In Vino Veritas Session 2: Bordeaux

Posted by Edmund in Featured Articles, In Vino Veritas, Wine & Liquor | 4 comments

Oct 19, 10

Wine drinkers have long been debating the merits of wines from around the world, with countries fighting tooth-and-nail to claim winemaking superiority. Within that dispute, though, there has always been—at least from what I have perceived in wine-drinking circles—an almost mystical deference to one region above all others, Bordeaux. Bordeaux isn’t all that large, nor does it produce the most innovative wines, having focused on the same few grapes for hundreds of years, yet it has almost universally been proclaimed the king of wines.

12345►

I, however, have never understood the trend. A region may be a good region, but that doesn’t justify endless speculation and over-inflation (e.g. Bordeaux prices for the best chateaus were often rising at 25% a year or higher over the last decade). I’ve thus wanted to try my hand at Bordeaux for a while now to see if it can really live up to all the hype. Luckily, I finally got my chance last week with a 9-wine tasting of some of the best Bordeaux in the past decade or so, organized thanks to In Vino Veritas, Harvard Law’s wine-tasting society.

Before I proceed with the notes, I want to give a big thanks to Mr. Eric Vogt, our wine instructor for the evening. A Harvard Business School graduate and former In Vino member, Mr. Vogt is easily one of the most knowledgeable Bordeaux collectors in all of Boston, serving as the maître of the Boston chapter of the Commanderie de Bordeaux, a very exclusive, international organization for Bordeaux lovers. He has even founded a company, e-Provenance, dedicated to testing wines through a new technology, radio-frequency identification, which allows temperature changes within a bottle to be tracked, hence allowing for quality assurance. Not only did he provide us with about half the wines for the evening, including some wines that are so rare they would have to be purchased at auction (just try finding a 1995 Bordeaux from one of the best houses!), but he even gave a presentation covering the whole history of Bordeaux. All the following notes come from that presentation.

So why Bordeaux? Let’s forget for a second that Bordeaux is some of the most reputed and most expensive wine on the market. Is there any justification for those prices and reputation? Coming from an economics background, I’m personally a big believer in the market as a means of distinguishing quality through price—i.e. there should, in any market, be a positive correlation between quality and price. After Mr. Vogt’s presentation, I can not only say that the economic intuition holds up, but I can point out some of the cultural, historical, and geographic factors that have contributed to that.

I’ll start off with a bit of history. Interestingly enough, production of wine in the Bordeaux region started with the Romans, who would plant grapes in any colony that they conquered. After a conquest, the nearby water sources would typically be too polluted to drink safely. To maintain the legions, the Romans would have to purify that water through some means. Thus, they’d plant grapes with which they’d make light wine (6-7% ABV) to mix with water. The ethanol in the wine would kill the bacteria in the water. So, oddly enough, the Bordeaux wine started off with purely a functional reason, rather than with what I’d typically associate with a Bordeaux, i.e. luxury.

Fast forward to the 1800′s (forgive me for skipping the 1500 years+ of history). Bordeaux wine as Bordeaux really came into existence with the world fair of 1855. The designation of Bordeaux was given, and the prime houses were distinguished. Bordeaux merchants based the classification on wine prices for the past 100 years. Thus, houses that produced more prized and more expensive wines naturally received higher classifications, according to the general consensus about their quality. The designation still holds to this day.

In this system, there are five different “growths” or crus, classes designated according to historical prestige and general quality. In the modern age, of course, the quality criterion is becoming less and less explicit, as winemaking techniques and quality are converging throughout the region. The higher crus do, however, still charge far higher prices. To this day, there has only been one change in the classification, which occurred in 1973 when a second-growth winery, Mouton-Rothschild, was elevated to a first-growth—a huge political issue at the time. Generally, though, the system is rather inflexible.

