Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Home > Blogs > Uncorked > Archives > 2005 > November > 29 > Entry
Chateau Pavie and the Great Extraction Debate
The debate rages in fine-wine regions around the world about winemaking techniques, pitting traditionalists against proponents of longer “hang-timeâ€? for grapes. Leaving the grapes on the vine long beyond their traditional picking time can produce …
… highly extracted, more concentrated wines with sweet fruit, more viscosity and higher alcohol, and winemakers often lavish more oak on top of those wines. But these attributes also can “homogenizeâ€? wines by muting the varietal character, the terroir and the complexity.
No one knows which side is “right,� and the truth probably lies, as it does with most of these bitterly polarizing debates, somewhere in the middle.
In some winemaking regions, in some vintages, embracing longer hang-time in the vineyards and an international style of winemaking in the cellar can result in wines superior to those made in the traditional method. In other regions and in other vintage conditions, the “newâ€? method will produce overripe, clumsy wines with high alcohol levels that make them tiresome to drink — and may inhibit their aging potential. (For a fine summary of the debate as it’s playing out in the 2005 Bordeaux vintage, link to this story from the Wine International web site, and my thanks to fellow wine blogger Tom Wark from Fermentation for finding it.)
Coincidence that the Wine International story should mention so prominently Chateau Pavie, the respected domaine in the St. Emilion commune. I had the opportunity to sit down with a group of Dayton-area wine enthusiasts earlier this month to taste through a substantial vertical of Chateau Pavie. No other domaine in Bordeaux illustrates and captures this debate any better. Consider: In his 16th buying guide, wine critic extraordinaire Robert Parker proclaimed the first three Pavies made since the 1998 vintage – when new owner Gerard Perse embraced high-extraction methods recommended by consultant Michel Rolland – “three of the greatest Pavies of the 20th Century.� In contrast, Clive Coates, no slouch of a wine critic and author himself, mourns the change in approach, declaring that Pavie since 1998 “is now a rather over-extracted wine (that) has lost its elegance.�
In the end, as you’ll see by tasting notes I prepared with an assist from fellow taster Doug Lehrer, we failed utterly in our quest to resolve the Great Debate. But – um – we sure enjoyed the attempt.
The Tasting Notes:
1971: One taster called 1971 “the most underrated vintage in Bordeaux in the last 50 years.� I haven’t tried near enough ‘71s to agree or disagree (MY most memorable ’71 was a Mosel Auslese). But THIS ’71 had the “nose of the night�: Fully mature (without being oxidized) aromas of toasty, earthy red fruits. On the palate, the wine was nicely balanced, the tannins fully integrated, with fruit fading but not gone, and a mushroom-forest floor note in the impressively long finish.
1981: Dusty, iodine-dominated nose with herbal-bordering-on-vegetal flavors, this austere wine seemed to have dried out, with a short, clipped finish.
1982: An intriguing nose of herbs, earth and candy-apple fruit. Palate boasts a solid core of fruit and ample tannins. This wine’s still a baby, and it seemed to close up in the glass, refusing to show what’s underneath the robe of tannins. But the lengthy finish, which got more generous with time, shows promise of wonderful things to come.
1983: Nose of red and blue fruits and a bit of toastiness. Still youthful on the palate, with hints of lead pencil and iodine adding complexity to the still-ample fruit. Fine acid balances the flavors, followed by a long, appealing finish.
1986: Muted nose, with hints of dark fruit and earth. A firm and tannic wine that allows only a sneak peak of what seems to be solid core of fruit still hiding beneath. Shows balance and potential.
1989: Sweet, dark fruits dominate both the nose and the palate. This is a big, ripe, strapping wine, with gobs of fruit and firm tannins and fine acidity to balance. Young, very young, and promising, very promising. Not showing complexity yet, but has all the components to suggest it’s coming.
1990: Similar to the 1989 on the nose, but with a hint, an appealing hint, of an earthy, brett-like component. Perhaps not as dense and concentrated as the ’89, but also not quite as tannic or acidic. This wine opened up in the glass more than most and allowed the fruit to peek through. Balanced and delicious.
