a new wine book. . . .

R

robert ames

robert ames
at drinkrhone.com there is a posting on a brand new wine book on gigondas. it just became available december 10.

Loading…

drinkrhone.com

i've an online subscriber at drinkrhone for 2-3 years now, and for keeping up with northern and southern rhone, jonathan livingston-learmouth has no competition.

i'm sure this book will be THE reference for the appellation and i can't wait for mine to arrive.
 
I read through "The Wines of the Rhone" recently, which was a book JLL co-wrote with Melvyn Master back in 1978, and which was republished in 1983. It was part of the Faber series on wine.

This is a quote from the entry on Rayas:

"However, having built his temple, Louis Reynaud [who died in 1978] failed to show anyone how to maintain it. One of his sons was born slightly retarded, and the other was never given formal instruction in making good and healthy wine. Just why Louis performed his vinification or his ageing of the wine in a certain way was clearly never explained, and his son, Jacques, is busy ruining most of the cuvees that lie in the now unkempt cellar of Chateau Rayas. Basic errors like failing to perform a regular ouillage and failing to clean the barrels properly are bad enough, but continuing to age the Rayas red for three to four years in cask when, according to the son, the wine is now only made from the quick-maturing Grenache [previously with Syrah and Cinsault], is criminal and distressing. The decline in the wines of Rayas, in its sister Chateauneuf-du-Pape Pignan and in the formerly excellent Cotes du Rhone domaine Chateau de Fonsalette commences with the second bottling of wines of the 1976 vintage. It is a tragedy to have to speak of Chateau Rayas in this way, for Louis Reynaud's smile and softly intoned 'Yes, there are some pretty things in life,' delivered when tasting a fabulous vintage of Rayas together, are what one prefers to remember about this kind and remarkable man."

Well, I have had wines from Jacques that were some of the most remarkable of my drinking life, so I would, you know, disagree about the post-1976 decline at Rayas. And I would be apt to look at JLL's assessments more skeptically in the future.
 
That does seem... intemperate.

I'm not a subscriber but I did read the more recent book by him. I enjoyed it a lot but I will admit that the information about the makers often gave the feel of having been re-worked several times. That is to say, not necessarily cryptic but one had to think carefully about what he wrote and about what he did not write.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
Levi,

I'm on the road and so can't check, but did you look in a more recent edition?
Click to expand...

The quote is from the 1983 version of the Faber series. His most recent book is focused on Gigondas, while the tome released in 2005 covers only the Northern Rhone, so no Rayas. There is apparently a 1992 Classic Wine Library paperback covering also the South, but I do not have a copy.

He seems to focus a lot of his attention on the personality of the grower in a domaine's profile. There is a lot about terroir of vineyard sites as well, and frequent mention of vine age, but the personalities behind the wines loom large. I imagine that if JLL and a particularly difficult personality, as Jacques Reynaud famously was, failed to jive, that JLL might extrapolate from that miscue. I imagine that is what happened at Rayas.

Which I understand. But I think that that doesn't excuse the failure to grasp the excitement of the wines. Perhaps the Rayas writeup was the work of Mr. Masters, but it reads like JLL to me.

I remember Andrew Jefford was entirely snubbed by Henri Bonneau strictly on the basis of his passport color, yet Mr. Jefford wrote a notice on Bonneau for "The New France" that showed honest and genuine interest in trying the wines.
 
I have the 3rd edition of The Wines of the Rhone. It lists no co-author. Its 8 page write-up on Jacques Reynaud is on the order of adulatory.

Nor would I hold his earlier write-up against him. Trade-offs from one generation to the next for the last couple of generations have been less than smooth at Rayas. What JLL said about Jacques was what people said at first because Louis was famously secretive and eccentric and people guessed he didn't really bring his son in slowly. When Jacques died unexpectedly in 1997, although Emmanuel had been designated heir, Jacques was famously secretive and eccentric and the talk in the first couple of years was that the Rayas Emmanuel made wasn't up to the standards of Jacques. Although I do not expect to live to see it since Emmanuel is much younger than me, I have every faith that when the domaine is passed on to the next generation, for the first few vintages, one will hear how no one can make wine like old eccentric Emmanuel used to.