Just to give you an idea, I’ll list out the highest crus, the most prized in Bordeaux:

First-Growths (Premiers Crus)

• Lafite-Rothschild
• Latour
• Margaux
• Haut-Brion

Second-Growths (Deuxièmes Crus)

• Mouton-Rothschild (elevated to First-Growth in 1973)
• Leoville-Las Cases
• Leoville-Barton
• Leoville-Poyferre
• Ducru-Beaucaillou
• Pichon Longueville-Baron
• Pichon Lalande
• Gruaud-Larose
• Cos d’Estournel
• Montrose
• Lascombes
• Rauzan-Segla
• Rauzan-Gassies
• Brane-Cantenac
• Durfort-Vivens

Just as important of a historical development as the appellation system, though, was the Napoleonic code. The Bordeaux region, being so distinguished, was saved from the impacts of that code, which eliminated primogeniture, the (legally enforced) custom of passing the family land down to only the eldest child. The elimination of primogeniture from any society generally helps redistribute wealth, passing the great holdings of families down to more and more children, fragmenting those holdings. That fragmentation, however, doesn’t bode well for wine production. With great terroirs divided into smaller parcels, the consistency of the grapes diminishes, making wine more inconsistent. It is for that reason that even to this day, wine from Burgundy will tend to be more inconsistent than Bordeaux, since the Napoleonic Code, and thus the sanction against primogeniture, did reach Burgundy. The large estates in Bordeaux, however, were able to stay intact. With a larger selection of grapes, the large families in Bordeaux can thus attain more predictable results, justifying the higher prices.

Adding to that historical push is just as influential a geographic one. Before I discuss the characteristics of the terroir, though, I want to give an overview of the general regions and appellations. There are three major regions in Bordeaux: Médoc (Left-Bank), Graves, Libournais (Right-Bank). Graves, named after the heavy amount of gravel in the region, is the chief white wine-producing region, while Médoc and Libournais both specialize in reds. There is also a less important region for lower quality whites, the Entre-Deux-Mers (literally, “between two rivers” region). The most important appellations for each region (i.e. the best sub-regions) are:

Médoc

• St. Estephe
• Pauillac
• St. Julien
• Margaux

Graves

• Pessac-Leognan
• Sauternes & Barsac

Right-Bank

• St. Emilion
• Pomerol

The grapes, too, are very limited. The 2 major red grapes are Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon. Bordeaux reds can, in fact, only be made using six different varietals: Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, Malbec, Petit Verdot, and Carmenere. For practical purposes, though, the wines are basically Merlot and/or Cabernet Sauvignon blends, with everything else used in small quantities, to the point that some grapes are de facto non-existent (Carmenere is virtually never used. Malbec is used infinitesimally).

That limitation to certain grapes, though, does have a legitimate reason: Those grapes just tend to grow and taste better in the region. The best vines, i.e. the deepest, require both water and quick drainage. Soil with deep gravel beds, as opposed to heavier clay or sand, tends to drain more quickly. The drainage allows for better vines, which allow for better wines. This largely explains why Médoc, the Left-Bank, tends to produce so many fine wines, since the soil has a high gravel concentration. That drainage is particularly important for Cabernet grapes—hence the reason the Left-Bank specializes in Cabernet. As you move north in Médoc, the clay concentration picks up, such as in the St. Estephe subregion, lowering the quality of wines. The Right-Bank similarly tends to have higher concentrations of clay. Since Merlot performs better in worse-drained soils with higher concentrations of clay, it is, not surprisingly, the main grape of the Right-Bank.

The climate of the region plays a large role as well. The 55-year trend in Bordeaux indicates a move towards warmer climates, i.e. Bordeaux is feeling the impacts of global warming. That, however, has also contributed to the phenomenal vintages of the past decades. During the tasting, we had the opportunity to look at a chart of Bordeaux climate year-by-year, and the years with the best vintages tended to nearly always include hot summers followed by low amounts of rain during harvest time. A good example would be 2005. Low water at harvest forces the grapes to work harder to hold onto their water. Thus, they do not become diluted right before harvest, amplifying their flavor.

You may be wondering, though, what this means in practice—i.e. what are the best Bordeaux vintages? Mr. Vogt recommends all of the following: 1982, 1985, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2009.

