Its well known the Faiveley house style started changing to a more approachable style in 2007. Per the article below, it sounds like the transition to the new house style was complete in 2012. Article link:
I was wondering three things about the new style:
What is the production change that allows for more approachable style? As simple as eliminating oak?
Will the time required to pick up tertiary characteristics be drastically reduced in the new style? Or will the wines not last as long, ergo never be able to pick up those same characteristics?
How will the newer/approachable style taste on an aged basis, vs. the older style on an aged basis? Same destination, but with less time required to reach? Or a different destination altogether?
Hi Shan,
The major difference is the change of barrels from Remond to Francois Freres. Also a more gentle extraction which means softer tannins. The wines are now more approachable at young age, but will age the same. There is nothing which says that hard tannin wines age better than softer ones. On top of everything the work in the vineyards are now much more carefully done. The wines are superb from 2007 and onward. 2017 was fantastic from barrel a month ago.
More gentle extraction is the salient point, cooperage doesn’t have much to do with it. FWIW, Faiveley is also one of Taransaud’s biggest clients in Burgundy.
The change was pretty much effected in 2007: the wines immediately became more supple, without the firm structuring tannins that took so long to melt in the Faiveley wines of yesteryear. After 2007 there was gradual evolution, not revolution. From 2007 on, the fruit is purer, without the earthy, cedary quality that was common in François’ wines, and while the wines of today do carry quite a lavish framing of wood, I don’t think they are any less complex. Indeed, arguably distinctions of site are articulated better under the new regime, as in the old era one chewy Faiveley wine could be much like another.
I did a vertical of Clos des Cortons earlier this year and can report that all the vintages from 2007 on are aging just fine, so I don’t think there’s any need to be concerned about longevity.
Thank you for the thoughts William. If I may ask, when you find the more recent vintages to be lacking an earthy quality – this suggests a bigger impact than just softer tannins, no? And if I may ask, how are you able to find them as complex if they are less earthy. I may be reading too much into your earthy commentary, as I wasn’t sure if that was a separate descriptor away from the cedar note.
There’s a great I’ll Drink To That podcast where Levi interviews Erwan Faiveley. He speaks very openly about the changes they made and the reasoning behind them. One interesting thing I learned was that the hard style at Faiveley was more a feature of his father than his grandfather. You will see a lot of positive comments on Faiveley from the 60s and earlier and I had always assumed the wines just took that long to come around. It may be that those wines were really better, though.
Faiveley wines from the mid-60s through 78 were fabulous. My father sold these wines and they were among the earliest great Burgundies I had. The 1971 Latricieres Chambertin was excellent from around 1980 or so.