Online documentary: Vino Business, la fache cachée du vin

[AlexR]

Hi,

I read a book this summer called "Vino Business" by muckraking journalist Isabelle Saporta, so I did not want to miss the TV version shown on France 3 last night.

Here's the link, valid for one week:
http://www.france3.fr/emission/vino-business

She takes pot shots at several important personalities and the French wine industry (especially Bordeaux).

French speakers and wine lovers will enjoy the polemics.

Hubert de Boüard of Ch. Angélus is taking the journalist to court over this.
In light of the way his wine was promoted in the most recent classification, I think he has a very weak case...

Best regards,
Alex R.

[AlexR]

Oops, sorry, apparently the link does not work from outside France.

There is evidently an easy way to get around this, but I am no computer geek...

Alex R.

[stefan]

The link works from the UK, Alex.

[greatbxfreak]

Hi Alex,

Doesn't work from Denmark.

Can you remember what Hubert Boidron said during the program you mention. He was one of the participants. Pity that the book in question hasn't been translated to English yet.

I am going to meet his brother Emmanuel in Saint Emilion sometimes next week and hopefully he can put some more light on St.E. classification soap opera.

[DavidG]

Hasn't the St. Emilion classification been a soap opera for decades? Court fights over its validity, etc? Is this go-round that different? I'm not saying one way or the other - just asking.

Is there real evidence of impropriety, illegality, influence peddling, etc. surrounding the elevation of Angelus, or is it all rumors at this stage? And Pavie? I haven't heard as many rumors about Pavie but a lot of folks seem incensed about Pavie as well. Is that from a purely stylistic perspective?

[AlexR]

David,

I've not heard one of my friends in the wine trade agree with the promotion of Angélus and Pavie...

That they have been pu on the same plane as Cheval Blanc and Ausone seems incongruous, to say the least!

Anyway, the difference between Pavie's and Angélus' promotion is that the owner of Angélus was president of the winegrower' association and a member of the board of the INAO.
In short, he was judge and jury concerning the ranking of his own wine.

If the most recent classification is invalidated, than I don't think there will ever be another one.

On his bling-bling new cellars (it's like being in a big international hotel), Gérard Perse has had carved into stone "Premier Grand Cru Classé A".
The male ego has no limits...

Best regards,
Alex R.

[Jeff Leve]

I've not heard one of my friends in the wine trade agree with the promotion of Angélus and Pavie....

I have no idea who you know in the trade, but I can assure you, there are numerous chateau owners and and wine makers in St Emilion and in other appellations that agree with the promotion. There are of course others that do not as should be expected.

IMO, when you look at the last 20 years, which is what the classification was based on, it was the right choice, especially for Angelus which was stronger than Cheval and Ausone on a more consistent basis for 20 years. Pavie has been exceptional since 2000 and with its terroir, why not grant it First Growth status?

There were people in 1973 that did not think Mouton should be a First Growth. 40 years later, most realistic people consider Mouton a First Growth. If the Classification stands, in 40 years, everyone will think of Pavie and Angelus as a First Growth. It was not too long ago that Angelus was just a Grand Cru Classe. Today, no one remembers that.

The purpose of the St. Emilion Classification is to reward progress. The ability for promotions and higher prices is a reward for making better wine. And while some people do not agree Pavie and Angelus are making better wine, their lone voices are just like peeing in the wind. The market sets the real price and level of classification and the market has been willing to pay more money over the years for Angelus and Pavie.

[AlexR]

Jeff,

I have countless friends in the trade.
That doesn't mean I am omnisicent. And my view is necessarily partial - like anyone else's - but I wanted to stress that my feelings about Angélus and Pavie are far from just my own!
You are incorrect in seeing the opposition as being "lone voices". Not alt all!
In fact, the way things are going, the classification will be thrown out.
Will the present one be the last one, and thus become immutable, the way the 1855 one (nearly) was?
No one knows. But the controversy with de Boüard has seriously tainted the whole process.