Another factor to mention is the aging potential of Bordeaux wine, which is some of the highest for any known wines. High-quality wines tend to peak at 8-12 years, at least from what I’ve seen in South America. French wine, though, is extremely long-lasting. The aging potential for a few of the more famous designations/regions are:

• Pomerol: 5-20 years
• St. Emilion: 5-20 years
• Medoc: 10-40 years
• Sauternes: 5-100 years

With that, I’ll end off my very brief discussion of Bordeaux, a topic that continues to boggle minds and provides nearly infinite material. Here are some notes from my 9-wine Bordeaux tasting.

What I Tasted

Château Guiraton 2007 (Graves)

Beautiful semi-golden color, with numerous hues of yellow.

A lot of acid and citrus on the nose. Slight bit of tropical fruit. Rather strong, especially after it airs out.

The flavor’s actually nice, though a bit too acidic. It has a very subtle fruity flavor that goes down extremely easily and leaves just a bit of a dry, long finish, as though your mouth is burning slightly with pepper. There’s just a slight bit of lemon, too, but very slight. The uptake is very smooth, quickly turning rather bitter and even a slight bit tannic. Very fresh. Also, this wine has quite a bit of substance and body for something so easy to drink. The best part, though? The long, slightly burning finish. The wine is still a bit too acidic for me at the very end, but it does have a refreshing tang to it.

3.8/5.0. 4.0 for people who like it dry and acidic.

Clos Floridene 2006 (Graves) Denis Dubourdieu

Almost identical color to the last, but actually just a slight bit lighter, verging on white, with light yellow reflection.

A bit musty of a smell, but in a good way. I can even smell a bit of bacon. Rather earthy and rocky, too. Very strong, even more so than the last.

Very nice. This one has the same smoothness as the last, sans the acidity. Instead, you get a refreshing, extremely mineral flavor, with just a bit of salt that I find refreshing. The complexity here is amazing: nutty, rocky, sweet, and salty all at the same time. The wine goes down very smoothly, too, even with that complexity. It leaves you with a bit of salty earthiness that’s fantastic, though not quite as bold or sharp as the last.

4.3+/5.0

L’Hospitale de Gazin 2005 (Pomerol)

Color is a nice dark red, with lots of different hues, from dark purple to orange on the sides.

Fruity/floral aroma, mostly of dried cherries and raisins, mixed with soil. Not terribly strong, though. It has a bit of chocolate and oak, too.

Very smooth, very rich, lots of body. Almost like a decadent, sinful treat. It can get rather bitter and tannic, but because it has so much smoothness and body, that’s almost never a problem. Instead, the tannin leaves the mouth puckering. There’s also a fantastic, slight peppery overtone that leaves you with a great burning finish. Not much extreme flavor, but rather elegance and smoothness. Almost velvety. You still do get a slight bit of acidity and wildness, but this wine is very controlled, with a superb body and roundness. Nice legs, too. Best of all, it’s very smoky at the end. Unfortunately, it’s a bit immoderately bitter.

4.3-4.5/5.0 (I got two tastes from two different glasses)

Ch tour de Termes 2005 (St. Estèphe)

Aside: Cabernet dominated. From the gravelly Left-Bank.

Beautiful purpling, near-black, ruby color, with streaks of ruby floating throughout. Very, very dark on the sides.

Aroma’s a bit too earthy for my taste. Gone is all the fruit, acid, and oak of the last few wines. Instead, the wine features fresh-cut grass, forest, and just a bit of mud, with raspberry picking up as it airs out. Very earthy. Still weak, though (or rather, the aroma dissipates quickly).

On the uptake, the wine seems monotonous and a bit bland. It does pick up some more flavor in the mouth, but it unfortunately isn’t enough to compensate for its overly oaky monotony. The focus here is on smoothness, body, and roundness, with very few overtones. There is, however, a very slight bit of fruitiness that hits at the very start and a rather nice acidity that hits you as it goes down, leaving a good puckering sensation. Still, it’s just too boring.

