Can Sauvignon Blanc be profound? - 2005 Francois Cotat Les Monts Damnes

This is a question wine people love battling it out for. There is a dearth of great SB out there and what is considered great is usually not too great, and what is considered good, usually is poop. SB has a lot going against it. First of all it is considered a "beginner" grape, as that, along with Chardonnay, are the two staple whites at the bottom the great varietal wine ladder. Plus, in my experience you need really great terroir and conscientious wine-making to make great, if not, profound Sauvignon Blanc. Because there is only so much the grape can do, because it, like Chardonnay, is not inherently great. It needs stuff. Look in Sancerre, which is the most popular French Sauvignon Blanc in the world, but really only the best stuff comes from a small hilltop enclave called Chavignol. There is a lot of bad Sancerre out there. Even with the status of the name "Sancerre" most of the stuff is insipid, innocuous, overproduced, yeasted wine. This is a result of Sauvignon Blanc being not that great a grape and one that needs terroir, and usually great terroir to be a great wine. Look at the great ones. Silex, Pur Sang from DD, Pascal and Francois Cotat's Les Monts Damnes, Les Culs de Boujeau, La Grande Cote, Clos de Neore from Vatan and the various higher end cuvees of Gerard Bouley. Pouilly-Fume has no really great terroir and what DD did was more genius in his winemaking and vineyard work than anything else as Pouilly-Fume has such a famous name but only two producers I'd drink. DD and Deschamps. Not that good a ratio. White Bordeaux is nearly never 100% Sauvignon Blanc, less Smith-Haut-Lafite and Clos Floridene, so cannot really count it. Plus all that oak. Ewwwwwwwww! California....ummm....I like the Lail one, but it's like $75, and most of it is too ripe and oaky. In Austria the stuff can be good but never mindboggling or even close. It's usually like 'this is really good for Austria', someone eventually says and that is that. Australia, next! New Zealand who bet their whole wine biz on Sauvignon Blanc, and in my opinion failed as they pigeon-holed themselves into a mediocre wine-making country when the future is really Pinot Gris, Riesling and Cab/Merlot cool-climate blends. Oh and I do like the fun ones from the Loire that aren't supposed to be regal like Touraine, Quincy, Reuilly, etc. They are nice and not trying to be too important. Maybe that is profound in their own way?

All this ranting leads me to a quick note on a bottle of the 2005 Francois Cotat "Les Monts Damnes" which was very good but not at all profound. As I opined on Facebook, I thought it was more Les Monts Damnes than SB the first night. It was devastatingly mineral to the point where it almost crunched. I was feeling it. The acidity was present but not your typical laser-like lime infused Sauvignon Blanc acidity. It was pretty '05 in that is was ripe as all hell, but not blowsy, although on day 2 the heat started to poke through. On day 2 also it became more Sauvignon-like and less good as there was all the typical stupid Sauvignon Blanc stuff like gooseberries, high toned citrus etc. which covered up the cool chalky minerality. The fruit was more rich and there was a weird peanut butter flavor that was there and only gaining in momentum. This was a good wine and in no way profound, but I don't think I have ever had a profound Sauvignon Blanc now that I think about it and I think the reasons can be summarized in bullet points.

• Not an inherently great grape like say Riesling
• Not enough good terroir and when the terroir is great it still is not that great a finished wine
• It's too easy too make passable, drinkable, varietally correct Sauvignon Blanc so why bother with greatness when it won't be that great anyway?