Figeac vertical tasting - do I join the Rolland haters?

[marcs]

Went to a sort of abbreviated Figeac vertical tasting last night, in large part to support Panos Kakaviatos who is a great presence in the DC wine community. Normally I'd be all over a Figeac vertical regardless, but the producer was remarkably uncooperative with this event -- they supplied only six vintages, five of which were from 2004 or after (!), and none of which except perhaps the 2009 were what could be called a glamour vintage. Then to add insult to injury, Frederic Faye canceled his attendance at the last minute (due to a canceled flight he said).

In any case, the vintages in question were 1981, 2004, 2009, 2011, 2015, and 2018. The inclusion of 2015 and 2018 along with younger pre-Rolland vintages like 2009 and 2011 allowed an interesting opportunity to compare the old and new regimes at Figeac.

I did not take contemparaneous notes, as usual, so these are sort of general recalled impressions:

1981 -- out of magnum, this was in very good condition for a 40 year old vintage from a cool year. The nose was gorgeous and extremely evocative, with a ferrous undertone typical of a cool year, along with rich pipe tobacco and Indian spices. The palate wasn't as rich as the nose, and was a bit tart/sour. But it was also very drinkable on the palate -- smooth and went down easy, then a fine match with food. The architecture of the wine was completely intact and you could sense an underlying vein of fruit providing low-key pleasure even if the palate was somewhat thin.

2004 -- surprisingly rich and luxurious-feeling for a cool year Figeac, and still had a hint of oak. Fruity but balanced and elegant at the same time. Soft tannins and good freshness but still had a touch of almost caramel-y right bank richness. Would like to see this again in 5-10 years.

2009 -- like a considerably amped up version of the 2004, showing a lot of 2009 vintage character. Napa-esque but in the best way, very full and complete wine, with impressive underlying structure (tannins evident) but wrapped in a gorgeous sheath of fruit like so many 2009s. Very balanced without any excess, but plush and rich and a bit overwhelming for food. Again like many 2009s this is more about texture and richness than subtleties of flavor at this time, but the savory and mineral elements are there in the background to support the experience. WIshing I had invested in this Figeac instead of the 2016, for reasons to become evident below. WOTN for me.

Given their inherent balance both the 2004 and 2009 felt like they could possibly age into something reminiscent of that fantastic 1995 we had at BWE 2021 (you didn't think I could get through this without mentioning that bottle did you?).

2011 -- interesting wine and strikingly different from the 2009. A lot of dark fruit character and ferrous bite. Trying it next to the 2009 you could sense a bit of a hole in the mid-palate, but there was still a lot of interest and complexity. Much closer to full maturity than the 2009 and actually a better match to our lamb than the 2009 was. Some nice leafiness around the edges. Enjoyed this much more than the vintage reputation would suggest.

2015 -- clearly from a soft warm year like the 2009, but where the 2009 was beautifully balanced this one was...kind of mediocre? Not in the sense of being a hot over-alcoholic mess, but just less coherent in every way than the 2009, with a slight undertone of unbalanced harshness to it. Lacked the harmonious quality I found in a lot of the previous wines. Hard to explain why I found this wine un-enjoyable but I did. Just had the sensation of a lot of component elements sticking out and not flowing together. Plenty of fruit, acidity, tannin but the pieces didn't click together into a good narrative as you tasted it.

2018 -- now here's a true hot weather vintage cliche. No alcohol evident but very sweet, to the point of being actively confected and candied. Very smooth and easy drinking without the harsh undertone of the 2015. I very much have a sweet tooth so I enjoyed this one, which gave me some Nestle milk chocolate vibes. Don't know it was the "finessed" tannins we keep hearing about but it was super easy drinking and smooth for such a young wine. But I found myself wishing the restaurant had served a dessert to go with it, perhaps a chocolate mousse.

OVERALL -- I have no idea if I absorbed some anti-Rolland prejudice which biased my palate, or it's a matter of the wines being younger, but I felt a major change and drop off between the pre-2015 vintages here and 2015/2018. It really left me with a very strong WTF feeling, as in WTF are the critics talking about here? I certainly did not sense any leap in quality between the older and younger vintages, rather the opposite. Another data point for me against the claim that "Bordeaux is the best it's ever been". The experience left me a bit concerned about my 2016 Figeac.

