I had a bottle of the
2010 Daniel Bouland Morgon Delys from vineds planted in 1926 and it was maybe the most joyous bottle I have drunk all year. Beautiful from sip 1 and easily has me convinced that the top 2010 Beaujolais are way way better and more interesting than the top 2009 Beaujolais. People made great wine in 2009, don't get me wrong, but 2010, for me, is a better vintage. Soil-inflected, light, elegant, structured and not too ripe with crisp acids. Wines that whisper and don't shout. I don't want wine shouting in my ear. I live in NYC and hear too much screaming as is. Back to the Bouland. The vines were planted in 1926 and it had that old-viney intensity and sap but cot damn, this wine was so pretty. Achingly beautiful which is an expression I hate saying, but I love to hate myself saying it. Make sense? Hope not or I have failed. 2010 Beaujolais is grippy and the reason it is not selling well is because people overloaded on 2009 Beaujolais which is going to be like 2003 Burgundy in that they will taste gross for many years (read: right now) and then ultimately come into balance. Some '03 reds have been not bad recently. '03 Germans too. On release no two vintages from two regions offended me more. But 2010? The consumer has practically ignored it. The hype over 2009 Beaujolais was way over the top and then people started tasting these stewed, roasted and in some cases, uber-ripe bottlings, and either loved the wines and then grabbed a 2010 and realized it tasted nothing like the 2009 counterpart and gave up on Beaujolais entirely. Because 2009 Beaujolais was what was proclaimed as a "crossover' vintage which is a term I hate. Why is 2009 a Beaujolais a crossover vintage when in fact no Beaujolais has tasted like it since at least 1947, the old-timers say. Who is being crossed over? Are the marketing geniuses' saying "Oh, okay, people who like disgusting blowsy CA Pinot Noir, will really love 2009 Beaujolais, because it doesn't taste like Beaujolais, but tastes like fat, alcoholic, blowsy Pinot Noir, but then when a classic vintage like 2010 comes along, we lost them again?" Makes no sense to me, the whole "crossover" vintage idea? If they don't like Gamay from Beaujolais in 2010, 2008, 2005, 2002 then they aren't going to be converted with 2009. They are going to buy a shit-ton of 2009 and then sit out the next 5-6 classic vintages and then buy again when another freakish vintage happens. Not converted. Not crossed-ver. You know howe many cellars I see with only Burgs from '85, 96, 90, '05? Ughh...It makes me so mad. There is nothing to drink! Plus do you really love Burgundy if all you buy are uber-ripe vintages that take 25 years to come around? Well, that got off track, quick, but that's ok....Rockss and Fruity is back! hopefully 2-3 times a week now.
I think the goal was probably to catch all of the wine drinkers that will pretty much grab the first thing they see on the self as this type of "wine enthusiast" thinks all wines taste the same. It looks like a major backfire to me but I doubt they would cheapen themselves if they did not have some kind of GOOD reasoning behind it. Maybe it's actually been working for them "financially". Doesn't really matter though. You don't skimp on quality for a couple of bucks.
ReplyDeleteGood article Lyle
Hello this is Alex from the Wine Forum www.winebasic101.com. Proper soil is everything when it come to making wine. The French call it Terrior which is everything from the soil to weather like rain and wind. Vintage is important because from year to year the same grape veriettal at the same vineyard can taste different.
ReplyDelete