Dinner Sequence - Bordeaux/Burgundy

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey
I feel strongly that the classic dinner sequence is Bordeaux with a course then Burgundy with an ensuing course. However, googling, I can't find any support for my contention (which I know some people agree with and some don't).

Are there any thoughts or reference material on this issue?

Thanks!

. . . . Pete
 
That's good to hear.

Besides being the classic sequence, in my mind, at least, I just feel that Burgundy (arguably perhaps?) has more drama than Bordeaux; thus, it's better to let the drama build from a Bordeaux toward an ensuing Burgundy.

. . . . . Pete
 
Keith, good point!

Side comment, your review of Antonin Guyon Corton-Clos du Roi '09 was useful as I hope to serve it (after the Bordeaux) at an upcoming dinner.

. . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
I just find that Bordeaux tastes too coarse and dry when it comes after Burgundy, which is sweeter and smoother.
Click to expand...
And not to forget, usually more acidic which IMO is the problem with the opposite sequence.
 
And also - Bordeaux seems simple after burgundy. Whereas burgundy seems complex yet satisfying after bordeaux.

Of course my preferred order is Burgundy followed by Burgundy.
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
Are there any thoughts or reference material on this issue?
Click to expand...
There is plenty of supporting evidence, mostly of two kinds: historical menus and books of advice to hostesses.

Typically, the claret was served warm with the entree, very cold champagne with the roast, and burgundy with game, in that order.

How to #1: Dinners and Luncheons by Paul Pierce (links to an excerpt on a blog)

How to #2: Mrs. Gilette's Cook Book (see chapter 1)

Menus: Winterthur in the Gilded Age (blog)

I'm sure there are many more advice books. Historical menus are not hard to find but you also need a detailed account of what exactly was served with each course.
 
In the famous "lesson" Dodin-Bouffant teaches the Crown Prince of Eurasia, the red wines were, in order of service: of Chateaunuf-du-Pape, of Segur and finally of Chambolle. (Note, no wine was served with the final dish: the Soubise puree.) In the modern era, however, I think Maureen's approach would be the lesson. In a single meal, follow younger bordeaux with older bordeaux or burgundy with burgundy.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
Are there any thoughts or reference material on this issue?
Click to expand...
There is plenty of supporting evidence, mostly of two kinds: historical menus and books of advice to hostesses.

Typically, the claret was served warm with the entree, very cold champagne with the roast, and burgundy with game, in that order.

How to #1: Dinners and Luncheons by Paul Pierce (links to an excerpt on a blog)

How to #2: Mrs. Gilette's Cook Book (see chapter 1)

Menus: Winterthur in the Gilded Age (blog)

I'm sure there are many more advice books. Historical menus are not hard to find but you also need a detailed account of what exactly was served with each course.
Click to expand...

But Pete, that's begging the question (in the classical sense). Why serve the game bird after the roast? Speaking only for myself, I can say that I almost always serve ortolans before the manatee steaks, not after.

Mark Lipton
 
Jeff, i assume you are being tongue in cheek, but yes it's fiction, but like the works it is styled on, when it comes to the cooking, eating and drinking, it's all about the verisimilitude.
 
"Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."

Fiction and non-fiction are distinct categories, you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top