If you think about it, there has been a divide in the English-speaking world (but not just) ever since Rober Parker and Jancis Robinson disagreed about Pavie.
In a nutshell, people who love classic Bordeaux tend to side with Robinson.
This is *not* to say that Pavie and Angélus are fit to pour down the drain. Just that they do not illustrate the balance that many of us hope to find in great Bordeaux.

Also, I'm not saying that these two wines don't deserve to be first growths (although I was extremely put off by tasting Pavie en primeur this spring).
It's just that their promotion up one notch was not merited.
The fact that there was wheeling and dealing behind the scènes seriously discrédits their position, or at least in the case of Angélus.

Have you read Vino Business?
http://www.amazon.com/Vino-business-ESS ... le+saporta
It has been out for a few months. Everyone in Bordeaux is talking about it. It was written to stir up the s***, but it makes a number of valid points.
The role of JP Moueix in Pomerol is worth reading about too.

Equating money and quality is a very shallow way of seeing things. You've put the cart before the horse.
The two often go together, but wine can be expensive for a number of reasons. Quality, alas, is not always one of them.

Alex R.

[DavidG]

There appear to be many aspects to this.

The difference of opinion regarding styles is one. An understandable controversy. I happen to think Angelus is top quality based on almost drinking almost every vintage in the last 20 years. I have less experience with Pavie, but I confess to liking both modern and classic styles. I can easily see where these promotions would create a divide between those with a "classic" vs. "modern" (or some might say AFWE vs. Parker) palate. To me, that's not a disqualifying factor for promotion.

If the owner of the promoted estate is also be the president of the association that makes the decision (do I have that right?), that is a gob-smacking load of conflict of interest. Certain to provoke controversy, whether the promotion is deserved or not.

I was curious whether there were allegations of bribery or other truly illegal acts.

My recollection is that the St. Emilion classification has been the subject of lawsuits in the past, and that there have been dire warnings about it collapsing or going away altogether as well. Am I remembering that history correctly or was that another appellation?

[AlexR]

David,

Your impressions and your memories are correct.

No, bribery and theft were involved in Saint-Emilion, rather "unlawful taking of interest",
Above and beyond the civil suits he is facing, de Boüard has to go to criminal court in order to answer to this charge.

http://www.challenges.fr/conso-et-luxe/ ... teret.html

Alex R.

[Tom In DC]

Equating money and quality is a very shallow way of seeing things.

But that was the entire basis for the 1855 Classification in the Medoc, no?

[AlexR]

Tom,

The classificaton was, yes, based on prices stemming from the wines' perceived quality, but also a track record of many, many years.
There were several classifications preceeding the famous one in 1855, and there were shifts up and down along the way.
The first semi-complete classification was noted down by Thomas Jefferson when he was US ambassador to France.

Crucially, the prices were established by the wine brokers of Bordeaux - intermediaries between the château owners and the négociants, who still play this role.
There is a big difference between this profession and media hype, wine critics, modern classifications proved to have been manipulated, blind tastings where showy wines often prevail, etc.

Can anyone seriously put forth that the market (today's) always brings prices to their just level: the more expensive, the better, the less expensive the less good?

In fact, that sounds like an essay question, doesn't it? ))

Without writing an article for publication, I would say that this is an extremely partial way of seeing things.
There *is* a hierarchy to wine, but it is damned difficult to pin down, and it changes all the time.
Price is obviously a factor, but it is not and should not be, in my opinion, the overriding one.

All the best,
Alex

[Musigny 151]

Equating money and quality is a very shallow way of seeing things.

But that was the entire basis for the 1855 Classification in the Medoc, no?

Certainly the most important single factor, with a minor in proximity to the negotiants.

[AlexR]

Pity my friend Dewey Markham, a fellow American living in Bordeaux is allergic to Internet forums.
He wrote a book on the subject.
http://www.amazon.fr/1855-A-History-Bor ... 0471194212
and would have a few things to say here!

