Claret before Burgundy -- agree? important?

P

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey
For a classic dinner with fine wines, is there agreement with the guideline that the order of the red wines should be Bordeaux with a course that's served before a course with Burgundy?

If yes, how important might it be to adhere to this guideline?

. . . . . Pete
 
I've never heard that agreement.

I'm certainly not the most classic guy and I don't have the most experience with either region compared to some other folks on here.

But for what it's worth I always thought that generally speaking one might tend to serve the Burgundy first because the Bordeaux will be more tannic. (I.E. the Burgundy could go with the game course while the Bordeaux would go with the later red meat course).

But of course all of this depends on the specific wines in question.
 
Peter -

I could see that, particularly if the Bordeaux was mature. Because the flavors of good Burgundy can be seductive, you might want those to linger in your mouth longer than the more 'cerebral' Bordeaux.
 
Nah. The order should be Burgundy with a course that's served before a course with more Burgundy. Or maybe you could slip some Hermitage or Barolo in there somewhere.
 
As with everything I'd say it depends. Age of wines, quality of wines, what food is being served...

I can see it going either way.
 
I happen to agree the Burgundy should follow the Bordeaux.

There should be an ongoing build up of drama...thus Bordeaux then Burgundy.

Now another slant on this question that some people may pose has to do with the food matchups. The next to last red wine course usually is the main entree followed then by cheese and its appropriate accompaniments as the last red wine course. The question these people might have is whether these are the best food pairings. Dealing with this issue can be problematic.

Regardless, I tend to appreciate best the sequence of Bordeaux then Burgundy.

. . . . . Pete
 
What an interesting chase across time and the internet, Peter.

It appears that in both French and Russian formal service there should be served several main dishes, in this order: the releves, the entrees, and the roasts.

Releves can be whole fish or chunks of meat. Serve white burgundy or German whites.

Entrees are any prepared meat dish (but not whole fish, poultry or game). Serve claret.

Roasts are poultry or game. Serve red burgundy or vintage champagne.

There is, of course, much variation possible... some serve roast turkey only at the very last, some include sherbets and punches, foie gras calls for sweet wine regardless of its place in the order, seasonal availability and the preferences of the Guest of Honor always take precedence, etc.

All indicate that champagne can be used throughout the meal, though they do specify sec or sweet for different courses. One even observed that champange is necessary throughout the meal in order to support frequent toasts.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
What an interesting chase across time and the internet, Peter.

It appears that in both French and Russian formal service there should be served several main dishes, in this order: the releves, the entrees, and the roasts.

Releves can be whole fish or chunks of meat. Serve white burgundy or German whites.

Entrees are any prepared meat dish (but not whole fish, poultry or game). Serve claret.

Roasts are poultry or game. Serve red burgundy or vintage champagne.

There is, of course, much variation possible... some serve roast turkey only at the very last, some include sherbets and punches, foie gras calls for sweet wine regardless of its place in the order, seasonal availability and the preferences of the Guest of Honor always take precedence, etc.

All indicate that champagne can be used throughout the meal, though they do specify sec or sweet for different courses. One even observed that champange is necessary throughout the meal in order to support frequent toasts.
Click to expand...

Pete, doesn't Brillat Savarin resolve this in his 2 meals with the Crown Prince of Eurasia?
 
I've also heard this order before, and am in the camp that you should do what works, given the myriad other details -- which specific wines are to be served, which foods, does anyone really want any claret today? Why would they when they can drink Burgundy? etc.

Some of those old pronouncements on the proper ways to do table service are comical at best. You can go soup to nuts, or just say nuts to the soup.
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

I happen to agree the Burgundy should follow the Bordeaux.

There should be an ongoing build up of drama...thus Bordeaux then Burgundy.
Click to expand...

What if the Burgundy is, say, a nice little 2000 Mongeard Mugneret Bourgogne and the Bordeaux is 1971 Latour?
 
originally posted by Jay Miller:
What if the Burgundy is, say, a nice little 2000 Mongeard Mugneret Bourgogne and the Bordeaux is 1971 Latour?
Click to expand...
I don't understand your question. We most often encounter Romanee, Clos Vougeot, and Chambertin. That first wine is, perhaps, a vin ordinaire? click for fascinating 1891 article in NYTimes
or
click for list of old books, notably the confusing but opinionated "The Epicurean"
or
click for the-page-on-which-you-click-for-the-pdf-of "His Majesty, King Wine" (try p.72-73)
 
originally posted by Jay Miller: What if the Burgundy is, say, a nice little 2000 Mongeard Mugneret Bourgogne and the Bordeaux is 1971 Latour?
Click to expand...

Jay, By definition in the parent note, we are talking about "fine" wines. This is meant to suggest some equivalence between the caliber of the wines.

. . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by kirk wallace:
Pete, doesn't Brillat Savarin resolve this in his 2 meals with the Crown Prince of Eurasia?
Click to expand...
Do you have a reference? I found some Escoffier-related material but it was all about the cooking, not the serving.
 
I had always read that Burgundy and then Bordeaux was the conventional wisdom until a dinner with a visitor from Europe who insisted otherwise, and I've been a convert ever since. The problem is that nearly any Bordeaux will taste rough and dry after nearly any Burgundy, so the Bordeaux absolutely has to come first if it's to be shown in its best light. And the first sip of Burgundy after a few Bordeaux is a special pleasure in its own right as one of those "here comes the sun" moments...
 
Anecdotally, my country cousins and similarly-rural friends in France all drink Bordeaux before (red) Burgundy, when the two are present within the same meal. Unfortunately, they also drink white Burgundy, but I love them anyway and forgive them their flaws.
 
It's an old (very old) saying that I think represents late 19th/early 20th century views of both wines as so labelled and available in England, i.e., adulterated Burgundy, if not Bordeaux. Nothing to do with today's reality.

I see no reason other than snobbism to serve both at the same meal.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
It's an old (very old) saying that I think represents late 19th/early 20th century views of both wines as so labelled and available in England, i.e., adulterated Burgundy, if not Bordeaux. Nothing to do with today's reality.

I see no reason other than snobbism to serve both at the same meal.
Click to expand...

I see plenty of reason -- namely to match the food.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top