Raj is making a point to help make a guess when tasting blind. This is not a fact about all wines from all producers. I agree it may help make a guess when tasting blind.
Producer, producer, producer. That are great ones and crappy ones in both villages.
Given that the discussion is about village terroir and how it translates into wine characteristics, your comment, while elementary, is superfluous.
As regards Meursault, this was addressed by Dominique Lafon in an interview I may have had something to do with.
This is an interesting question, and I think underlines the extent to which the distinctive profiles that we identify with the wines of the different villages are the outcome of human culture overlayed on the climats.
Traditionally, élevage was long in Meursault because cellars are deep and cool; in Puligny, the water table is high so there are no deep cellars, élevage is shorter and often concluded in tank (Virot at Leflaive started doing that in the 1920s I believe, though some refer to it today as the “Roulot method”). In Chassagne, the tradition was to prune in cordon, making for smaller berries with less juice than the Guyot pruning in Puligny. Meursault was often more reductive, with more lees-stirring (Pierre Morey arguably made the Leflaive wines in the image of Meursault). Add to that sort of thing the influence of negociants who had an idea of appellations such as Puligny, Meursault, Pommard etc and blended accordingly to make the wines conform to consumer expectations. Today, winemaking practices vary as much within villages as between them, as do viticultural techniques, and instead of big négociant bottlings our idea of the identity of Meursault, Puligny etc are shaped by small cuvées from producers that tend to reflect the identity of a lieu-dit more than any hypothetical “average” of the village.
Jean-Marie Guffens likes to say that the irony of the AOC system is that it cuts north-south, whereas the terroir changes east-west up and down the slope. It’s a glib remark but there’s a lot of truth to it.
I am not aware of anyone referring to the time in tank alone as the “Roulot method,” but perhaps you are aware of such references.
William thanks for weighing in. This explains why Meursault is now more mineral driven (with shorter elevage and “roulot method”). But then why has Puligny then become more opulent with more body and flesh? Has wine making changed there over time?
Jon Bonné does so, most notably in his article on “Post-Premox” https://www.wineandspiritsmagazine.com/news/entry/post-premox
To clarify, it is not an expression I would use myself, but I adverted it as folks may have heard the term of late.
I think it’s more that Meursault has changed but Puligny has stayed the same. But it’s hard to generalize. Leflaive’s 2017s, made by Pierre Vincent, at the leanest, most minimalist wines I’ve tried from them during élevage, when one considers the vintage at least. Whereas François Carillon’s wines are pretty rich and gourmand. And looking at Meursault, you can find everything from Buisson-Charles to Ente or Roulot. The point that I was making above was really more that the factors that gave a certain unity to the wines from a given village have broken down in Burgundy and now one has to think of climat and producer, not generalize about village. Which should hopefully lead to some deeper reflection on the nature of terroir than are as yet commonplace.
Fascinating take. And really puts the notion of terroir varying across such relatively small geographic spans in jeopardy.
Good one William!
That’s certainly a good citation on your part of a writer’s usage, if not a good use of the term by the writer.
Subu thank you for pointing me to the book; I enjoyed reading the excerpts on Amazon and will pick up a copy
We’ll have to start a thread to develop those reflections!