The world is changing, sure, but I guess it has changed since the time the vineyards were mapped by the monks. And yet, most of what was defined still stands.
So who’s to say that current changes are more important than the ones that have occurred these last few centuries?
Alain
What the monks and subsequent generations did was to divide the vineyards into “climats”; and in so far as the climats are defined by meaningful distinctions in exposition, mesoclimate, altitude, soil hydrology, geology and air drainage, these divisions don’t need to change. What is more questionable is how durable the appellation system—as defined between 1919 and 1943, plus tinkering since—and the hierarchy of sites it entrenched, will prove in an era of warming! My guess is that the climats, having been over a thousand years in the making, will prove a lot more resilient than the appellations, which have a history that’s only 101 years long.
That about sums it up - bravo!
Doesn’t Allen Meadows talk about how Clos de Beze has been a prized site for 1000 years or something like that. Likely won’t change anytime soon.
Given that all the excess heat (40° and more) was pre-veraison, then I don’t think that you should be surprised. During the maturation phase - august makes the must - the temperatures rarely went above 35° and were mainly lower - it was, to all intents and purposes, just a normal August/summer with no blocking of maturities - nothing in excess, though some might have liked a bit more rain now and then.
Like this year, only very rare peaks of 35 for a day, typically 30 or lower - so we’re currently heading for 20-25 August harvesting - but just a short 35°C-plus spike in august may block maturation for a time, putting the harvest back and also potentially burning through some of the acidity. We didn’t see that in august 2019 so I’m not that surprised by the pHs…
Yeah, it will make great Grenache 
It’s only in the last two years that I’ve gotten into Burgundy but man have I enjoyed Chassagne Montrachet rouge.
That’s a very smart viewpoint for the buyer living in the real world. It’s fun to debate what things should be done, but even with the best of intentions the lag between change and certification of change (changing Cru status) is a significant amount of time with lots of opportunities for the savvy enthusiast.
Per your comment about Chassagne-Montrachet Rouge, I used to buy a decent amount of this commune because it was a great value in red Burgundy for the patient person. The wines were quite lean and structured in youth, but aged incredibly well(10 year timeline). Over the past 2-3 years I’ve tasted a number of Caroline Morey’s bottles, and they definitely seem to be lovely in youth in a way that wasn’t typical 25 years ago(but still very well balanced). Whether that’s due to global warming, changes in farming, or a shift in elevage I could not say.
And for St. Aubin, the two coolest places in a vineyard are typically on the top of a hill or at the foot of it. Elevation certainly cools things off, but due to the inversion of cool air being heavier than warm air, the foot of a hill will also be quite a bit cooler.
As per usual, great post.
That jibes with what I’ve seen on a single generational basis in Oregon. While climate change is long term, vintage variation gives a view to site personality that will have significant overlap with a slower more permanent increase in heat. There should be a Venn diagram with hot vintages and global warming where the warmest current vintages should give us insight into what the “average” vintage in a future warmer world would look like.
The sites should be resilient, but they will also be able to take advantage of the knowledge currently being gleaned from places like California and the Willamette Valley, later ripening clones for example, that won’t summarily alter their terroir but will insulate them against increases in heat. Not unlike the Willamette Valley recognizing in the late 1980s that the Chardonnay clones from California originally planted in the Valley ripened too late for the weather pattern back then, and bringing in clones from Burgundy that ripened earlier(and now judiciously beginning to switch towards plantings that include both the older California clones and Burgundy clones as our weather also warms).
I just finished reading the article, after posting twice which is probably typical. As much as this is a fascinating subject that I want to know more about, this article feels like propaganda more than anything else.
A couple of points:
Kaolin clay is sprayed on vineyards, fruit and leaf, as a sunblock. Stark white, a vineyard sprayed with Kaolin clay looks like a fearful sunbather who has slathered on zinc-oxide on beyond any hope of “rubbing it in”. Does it prevent sunburn? I can not see how it could do otherwise. Does it allow for the normal maturation of skin tannins and anthocyanins? I can not possibly see how it could. It’s a blanket of dried white earth.
I literally can not think of two less invasive methods for managing a relationship with Pinot Noir. Please consider that canopy management is hand work that every vineyard requires. Not tractor work like spraying clay all over everything. Managing the vines relationship to climate and production by shaping the vine is where we moved from hunter-gatherer to farmer. And “easing up on extraction”…well, it’s hard to imagine an invasive technique called “easing up on…” I found this section in particular to be just a bunch of bullshit. After that it was hard not to see an agenda in the piece.
Debunked-1. expose the hollowness or falseness of 2. reduce the inflated reputation of, especially by ridicule
The finishing statement is a little too much Fox news for me. The author expresses solidarity with the monks and then stabs their work with his choice of words.
There was little hollowness or falseness in the delineation of Crus by the monks, and I know of no one using ridicule to shout down the Crus or their work(except this guy).
I would guess that Haut-Cote de Nuits wines will definitely get better, and are doing so now.
It’s also my guess that this article was sponsored/pushed for by someone who will financially benefit, greatly, by the re-examination and reordering of the Cru system. A system that while railed about in the opening paragraphs, has provided the owner/farmers within it’s boundaries with what is probably the greatest financial return on agriculture work in history.
What would be the motivation to have vin de merde reclassified as premier Cru or grand Cru? And perhaps fairly so, but I’d like to see that conversation with a little more data and a little less hatchet.
great post Marcus, always good when someone does the hard work of actually reading the article and pointing out where the claims actually don’t make sense LOL
I just can’t see near-term anxiety about Burgundy and climate change, at least over the next few decades. Are we supposed to be scared that we will get more vintages like 2009? Is that a problem?
Agree that in solar years 2009 and 2015, there will be many (relative!) bargains to be found among premier and village level wines as compared to grand crus. But hasn’t that always been the case for those who do the research?
I guess I always think of a change in Cru status as a negative. A change in Cru status in Burgundy would always mean only upgrading, which would mean prices would go up. In modern times in Burgundy, when have we ever seen downgrades of a Cru?
Bonnes Mares looks like being one of the elevated grand cru (hardly any 1er cru above except Barthod small Veroilles spot), I am a bit surprised it is singled out… RSV, Clos Vougeot… would look more “threatened”… or am I missing something?
(on the other hand, Arnoux-Lachaux Reignots seems to benefit…Next Romanee Conti?..))