Michael Broadbent MW:
Jancis Robinson, tasting blind, awarded the 2003 vintage of Ch Pavie a meagre 12/20. It would seem, not surprisingly, that M Perse, the proprietor, has taken offence and his friend, the redoubtable Robert Parker, has raised his mighty cudgel on his behalf, inferring not for the first time that his, and fellow American, tastes are vastly more valid and significant that those of the old-school English.
It is also suggested that new style wine making better expresses the terroir whereas, in my opinion, it does precisely the opposite, it suppresses the terroir.
So where does Pavie stand? Again, in my opinion, uneasily, for it is merely one of a handful of nouvelle vague châteaux amongst the literally hundreds of properties in the very extensive Saint-Emilion district, and its satellites, which from time immemorial have been producing wines of a recognisable traditional style at very reasonable prices: decent claret for drinking. I am reminded of the old army story of the new recruit who insists he is the only one marching in step!
More importantly, the Pavie affair opens up a more wide-ranging debate which exposes, and might bring to a head, a long-simmering controversy: ‘new world', the American-led global taste ranging from otherwise innocuous, deeply-coloured, sweet, fruit- and alcohol-laden, over-oaked reds to the self-conscious, over-the-top, over-extracted, overpriced, cult wines, the ‘garagistes' (wines that, once bought and cellared, might never again see the light of day – too expensive to drink) versus European – not just English – taste preference for lighter, stylish wines with finesse and typicity marketed in a fair price range for actually – wait for it – drinking.
But back to Pavie. M Perse's first vintage was the 1998 which I first tasted at the chateau in April 1999 and noted ‘New style: too sweet, fleshy and ‘roasted'.†It was certainly controversial, some experienced tasters finding it impressive, even admirable, others quite the opposite. My rating was ** (out of five stars), conceding that for others it might warrant ****. I disliked it so intensely that I slipped out of the chai to avoid discussing it with M Perse.
Of the 1999 vintage, first tasted in the spring of 2000, I wrote “all the talk is of the huge transformation made by the new owners. Frankly I much preferred the wines made by the much-liked Jean-Paul Valette. But this is the (new) 100-point Côte Rôtie style of Bordeaux much, well somewhat, in vogue. Opaque, tarry, liquorice (nose); fairly powerful, concentrated. singed, with a finish of tar and tannin. It will be most interesting to see how this turns out. (Again) for me ** and **** for some. “
The 2003 Pavie I tasted – not blind – in a line-up of 16 Saint-Emilions at a Union des Grands Crus tasting in March 2004. My note reads: “very deep, extraordinary (nose), slightly fishy, tarry; fairly sweet, full bodied, powerful, dense and again tarry.†I did not give the wine a score but it would have been roughly 14/20, rather less harsh than Jancis' 12/20. The Pavie-Decesse, also M Perse's, was even deeper: “opaque core, intense purple rim; similar to Pavie on the nose and palate. Drier, powerful with a hot, dense finsih.†Frankly, I did not like either.
My feeling is that adventurous tasters, particularly newcomers, will eventually get tired of the new style wines. They are being produced – doubtless well intended – by ambitious, ego-driven, winemakers seemingly everywhere, and in a similar over-the-top style. At a less ambitious level, reds and whites are becoming too uniform, leading to a battle of the brands.
There are barbarians at the gates. Let us encourage the individual, the distinctive, the undramatically drinkable.
Auteur du sujet