Angelus scandal

[Jurgen_Steinke]

I think it is pretty natural that Monsieur Bouard thinks his consulting leads to a better wine and therefore to a higher grade inside the classification. Is this actually the case? This is something we can discuss until the last day of the universe.

[DougS]

This is, what, the 3rd or 4th scandal with the Saint-Émilion rankings? I think they should do away with them entirely. Let the wines and the market speak for themselves. Plus, Angélus and Pavie, two wines that no longer resemble Bordeaux, are at the top of the ranking. What nonsense.

It’s the same ongoing issue. That being said, you might not like Angelus or Pavie, but to say they don’t resemble Bordeaux is nonsense

You’re welcome to the opinion that what can be considered typical of Bordeaux has changed dramatically in the past 15-20 years. It’s certainly not nonsense to disagree, citing many decades of history before that which have defined typicity. One can point to major changes in cellar hygiene some time ago as another shift, but not every wine before then tasted like manure (or whatever else), so I would say those changes really just made the wines more consistently sound and good, without changing their fundamental character (plus it isn’t as if every estate cleaned things up as much as some). I would view the results of some of the changes in viticulture and grape selection the same way, until those changes become so extreme that the wines no longer resemble what has been thought of as archetypal Bordeaux in most of the modern era. And of course there were some very ripe wines before that recent period, but those were rare, and I don’t think any were as over the top as what these two estates now put out regularly. They were different in structure and profile.

[Keith_Levenberg]

The real scandal is how Angelus itself got promoted, not how Angelus got anyone else promoted

[Mark_Golodetz]

This is, what, the 3rd or 4th scandal with the Saint-Émilion rankings? I think they should do away with them entirely. Let the wines and the market speak for themselves. Plus, Angélus and Pavie, two wines that no longer resemble Bordeaux, are at the top of the ranking. What nonsense.

It’s the same ongoing issue. That being said, you might not like Angelus or Pavie, but to say they don’t resemble Bordeaux is nonsense

You’re welcome to the opinion that what can be considered typical of Bordeaux has changed dramatically in the past 15-20 years. It’s certainly not nonsense to disagree, citing many decades of history before that which have defined typicity. One can point to major changes in cellar hygiene some time ago as another shift, but not every wine before then tasted like manure (or whatever else), so I would say those changes really just made the wines more consistently sound and good, without changing their fundamental character (plus it isn’t as if every estate cleaned things up as much as some). I would view the results of some of the changes in viticulture and grape selection the same way, until those changes become so extreme that the wines no longer resemble what has been thought of as archetypal Bordeaux in most of the modern era. And of course there were some very ripe wines before that recent period, but those were rare, and I don’t think any were as over the top as what these two estates now put out regularly. They were different in structure and profile.

Having tasted verticals of both chateaux, I would differentiate the two. Post 1998, I have not tasted a Pavie I liked, apart from a 2006. Too formulaic, and I loathed the formula.

Angelus on the other hand does change with the vintages. It also possesses freshness, and at least half the time, the acidity is good and the wines balanced. Flavors are ripe, sometimes bordering overripe. Does it deserve to be on the same pedestal as Cheval? Clearly not. Nor is it close to there, but at least I would drink it, which is more than I can say for Pavie.

[DougS]

It’s the same ongoing issue. That being said, you might not like Angelus or Pavie, but to say they don’t resemble Bordeaux is nonsense

You’re welcome to the opinion that what can be considered typical of Bordeaux has changed dramatically in the past 15-20 years. It’s certainly not nonsense to disagree, citing many decades of history before that which have defined typicity. One can point to major changes in cellar hygiene some time ago as another shift, but not every wine before then tasted like manure (or whatever else), so I would say those changes really just made the wines more consistently sound and good, without changing their fundamental character (plus it isn’t as if every estate cleaned things up as much as some). I would view the results of some of the changes in viticulture and grape selection the same way, until those changes become so extreme that the wines no longer resemble what has been thought of as archetypal Bordeaux in most of the modern era. And of course there were some very ripe wines before that recent period, but those were rare, and I don’t think any were as over the top as what these two estates now put out regularly. They were different in structure and profile.

Having tasted verticals of both chateaux, I would differentiate the two. Post 1998, I have not tasted a Pavie I liked, apart from a 2006. Too formulaic, and I loathed the formula.

Angelus on the other hand does change with the vintages. It also possesses freshness, and at least half the time, the acidity is good and the wines balanced. Flavors are ripe, sometimes bordering overripe. Does it deserve to be on the same pedestal as Cheval? Clearly not. Nor is it close to there, but at least I would drink it, which is more than I can say for Pavie.

That’s fair, and I appreciate your perspective. I am thinking of riper vintages like 2009, where I think it would be very reasonable in a blind tasting to call Angelus a New World wine. Maybe my generalization was unfair.

