the 2005s or the silly levels of the 2006s, and the vintage characteristics mean that they may also hit their peaks while most of us are still alive. These are not “minor” vintages, but rather underappreciated vintages. They don’t have the critical acclaim, so they are written off as mediocre or poor, and that’s a buying opportunity. I can honestly say that I have enjoyed every 2001 I bought (a wide cross-section of the vintage), all but one 2002 and each of the 5 2004s I have tried so far.

The rotating mailer game is not out of hand; it’s a full-blown out of body experience. Every time it seems that the mailers will stop for a while they start right back up again. I’ve lost count of how many mailers I have thrown away this year. Some will just keep coming (please don’t tell me that the wines are hard to get when you keep sending me mailers year after year when I don’t buy), while others will fade away and reduce my trash/recycling pickup. There’s still a select few I buy from, but for the most part it was all just a game.

For every wine I love that has gone beyond my acceptable price range (2006 Leoville Barton being just the latest example), there are two or three that step up to fill the void..

I understand your point about wines that are more appropriate and affordable, but do they really fill the void? I mean the elegance and nobility of the top Bordeaux, Burgundy, etc is what is so difficult to produce on lesser terroirs, and even if there are plenty of other wines that are wonderfully delicious, will the middle-classes now be shut out of experiencing that noble elegance?

[David M. Bueker]

Good point Rahsaan, but I think the more time goes on the more I realize that there is just as much pleasure to be had from a fine rosé, QbA or Bourgogne Rouge as there is from any other wine. Sure it takes some recalibration, but the "lesser" wines are so much better now that I'm not certain we're missing much at all.

I'm willing to bet that if we could turn back the clock and compare top young 2001 unclassified Bordeaux (e.g. Sociando) to young first growths of the '60s or '70s we would taste either similar quality levels or the 2001 might even be a better wine. Granted many of the less expensive wines (e.g. top Cotes de Castillon) are not made in the mold of classic left-bank claret, but the quality is there.

I understand your point about wines that are more appropriate and affordable, but do they really fill the void? I mean the elegance and nobility of the top Bordeaux, Burgundy, etc is what is so difficult to produce on lesser terroirs, and even if there are plenty of other wines that are wonderfully delicious, will the middle-classes now be shut out of experiencing that noble elegance?

I think that you'll need to see how some of those top Cru Bojos develop with 15-20 years of bottle age before proclaiming them a "lesser" terroir. I've heard from enough people about how much like an aged Cote D'Or red they become to wonder whether there's as big a distinction as we think. Likewise, since I know that you've had some wonderful aged Muscadets, do you really think that they are lacking in comparison to an aged Chablis? I'd maintain that all but the noblest of GC Chablis would be hard pressed to show better than the '90 L D'Or that we shared.

More generally, I think that your argument mirrors the one made about First Growths, DRC and Tokaji Eszensia. It may be true that they are sublime and the ne plus ultra of their style, but if they are priced into the stratosphere or made in minuscule quantity, who cares? Ultimately, to me, wine is about conumption: I care not about a wine that I can't afford to drink with my meals on a semi-regular basis. Platonic ideals don't put food on the table.

Mark Lipton

p.s. I do own some first growth Bdx, GC Chablis and Chave Hermitage, so take my arguments with a pinch of skepticism.

This seems to dovetail into yet another story I heard on NPR today about the "glut" of European wines. The Names are stratospheric in price but I seem to find really good wines to drink with dinner for around 15 USD/bottle without difficulty. And very interesting excellent wines can be had for 20 or 30 bucks. Most of the wine I drink is with dinner so this is a great time to be interested in wines.

Likewise, since I know that you've had some wonderful aged Muscadets, do you really think that they are lacking in comparison to an aged Chablis? I'd maintain that all but the noblest of GC Chablis would be hard pressed to show better than the '90 L D'Or that we shared..

I liked the 90 L D'Or a great deal and the 89 even more and would certainly buy both for my cellar if indeed I had a cellar. But your comment about the noblest GC Chablis is exactly my point, because those L D'Or wines do not have the same nobility as a great Les Clos. So that doesn't mean I need to have as many bottles of Les Clos as I do of Muscadet, but there is something special about Les Clos that I hope I can still afford once I actually get in cellar-range

.

I understand your point about wines that are more appropriate and affordable, but do they really fill the void? I mean the elegance and nobility of the top Bordeaux, Burgundy, etc is what is so difficult to produce on lesser terroirs, and even if there are plenty of other wines that are wonderfully delicious, will the middle-classes now be shut out of experiencing that noble elegance?

Does flying coach fill the void left by business class?

Heck, does business class fill the void left by [not having] your own personal Gulfstream?

And does a Gulfstream fill the void left by a 767?

And how can a 767 hope to fill the void left by an A380?

For most of us, there may come a point in life when we just have to tone down our fantasies to something a bit more realistic.
.