In the 18th and 19th centuries, I think we're talking about quality leading to price in a much more gradual way, with reputations established over many decades.
Compare that to a Parker score of 100 a wine no one had ever heard of beforee, and that didn't exist 5 years previous!
(I admit that there is both good and bad with this).

Two very different notions of the idea of quality, and the relationship with price.

So, yes, Tom and Mark, price was the guiding factor, but all I'm trying to say is that the lead-up to that price needs to be appreciated in a different way, in a very different historic context.

Was proximity a factor in the classification? Certainly, communications (in both senses of the word) were rudimentary in the mid 19th century.
But most of the first growths are in the northern end of the Haut-Médoc.
I can see the argument that estates closer to Bordeaux at the time had an advantage, but how was this born out in the classification?

All the best,
Alex

[AlexR]

I must admit that, if I received an attractive offer like that, I would probably look at Cellartracker notes.

AR

[AlexR]

Opps, sorry for that last message - it was meant to go on the thread about Ducru Beaucaillou !

AR

[Musigny 151]

Pity my friend Dewey Markham, a fellow American living in Bordeaux is allergic to Internet forums.
He wrote a book on the subject.
http://www.amazon.fr/1855-A-History-Bor ... 0471194212
and would have a few things to say here!

In the 18th and 19th centuries, I think we're talking about quality leading to price in a much more gradual way, with reputations established over many decades.
Compare that to a Parker score of 100 a wine no one had ever heard of beforee, and that didn't exist 5 years previous!
(I admit that there is both good and bad with this).

Two very different notions of the idea of quality, and the relationship with price.

So, yes, Tom and Mark, price was the guiding factor, but all I'm trying to say is that the lead-up to that price needs to be appreciated in a different way, in a very different historic context.

Was proximity a factor in the classification? Certainly, communications (in both senses of the word) were rudimentary in the mid 19th century.
But most of the first growths are in the northern end of the Haut-Médoc.
I can see the argument that estates closer to Bordeaux at the time had an advantage, but how was this born out in the classification?

All the best,
Alex

I think it is more of a question as to which estates should have been classified and weren't. De Pez and Sociando Mallet immediately come to mind, but I seem to recall there were others. I remember reading Dewey's book (he was a guide of my Millennium wine tour, and a very good one at that) and it would be interesting to get his input.

[Musigny 151]

I've not heard one of my friends in the wine trade agree with the promotion of Angélus and Pavie....

I have no idea who you know in the trade, but I can assure you, there are numerous chateau owners and and wine makers in St Emilion and in other appellations that agree with the promotion. There are of course others that do not as should be expected.

IMO, when you look at the last 20 years, which is what the classification was based on, it was the right choice, especially for Angelus which was stronger than Cheval and Ausone on a more consistent basis for 20 years. Pavie has been exceptional since 2000 and with its terroir, why not grant it First Growth status?

Even though I am on deadline, and can ill afford the time, I suppose I have to respond. Yes of course, there are plenty of people who agree with the new classification within St. Emilion, but that is hardly surprising in an area where there is financial incentive to changing the winemaking to these more modern versions. More money + a lot more points from a certain Maryland critic, a no brainer for the cynical. However go a few kilometers away to Pomerol, and they are dumbfounded by this. And rumor has it, so were Cheval and Ausone, with one or both seriously thinking of opting out of the classification.

I can't begin to address your take on Pavie. I will just ask how a chateau spending as much time and money obliterating their God given terroir, can be considered one of the top wines of the appellation. Having done a couple of verticals, one double blind, one open,they were both among the most dire tastings I have ever attended. I liked the first wine he made 1998, and the 2006 was actually not bad, but the rest…It's not just that I have a more classical palate than you, it's that the wines sucked. They were extracted, and top-heavy and appeared slightly sweet, with many showing traces of insect repellent flavor in the back end of the palate.