[Jeff_Leve]

James-Bond-and-Chateau-Angelus-1.jpg

Lol

Yes, the producers of “Casino Royale” placed the Angelus vintage 1982, of all things, between James and Vesper during their first dinner together. Unfortunately, 1982 was a very unsuccessful year for Angelus.

FWIW, this was a choice by the producer. Angelus wanted Bond to drink 90, or 2000, but the producer said “007 would never drink a wine that young, Bond prefers 1982 Bordeaux.”

[John_Danza]

Since this sort of corruption is pretty common in France, and considered the cost of doing business, he must have ticked someone off for them to call it out. If the French wanted to eliminate any potential impropriety, they wouldn’t have anyone involved in the industry doing the classifications.

[Jeff_Leve]

I think it is pretty natural that Monsieur Bouard thinks his consulting leads to a better wine and therefore to a higher grade inside the classification. Is this actually the case? This is something we can discuss until the last day of the universe.

Unless you taste all the wines, it is difficult to have a discussion. I think I am the only poster that tastes the entire portfolio of de Bouard consulted wines yearly, though Panos might taste them all as well.

For the record, off the top of my head, I see improvements across the board in his portfolio of consulted wines, headed by Meyney, Lanessan, de Pressac, Grand Puy Ducasse, Montlabert, Laroze and de Ferrand, Siran, and Maillet in Pomerol. He advises clients in every major appellation.

[Jeff_Leve]

The real scandal is how Angelus itself got promoted, not how Angelus got anyone else promoted

Angelus is not at the level of Cheval Blanc or Ausone. But over the past 20 years, which is what the wines were based on covering 1992-2012, it is safe to say Angelus was clearly above all the other Premier Classe B wines.

[Jeff_Leve]

This is, what, the 3rd or 4th scandal with the Saint-Émilion rankings? I think they should do away with them entirely. Let the wines and the market speak for themselves. Plus, Angélus and Pavie, two wines that no longer resemble Bordeaux, are at the top of the ranking. What nonsense.

It’s the same ongoing issue. That being said, you might not like Angelus or Pavie, but to say they don’t resemble Bordeaux is nonsense

You’re welcome to the opinion that what can be considered typical of Bordeaux has changed dramatically in the past 15-20 years. It’s certainly not nonsense to disagree, citing many decades of history before that which have defined typicity.

Then 98% of Bordeaux no longer resembles Bordeaux to you, if that is your criteria. Almost all of Bordeaux has changed, and while it does not resemble the Bordeaux of previous generations, that is always what has taken place. The same comments were made about 1959, 1982, 1989, 2000, 2005, 2009, 2015, 2018, 2020 etc. I cannot argue with you if you say you no longer like it. That is your view. But saying it does not resemble Bordeaux is nonsense. This is what Bordeaux does today.

[Robert.A.Jr]

It’s the same ongoing issue. That being said, you might not like Angelus or Pavie, but to say they don’t resemble Bordeaux is nonsense

You’re welcome to the opinion that what can be considered typical of Bordeaux has changed dramatically in the past 15-20 years. It’s certainly not nonsense to disagree, citing many decades of history before that which have defined typicity.

Then 98% of Bordeaux no longer resembles Bordeaux to you, if that is your criteria. Almost all of Bordeaux has changed, and while it does not resemble the Bordeaux of previous generations, that is always what has taken place. The same comments were made about 1959, 1982, 1989, 2000, 2005, 2009, 2015, 2018, 2020 etc. I cannot argue with you if you say you no longer like it. That is your view. But saying it does not resemble Bordeaux is nonsense. This is what Bordeaux does today.

Yea, I don’t agree here at all. Pavie and Angelus are poster-children of the modern/Rolland movement away from typicity. These wines do not resemble Bordeaux at all in my view. And I am not alone here. I personally think they are abominations. I’ve had the 2000 and 2005 yet again this past year - granted I took a few sips, turned my nose up and moved on - but it just reconfirms my view that these wines are neither good nor representative of classic Bordeaux.

[Robert.A.Jr]

It’s the same ongoing issue. That being said, you might not like Angelus or Pavie, but to say they don’t resemble Bordeaux is nonsense

You’re welcome to the opinion that what can be considered typical of Bordeaux has changed dramatically in the past 15-20 years. It’s certainly not nonsense to disagree, citing many decades of history before that which have defined typicity.

Then 98% of Bordeaux no longer resembles Bordeaux to you, if that is your criteria. Almost all of Bordeaux has changed, and while it does not resemble the Bordeaux of previous generations, that is always what has taken place. The same comments were made about 1959, 1982, 1989, 2000, 2005, 2009, 2015, 2018, 2020 etc. I cannot argue with you if you say you no longer like it. That is your view. But saying it does not resemble Bordeaux is nonsense. This is what Bordeaux does today.

At least we agree on a real Bordeaux, that 2005 Montrose!

[Arv_R]

For those of you who have tasted lots of Angelus, what is your favorite vintage?