3.2/5.0

Château Deyrem Valentin 2006 (Margaux) cru bourgeois

Similar to the last in color, with a gorgeous dark ruby, purple, with lighter streaks of red. It verges on dark purple.

The aroma is weak, though. Expect some earthiness, but more focus on minerals and less on fruit. Much less complex than some of the others I’ve tried so far.

Wow, there’s a lot of chocolate and hazelnut here, with some subtle spice that kicks in at the very end. The burning sensation is quite a bit lighter than in the other reds, though as the wine airs out it gets far, far stronger (refreshingly so). Still, the wine is overly tannic and oaky, overpowering the other, more interesting flavors, and the overall effect is monotonous. The body is huge, but the flavor does get boring and bitter.

3.5/5.0

Château Lascombes 2005 (Margaux) deuxième cru

Aside: Very expensive ($100+ retail), prestigious Margaux.

Nice, dark ruby color, like the last two. Again, expect streaks of purple and dark ruby. Very nice legs, as would be expected of a wine like this.

Sylvan aroma of grass and minerals. Rocky and earthy.

The taste is huge. Far, far bigger than the last. Forget the monotony. Here, you get a slightly more moderated oakiness, a more pronounced acidity (with a correspondingly nicer burning sensation and a longer aftertaste), and a lot of complexity: nuts, pepper, spice. And the oak is, again, very nice. Very long finish.

4.2/5.0

Château de Fronsac 2000 (Fronsac)

Aside: Fronsac is not that well-known. It’s a lower pedigree than the Saint-Emilion (#8), its contrast. It’s Merlot-based, as are most wines from the Right Bank.

Probably the nicest color of all the reds. Nearly jet-black, with numerous shades of purple. You can tell this is a mature wine. Extreme dark ruby in the reflection.

Very fresh aroma. It’s not all that strong, but it reminds me of a fresh breeze with a very nice, wet rock overtone. Light, but great.

In terms of taste, it’s probably the oddest of the wines so far, but not in a bad way. It’s complex, with overtones of dark chocolate, raspberries, and a strong, hot spice, very akin to jalapenos with just a bit of cinnamon. That spice both excites your mouth and leaves it with an after-burn for a very long time. The extremely long aftertaste is probably the big selling point here. The wine does, however, pick up gradually, starting out light and suave, only to give way to huge tannins and spice. The tannins can be a bit much, making this wine too intense and oaky for some. Still, the spice alone justifies drinking this wine.

4.1/5.0.

Château de Ferrand 1995 (St. Emilion Grand Cru)

Aside: Right-Bank, so Merlot-based.

A slightly lighter ruby with shades of garnet. Very mature—purpling in the reflection. Beautiful.

Refreshingly fruity on the nose. Expect sweet, golden raisins (very pronounced), some fresh purple grapes, and what reminds me of sweet, viscous sherry, akin to gingerbread. Also extreme figs.

The taste here is much, much smoother and much more balanced, with a refreshing overtone of fruity sweetness that is missing in the last. It’s definitely not as complex, but the sweetness here leaves you refreshed, rather than bogged down. It can be a bit harsh after it airs out, with much more acidity, but it never loses its near perfect balance. And the delicious overtone of sour-sweet cherries, mixed with slight pepper, sweet figs, and a very edible dark chocolate, is delicious.

4.6/5.0

Château Roumieu-Lacoste 2005 Sauternes

The color is beautiful. It’s absolutely golden, with a slightly murky reflection that captivates you.

The aroma is equally as nice. Expect rich, strong honey combined with flowers, especially honeysuckle. It’s like a cool breeze wafting up to your nose.

And the taste delivers in every possible way. Typically, late harvest wines will tend to be bland or light, but this one has as much sugar as you’d expect from a Riesling ice wine. Expect honey, figs, and cinnamon, with just a slight bit of delicious oak to add one more layer of complexity. Best of all is the long, floral aftertaste. It has just a bit of spice, nectar, and honey, leaving you with the taste of Christmas in your mouth.

4.7/5.0