Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Home > Blogs > Uncorked > Archives > 2005 > November > 29
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
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.
