2006 Pavelot Pernand-Vergelesses Les Vergelesses

[Jay Miller]

It's what's in the glass that counts.

Sits and twiddles thumbs.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by VLM:

Also, terroir is commonly used to include culture and history as well as the physical world.

Absolutely. So what does that imply with regard to the argument that Steven and I are having? Practices that the culture has long used will not be interventionist for that reason. We have long gotten past the notion that intervention will be describable in terms of a metaphysical line that separates kinds of actions humans take.

 

[SFJoe]

originally posted by VLM:

Also, terroir is commonly used to include culture and history as well as the physical world.

Commonly and controversially.

But at a minimum, trivially.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by VLM:

Also, terroir is commonly used to include culture and history as well as the physical world.

Commonly and controversially.

But at a minimum, trivially.

It might suggest that aging and wood and some chaptalization are part of the expression of terroir for a given AOC.

I'm often reminded by a discussion where in my expression of favoritism towards the wine of Chambolle it was proffered that it could be the culture of vine growing and elevage there that produced wines that I preferred, rather than the actual, physical terroir.

Food for thought.

 

[SFJoe]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by VLM:

Also, terroir is commonly used to include culture and history as well as the physical world.

Commonly and controversially.

But at a minimum, trivially.

It might suggest that aging and wood and some chaptalization are part of the expression of terroir for a given AOC.

The trivial part is that Burgundy isn't, say, Madeira.

The controversial part is how specific you get before it isn't terroir anymore.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by VLM:

Also, terroir is commonly used to include culture and history as well as the physical world.

Commonly and controversially.

But at a minimum, trivially.

It might suggest that aging and wood and some chaptalization are part of the expression of terroir for a given AOC.

The trivial part is that Burgundy isn't, say, Madeira.

The controversial part is how specific you get before it isn't terroir anymore.

Overlapping distributions for sure.

 

[Unknown]

originally posted by VLM:

I'm often reminded by a discussion where in my expression of favoritism towards the wine of Chambolle it was proffered that it could be the culture of vine growing and elevage there that produced wines that I preferred, rather than the actual, physical terroir.

yes, but my point was, same vine growing and elevage will produce something else in Vosne

 

[VLM]

originally posted by .sasha:

originally posted by VLM:

I'm often reminded by a discussion where in my expression of favoritism towards the wine of Chambolle it was proffered that it could be the culture of vine growing and elevage there that produced wines that I preferred, rather than the actual, physical terroir.

yes, but my point was, same vine growing and elevage will produce something else in Vosne

I agree, but there is something like a "village culture" that goes into it as well.

 

[Unknown]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by .sasha:

originally posted by VLM:

I'm often reminded by a discussion where in my expression of favoritism towards the wine of Chambolle it was proffered that it could be the culture of vine growing and elevage there that produced wines that I preferred, rather than the actual, physical terroir.

yes, but my point was, same vine growing and elevage will produce something else in Vosne

I agree, but there is something like a "village culture" that goes into it as well.

Correct. But a hypothetical Chambolle diaspora in Vosne will not make Chambolle as we know it, there.

 

[John Roberts]

Typicity is not terroir.

 

[Claude Kolm]

1. It's not clear to me which Pavelot is under discussion (originally posited) here: Jean-Marc & Hugues (located in Savigny) or Domaine Pavelot (Régis & Luc, located in Pernand), both of which have holdings in the vineyard (Vergelesses) under discussion. It's kind of like telling me about a wine by Gros or Morey or Boillot -- which one?

2. Oswaldo -- What is the book from which you reproduce that page? I can tell you that I once, maybe 10-15 years ago, asked Jean-Louis Chave if he was allowed to chaptalize at Hermitage and he responded that they were very proud at Hermitage that they were given the right to chaptalize. It doesn't necessarily disavow the portion you reproduce, but it gives it a different slant -- very few French vignerons in Burgundy (or the Northern Rhône) think chaptalization is bad per se, even if they are doing less of it than they used to, but in appropriate vintages they will chaptalize.

3. Ian -- Yes, I stand by my comments on 2006. It is better in general than 2005 for Nuits (and I think if you go back and look at Meadows and Tanzer, they said the same, or at least in their reviews of 2005s said that Nuits was a relative weak spot and in their reviews of 2006 pointed out Nuits for its strength), may not be as good at Vosne as 2005 but is damn good, and is awfully good in the Corton triangle (Bize's 2006s are as good as his 2005s, I think; others are nearly as good).

4. Quite a few more than 5 or 6 didn't chaptalize in 2009. Now, 2008, . . . .

5. As for RO, I really don't get to the theoretical question because for me the process generally badly distorts the flavors and texture of the wine. I am aware of a couple of Méo-Camuzet wines from some time ago that (in very small part) went through RO that I still thought good, but they qualify as exceptions that prove the rule.

 

[SFJoe]

originally posted by Claude Kolm:

5. As for RO, I really don't get to the theoretical question because for me the process generally badly distorts the flavors and texture of the wine. I am aware of a couple of Méo-Camuzet wines from some time ago that (in very small part) went through RO that I still thought good, but they qualify as exceptions that prove the rule.

So what remains of the rule, or the exceptions?