1997: Earthy, vegetal aromas, followed by lean, herbaceous flavors. Largest single contributor to the dump bucket.
1998: Is this the first of the new, Michel Rolland-assisted vintages? A deep, dense wine in every way: sight, aromas and flavors. Toasty, fruit-packed nose, concentrated and broad flavors, with ample tannins to balance. And a finish that hangs and hangs. Whether you approve of the style or not, the undeniably ripe and concentrated fruit could hardly fail to delight.
1999: Very similar to the 1998 on the nose, but more open and accessible on the palate. Sweet and intense fruit, but will this fruit bomb improve?
2000: Dark, ripe fruits dominate the nose. Sweet, ripe, glycerin-filled in
the mouth, with a viscosity of 5W-30 motor oil. This wine stirred some
controversy: no doubt it’s a huge, rich, red wine, but Bordeaux characteristics are muted at this point. At this stage of its development, it could be confused
with a super-Tuscan from a hot year, or even an Australian blend. An
international-style wine? And if so, is that necessarily a bad thing?
2001: Dark fruits peek out from the muted nose. Again, a wine of huge glycerin and fruit concentration, but also very tannic. Unlike the 2000, though, it shows some appealing hints of cedar and graphite. The alcohol also makes it presence known in the finish. Shows fabulous potential. A wine to grow old with – and a reason to live a long, long time.
2002: This bottle had a gunflint-and-sulfur nose that carried through into the palate, which had an over-roasted, coffee-like quality, yet little fruit. Difficult to evaluate; perhaps an off bottle?
Thoughts, comments are welcomed…
(Photo courtesy of Sue Kalal, poor cropping blamed on Mark Fisher and the limitations of the computer system)
Cheers!
Mark Fisher
TweetGo to my facebook page and click Like to comment.
Comments
By Paul
November 30, 2005 4:19 PM | Link to this
While I agree with Bob and “over the top” that the new style Pavie is PPP, I could make that same statement about hundreds of things, many of which are totally unrelated to fine wines. Tom is absolutely correct that the character of the recent vintage Pavie could well change with time. But I’m a long-time Bordeaux lover, and having had the good fortune to taste most of the vintages since 1966 as young wines, I personally find the recent Pavie vintages have lost in character what they may have gained in fruitiness and alcohol. Only half in jest, I earlier suggested to Bob, Larry and Mark that Pavie should lose it’s Grand Cru status because it is no longer a true Bordeaux, much less a true St. Emilion. One of the great pleasures I have experienced over the years drinking Bordeaux in particular, and French wines in general, is watching the development of the wine over the years. I seldom get to experience that pleasure drinking California wines, and I fear I may not experience that same pleasure drinking the current style wines from Pavie. Of course, the problem is not just with Pavie. I feel the same way about recent vintages of Ch. Monbousquet that I’ve tasted, among others. Thanks to Bob for a very interesting link. In particular, I noted with interest the Clive Coates 1995 comment that “With a severer selection and a deliberately reduced harvest the wine has not only become fuller but richer and more concentrated.” A pity that we didn’t have any wines in our Pavie vertical from the 1991 through 1996 vintages. It would be interesting to see how much of the change noted beginning with 1998 actually occurred before 1998 but was not observed because we didn’t taste those vintages. I also noted with interest the comments regarding Robert Parker. After years of reading Parker’s Wine Advocate, I’ve often felt that his “clinical assessment” of Bordeaux was more accurate that his personal opinions and stylistic assessments. Perhaps another way to say it is that is nose and palate are fairly accurate, but his opinions frequently indicated that he didn’t really like Bordeaux wines as much as California wines. I’m sure many will disagree with my Parker comments, but that’s OK. If we all shared the same opinions, there would be no reason for Blogs!
