TN: 2005 Morgon, Lapierre

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Interesting that the son would not have learned to make wines of similar longevity.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure it’s yet known if they do, but there have been mutterings of a noticeable stylistic shift and predicting longevity is a game for fools and wine critics, the two groups not being mutually exclusive.

Mark Lipton
 
I think the young turks in Beaujolais are messing with more natural and sans souffre techniques - a generation shift has partially/mostly happened (Thevenet, Lapierre...). Maybe not that different from modern/oak interventions of the previous couple of decades. I hear rumours that the pendulum is already swinging back, as the issues are being recognized.

I think Marcel's wines were never the longest haul - if I were going to give that award, it would be to Thevenet.
 
I'm not sure any of the 'Gang of 4' or fellow-travelers is where I would go for "the longest haul" - I'd sooner focus on the ones made in a more Burgundian fashion. Jadot's Chateau des Jacques bottlings are the closest I can think of to Beaujolais you can leave in the back of the cellar and never have to worry about.
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Interesting that the son would not have learned to make wines of similar longevity.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure it’s yet known if they do, but there have been mutterings of a noticeable stylistic shift and predicting longevity is a game for fools and wine critics, the two groups not being mutually exclusive.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

Not really, if you have data to work with. With a change of winemaker and style, however, past performance is less likely to indicate future results.

Guess I should crack one of mine and form a personal impression.
 
originally posted by BJ:
I think the young turks in Beaujolais are messing with more natural and sans souffre techniques - a generation shift has partially/mostly happened (Thevenet, Lapierre...). Maybe not that different from modern/oak interventions of the previous couple of decades. I hear rumours that the pendulum is already swinging back, as the issues are being recognized.

I think Marcel's wines were never the longest haul - if I were going to give that award, it would be to Thevenet.
Click to expand...

this, i think, is pretty on the mark. after Marcel passed away the wines got too "natural" for my palate for a few vintages.

for longevity i would go with Chamonard, and Desvignes.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Of the Go5, in my experience, Chamonard ages best. The 97 and 98 are drinking beautifully.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, to use a quote from Tin Cup, Go4 and Chamonard do not collide in the same sentence - as much as I am sure Go4 would like to think otherwise. Or for that matter, their importer(s).
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
I'm not sure any of the 'Gang of 4' or fellow-travelers is where I would go for "the longest haul" - I'd sooner focus on the ones made in a more Burgundian fashion. Jadot's Chateau des Jacques bottlings are the closest I can think of to Beaujolais you can leave in the back of the cellar and never have to worry about.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more with the first part.

Less sure about the second. It's not that some of the burgundian-style beasts don't age (they certainly do); it's that one should not have to switch to that style if preference lie elsewhere - plenty of examples, off the top of my head, from Coudert, Chamonard, Chanrion, Barbet's St Amour and Moulin-a-Vent that could be lost in the cellar with confidence.
 
A Lapierre MMIX a couple months ago was the most undrinkable wine I've had in quite some time. Perhaps just a function of trying to make that cuvee in that type of vintage.

As far as aging goes, I still quite like good old L'Ancien with some years on them. I still think its hands down the best value in Beaujolais.
 
I cellar a ton of Coudert and a bit of Barbet, but I'm not sure I'd put all the names on that list in the "no worries" category. Regardless, I can't get on board with the idea that "one should not have to" switch styles if you're after (low-risk) ageability - it's just reality that some styles of wine age better than others and some are more stable than others, so, yeah, if your style preference is for something like Lapierre and you want to cellar a lot of Beaujolais, well, the best advice really is to switch styles, or at least learn to enjoy the style you like for what it is - something you're probably going to get more enjoyment out of on the young side than from aging. And it's also important to note that many that are still alive after 15 years aren't necessarily better than they were in year one. Beaujolais is a lot like riesling this way. So delicious out of the gate it's easy to get carried away and cellar too much (I sure did! in both categories) but a huge part of that deliciousness is from that young vibrant fruit and once that's gone it's not coming back.
 
originally posted by Brian C:
A Lapierre MMIX a couple months ago was the most undrinkable wine I've had in quite some time. Perhaps just a function of trying to make that cuvee in that type of vintage.

As far as aging goes, I still quite like good old L'Ancien with some years on them. I still think its hands down the best value in Beaujolais.
Click to expand...