Nathan, I think I understood David differently. I don't think we have to give much up at this point. For special, not necessary everyday wines, here's how I see it. True, 1st growth bordeaux is going to be out of reach for me for the forseeable future. But I just did a wine-searcher search for 2001 Bordeaux < or = to $50 US and came up with 2000 wines including several 2nd growth (Leoville Poyferre and Rausan-Segla) and many 3rd, 4th and beyond. So, sure, a private jet would be nice but I don't think I have to give up "business class" wines just yet.

[David M. Bueker]

I think the 2006 vintage is the end of "business class" Bordeaux for me. Thank goodness I have more than I will likely ever drink.

Nathan, I think I understood David differently. I don't think we have to give much up at this point.

No, and I completely agree that you can find outstanding wines in the sub-$20 range [even the sub-$10 range, if you get really lucky].

You have to work at it - work really. REALLY hard at it - tasting through oceans of swill, and hanging around like a vulture, waiting for the closeout sales, but there are plenty of excellent wines out there that don't cost $500/bottle.

Two recent examples I'll throw out:

2004 Max Ferdinand Richter Brauneberger Juffer Kabinett, $17
2005 Alois Kracher Illmitz Pinot Gris, $15

And both of those are from the 3-tier system!

But as for the famous labels, I think we're just about at the point where we can turn out the lights and declare that the party's over, and give up on the dream of ever tasting [much less collecting] the first growths or the grand crus.

Unless maybe we get re-incarnated as investment bankers or internet tycoons.

And while I've never had a $2500 auction TBA from Manfred Prum, or a $2000 Le Montrachet from Aubert de Villaine, and while I'm sure they must be very, very nice wines, at some point you have to ask yourself whether they're really more than 100 times "better" than a nice, minerally $17 kabinett, or a stinky, funky $15 pinot gris.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but one thing's for sure: I'll never know.

while I'm sure they must be very, very nice wines, at some point you have to ask yourself whether they're really more than 100 times "better" than a nice, minerally $17 kabinett, or a stinky, funky $15 pinot gris.

Sounds like we have no disagreement.

And while I've never had a $2500 auction TBA from Manfred Prum, or a $2000 Le Montrachet from Aubert de Villaine, and while I'm sure they must be very, very nice wines, at some point you have to ask yourself whether they're really more than 100 times "better" than a nice, minerally $17 kabinett, or a stinky, funky $15 pinot gris.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but one thing's for sure: I'll never know.

Sure you'll know, Nathan. You know already. That's because you're using the wrong measuring stick.

You know that no wine could possibly be "100 times 'better'" than another like wine. Let's put it closer to a fair match: could the AdV Le Montrachet possibly be 100 times "better" than another Montrachet, or even another village or commune wine from the same area? That's a better question, isn't it? Although the answer would still be the same.

And there's soooo many things wrong, in soooo many ways, with your comparison, not the least of which is your comparison between a Montrachet and a Pinot Grigio. Whether stinky/funky or not.

You're falling back into that conventionally simplistic economically-based idea that money equates to quality. The price tag on something does not tell you what the quality of something is; it tells you only what someone, somewhere, is willing to pay for it.

Is a Ferrari 100 times better than a Toyota Prius? Nope. Certainly not if your goal in acquiring a car is to have safe, reliable, and inexpensive transportation while being as considerate of the environment as you can. Or if your intent is to climb up hills and through mud wallows on the weekends.

On the other hand, if your intent is to establish that you have enough money you can casually purchase a highly specialized atutomobile with severly limited usage that disregards any concern for the environment, and its sole purchase is to infrequently display your wealth, then, yes, it is 100 times better.

But in neither case does the price tag have anything to do with the quality of the object. Just the price of acquisition.

Now you might get away with asking yourself a different question. Like, if you were so filthy rich with lucre that you could easily plop down the price of that Montrachet without even thinking twice about it...if it was such a totally insignificant sum to you, so paltry it didn't even affect your daily income...if the Montrachet, merely in the sense of being a pittance when placed against your total worth, and therefore of infinitely small value in terms of money to you... would it still be "100 times better" than any other Montrachet? Or the Pinot Grigio?

But no matter what the answer was, there would be no way you could get "worth" out of the wine. Merely putting it up at the value level that is so high you could never anticipate trying it (or perhaps the operative word here should be "having" it) means it could never be what you hoped it would be. You'd HAVE to be disappointed if you got it...because then it wouldn't be unattainable, and if it's unattainable, then it can't possibly be as great as you once thought it was.

Okay: how's that for sophistry?

The rotating mailer game is not out of hand; it’s a full-blown out of body experience. Every time it seems that the mailers will stop for a while they start right back up again. I’ve lost count of how many mailers I have thrown away this year. Some will just keep coming (please don’t tell me that the wines are hard to get when you keep sending me mailers year after year when I don’t buy), while others will fade away and reduce my trash/recycling pickup. There’s still a select few I buy from, but for the most part it was all just a game.