I actually like the wines of Angelus, and I think Hubert makes very good wines from second rate land. At the top of Class B, certainly, but no Ausone or Cheval. Some of the wines from late eighties are showing beautifully at the moment.

[Jeff Leve]

In the 18th and 19th centuries, I think we're talking about quality leading to price in a much more gradual way, with reputations established over many decades. Compare that to a Parker score of 100 a wine no one had ever heard of beforee, and that didn't exist 5 years previous!

You are so antiquated. Jeezes. Just as Elvis replaced Bing, and the Beatles replaced Elvis, new will always replace old. You might want to look up progress and modern. They are two words you should know.

1855 was based on wine prices over a 40 year period. That was most of the criteria for the classification. It's also important to note, the chateau was classified, not the land. In 2012, part of the classification was based on prices over a 20 year period. Other criteria was involved as well that was not taken into consideration in 1855. In St. Emilion, they classify the land.

...most of the first growths are in the northern end of the Haut-Médoc. I can see the argument that estates closer to Bordeaux at the time had an advantage, but how was this born out in the classification?

If 2 of the 4 original First Growths were far from Bordeaux, and most of the Second Growths were equally far, how does what you are saying make sense?

[Jeff Leve]

There were several classifications preceeding the famous one in 1855, and there were shifts up and down along the way.
The first semi-complete classification was noted down by Thomas Jefferson when he was US ambassador to France.

Far be it from me to prove you wrong. I would never want to that. But, that is not correct.

"The first official Bordeaux classification took place in 1740 for tax purposes and was published by the Intendant Boucher. As a point of reference, more than 50% of the chateaux listed in the 1855 Classification were already listed in the 1740 document which contained 75 chateaux in all."

What is interesting to note is that classification, the one done by Jefferson, the next ones to follow before 1855 were all quite similar and what we know of as the First's, were always the firsts.

That quote is from me... You can read more on 1855 if you like http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/bor ... ification/

Can anyone seriously put forth that the market (today's) always brings prices to their just level: the more expensive, the better, the less expensive the less good?

The vast majority of the time, yes. That is why prices rise and fall. The market is only true arbiter of price. If for example, the wins you abhor like Pavie were not thought of highly, people would not buy them at their current level. Look at Lafite, the market shot up to a silly price and the wine was slammed back to a new reality. It happens all the time.

[Jeff Leve]

IMO, when you look at the last 20 years, which is what the classification was based on, it was the right choice, especially for Angelus which was stronger than Cheval and Ausone on a more consistent basis for 20 years. Pavie has been exceptional since 2000 and with its terroir, why not grant it First Growth status?

Yes of course, there are plenty of people who agree with the new classification within St. Emilion, but that is hardly surprising in an area where there is financial incentive to changing the winemaking to these more modern versions. More money + a lot more points from a certain Maryland critic, a no brainer for the cynical. However go a few kilometers away to Pomerol, and they are dumbfounded by this.

Seriously, this is your argument? Pomerol is ike 1855, it is as it is, and it should never change is their thought process when it comes to classification. However, in Pomerol, there is no fairer way to classify the wines than the market price.

so were Cheval and Ausone, with one or both seriously thinking of opting out of the classification. Is this a serious point? Come on. What woud you think they would say? Welcome to the club? Regardless of it being right, or wrong, that is not how it works. We might not always, OK, ever agree on a wine, but you are usually a much clearer, thinker. How many decades did it take for the other 1855 estates to consider Mouton a First Growth?

I can't begin to address your take on Pavie. I will just ask how a chateau spending as much time and money obliterating their God given terroir, can be considered one of the top wines of the appellation. Having done a couple of verticals, one double blind, one open,they were both among the most dire tastings I have ever attended.You should print and send your comments to Mr Perse. Maybe he will start making wines the way you think he should!

I actually like the wines of Angelus, and I think Hubert makes very good wines from second rate land.