[JimHow]

I bought 11 bottles of 2015 Figeac for like $160, which I thought was a good price. I tried one, and it was mediocre. I’ll cellar the other 10 but I’m not enthusiastic. I guess my heirs could sell them some day after I’m gone.

[marcs]

“Mediocre” is a good summary of my experience of the 2015 last night as well.

Look at the critical and CT reviews of this and you’ll be shocked

[robert goulet]

2015 righties

Small sample size...Seem wayy too high in alc. and over ripe

I thought the 2015 Figeac tasted last year was a brutal quaff

[Blanquito]

I found the 20 Figeac pretty hohum at the UGC. I tasted it 4-5 times over the evening and couldn’t understand what the fuss was about (but I liked it more than the 20 Canon).

[marcs]

William Kelley just rated the 2020 Figeac a hundred points and gave it the now ubiquitous “best ever” nod

[marcs]

2015 righties

Small sample size...Seem wayy too high in alc. and over ripe

I thought the 2015 Figeac tasted last year was a brutal quaff

Yeah the 2015 was actively harsh, worst wine of the night

[Comte Flaneur]

Very interesting Marc and a shame that Frédéric Faye did not show up and that it was such a parsimonious selection, albeit a revealing one by your notes.

I have tried quite a few Figeacs lately, and my impressions of the 2015 and 2018 were similar to yours. The 2018 was clearly the better wine. But a lot of young Bordeaux tastes like this at that age. They taste sweet and ripe with a lot of baby fat. That is how for example the 2000 Chateau Margaux and Pichon Baron tasted at a very young age before transmogrifying into classical Bordeaux wines. It takes several years to reveal their true Bordeaux colours. I find them difficult to analyse in such a primordial state, which is why I have to rely on critics I trust and respect like William Kelly and Neal Martin.

I loved the 2011 Figeac when we tasted it at the estate in 2015 because it was clearly an old school wine. I finally got around to buying some a few months ago. I tried one and really liked it but put the rest away for a few years. I think Figeac like Cheval Blanc is one of the most ageworthy of all the Bordeaux wines. I have always found the 2009 and 2010 Figeacs to be rather clumsy but they seem to be straightening out a bit now. Figeac is a very enigmatic and complicated creature! Getting back to the modern Figeacs I tried the 2020 a couple of weeks ago and was not wowed by it. But again it is primordial juice and if WK rates it as ‘best ever’ and 100 points that for me is worth noting.

[Blanquito]

William Kelley is earning some real cred in my book with his recent commentary on Berserkers, distinguishing himself from other critics at least in principle. That said, his scores on the 19-21 vintages are virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the “rock star” wine commentariat, so it’s hard to know what his philosophical integrity means in practice.

As a sidenote, does it strike anyone else how conservative his notes and scores on burgundy seem to be compared to Bordeaux? Kind of the opposite of Gilman.

[JimHow]

The 2015 Figeac averages 96 points by the knowledgeable tasters of Cellartracker, with an average price of $221. The average prices on Winesearcher are like up closer to $300.

[robert goulet]

William Kelley is earning some real cred in my book with his recent commentary on Berserkers, distinguishing himself from other critics at least in principle. That said, his scores on the 19-21 vintages are virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the “rock star” wine commentariat, so it’s hard to know what his philosophical integrity means in practice.

As a sidenote, does it strike anyone else how conservative his notes and scores on burgundy seem to be compared to Bordeaux? Kind of the opposite of Gilman.

I find most critic scores as a bit of a parody...rarely do I see any outside the box scoring...instead very predictable.

[robert goulet]

William Kelley is earning some real cred in my book with his recent commentary on Berserkers, distinguishing himself from other critics at least in principle. That said, his scores on the 19-21 vintages are virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the “rock star” wine commentariat, so it’s hard to know what his philosophical integrity means in practice.

As a sidenote, does it strike anyone else how conservative his notes and scores on burgundy seem to be compared to Bordeaux? Kind of the opposite of Gilman.

I find most critic scores as a bit of a parody...rarely do I see any outside the box scoring...instead very predictable.

Though I do find William incredibly gifted w/ his knowledge and passion for wine.

[Musigny 151]

I think most critics consider the wines being made today are better than the same wines thirty years ago. For the most part they are undoubtedly cleaner, the selection is more careful, and there is plenty of new technology around. The problem for me is that the wines tend to be riper, more alcoholic and far less precise. Figeac may be the poster child for all of this.