I use first names by the way, merely to distinguish. I have met only Jacques Reynaud and that only once and I am not on familiar terms with or even recognizable to any Reynaud to my knowledge.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I have the 3rd edition of The Wines of the Rhone. It lists no co-author. Its 8 page write-up on Jacques Reynaud is on the order of adulatory.

Nor would I hold his earlier write-up against him. Trade-offs from one generation to the next for the last couple of generations have been less than smooth at Rayas. What JLL said about Jacques was what people said at first because Louis was famously secretive and eccentric and people guessed he didn't really bring his son in slowly. When Jacques died unexpectedly in 1997, although Emmanuel had been designated heir, Jacques was famously secretive and eccentric and the talk in the first couple of years was that the Rayas Emmanuel made wasn't up to the standards of Jacques. Although I do not expect to live to see it since Emmanuel is much younger than me, I have every faith that when the domaine is passed on to the next generation, for the first few vintages, one will hear how no one can make wine like old eccentric Emmanuel used to.

I use first names by the way, merely to distinguish. I have met only Jacques Reynaud and that only once and I am not on familiar terms with or even recognizable to any Reynaud to my knowledge.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if JLL had given Jacques the faith that you give Emmanuel, then I would give JLL more faith. As it was, he dug a grave and all but threw Jacques in, while at the same time calling his brother a retard in print.

There is something to be said for a writer who goes beyond what "people guessed."
 
One can choose to give a writer slack for misjudgment or not as one chooses. My point can be taken more narrowly. I think this judgment as to the cause of JLL's early view:

He seems to focus a lot of his attention on the personality of the grower in a domaine's profile. There is a lot about terroir of vineyard sites as well, and frequent mention of vine age, but the personalities behind the wines loom large. I imagine that if JLL and a particularly difficult personality, as Jacques Reynaud famously was, failed to jive, that JLL might extrapolate from that miscue. I imagine that is what happened at Rayas.

is mistaken because unaware that JLL was holding a judgment that was widespread for a short period (the 78 vintage seems to have put paid to it), and unaware of his later adulation.

My larger point I hold with far more uncertainty. I have insufficient experience of Rayas (I have only tasted two or three vintages of it, all by Jacques Reynaud), but given the wideness with which opinions during the changeovers have been held, it is quite possible that they were right as a matter of evaluation (the first vintages under the new Reynauds maybe were not as good), though wrong with regard to larger prediction. It's OK with me if you want to write off JLL on the basis of that paragaraph, but I won't follow you there.

On the other hand, I think your larger point about his interest in personality in that book (or the edition I read)is very well-taken. It is also a matter of taste as to whether that's a weakness or a strength. I am thinking of Otto's thread elsewhere on how knowing the context of a wine shapes one's appreciation of it. More than half the pleasure of visiting certain domaines for me is the chance of getting to know the winemakers and that experience completely affects my judgment. It's true that I have no ambition to write about that experience, but I do value those who do so, frequently far more than I value descriptions of the tastes of particular wines.
 
qualitative assessments of subjective matters by wine writers bear no use to me and it somewhat surprises me that someone who recommends wine professionally would attempt to find merit in those words.

I do have JLL's book and I read it and refer to it for information - not evaluations and opinions. He does seem to visit the area often, and also has information to share that may not otherwise be available unless one is to visit equally regularly.

Taking the potentially offensive quote and parsing it for objective use, I would offer the following:

Louis Reynaud died in 1978. He had 2 sons. The one named Jacques has succeeded his father as winemaker. He has made some changes to the winemaking process and varietal constitution. You may not like the wines as much, you should try them. I do not like the wines as much as the wines that Louis made. Louis was my friend and I miss him.
 
originally posted by mlawton:
qualitative assessments of subjective matters by wine writers bear no use to me and it somewhat surprises me that someone who recommends wine professionally would attempt to find merit in those words.

I do have JLL's book and I read it and refer to it for information - not evaluations and opinions. He does seem to visit the area often, and also has information to share that may not otherwise be available unless one is to visit equally regularly.