N or S?
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
...many that are still alive after 15 years aren't necessarily better than they were in year one. Beaujolais is a lot like riesling this way...
Click to expand...

In some respects, we could say this about any category of wine. But that would be a bit disingenuous. It may not be your thing, but there is a pretty broad track record for riesling to develop in all sorts of interesting and complex ways that are not present when young.
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
...many that are still alive after 15 years aren't necessarily better than they were in year one. Beaujolais is a lot like riesling this way...
Click to expand...

In some respects, we could say this about any category of wine. But that would be a bit disingenuous. It may not be your thing, but there is a pretty broad track record for riesling to develop in all sorts of interesting and complex ways that are not present when young.
Click to expand...
Yeah, of course. Just not all of them.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
...many that are still alive after 15 years aren't necessarily better than they were in year one. Beaujolais is a lot like riesling this way...
Click to expand...

In some respects, we could say this about any category of wine. But that would be a bit disingenuous. It may not be your thing, but there is a pretty broad track record for riesling to develop in all sorts of interesting and complex ways that are not present when young.
Click to expand...
Yeah, of course. Just not all of them.
Click to expand...

Low bar. That applies to everything.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
I cellar a ton of Coudert and a bit of Barbet, but I'm not sure I'd put all the names on that list in the "no worries" category. Regardless, I can't get on board with the idea that "one should not have to" switch styles if you're after (low-risk) ageability - it's just reality that some styles of wine age better than others and some are more stable than others, so, yeah, if your style preference is for something like Lapierre and you want to cellar a lot of Beaujolais, well, the best advice really is to switch styles, or at least learn to enjoy the style you like for what it is - something you're probably going to get more enjoyment out of on the young side than from aging. And it's also important to note that many that are still alive after 15 years aren't necessarily better than they were in year one. Beaujolais is a lot like riesling this way. So delicious out of the gate it's easy to get carried away and cellar too much (I sure did! in both categories) but a huge part of that deliciousness is from that young vibrant fruit and once that's gone it's not coming back.
Click to expand...

One could argue that finding a vibrant 15-year old Beaujolais not to taste any better than it did in year one is as subjective as finding a Beaujolais that's made in a Burgundy style not to taste like Beaujolais in the first place.
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
...many that are still alive after 15 years aren't necessarily better than they were in year one. Beaujolais is a lot like riesling this way...
Click to expand...

In some respects, we could say this about any category of wine. But that would be a bit disingenuous. It may not be your thing, but there is a pretty broad track record for riesling to develop in all sorts of interesting and complex ways that are not present when young.
Click to expand...
Yeah, of course. Just not all of them.
Click to expand...

Low bar. That applies to everything.
Click to expand...
I take it as a given when talking about any category of wine here that we're limiting the conversation to the interesting stuff. Beaujolais excludes Duboeuf nouveau, riesling excludes Blue Nun, etc. etc. etc. So my point is that even many of the interesting wine-board-worthy things in these categories are at their high point in the young-and-fresh stage, to a greater extent than is the case in other categories.

P.S. My view on this when it comes to riesling is admittedly a bit controversial. My view on this when it comes to Beaujolais wouldn't be controversial anywhere but here.
 
originally posted by Pavel Tchichikov:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
I cellar a ton of Coudert and a bit of Barbet, but I'm not sure I'd put all the names on that list in the "no worries" category. Regardless, I can't get on board with the idea that "one should not have to" switch styles if you're after (low-risk) ageability - it's just reality that some styles of wine age better than others and some are more stable than others, so, yeah, if your style preference is for something like Lapierre and you want to cellar a lot of Beaujolais, well, the best advice really is to switch styles, or at least learn to enjoy the style you like for what it is - something you're probably going to get more enjoyment out of on the young side than from aging. And it's also important to note that many that are still alive after 15 years aren't necessarily better than they were in year one. Beaujolais is a lot like riesling this way. So delicious out of the gate it's easy to get carried away and cellar too much (I sure did! in both categories) but a huge part of that deliciousness is from that young vibrant fruit and once that's gone it's not coming back.
Click to expand...

One could argue that finding a vibrant 15-year old Beaujolais not to taste any better than it did in year one is as subjective as finding a Beaujolais that's made in a Burgundy style not to taste like Beaujolais in the first place.
Click to expand...
One could, except that arguments about subjectivity and objectivity never go anywhere
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top