David,
The number of mailers that come to me that never get opened is astonishing. I see another Pahlmaeyer or Lail return address (etc.) and its directly in the recycle without so much as a glance.
Cowan, 1; mailers, 0.
Yeah!
Best, Jim

[David M. Bueker]

David,
The number of mailers that come to me that never get opened is astonishing. I see another Pahlmaeyer or Lail return address (etc.) and its directly in the recycle without so much as a glance.
Cowan, 1; mailers, 0.
Yeah!
Best, Jim

As of now there are only three that get past my inner shield wall: Turley (for my Dad), Pride (shared with a friend) and ESJ (for me).

If Jadot, Brun, Huet and/or Donnhoff ever had a mailing list I would be a dead man.

Hoke, I think we're probably in complete agreement here.

But getting back to the point that I was trying to make to Rahsaan, which in retrospect, maybe I didn't make too well: I used to spend some time [hopefully not too much time] wondering what DRC-RC or DRC-LM tasted like, or smelt like - what kind of textures they might have, what the "finish" might be like.

Or what it might have been like to have attended that Prum vertical that Stuart Piggott wrote up for Cigar Aficianado.

Or finding a Coche Corton. Or visiting "that small, rundown farmhouse" in Pomerol. Or a whole host of other wines & winemaking adventures which I'll never encounter or experience.

But I don't even think about that stuff anymore.

[Well, I have to admit, for a while there, I was kinda wondering what the 2001 Montfortino Riserva is gonna taste like, if it gets released later this summer, but if it comes out at $300/$500/$1000+, then I'll never know.]

It's kinda like being a kid, and dreaming of growing up to be an astronaut, and then when you grow up, you realize that Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin may have learned what it was like to walk on the moon, but that you never will.

These days, I'm just scouring through the emails, hoping for the semi-annual 50% off sale [grabbed some Donnhoff Estates last summer, for something like $7.19, when the local gray marketeer decided to dump them], and sampling as much free wine at the tasting bar as I can get my grubby little paws on.

I completely agree that prices have gotten out of hand. I can give many examples but have no solution. There is just too much money chasing too few bottles. Yesterday I saw an offering of an new Napa vineyard... their inital Cabernet offering based on no history whatsoever was $95 a bottle. This is sheer insanity. I think the only thing to do is vote with our dollars and not pay those prices. Wine is currently very trendy and we know that the history of the wine business is the story of booms and busts. Maybe when the trend moves on to something else partial sanity will be restored. And if not, there are lots of wines that I truly enjoy that are priced within reason. I don't know what I'd do if all wines started following the top end price trends... yes I do....I'd drink a lot less wine.

Glenn

I think that you'll need to see how some of those top Cru Bojos develop with 15-20 years of bottle age before proclaiming them a "lesser" terroir. I've heard from enough people about how much like an aged Cote D'Or red they become to wonder whether there's as big a distinction as we think.

Has anyone here had a Cru Bojo as old as 15 years? I'm am all for keeping Crus a few years, several years even, but beyond that I have never tried one that is not fading.

Has anyone here had a Cru Bojo as old as 15 years? I'm am all for keeping Crus a few years, several years even, but beyond that I have never tried one that is not fading.

Steve,
I've had them as old as 22 years and they keep quite well, often becoming very much like older Burgundy.
Joe Dressner has them that old on a fairly regular basis (or so it seems) and he writes well of them.
And judging by the structure and concentration of the 2005 cru wines I've tasted, I see no reason not to cellar them long term.
Best, Jim

The buyers remorse associated with drinking Burgs at current prices really does diminish my enjoyment of the wine. For that reason I shy away from them. The good news is that I find much to enjoy among lower end producers. I have really been pleased with nearly every 2000 from the lesser Bordeaux Chateaux. Unless and until Burg and Pinot prices come back to earth I'm out of the market.

I think that you'll need to see how some of those top Cru Bojos develop with 15-20 years of bottle age before proclaiming them a "lesser" terroir. I've heard from enough people about how much like an aged Cote D'Or red they become to wonder whether there's as big a distinction as we think.

Has anyone here had a Cru Bojo as old as 15 years? I'm am all for keeping Crus a few years, several years even, but beyond that I have never tried one that is not fading.

When I was last in the region in '01, a vigneron friend-of-a-friend served us a '73 Fleurie blind. It was remarkable and quite like an aged Burgundy.

Mark Lipton

[David M. Bueker]

Not that I know for sure, but I bet the reason we don't hear much about aged Beaujolais is that the ones that do age well are a circus act and rare as hen's teeth.

I've had some older, well-cellared Cru Beaujolais myself (20+) and never had one that was remotely drinkable.