Taking the potentially offensive quote and parsing it for objective use, I would offer the following:

Louis Reynaud died in 1978. He had 2 sons. The one named Jacques has succeeded his father as winemaker. He has made some changes to the winemaking process and varietal constitution. You may not like the wines as much, you should try them. I do not like the wines as much as the wines that Louis made. Louis was my friend and I miss him.
Click to expand...

Who is attempting to find merit in the words? I don't follow you.

Perhaps others might look to JLL's book for evalutations and opinions. They are given quite freely in the texts, actually, so I suppose somebody must give them credence.

Here he is on Fabrice Gripa, writing in 2005:

"Fabrice has a clean, open view about the changing Rhone: although his family domaine is largely traditional in outlook, he regards the modernisers like Jean-Luc Colombo and Francois Villard as having served to alert growers in their appellations to wake up and improve their standards. He thinks as his own man already: 'The challenge is to pass beyond having big matter in the wine to having finesse in it. Concentration doesn't necessarily make a Grand Vin,' are his wise words. He gives firm looks when he expresses himself, a hearty, base-toned laugh at the ready, his forehead crinkling as he does so: this is a man who means business." (Boldface added by me)

When reading the 1983 quote on Rayas, where do you get "You may not like the wines as much, you should try them."? How is that what he said? I don't see that in the text at all. Here, again, is the language that was used:

"failed. slightly retarded. clearly never explained. Jacques, is busy ruining most of the cuvees that lie in the now unkempt cellar. Basic errors. criminal and distressing. decline in the wines. commences with the second bottling of wines of the 1976 vintage. It is a tragedy."

Where do you get "you should try them"? I'm genuinely curious. Most might assume that the language used would imply advice to the effect of avoid at all costs.

Other wines writers, some quite famous, visit the Rhone regularly. Do you also look to them for information?
 
Wow, this is a lot of analysis, even for WD!

The old Faber version, is, well, quite old - really describing a different generation. If you want to read his most current on the southern Rhone, then get the third edition (1992), which gives an interesting snapshot about many of the folks retiring right now at the height of their work. It's entirely different, more informed (fifteen years' worth), and interesting.

Of course the 2005 Northern Rhone book we're all familiar with. I think our opinions of that book vary, but I pulled mine of the shelf and it's pretty beat up (two trips to the Rhone in a day pack will do that) and I like it quite a bit. He does sit the fence somewhat on modernism, oak etc. but I think his true colors come through (STGT and all that). Plus I groove on this aging regime.

I'm thrilled to know about the Gigondas book and my very next act after this post is to track one down and buy it. I'm a little disappointed it is the long promised S. Rhone update, but hey, I'll take what I can get.
 
originally posted by BJ:
Wow, this is a lot of analysis, even for WD!
Click to expand...

I don't think you've seen anything yet.

The old Faber version, is, well, quite old - really describing a different generation.
Click to expand...

That is actually why it is interesting to go back. You can see quite clearly now, with the benefit of knowing susequent events, where value judgements went astray. Skepticism develops as one learns from historical mistakes.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
One can choose to give a writer slack for misjudgment or not as one chooses. My point can be taken more narrowly. I think this judgment as to the cause of JLL's early view:

He seems to focus a lot of his attention on the personality of the grower in a domaine's profile. There is a lot about terroir of vineyard sites as well, and frequent mention of vine age, but the personalities behind the wines loom large. I imagine that if JLL and a particularly difficult personality, as Jacques Reynaud famously was, failed to jive, that JLL might extrapolate from that miscue. I imagine that is what happened at Rayas.

is mistaken because unaware that JLL was holding a judgment that was widespread for a short period (the 78 vintage seems to have put paid to it), and unaware of his later adulation.
Click to expand...

Say again? How is what I said "mistaken"? Please, break it down for me. You aren't replying to what I said. Of course this is no surprise to me, but I wonder if you realize it? And what does it matter if an opinion was "widespread"? He is supposed to be the authority on the subject. Do you think that JLL didn't taste the 1978 at Rayas before stating in 1983 that post 1976 at Rayas was "criminal and distressing"? Really? If he didn't taste the 1978 and he wrote what he wrote, then that would be criminal on his part. If he did taste it, then obviously the vintage did not "put paid" to his opinion on the matter to his way of thinking.

