Grand Cru generally is about terroir and its capability to produce superior wines (to 1er Cru and Village sites).
That doesn´t mean that every Grand Cru (from every producer) has to be - and will be - superior to all 1er Crus – and less so in all vintages.
Corton-Charlemagne is a (too) large vineyard (70+ ha). We can argue if the later added plots on the Western end of Pernand-Vergelesses and the Eastern plots in Ladoix and Aloxe are really on the same level as the center of Le Charlemagne and En Charlemagne … so I´m talking about the latter only.
I´ve had exciting CC wines from producers like Faiveley, Leroy, Rapet, Bouchard P&F, Jadot, L.Latour, Boillot and others, also BdMartray, not to speak of Coche-Dury, so there is no doubt that great wines can be produced. I also had disapointing ones, but the same applies to all five GCs from Puligny/Chassagne, too.
Sure the character of a CC is quite different from a Batard- or Bienvenue-, more so from a Chevalier- or Montrachet per se, but I would say that the fine examples definitely merit their Grand Crus status – and also Batard-, Bienvenue and even Montrachet itself can be quite variable … and if Criots-Batard is really GRC remains questionable …
There are also some 1er Crus in Puligny, Chassagne (less) and even Meursault which now and then produce GC quality …
When people are discussing Corton Charlemagne in comparison of other grand crus, are you comparing CC to Montrachet and Chevalier Montrachet or to Criots-Bâtard-Montrachet and Bienvenues-Bâtard-Montrachet?
Should vineyards like Clos de la Roche and Chapelle Chambertin (and others) not be grand crus because most of the wines are not as good as Romanee Conti, la Tache and Musigny? [Please note that I picked Clos de la Roche and Chapelle to make my point specifically because I think they are clearly grand cru vineyards.]
And you, like many people on the board, have had more experience with these wines than I have, which is why I asked the question. Still, your analogy seems to me unfair: across the Batards, Chevaliers and Montrachets that I’ve had (less experience with BBM and CBM, and not that much even with the former), a difference in quality from the vast run of 1er’s is discernible. Of course, there are exceptions in both cases…but the question isn’t really asking about producer but vineyard.
BTW, on that score, is Chapelle so clearly a GC vineyard? CDLR, of course, but I though there was a sense that it did not usually perform quite as well as the big boys.
I think Chapelle is a grand cru vineyard based on wines I have had from the vineyard from Jadot and Rossignol-Trapet. But I don’t really care. I care about whether the prices I pay for wines from this or any other vineyard (taking into account vintage, producer, age of vines, etc., etc.) are a relatively good value compared with prices from other combinations of vintage, vineyard, producer, age of vines, etc., etc.
One clearly could create new categories and limit grand cru whites to Montrachet and Chevalier Montrachet and reds to Romanee Conti, la Tache, Richebourg, Romanee St. Vivant, la Romanee, Grand Echezeaux, Musigny, Chamberin and Clos de Beze, or limit it even further.
My real point is that your comparison and the comparison of others of Corton Charlemagne just to Montrachet and Chevalier is too limited if Corton Charlemagne (or Chapelle Chambertin for that matter) is comparable in quality to other grand crus (BBM and CBM on the one hand and Echezeaux, Charmes Chambertin, Clos des Lambrays, Clos du Tart, Ruchottes Chambertin, Corton, Les Grand Rue and others on the other hand). Based on the original question, I could ask whether Batard Montrachet should be a grand cru because it is not on the level of Montrachet and Chevalier Montrachet. In fact, are there any Batard Montrachets selling for the price of Coche Corton Charlemagnes?
Should there be any grand crus in Chablis?
Do note that I am NEVER in favor of upgrading the classification of any vineyard (and would be happy to see any vineyard reduced in classification) as moving a vineyard up in classification makes the prices go up - not in my interest. I doubt that the vines in Meursault Perrieres for example feel inferior because they are classified as a premier cru. I don’t doubt that producers and retailers would like the prices of wines from this vineyard to go up.
I would say “yes”. Sure, outside Coche & Co it doesn’t reach the heights of great Montrachet, but there’s plenty of Batard and Criots that is no better than a decent CC. I tend to find relatively consistently that CC has added intensity and potential complexity over most good Puligny 1ers.
Well, no one could really argue with this, Howard,
When it comes to purchasing individual bottles of wine. I guess you just don’t get the spirit of my question, which is fine. I myself don’t want new classifications, just curious in respect to the existing ones about some admittedly broad comparisons. Batard, to take your example, stands out generally enough in my mind to merit its status, even if the best straight up Montrachets often may be better. Just trying to piece this Burgundy thing together, as my interests change, as best I can, from my own perspective, which may be different from yours, but I don’t think warrants denunciation for all that. (I myself feel like I have learned a good amount for this thread, which was my aim.)
Had a 2016 Louis Latour Corton Charlemagne last Thur and it was really delicious, significantly better than the 1er Crus and worthy of a Grand title IMO. Btw, has anyone tried the LL Montrachet? Would they hold their own among other Montrachets?
