Here’s the thing about Clos Vougeot, though. It’s easy to say the plots on the bottom are inferior and not grand cru quality. But they weren’t traditionally sold on their own. They were sold as part of a blend of the entire vineyard (notwithstanding reports of the monks saving some juice from the choice sections to bottle for themselves). And as part of that blend they made up what was the most esteemed vineyard in Burgundy by many measures, surely worthy of being called grand cru. Because the ownership is fractured, we don’t consider the possibility any longer that they might not be grand cru-quality on their own but still vital ingredients of a grand cru whole. But as long as that’s still the case they ought to retain the classification. And if a talented producer wants to buy some plots from all over and blend them together in the fashion of the Clos Vougeot of yore, it would be ridiculous to say they could not call the result Grand Cru Clos Vougeot when it would be, in every sense, truer to the historic Grand Cru Clos Vougeot than any of the other bottlings out there.
I also wonder if the fuss about position on the hill might not be overstated. I know there is the issue of flooding on the very bottom, but the most remarkable thing you notice when you are actually standing in front of the vineyard is that the grade is so subtle it looks almost flat. Calling it a hill at all is a rather grandiose overstatement…
Keith, I second your thoughts here, FWIW. In that evaluating that vineyard, we have to keep in mind many things (more so than the other grand crus). It was once an entire, walled vineyard. The AOC rates vineyards, not wines. As far as I can tell, all the land within the Clos Vougeot was inside the walls when the walls were first put there. Yes, some plots are more capable of making great wine than others; and some winemakers making CV are more capable of making great wine than others. I think in the AOC, deference has always been paid to the traditional boundaries of a vineyard. And, where they were walled and the site at issue was within the walls/ traditional site when it was one owner, they should be included. In every vineyard that is fractured, since the Revolution and its consequences, some plots are inferior and others superior. The “problem” is that in some cases: Echezaux, Clos de la Roche come to mind, the traditional boundaries expanded to include those not traditionally included in that great vineyard. But, the walls generally have been honored as boundaries in the grand crus. (I’m sure some parts of the DRC monopoles are inferior, too.) And, I buy your argument. As is the case almost everywhere in Burgundy, producer can trump vineyard plot…and in evaluating that the two can become confused. So, it is the areas the Cistercians picked out to wall…or to honor that the AOC has and, IMO, should honor. If the site was historically a component of a blended grand cru…it should remain. Otherwise, it is gerrymandering…in the political sense.
I sense, FWIW, that the Rugiens’ accession is a long way off, if it ever comes. It would be extremly ironic to me to see Pommard’s best be grand cru and there remain none in Nuits, and I have to think the AOC folks would struggle with that…and that the result might be the status quo. But, it will be interesting.
Cool stuff. Is anyone making this historic tradional blend these days? I wonder because if this is not the case, due to the selling off and inheritence of plots, perhaps this this helps to explain why there’s so much inferrior Vougeot product.
How does this occur without being commercially and/or politically motivated? The vineyard has been there a long time. It didn’t suddenly improve, or was the consensus on it’s potential wrong for all this time? If the cru ratings are based on the vineyard’s potential, what has changed? Is the idea that this corrects an oversight that lasted for decades? Getting into that could easily become a slippery slope. How this gets done without smelling funny, I don’t know.
Over the next century it seems entirely possible that the climate crisis underway could truly alter Burgundy. However it doesn’t seem we are quite there yet, at least not to point of being able to make reliable reassessments based on a new and clearly different track record. A move of this kind does not exactly inspire confidence in the integrity of the original AOC process or that the people involved with this change really, truly believe in the immutability of terroir.
Ned – People have talked of their promotion for decades and decades, it’s not as though the quality has suddenly been perceived as higher than before. The application is indeed commercially and/or politically motivated, as in fact was the original decision not to apply.* Ditto for Clos des Lambrays, La Grande Rue, and the pending application for Les Saint-Georges, and the lack of applications for Amoureuses and Clos St-Jacques, for that matter.
Indeed, the whole concept of AOCs is commercially/politically motivated.
Back in the 1980s, I asked Virgile Pothier, who had plots in both Rugiens and Epenots, if he favored an application for grand cru status, and he replied that he did not because he could produce 40 hl/ha if it was premier cru and only 35 hl/ha if it was grand cru. That mentality may seem strange to you, but it still exists in some quarters of Burgundy today and was more prevalent in past times (in part because the price differential between premier cru and grand cru is much wider today than it was back then).
Henri Gouges’s rationale for not seeking grand cru status for Les Saint-Georges is well known: he didn’t want to seem to be elevating himself above those neighbors who didn’t own any LSG.
The Comte de Moucheron, who at the time of the AOC’s creation was the monopole owner of Clos St-Jacques, didn’t seek grand cru status because he was opposed to the concept of AOCs.
Claude,
I have been aware of “backroom” discussions regarding cru designations going on over the years but not the details so much. My point is to highlight the glaring inconsistency of what the AOC purports to be (location, location, location, terroir, terroir, terroir) for both actual wine “quality” and also marketing purposes, and these totally unrelated commercial and political considerations. Naturally, those contradictions have always existed to various degrees, but in the past, when transparency and media communication were much less and far slower, this kind of “inside baseball” stuff barely emerged from region. I guess I just get uncomfortable with the rather blatant nature of the “sausage making” going on with this when we’re constantly told that in Burgundy, terroir is sacrosanct.
What did the Comte de Moucheron prefer or what exactly did he object to? The AOCs were instituted in the 30s right? How was it before? Weren’t vineyards ranked before? The AOC set down numerous rules designed to insure integrity and consistency right?