Thank God! de Bouard will be able to sleep well tonight

[Musigny 151]

Arguing with you, Jeff, "is like being savaged by a dead sheep". Dennis Healey on Geoffrey Howe, but equally applicable to you Jeff.

You accuse me of muddled thinking and then come up with that crappy post? You can do better, Jeff, much better. Perhaps you should read my post a little more carefully before you respond next time. You argued that producers agreed with the new order, I gave you an example of an appellation where there was no financial incentive in how they assessed it, and they thought it was ridiculous. Not just one or two people, but almost everybody I talked to. Then you tell me the history of Pomerol, that they do not have a classification, and by implication, they are too dumb to understand the ramifications of the the new one.

[Nicklasss]

Normally, the way we're doing things today, Angélus and Pavie should get the Premier Cru Classé Supérieur (equal to Yquem) at the next St-Émilion classification review, ahead of Ausone and Cheval Blanc.

Like Cindy Lauper's song : Money, money changes everything!

Nic

[AlexR]

Hi Jeff,
I see I’m not the only one you rub up the wrong way…. Please understand that our objections to your posts are to what you write, not who you are .

I’m enjoying a cup of coffee as I read your various posts since I last looked, and would like to share my reactions.

The first post suggests that my comments were yours, but I think it was you who wrote « You are so antiquated. Jeezes, Just as Elvis replaced Bing, and the Beatles replaced Elvis, new will always replace old. You might want to look up to progress and modern. They are two words you should know. »
I believe you live in Los Angeles - which is Bordeaux’s sister city, by the way. Tradition doesn’t mean a whole heck of a lot in L.A., so I see where you’re coming from and the reason for your weird allusions. But what you don’t seem to be aware of is that many consumers do not like certain over-extracted, overoaked, overly-alcoholic Bordeaux wines like Pavie *regardless* of their age, political and sexual orientation, bank account, degree of geekiness etc. It’s not a question of being sticks-in-the-mud. Because something is modern, that doesn’t make it necessarily any worse – *or* any better. A lot of Bordeaux lovers, Jeff, just don’t like the artificial in-your-face style of certain wines like Pavie that have found favor with one or two high-profile critics. This is not a refusal of things modern. It is a refusal to drink bad wine. Furthermore the “modern” camp obviously includes wines of great merit. But then there are the duds… So, to be clear, in my book anyway, calling a wine “modern” is not anathema.

Please look at this thread from just this past week on an English wine board:

http://www.wine-pages.com/ubb/ultimateb ... 1;t=041430

As for the classification, you wrote “The first official Bordeaux classification took place in 1740”. Well, that’s not correct, Jeff. The only official classification dates from 1855. As I wrote in a previous post, there were several classifications prior to that, and Jefferson’s is one of the most complete i.e. longest and most comparable to the official one, with much more than the 50% figure you cite on the 18th century list.

I’m not surprised that you believe that price = quality. In today’s consumer society, this is indeed a credo for many. Personally, I think that is bullshit, and can easily be disproved in blind tastings.

It is very ironic. Here I am, an American in Bordeaux, prone to critical thinking and beholden to no one, and there you are, an American in LA who seems to have sold out to the Bordeaux mafia. You're infinitely more conservative than I am!

Isn’t life strange?

Best regards,
Alex R.

[greatbxfreak]

Last week I discovered that the book in question was translated to English in the end of last year, so I bought it. Less than 2 years after release.

Really well-written book with lot of gossip and facts.

I did laugh however of the passage about classification commitée saying the vineyards and cellars of Ausone not worth the status. But they didn't dare to demote Ausone to GCC. Saporta should have had included Corbin Michotte in the book. The owner has discovered many, many abnormalities in the classification procedure.

Some passages aren't valid anymore, among these one about Petrus controlled by Christian Mouiex.

Anyway, Bordeaux is pretty much the same since "Vino Business" release. Life goes on.