Again, is Corton Charlemagne a lesser terroir than BBM and CBM. Again, you seem to be singling out CC based on the top grand crus rather than based on all grand crus. If you make a distinction between the top grand crus and all others (Corton Charlemagne is not in a class by itself in either red or white) by definition you are calling for a massive change in classification requiring an additional level of wines. Maybe that is warranted (look at prices) but I cannot see reclassifying CC because it isn’t as good as Montrachet without reclassifying a whole bunch of other vineyards. Grand crus, whether red or white, are not of uniform quality.
Howard,
I respect your wide knowledge and experience about wines that come from places I care about like Burgundy and Italy, but this “conversation” does not seem to me a very good use of my time, and probably not yours. I didn’t speak about BBM and CBM, to be honest, because I have virtually no experience with them; from what I’ve read on this board, both seem often to offer serious GC experiences. Maybe this concept (of GC, or a GC experience), is, by your lights, too broad, so broad as to be entirely unworkable. Fair enough; if you just said that, it would save everyone time, and there was never any requirement that you enter the discussion in the first place. Still, it’s ludicrous to claim:
If you make a distinction between the top grand crus and all others (Corton Charlemagne is not in a class by itself in either red or white) by definition you are calling for a massive change in classification requiring an additional level of wines.
My concern, after all, was that CC might be in a class by itself, that was the gist of the original question. So, too, I was really not doing anything “by definition” other than what I said, especially as I stated I had no new classifications in mind, that this was not at what my remarks aimed.
Perhaps, then, we should put this one to bed, especially as it seems to me one of us needs more sleep.
Well, way back when the INAO said:
Village
1er Cru
Grand Cru
And how much of it had to do with proximity, politics, who was making nice and who was making naughty in the day?
To pull an example out of Bordeaux, in 1855 Lanessan refused to submit samples, their basic positions being: “We’re so tired of this, every other year some poobahs ask for still more samples for still another classification, and they all mean nothing the week after they are released”. That didn’t work out right for them.
Of course this is different, it’s dirt, not producers. But where do you draw the line? Is Criots really GC while Puligny Pucelles is not? While I’m at it, I find it curious that a number of posters have mentioned Puligny 1er Crus that they find potentially worthy, when I think Meursault Perrieres is generally the most expensive 1er Cru white Burg, and within my long but limited tasting experience, probably the best.
Anyway, they sliced and diced into three categories. And that ain’t gonna change tomorrow. Everybody gets to decide how they deal with it.
I agree that CC covers a lot of ground… maybe too much. But I also believe that with good husbandry, vinification and elevage most if not all of the dirt within CC can producer great wine.
I have found myself buying quite a bit of CC recently. I love its minerality and its shape.
And there are still a few that fit into my euphemistic ‘budget’.
’
Corton Charlemagne can produce great wines - generally quality level was high but at times a bit variable.
Coche 99 was WOTN unanimously for the group - fortunately and unfortunately (truly great wine but for my money not necessarily “market” value great)
Some wines in the ~20 year age bracket seemed a lot younger than their age might suggest (Bonneau Martray 99, Boillot 00, Coche 99 etc.)
There were some good value stand-outs for me in the form of mainly Jadot 12, Pierre Vincent Girardin 17 while other more lauded producers fell a bit short of expectations (Meo Camuzet, Bonneau du Martray maybe)
A well aged champagne can give some top whites a run for the money - hand on heart I would have traded in another glass of DP96 over quite a few of the Corton Charlemagnes for my personal preference
Probably I personally lean more towards seeking out Puligny / Chassagne 1er cru at similar price points over some of the Corton Charlemagnes
John - I had the '06 LL Montrachet just a couple of weeks ago, and it was good - particularly for the vintage. Not as good as a Carillon '05 BBM preceding, but a fine Montrachet nonetheless.
As others have said, Corton-Charlemagne is more chiseled and mineral, and pulls off that style better than any other site in the Cote - clearly a top grand cru. If you like Chevalier better than Batard, then Corton-Charlemagne is for you. (If you’d probably rather be drinking riesling, then Corton-Charlemagne is definitely the Burgundy cru for you.) Premox has messed with people’s notions of what white Burgundy can and should be, but some of the best Burgundies I’ve had of either color have been Corton-Charlemagne.
I admit to a sentimental soft spot for CC, as one of them was the bottle that opened up the world of white burgundy to me (rather quirkily, the 1995 Doudet-Naudin bottling). That said, the 2015 Meo CC was my WOTY last year and, tried again this year, is in the list again. Last year, I think in the Montrachet/Chevy/Batard/BBM category I only tried the 01 Drouhin Marquis de Laguiche (which was good, but not the equal of the Meo). For me, minerality and often an intriguing trace of salinity can be hallmarks of an enjoyable CC for me. Bouchard and Girardin are other producers I’ve enjoyed—haven’t had a Coche in a long, long time and no recent Boillot, PYCM, etc.