When Eric d’Aramon, a member of the family was in charge,the wines were pretty pure and traditional. They were high points, the ‘98,’09 etc, and there were some greenish wines such as 1979 and 2000. But I loved the passion there to make singular and interesting wines, and the 2000, which I had basically given up on, is beginning to lose some of its greenies and becoming a really solid wine.

But d’Aramon departed or to be more accurate, was kicked out unceremoniously, when Pavie and Angelus were promoted from GCC Bt to GCC A. Figeac stayed a B. I have tasted some of the wines, and they are certainly more ripe and quite glossy. And far less interesting. It is interesting to contrast the 2009 made by Eric which retains its freshness and complexity to the 2018 which was a bit of a lump. Both are warm/hot years. The truth of the matter is that the current crop of “ripe” wines are often for my palate, overripe, especially on the Right Bank. Even my beloved VCC was in 2015 and 2018.

[marcs]

I think most critics consider the wines being made today are better than the same wines thirty years ago. For the most part they are undoubtedly cleaner, the selection is more careful, and there is plenty of new technology around. The problem for me is that the wines tend to be riper, more alcoholic and far less precise. Figeac may be the poster child for all of this.

Musigny can you give more detail on what exactly you mean by "far less precise" above? I see the "precise" descriptor used a lot these days and am never quite sure what is meant by it. I have my own subjective meaning of course but am interested in the view of a wine expert on what you mean by it.

I ask in part because I felt like there was a difference in what might be called the structural coherence of the pre-2014 wines we tasted that night vs the 2015/2018, but I found the difference very difficult to describe in words. The earlier wines just flowed better somehow, the various components seemed to cohere better. I guess the 2018 "flowed" well in the sense that it was very easy to drink but it was also just loose and sweet.

Wondering if what I was sensing has something to do with what you mean by "precision".

[Musigny 151]

For me precision is a combination of structure and flavor. Comparing the 2009 and 2018, with the 2009 the structure allowed each flavor and nuance to come through clearly while with 2018 it was muddied, everything coming together into an and anonymous single note. It is often, but not always, a product of highish alcohol and relatively low acid.

[marcs]

For me precision is a combination of structure and flavor. Comparing the 2009 and 2018, with the 2009 the structure allowed each flavor and nuance to come through clearly while with 2018 it was muddied, everything coming together into an and anonymous single note. It is often, but not always, a product of highish alcohol and relatively low acid.

very useful, thank you! I felt this very clearly. The single note of the 2018 was "sweet milk chocolate" lol.

I think I have a hard time articulating this because I'm not very good at naming flavors. But I definitely felt the 2009 had more diversity of flavors and nuance.

[Musigny 151]

For me precision is a combination of structure and flavor. Comparing the 2009 and 2018, with the 2009 the structure allowed each flavor and nuance to come through clearly while with 2018 it was muddied, everything coming together into an and anonymous single note. It is often, but not always, a product of highish alcohol and relatively low acid.

very useful, thank you! I felt this very clearly. The single note of the 2018 was "sweet milk chocolate" lol.

I think I have a hard time articulating this because I'm not very good at naming flavors. But I definitely felt the 2009 had more diversity of flavors and nuance.

And probably a little more acidity. It is certainly one of my favorite Figeacs, but lags behind the incredible 1998, which is well worth seeing out.

[AKR]

Interesting notes and thanks for sharing. It seems like its always a little harder to get (communal) verticals organized for right bank estates, unless there is someone playing anchorman who can fill in years from their own racks.

[DavidG]

For me precision is a combination of structure and flavor. Comparing the 2009 and 2018, with the 2009 the structure allowed each flavor and nuance to come through clearly while with 2018 it was muddied, everything coming together into an and anonymous single note. It is often, but not always, a product of highish alcohol and relatively low acid.

very useful, thank you! I felt this very clearly. The single note of the 2018 was "sweet milk chocolate" lol.

I think I have a hard time articulating this because I'm not very good at naming flavors. But I definitely felt the 2009 had more diversity of flavors and nuance.

How much of a role do you think the age difference could be playing here? Comparing a 14 yo to a 5 yo Bordeaux would seem a bit apples to oranges.

[Comte Flaneur]

I suspect it makes a significant difference.

