Michel Lafarge quote on the 2009s

B

Bill Bounds

Bill Bounds
He makes a much larger point:

“What we really like about the '09s is that the terroir remains clear because even though it's a genuinely great vintage, it doesn't dominate the wines as great vintages often have a tendency to do.”
Michel Lafarge

best,
bill
 
where is this quote from?
I'll see him next week, and would like to get a clarification. Figuratively speaking of course.
 
The quote makes a lot of intuitive sense to me.

The quote comes from Burghound. Here is Meadow's Producer Notes for Lafarge's 2009 red wines:

Producer note: Michel Lafarge, and his son Frédéric, called 2009 a "vintage of regularity almost from start to finish with really no excesses of any kind. We began picking on the 9th of September and brought in flawless fruit that was in the 12.8 to 13.3% range in terms of potential alcohols. Yields were comfortable but not excessive at 38 to 40 hl/ha. What we really like about the '09s is that the terroir remains clear because even though it's a genuinely great vintage, it doesn't dominate the wines as great vintages often have a tendency to do. It's important to note that not only is 2009 great in red but it's also great in white and it's relatively rare when you have a great vintage in both colors. For us, 2009 is a vintage of charm but one that will age as there is plenty of ripe tannin lurking beneath the seductive baby fat. The key to their potential longevity is that even though the vintage is exceptionally ripe with very high levels of phenolic maturity, the wines remain impeccably well balanced." Michel, who has vast experience with older vintages, likened 2009 to a hypothetical blend of 1964 and 1966 observing that "2009 has the ripeness of '64 with the elegance and terroir transparency of '66." With respect to the Lafarge '08s, they virtually all came in at, or near, the top of my predicted ranges, which is to say that they're exceptionally good.
 
Having just completed three weeks of tasting in Burgundy, as I do every October and November, I can say that many producers are less positive about 2009 than they were a year ago. Many asked me my opinion and I said that I thought although many wines would be great as old wines, as young wines, too many lacked precision, and I received no dissents (and lots of nods of agreement) to this opinion. I can add, too, that prices in the US that I see often show very high markups on cellar door prices when compared to 2010 and 2008.
 
originally posted by Bill Bounds:
I think this quotes explains why some prefer the 2001 vintage over the 2002 in Burgundy reds.
Click to expand...

Bill, I don't follow what you mean about 01/02.

I agree with Hound about Lafarge in 2008.
 
I found myself attracted to the quote because it seemed so provocative great vintages obscure terroir. Is it really true? Well I don’t really know. Except for a couple of years in the early nineties, I’ve only been drinking burgundy for about 10 to 12 years, and I purposely avoid wine tastings and wine dinners.

But I’ll take the bait for what it’s worth. I believe that Lafarge was making the point that in great vintages the big fruit of the vintage obscures terroir distinctions. Is this true on the 2002 versus the 2001? Since you’ve called my bluff, I don’t think that I could prove this based on my personal experience. In fact, I don’t believe that I can discern the various terroirs of Burgundy. But certainly these two vintages would give the conditions for such a test. So tell me.

Actually I don’t spend much time thinking about these issues, but this seemed to jump out at me as a read a review on Lafarge’s 2009 Passetoutgrains that I actually found in a Dallas wine store. But don’t get me wrong; I enjoy the discussions about these issues. But when it comes down to drinking wine, I just try to find bottles that I can enjoy with dinner. As a long time lurker on this site and the previous Therapy (RIP), the participants on this site have pointed me to wines that I wouldn’t have found on my own.

So thanks so much for leading me to new places.
 
originally posted by Bill Bounds:
But I’ll take the bait for what it’s worth. I believe that Lafarge was making the point that in great vintages the big fruit of the vintage obscures terroir distinctions.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how he meant it, but that's not the sense in which it seems to make sense to me. (I realize that's a bizarre sentence construction but that's the best I'm willing to do at the moment.) What it seemed like he was getting at to me is that most of the acclaimed vintages have pretty strong personalities (and big fruit is sometimes a part of that, but not always, and never the only thing) - but one of the curious things about '09, at least so far as I've noticed, is that it's very hard to generalize about what the '09 personality is. The good ones taste like good examples of those wines and the bad ones just taste a little empty and bland, but in either case I seldom find myself saying anything like, "This is *SO* 2009," the way you might do with a year like '05 or '99.
 
I tasted quite a lot of 09 samples a couple of years ago and failed to understand much except the fact that the very fruity fruit(and sweetness) was probably misleading, very fruity fruit(and sweetness) being a phase that many vintages go through at unpredictable ages without necessarily impacting much on the finished article. Vintages do converge remarkably at 15-20 years old, not so much in quality as in character and it seems to me less important a variable than I once thought. Indeed I have no doubt at all that even the much reviled 2004 vintage will come around very nicely in another seven years or so, notwithstanding the rather obnoxious bashing that it is currently receiving in another, increasingly dunderheaded, place.
 
originally posted by Tom Blach: Indeed I have no doubt at all that even the much reviled 2004 vintage will come around very nicely in another seven years or so, notwithstanding the rather obnoxious bashing that it is currently receiving in another, increasingly dunderheaded, place.
Click to expand...

Tom, Early on, tasting of the 2004s gave me pause.

Recently, the 2004s I have had (albeit not really too many) have struck me as quite good or excellent...and enjoyable. This includes the one I just posted on --> Alain Hudelot-Noellat Vosne-Romanée Les Beaumonts 1er Cru '04

. . . . . Pete
 
Michel Lafarge reiterated the theory that picking dates were of huge importance in 2009, and that he felt they had picked early enough to ultimately preserve the terroir in the wines. He added that the wines were absolutely closed now, and should not be approached for a good 10 years at the high end, but that he had enough faith in them to expect clear terroir signatures to emerge afterwards. By no means did he indicate that this was universally the case in the region.

Don't shoot the messenger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top