I wonder if there hasn’t been as much of a push for properties like Amoureuses and Clos St-Jacques because they like putting words like Musigny (as in Chambolle-Musigny) and Chambertin (Gevrey-Chambertin) on the label.
Ned – If I’ve known in the past what the Comte de Moucheron’s reasoning was, I’ve forgotten it. He wasn’t the only one to object to the new system. I believe the head of Bouchard Aîné et Fils went to jail for disregarding the new system.
The AOCs began in 1936, following many years of lobbying, led by the likes of the Marquis d’Angerville in Volnay and Baron Le Roy of Château Fortia in Châteauneuf-du-Pape who were concerned that fraudulent wines were being sold under labels such as Volnay and Châteauneuf.
Prior to then, vineyards were ranked by writers such as Rodier and Lavalle, but they had no official standing. As far as I know, anyone could put “grand cru” on a bottle of Burgundy. After that, you only were supposed to be able to do it if your wine came from a designated grand cru vineyard and met other requirements, such as minimum natural alcohol. Curiously, though, although Clos des Lambrays was not recognized as a grand cru until 1981, “grand cru” always appeared on the labels before then and the INAO took no action to stop it.
There’s a lot of interesting stuff that I might research starting next year when I have more time.
There are definitely some producers who have holdings in different parts of the vineyard (as you can see from the map in Matt Kramer’s book and one of the more recent ones as well - Jasper Morris’s?), but it certainly doesn’t appear that any of them cover nearly enough ground for their wines to approximate what you’d get from the vineyard as originally constituted.
I’m a Volnay guy through and through, and I can certainly see someone arguing for Caillerets or maybe Clos des Ducs, but yes, I think Rugiens is more worthy. Given my tastes, I’d often rather drink the Volnay, but a great Rugiens is pretty serious stuff.
The thing is, while Burgundy certainly isn’t about weight, in a grand cru I expect a certain amount of midpalate density, depth of fruit, and the like. As beautiful as a great Clos St. Jacques can be, you can see how it’s lacking compared with a great Chambertin, it just doesn’t have as much depth. Volnay Caillerets is one of my favorite vineyards, but as much as I love the unique combination of elegance and minerality, I’m not sure it has grand cru depth. I don’t think of that as a fault, I love 1ers, and absolutely love that vineyard. But a serious Rugiens is a very deep wine. Even a Volnay guy like me is usually impressed.
Mr. Cooper is on to something. So if Rugiens becomes a Grand Cru, it will be called “Rugiens” and if the village appends the grand cru name, village wines will be known as “Pommard-Rugiens”, right?
I’ve never been convinced…even temporarily…that CSJ is not as Robert describes. In most cases, I don’t think it has as much depth and class as a good Mazis, in fact.
It is important to keep the distinction between the vineyard/land/terroir and the producer. Because Rousseau makes a CSJ that many feel is “grand cru” level: I don’t; I think it is mainly because of all the new oak (and that their Mazy is inherently a more complete wine) and the way Charles Rousseau extolled it…it is important not to extrapolate.
That’s why the traditional views…when the vineyards were all owned by one entity…and,t herefore, the producer was not as big of a variable, hold great sway…and should.
I’m also not sure that most people are saying much of anything when they call a particular wine “of grand cru quality”…other than that they’re impressed with that wine. When I read that, it tells me almost nothing more. And, I try not to use it, as I don’t know that I am saying anything meaningful about the vineyard…or the wine. Again, sounding like a skeptic, I doubt anyone posting here… or doing a tasting journal “professionally”…really have enough information to be able to offer credible opinions on vineyard upgrades/downgrades. There’s a lot more than tasting bottles from more recent vintages, from selected producers. I know I certainly have no such qualification…and, other than from reading Jasper Morris’ book, maybe…have no faith in any other writer’s opinions on that subject: for the most part their information/focus is too restricted…of necessity or choice.
Of course, there are politics involved in classification…even in those cases where some vineyard deserved higher status, but the owner thwarted it…for real…or apocryphal…reasons. Politics is what such choices are about, by definition.
A small part. So how’s that relevant? What about Monts Luisants, part of which is Clos de la Roche, part of which is Morey village? Or Combe d’Orveaux, part of which is Chambolle village, part of which is Musigny? Do you think Musigny and Clos de la Roche that come from Combe d’ Orveaux or Monts Luisants, respectively, are tainted because another part of the climat is village? Or is it possible that people knew what they were doing when they drew the boundaries?
Robert, I really find it hard to believe that you really think Rugiens is better than Amoureuses and CSJ. Decent wine, top premier cru, but nowhere near the quality of Amoureuses, which would be in my top half of Grand Crus, and CSJ which would probably be in the middle. That is not to say Rugiens is not capable of making an excellent wine, but something really as profound as the other two, never had, and doubt whether I ever will.
I havnt had nearly as much Rugiens and Amoureues as I have had CSJ but I think I’d agree with him (that they are about equal, not that Rugiens is better). Of course we all have our subconcious biases so it would interesting to test this with blind tasting.
According to Jasper Morris’ book, the Comte de Moucheron, who owned all of CSJ at the time, was not too interested in the AOC concept, had lots of other business interests and was a flamboyant spender, but not very popular with his fellow vineyard owners. When the meeting came to vote on the PC v. GC designatons, he was outside smoking. Since he was not present, no one nominated CSJ for GC status, despite the fact many apparently thought it deserved such. Several years thereafter the Comte was forced to sell and the five families who own it now (Rousseau, Jadot, Fourrier, Esmonin and Clair) got together quietly and bought equal sized blocks that run from top to bottom, in theory making the quality of each parcel equal.
![[popcorn.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/1/1ca9f29573458cca2424a66a50d6c1261081dd3e.gif "[popcorn.gif]"){kind=small}