By Bob
November 30, 2005 9:26 AM | Link to this
I agree with “Over the Top” that the new style is Presently Pleasing to the Palate as a tasting experience even though it isn’t my favorite style. I do notice that the rest of us are oldtimers who remember when wines were much less expensive but Pavie has jumped to astronomical levels. Perhaps any kind of publicity is a good thing. Zachys has a huge list of 2001 Bordeaux that seemed like a reasonble place for price comparison. The Pavie is more expensive than Mouton or Haut Brion. Pavie used to trade for 1/3 or less of the prices of these wines. Here is an interesting link with some fun comments on what has been going on at Pavie and tasting notes for some of the same wines as our tasting. http://www.wine-journal.com/pavie2.html
By Larry
November 30, 2005 5:27 AM | Link to this
I’ll have to agree with Bob & Paul. Chalk me up as a “traditionalist”. But as I found out in a conversation with Ray Coursen of Elyse, also count me in the 0.1% of all wine lovers who will buy a bottle of wine with the thought it might actually taste better 5, 10, or 20 years down the road. I’ve had the pleasure of drinking 40+ year old Bordeaux that were still incredible wines, and wether these “new style” wines will hold up that long, no one knows at this point- and I seriously doubt that the major proponents of this style even care, because most of them won’t be around to taste the wines. The trend toward more ripeness in Bordeaux has been going on for decades, but now it’s plain over the top IMHO. I was lucky enough to taste a boatload of the ‘82 Bordeaux on release, and they were nothing like the recent Pavie releases. I mean, what’s to be gained by increasing the hang time in a “perfect” vintage? Several of the Chateaux started picking the Merlot in AUGUST of ‘82, and now you’re telling me another 5 weeks of maturity is somehow going to improve the product? The referred-to article about letting the merlot skins get to the point of disintegrating gave me the heebiejeebies. You risk a couple of types of rot, and you get to the point the sugar isn’t going to get any higher, the acid is sure to get lower, so just what are you trying to accomplish? I hope not to the California point of the late ’70s where “food” wines were all the rage where the winemakers balanced out all those fruit-bomb, low-acid wines with high doses of added acid blend. Those wines went over the hill faster than the Enterprise going to warp speed. Paul’s comparison to California style is pretty accurate, and chilling — as I can count the number of California Cabs that I think actualy improve significantly with bottle age on the fingers of one hand.
By Tom Davis
November 30, 2005 1:00 AM | Link to this
I also had the good fortune to enjoy the vertical Pavie. The sharing of fine wines is one of my great joys and this group really shared! Mark’s comments described the wines very accurately and I would agree with Bob too —- but I think the new pricing of Pavie disturbs me much more than the new style. As we were cleaning the glasses and decanters Bob asked me if I wanted to take the remaining 6 or so ounces of the 2001. I couldn’t say no and carried it home in the ‘88 Ch. Guiraud bottle. I placed it on the kitchen counter by the bread maker and forgot about till I noticed it as I was preparing a steak the evening of November 25th. The 2001 Pavie had not entered the “Davis Zone” —- what did you expect? It was very different from what it showed me on the 12th; the beautiful fruit components remained and had been enhanced by the clear presence of the Bordeaux character that I find essential for my enjoyment of the great wines of St. Emilion and all of Bordeaux. I wish that all at the vertical could have experienced that remainder of the 2001 with me. This does not settle the ‘style’ discussion, but it does give me one reference and a hope that Bordeaux of this century has the potential to satisfy both the traditionalists and modernists. A votre sante!
By over the top
November 29, 2005 8:26 PM | Link to this
Interesting comments. Yes, the price is high, but so is gasoline!!!! The taste, well, whether it is California or international it is Presently Pleasing to the Palate (that would be PPP). How it develops ???? I do not know, but IF I am around to argue, it will be a great argument, even if I do not win. The wines are great, and the change in style was quite obvious.
By cathy
November 29, 2005 4:31 PM | Link to this
Even as a Bordeaux novice I noticed the change in style beginning with the 1998 Pavie vintages. Gerard Perse owns some other vineyards: La Lcusiere and Chateau Monbousquet. Is he making these wines in the funky “International” style too?