I have insufficient experience of Rayas (I have only tasted two or three vintages of it, all by Jacques Reynaud),
Click to expand...

I'll go ahead and say that I have had several more experiences than that, in both colors and across the family of wines, from both Jacques and Emmanuel.

but given the wideness with which opinions during the changeovers have been held, it is quite possible that they were right as a matter of evaluation (the first vintages under the new Reynauds maybe were not as good), though wrong with regard to larger prediction.
Click to expand...

He stated in 1983 that the wines declined post 1976. How does that not include more than the first vintages?

It's OK with me if you want to write off JLL on the basis of that paragaraph, but I won't follow you there.
Click to expand...

Who wrote him off? I'm quoting from books I own, for pete sakes. I said I held his opinions in more of a skeptical light. That is far from writing him off. You would think that that would be understood.

Please quote from the adulatory notes on Rayas from the 1992 edition, as you know I do not have the source material at hand.

JLL made an error in judgement, and he used some overly harsh language that turned out to be quite wrong. It is worth admitting this even and particularly if you want to hold him up with the halo of expert authority on the subject matter.

I thought your stance, Jonathan, was no ad hominem attacks over wine qualities. Have you adjusted your position? JLL called Jacques Reynaud a criminal for his winemaking proclivities. How is that okay with you?
 
OK, let's break it down:
Your stated quotation attributes his dissing of Jacques to his difficulty with Jacques Reynaud's difficult personality.

As counter evidence, I offer first a proposed different cause:
A widespread view of decline that JLL, rightly or wrongly held, with or without insufficient skepticism, but unrelated to Jacques Reynaud's personality and

second, his later adulation of Reynaud's wines, even though his personality had not changed. I thought this was sufficiently clear in my original response so I fear it may not be sufficiently clear here but it is, alas, the best I can do.

As to quoting, here is the first paragraph of the section on Rayas: "This is the most extraordinary domaine at Chateauneuf-du-Pape, and probably in the whole Rhone valley. A veritable dynasty of eccentrics seems likely to end with the unmarried Jacques Reynaud [still not good at predicting], an inscrutable, smiling man in his sixties who has long foxed visitors and locals alike with excellent wine derived from unorthodox behaviour."

The article shows no personal fondness for Jacques Reynaud (which I find perplexing; I met him once, as I said, and found him absolutely charming in his own particular way), continuing fondness for Louis Reynaud, a still low evaluation of the wines from 76 and 77 and the same high evaluation of Rayas from 83, 85, 88, 89 and 90.

So, on evidence of the later edition, he manages to separate personality from winemaking.

And although nothing I said can be rationally taken as a defense of the earlier passage, unless not holding it against him is so taken, it's perhaps worth pointing out that what JLL calls criminal and distressing, as you quote him, is a winemaking technique, not Jacques Reynaud. So this was not an argument ad hominem. But this is an old argument and since I evidently failed to make the distinction clearly there, I must leave it hopefully to others to explain it better.
 
originally posted by BJ:
He does sit the fence somewhat on modernism, oak etc. but I think his true colors come through (STGT and all that).
Click to expand...
I think you answer this yourself--he's not really on the fence, he just doesn't intrude.

I find that his recent work, at least, allows a close reader to get a good idea about the wines and the style in the cellar. That's more useful to me than which are JLL's favorites. But you have to read him with a little care.

I find him sympathetic and well-informed, and the best writer on the area that I read.

I haven't had enough Rayas to have a view on any of Levi's specifics.

And as we're thinking of partiality to personalities, I have had dinner with JLL a few times and have thoroughly enjoyed his company. So there's my bias.
 
"Perhaps others might look to JLL's book for evalutations and opinions. They are given quite freely in the texts, actually, so I suppose somebody must give them credence."

Is this the equivalent of "it must be true, I saw it on the internet"? Everyone is entitled to an opinion and just because he offers both facts and opinions in a printed book does not mean that you (or the others, whoever they are) have to subscribe to the opinions in order to believe the facts, do you (or they)?

"When reading the 1983 quote on Rayas....Most might assume that the language used would imply advice to the effect of avoid at all costs."