It is difficult to be precise about what we mean by ‘precision’ and it may mean different things to different people.

Taking a stab at what it means I would say well delineated and identifiable features, especially on the palate.

Modern young Bordeaux from a warm vintage tends to be a cacophony of sweet fruit, oak and the component parts which have not had a chance to meld together as they would in a wine a decade older.

That comes across in tasting 2018 Bordeaux and I have tasted quite a lot of them in recent months.

We also saw that in our 2019 horizontal in London. I don’t think any of those wines had great precision yet.

But in my experience these wines become more Bordeaux-like and gain more precision with age as the wine matures. I can think of several examples like 2000 Pichon Baron and Ch Margaux and 2009 Pichon Lalande.

In ten years time I wouldn’t be surprised if the 2018 Figeac will taste more ‘precise’ than it does now, especially given the evolution of wine making in recent years.

A good example of a precise wine is the 2014 Brane Cantenac I drank last week. It had well delineated features, just the right amount of acidity and perfectly - neither over- nor under- - ripe fruit.

[Musigny 151]

The debate is also on the Berserker board. Well worth looking at

[marcs]

I do think Bordeaux often gains "precision" with age, but I don't think my dislike of the 2015 was based on how young it was. At the Conseillante vertical in I think 2018 I liked the recently bottled 2015 so much I went home and bought a few bottles.

[Comte Flaneur]

The debate is also on the Berserker board. Well worth looking at

I took a glance but seems like a Punch & Judy show? Why I don’t go there very often but will take some time to go through the thread in more detail - problem on WB there is so much chaff among the wheat - lots of interesting stuff but too much mud slinging

[JimHow]

Omg I haven't looked at that toxic site in at least 5 years.
I think I have visited it less than 20 times in my entire career.
To me it is gross, but to each his own, I guess.

[Blanquito]

I was guilty of slinging a little mud.

[stefan]

Jim, there are many knowledgeable Bordeaux drinkers on Berserkers, and the thread started by Marcus to which Mark pointed has some useful information and interesting points of view. It is worth trying to separate the "wheat from the chaff", to paraphrase our erudite Brit.

My favorite vintage of Figeac is the 1964. Lucie and I drank a ton of it long ago. I have not drunk much Figeac from recent vintages. At $200+ per bottle there are many wines I prefer.

[Musigny 151]

Also the Bordeaux/Burgundy Advocate critic, William Kelley participates. He is knowledgeable and interesting and a recent article detailing the changes in Bordeaux winemaking is a must read. It is free


https://winejournal.robertparker.com/fr ... of-the-art

[marcs]

I was guilty of slinging a little mud.

Thank you for your service !

[Claudius2]

Guys
I refrain from using the term precise though I do have in my own mind a specific definition of it, and it has two components.

Firstly it must imply balance, giving the wine a sense of completeness or wholeness. Not too much of anything - including sweet fruit, alcohol, acid, oak, tannins etc. I look for balance irrespective of age and frankly, I do not agree that unbalanced wines can magically become balanced when young. I have had a long list of disasters where the cognoscenti argued that with some ageing, they will morph into a wine of evident poise, balance or whatever.

A young wine may show tightness and structure though precision should imply that such structure is a positive, and particularly in a young wine. If it seems loose when young it worries me. The tannins and acid however should not be dominant nor should masses of sweet fruit or oak derived flavours.

The next correlation to me is what I call freshness. Even in Sauternes or Port, I look for some freshness to complement sweetness and viscosity. Give me some minerality and tame the overt sweetness and I’m generally happy. Give me wines that are hot, heavy, overtly woody, overly sweet or flabby and I’ll drink water. Freshness gives a sense of length to the wine and a refreshing aftertaste.

Jim
On another matter the Moulin St Georges is a wine I buy with some frequency and I was hoping it will continue to fly below the radar. It offers really nice fruit characters and some length. At the moment it is a good value - just hope it stays that way.

Cheers
Mark

PS I’m recovering from surgery - can’t drink anything now so I may as well write about it.

[AKR]

For me, one way to think about 'precise' is comparable to using spices in cooking. To wit, some recipes call for each contributing flavor to be added whole to the recipe - a bay leaf, pepper corns, a stick of cinnamon, whole garlic and so on. Other recipes work better when everything is toasted/ground up first, and then added together in a combination.