By Paul
November 29, 2005 2:02 PM | Link to this
Amen, Brother Bob! To me, it is not a question of right or wrong, but a case of different tastes and different expectations. Some folks might buy a Porsche that looked and drove like a Cadillac. Others would not. Mark asks if the new style of Pavie is “international”. In my opinion, no — it is distinctly Californian. More specifically, in the style of the big, jammy, (IMHO overpriced) California Meritages, Cabs and Merlots that pretend to be French-styled. French wines that pretend to be California wines pretending to be French wines. Confusing? Yes. Enough to make my head spin. So …, as one who prefers to simplify life’s complexities, I think I’ll stick to French wines that maintain traditional French style and values, and if I want big fruit bombs with high alcohol and little refinement or character, I’ll go straight to the traditional source — my birth state of California. On the other hand, to those who prefer the big, fruity, alcoholic style of California wines, I suggest you try some of the new style Bordeaux wines. As Mark’s tasting notes suggest, they can be VERY tasty despite the fact that they are not very French (I wonder if they are intended to apease those who believe we should boycott French products?).
By kocher
November 29, 2005 1:27 PM | Link to this
This is not a new argument. I remember the disdain that some ladled on the 1982 Bordeaux vintage. Too hot, too ripe, too New World, won’t age well and lacking site typicity were all claimed by the naysaying crowd. Truth was that it was a very ripe year and thus carried hot-climate attributes. They have aged well [in general] and are today some of the most highly touted and expensive wines from that era. That said….I was present at the Pavie vertical tasting. There was a stylistic change starting with 1998. As this coincided with a winemaker change at the Chateau, it is hard to blame global warming ;>}. I suspect the high extract, high alcohol, late harvest trend is being evidenced at Pavie. The post 1997 wines didn’t taste like Merlot, St. Emilion or Pavie to me. Time will tell if that is a temporary thing (the wines were very young, unevolved and reticent) or if the “old” Pavie is no mas. To be honest, I liked the older Pavies less than most at the tasting, too. It’s not one of my favorite Cotes Chateaus, and St. Emilion is not one of my favorite Bordeaux appelations. Most of the older wines seemed tired and some highly touted vintages were not showing well, IMO. Stylistically I did, however, prefer the pre-1998 wines. One thing IS clear to me: Pavie has changed. In a wine world where climate, history and terroir matter less and less, does this signal survival, bad form, smart marketing or a combination? Two things are certain… prices and ratings are both going up.
By Bob
November 29, 2005 1:03 PM | Link to this
As with any subjective issue that also has a high degree of personal taste involved, as you say there is no right answer. That said, I certainly come down on the side of the traditionalist. I want Bordeaux wines that I buy to taste like Bordeaux. Maybe more to the point I want them to behave like Bordeaux. The jury is still out as to how these new high extract wines will age. I think one universal conclusion of the tasting was that we will have to reprise it again in a number of years to see what time tells us. I think that historical precedent has been that wines are deemed to be great for 2 reasons. First is that they provide a unique and memorable experience. The second is that they develop with age and become even more unique and enjoyable. A whole lot of the fun of wine will disappear for me if all wines are to become high extract, high alcohol intensely fruity wines. There are many positive things to be said for improved growing and wine making techniques. Great strides have been made in the over all quality of the wines produced in many of the classic wine areas. I salute those efforts when they result in more wines of good quality that still maintain the characteristics of the area. I don’t have much positive to say when those efforts are taken to the point of making high extract wines that can’t be distinguished one from the other. Maybe if I were on the producer side I would be interested in high extract wines that seem to be in favor and can be drunk earlier.. and most importantly sold at exorbitant prices. Inflation aside, the rise in price of Pavie since the change of ownership and wine making technique is nothing short of obscene. As to who is right, time will tell. If these high extract monsters fail to prove to be age worthy will they be subjected to rapid decline in salability? There can only be so many high extract wines that all taste the same in the market for short term consumption and still maintain the price structure. I personally will stick with producers that maintain the old traditions… and hope that not so many are given over to the dark side as to make the wines that I enjoy disappear.