I would not read very many books if I felt the need to blindly follow all advice contained within.

"Other wines writers, some quite famous, visit the Rhone regularly. Do you also look to them for information?"

No, I have not noticed any other writers that have presented any new facts of value, most seem to rehash the old facts (and in some cases, it's entirely rehashed material) and add their own opinions. Of course, I haven't read everything, either - so there may be another writer who makes regular trips and might have some information to share that I would find interesting. However, most of my opinions are formed from personal experience, although it's been too long since I've had the pleasure.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
OK, let's break it down:
Your stated quotation attributes his dissing of Jacques to his difficulty with Jacques Reynaud's difficult personality.

As counter evidence, I offer first a proposed different cause:
A widespread view of decline that JLL, rightly or wrongly held, with or without insufficient skepticism, but unrelated to Jacques Reynaud's personality and

second, his later adulation of Reynaud's wines, even though his personality had not changed. I thought this was sufficiently clear in my original response so I fear it may not be sufficiently clear here but it is, alas, the best I can do.

As to quoting, here is the first paragraph of the section on Rayas: "This is the most extraordinary domaine at Chateauneuf-du-Pape, and probably in the whole Rhone valley. A veritable dynasty of eccentrics seems likely to end with the unmarried Jacques Reynaud [still not good at predicting], an inscrutable, smiling man in his sixties who has long foxed visitors and locals alike with excellent wine derived from unorthodox behaviour."

The article shows no personal fondness for Jacques Reynaud (which I find perplexing; I met him once, as I said, and found him absolutely charming in his own particular way), continuing fondness for Louis Reynaud, a still low evaluation of the wines from 76 and 77 and the same high evaluation of Rayas from 83, 85, 88, 89 and 90.

So, on evidence of the later edition, he manages to separate personality from winemaking.
Click to expand...

Do you think that the personality of winemakers looms large in the text of JLL or not? Let's start there. I'd say it does, and I would think anyone saying it doesn't would have a hard time supporting that position.

I'll tell you quite succintly what changed between 1983 and 1992: time. Jacques Reynaud had been on the scene for much longer as 1992 came around. JLL would seem to give credit for time served in his assessments.
 
I have the '78 edition, as well as the '92 and the more recent volume focused on the North. I will have to go back and reread those sections on Rayas, Levi, but like SFJoe I have always used JLL more for his information on terroir, domaines and vineyard practices than for specific judgments on wines. Still, that passage you cite seems wildly out of character for JLL, who in my experience is very circumspect in his writing. Then again, he was a much younger man back then and perhaps not as circumspect as he is at present.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by mlawton:
"Perhaps others might look to JLL's book for evalutations and opinions. They are given quite freely in the texts, actually, so I suppose somebody must give them credence."

Is this the equivalent of "it must be true, I saw it on the internet"? Everyone is entitled to an opinion and just because he offers both facts and opinions in a printed book does not mean that you (or the others, whoever they are) have to subscribe to the opinions in order to believe the facts, do you (or they)?

"When reading the 1983 quote on Rayas....Most might assume that the language used would imply advice to the effect of avoid at all costs."

I would not read very many books if I felt the need to blindly follow all advice contained within.

"Other wines writers, some quite famous, visit the Rhone regularly. Do you also look to them for information?"

No, I have not noticed any other writers that have presented any new facts of value, most seem to rehash the old facts (and in some cases, it's entirely rehashed material) and add their own opinions. Of course, I haven't read everything, either - so there may be another writer who makes regular trips and might have some information to share that I would find interesting. However, most of my opinions are formed from personal experience, although it's been too long since I've had the pleasure.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Really?

So you think that he gives all those star ratings, but that readers just skip over those like they weren't there?

He called Jacques Reynaud a criminal. What is the disconnect here? Say I said you were a criminal for the quality of your work. Would you imagine that that statement didn't mean anything because people hearing it are free to make up their own minds on the subject?

About other writers: I can't agree. There are conspicuous examples of those who travel to the region frequently and report on the new news.

Would you mind taking back that "objective" rendering of the 1983 quote, specifically the part about "you should try them," or are you going to stand by that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top