 

[Claude Kolm]

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by Claude Kolm:

5. As for RO, I really don't get to the theoretical question because for me the process generally badly distorts the flavors and texture of the wine. I am aware of a couple of Méo-Camuzet wines from some time ago that (in very small part) went through RO that I still thought good, but they qualify as exceptions that prove the rule.

So what remains of the rule, or the exceptions?

The rule is that, to my palate, it destroys the wines. (I'm talking about when it is used to eliminate water; in CA, it's used to eliminate alcohol, bret, etc., but I've never spent anytime analyzing how that affects the wine). But it is obvious that that there are those with palates different from mine who appreciate how RO changes the texture and quality of the fruit. Michel Rolland fans (of course, that usually goes with malo in new wood, too)?

 

[Claude Kolm]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Claude Kolm:
(and I think if you go back and look at Meadows and Tanzer, they said the same, or at least in their reviews of 2005s said that Nuits was a relative weak spot and in their reviews of 2006 pointed out Nuits for its strength)

I have no access to Meadows but I can provide excerpts of what Tanzer said:

Of 2006 he said,

"As a rule, the fruit was healthier and the wines clearly better on the Côte de Nuits than on the Côte de Beaune"
and
"As a rule, the Côte de Nuits has outperformed the Côte de Beaune...."

That is clear enough.

Of 2005 he said,

"For the sixth consecutive year, I have a preference for the Côte de Nuits over the Côte de Beaune. But that's largely because the soils on the Côte de Nuits are inherently more interesting, rather than due to any particular problems during the growing season or harvest... In fact, the Côte de Beaune has had an excellent vintage...."

That is praise for both, I think.

I can't comment directly on what they wrote, just on discussions I've had with them.

 

[Arjun Mendiratta]

Claude will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he is referring to the village of Nuits, not the entire Cote.

 

[Claude Kolm]

originally posted by Arjun Mendiratta:
Claude will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he is referring to the village of Nuits, not the entire Cote.

Exactly.

 

[Claude Kolm]

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by Claude Kolm:

5. As for RO, I really don't get to the theoretical question because for me the process generally badly distorts the flavors and texture of the wine. I am aware of a couple of Méo-Camuzet wines from some time ago that (in very small part) went through RO that I still thought good, but they qualify as exceptions that prove the rule.

So what remains of the rule, or the exceptions?

I should add that some years ago on wine therapy, Joe D (and I don't mean the baseball player) accused Lafarge of RO. Michel and Frédéric Lafarge vigorously denied the allegation to me and were very nonplussed that someone should make the charge (and if you know them and how they operate, you understand their puzzlement).

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by Claude Kolm:

originally posted by Arjun Mendiratta:
Claude will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he is referring to the village of Nuits, not the entire Cote.

Exactly.

Why didn't you say so? That is different than how I took it. What I posted is not applicable, really.

 

[Claude Kolm]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Claude Kolm:

originally posted by Arjun Mendiratta:
Claude will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he is referring to the village of Nuits, not the entire Cote.

Exactly.

Why didn't you say so? That is different than how I took it. What I posted is not applicable, really.

I thought contrasting Nuits with Vosne (and adding the Corton triangle, which is just a little to the south of Nuits-Saint-Georges) made it sufficiently clear. Sorry.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Claude Kolm:
1. It's not clear to me which Pavelot is under discussion (originally posited) here: Jean-Marc & Hugues (located in Savigny) or Domaine Pavelot (Régis & Luc, located in Pernand), both of which have holdings in the vineyard (Vergelesses) under discussion. It's kind of like telling me about a wine by Gros or Morey or Boillot -- which one?

Jean-Marc

2. Oswaldo -- What is the book from which you reproduce that page? I can tell you that I once, maybe 10-15 years ago, asked Jean-Louis Chave if he was allowed to chaptalize at Hermitage and he responded that they were very proud at Hermitage that they were given the right to chaptalize. It doesn't necessarily disavow the portion you reproduce, but it gives it a different slant -- very few French vignerons in Burgundy (or the Northern Rhône) think chaptalization is bad per se, even if they are doing less of it than they used to, but in appropriate vintages they will chaptalize.

That's page 194 of the paperback edition of Adventures on the Wine Route, published by North Point Press (in 1995 as far as I can tell). The two sentences "Oh yes, even at Hermitage now they have given us the right to chaptalize. It is scandalous." suggest either that Jean-Louis was being sarcastic or that Gerard (who is being quoted here) and Jean-Louis have opposite views.

Yesterday I saw this annoyingly reasonable stance in Celce's wineterroirs writeup on Roulot:

"(Roulot) recognizes that he doesn't use additives to make his wines, adding that the great wines are made without corrections. But his stand is flexible and he has no antagonism to using sugar for example in some exceptional circumstances, like in 2007 or 2004. He just decided that he will never get over 0,2 or 0,5 as a result, and it's not a common practice in his cellar. Same for acidification, that's an additive he doesn't use routinely but he did use some in 2003 although in a dosage 6 times lower than what his enologist suggested. All his work in the vineyard tends to bring the grapes in a condition that will forgo the use of any additive, and in 9 on 10 cases, he doesn't correct the wines."

I suspect that's the best I can hope for; and should, in fact, be grateful for.