[J_Slawney]

My favorite vintage of Angelus is 1990. But I have had wonderful experiences with Angelus 1989, 95, 98, 00, and even the 09. For me, Angelus is more refined, pure and balanced than Pavie, so I have a difficult time lumping them together. Some vintages of Angelus (I am thinking especially of the 95) even have an almost classic style.

[Jeff_Leve]

You’re welcome to the opinion that what can be considered typical of Bordeaux has changed dramatically in the past 15-20 years. It’s certainly not nonsense to disagree, citing many decades of history before that which have defined typicity.

Then 98% of Bordeaux no longer resembles Bordeaux to you, if that is your criteria. Almost all of Bordeaux has changed, and while it does not resemble the Bordeaux of previous generations, that is always what has taken place. The same comments were made about 1959, 1982, 1989, 2000, 2005, 2009, 2015, 2018, 2020 etc. I cannot argue with you if you say you no longer like it. That is your view. But saying it does not resemble Bordeaux is nonsense. This is what Bordeaux does today.

Yea, I don’t agree here at all. Pavie and Angelus are poster-children of the modern/Rolland movement away from typicity. These wines do not resemble Bordeaux at all in my view. And I am not alone here. I personally think they are abominations. I’ve had the 2000 and 2005 yet again this past year - granted I took a few sips, turned my nose up and moved on - but it just reconfirms my view that these wines are neither good nor representative of classic Bordeaux.

Really? I am shocked you think this way

It is funny because I think the majority of people sharing that view are all posters on this board. Not that it matters what others think, because it doesn’t. There is no substitute for personal taste.

[DougS]

Then 98% of Bordeaux no longer resembles Bordeaux to you, if that is your criteria. Almost all of Bordeaux has changed, and while it does not resemble the Bordeaux of previous generations, that is always what has taken place. The same comments were made about 1959, 1982, 1989, 2000, 2005, 2009, 2015, 2018, 2020 etc. I cannot argue with you if you say you no longer like it. That is your view. But saying it does not resemble Bordeaux is nonsense. This is what Bordeaux does today.

Yea, I don’t agree here at all. Pavie and Angelus are poster-children of the modern/Rolland movement away from typicity. These wines do not resemble Bordeaux at all in my view. And I am not alone here. I personally think they are abominations. I’ve had the 2000 and 2005 yet again this past year - granted I took a few sips, turned my nose up and moved on - but it just reconfirms my view that these wines are neither good nor representative of classic Bordeaux.

Really? I am shocked you think this way

It is funny because I think the majority of people sharing that view are all posters on this board.

That’s not even close to true. Neither is your 98% number. You have to really misinterpret what I’m saying to get to that conclusion.

[Craig_G]

For those of you who have tasted lots of Angelus, what is your favorite vintage?

I shouldn’t answer because I haven’t tasted a lot, but my favorite is the 1994 for two reasons:

1. It’s a gorgeous 94
2. It’s the one I have

Given how good this wine is, I am a little frightened of what it would be like in a ripe vintage.

[B_Davies]

Lol

Yes, the producers of “Casino Royale” placed the Angelus vintage 1982, of all things, between James and Vesper during their first dinner together. Unfortunately, 1982 was a very unsuccessful year for Angelus.

FWIW, this was a choice by the producer. Angelus wanted Bond to drink 90, or 2000, but the producer said “007 would never drink a wine that young, Bond prefers 1982 Bordeaux.”

I thought Bond prefers everything young… lol. <_<

[Mark_Golodetz]

It’s the same ongoing issue. That being said, you might not like Angelus or Pavie, but to say they don’t resemble Bordeaux is nonsense

You’re welcome to the opinion that what can be considered typical of Bordeaux has changed dramatically in the past 15-20 years. It’s certainly not nonsense to disagree, citing many decades of history before that which have defined typicity.

Then 98% of Bordeaux no longer resembles Bordeaux to you, if that is your criteria. Almost all of Bordeaux has changed, and while it does not resemble the Bordeaux of previous generations, that is always what has taken place. The same comments were made about 1959, 1982, 1989, 2000, 2005, 2009, 2015, 2018, 2020 etc. I cannot argue with you if you say you no longer like it. That is your view. But saying it does not resemble Bordeaux is nonsense. This is what Bordeaux does today.

Serious hyperbole here. Certainly not the whole of Bordeaux, that is nonsense.

You might just get away that saying most Saint Emilions are made in the Angelus/Pavie style, but few are that extreme, and some such as Troplong Mondot are coming back from the precipice. I see worrying signs in Graves, but that is it. Most of Bordeaux taste nothing like Pavie and Angelus, and Cabernet is less susceptible to the kind of extreme winemaking than Merlot is. And while I said some nice things about Angelus, I don’t love the wine, and hope that it too, will reverse course.

[Jurgen_Steinke]

Jeff,

I mentioned a general point. My experience of tasting and talking about wines over the last 30 years is: what is better or worse is only true for you or me and a few others. Never for everyone. We talk about personal taste. People around my table agree and disagree with me all the time while tasting the same wine. We will (almost) never have a uniform opinion.