TNs: 2004 Ch. Pontet Canet, 2003 Joguet Clos de la Dioterie

My understanding is that they get his input on the blending, though he doesn’t “do” the blending. I think his role at Pontet Canet is actually as a consultant. Which may be why I still like Pontet Canet

Is there an official guide to Rolland that defines when his input is benign, and when it rises to the level of Voldemort?

I think that’s more of an Alfert question. neener

But more seriously, I don’t think of Pontet Canet as at all “modern”, but rather as experimental. I don’t buy new Bordeaux anymore because I like mine older and there’s no reason to from a price perspective, but if I did, it would be one of them.

But even what you’re doing is not necessarily the norm. At least in litigation/bankruptcy. I know many partners at many firms who haven’t drafted a pleading in years. They know the tactics, know how to build and present a case, and know how to generate leverage for their client, but either aren’t great writers or have associates who are better writers. Or see any number of companies that bring in Rusty Hardin to try their cases after other firms build and tee up the thing. Rolland has made a ton of wineries a ton of money, and his blending is probably a big part of that. He’s the “sure bet”, and I’d be willing to bet that he agrees to cater to a winery “vision.”

As an aside, have you ever done a blending event with real decent wine? We had an Andy Erickson deal at Grailey’s where he brought a ton of barrel samples of various wines that he uses in his Leviathan blend. We were in groups of five or so and tasked with coming up the “best” blend. I’ll just leave it at “it’s difficult” and that our table got into a lively debate over proportions that resulted in a vote between the two factions. My side lost the vote to my own Dad’s side, our table’s wine did not win the blend, I have not let my Dad live it down (like 8 years later).

This is his role at a great many estates – maybe the majority of the ones he lists as clients

I never said I do commodity work!

:wink:

I’d think leverage were the issue rather than commodity :slight_smile:

Too much leverage, like everyone using Rolland instead of establishing their own imprimatur, nets ubiquity. More money, perhaps, if that’s the thing.

:slight_smile:

Does it really though? Or is the idea that all Rolland wines taste the same just a meme?

I like to think law is more of a business to me than wine. I certainly don’t spent time on the weekends reading contracts to see if associates in 2004 were greener than in 2011.

Anyway, I think we’ve let this digression go on long enough.

I think it would be a sensational tasting to setup 18 wines. 6 wines are Rolland wines across a decent spectrum. 12 wines non-Rolland across a similar spectrum. Can you pick out the Rolland wines at any decent clip above just pure guess rate?

That would be fun.

According to Alfert, you can’t find 12 non-Rolland wines in bdx today

According to Alfert, you can’t find 12 wines in Bordeaux. :wink:

Lol. And I’d probably be the biggest failure in that blind tasting!

I get it, not all Rolland wines taste like the frankenwine that I suggest, but some do, especially many of his St Ems. This 2004 Pontet was not “Rollandized” that way, as I noted.

I think we should do a vertical of post 2005 Cos d’Estournel in Orlando, just for Robert.

I have an 05, gift from an associate.

Did you fire that associate on the spot for poor research skills? [rofl.gif]

It was quite the scandal!

So I saved 1/3 of the bottle for tonight. Meh.

My note and scoring are on point for this particular bottle. For my palate. And still major wafts of bell pepper, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Short, very drying finish.