The Grandest Cru

Bordeaux is stuck in its own cycle of status. The methods of matching wine to quality were first developed in 1855 and, sadly, had as little merit then, as now. See, it was never intended to be an officially indicator of quality. But that is sure what it is now.

My friend, the late Rene Renou, wanted to change all this. He was president of the classification body. He wanted a new form of classification and he wanted to see varietals listed on the labels, new world style. Would one pay so much for Chateau Petrus, one of only five 'first growths,' if they knew it was 100 percent Merlot? Renou thoughts so, and many people believed him.

Well, he died before he even came close to fulfilling that dream, and after this week's tastings of Saint Emilion Grand Crus, it is apparent that it will take 1,000 Renous to change Bordeaux. Just wish there was a way people could see how great these wines can be, without all the fancy labels of pretty houses.

It's just happy grape juice, people!

For instance, trying the 2004 Chateau Balestard La Tonnelle, 70 percent Merlot, 25 Cabernet Franc, 25 Cabernet Sauvignon: rich and full, still tight with tannin as it's so young, but with power and a touch of dill, but mainly, and here is the sticking point, strong hints of limestone. "Well, it is on a limestone-clay plateau," explained the pourer, also the owner.

BTW, why do all pourers seem to have bad breath? Makes you think, makes you think…

"So that's why it tastes similar to the Ribera del Duero in Spain," was my reply, "Of course, there isn't the massive fruit expression (of course!) and over-ripeness, but the minerality is there and just as strong."

And the response, well, let's just say this St. Emilion Grand Cru pourer was less than convinced. But that didn't stop me from demanding to try the 1996 he had hidden behind his table.

Phht! 'Grand Cru…' it's a fancy term sure, but there are more than 600 Grand Cru Chateaus in Saint Emilion alone. Think about that, Frenchy.

Sweet guy though.

Vintage rating:

Saint Emilion 2005, strong blackberry from the year's heat. Blockbuster vintage, better aging. 8.8 points

Saint Emilion 2004, expect more floral-type flavors with weaker strengths more wines with cocoa in this year, but less potential for aging. 8.5 points.

A few other standouts were:

Chateau Lamande 2005. A wow wine, will be a blockbuster with flaky sand tastes and a strong expression f truffle and chocolate. 9.0 points, easy.

Chateau La Tour Figeac 1998, a slight essence of sweaty socks, with sandalwood and toasty grains, the finish is a bit rotten but the wine is enjoyable, even with the bizarre tasting note this is… 9.0 points.

Chateau Fleur Cardinale 2005, still a barrel sample, but on the light side for the vintage. It should be more tannic. Slight hint of raisin, with light oak, which will increase as barrel aging further softens the tannin. A strong, full body otherwise, with meaty mushroom. Good potential for 10+ aging. 8.8 points, for now.

But the real winner was Chateau Laniote. Always a good wine. The 1998 was a lovely, classy affair, with ripe cheese, Camembert to be more specific. The 2004 was very strong, but with a lightness on the palate, with pine nuts laced throughout. The 2005 was very high in alcohol, but could still show its lovely ripples of violets and roses… when it relaxes, expect some decent, toasty oak structure. I give the Chateau a 9.1 rating overall, the highest to date, for producing a product as different as it is delicious, year after year.

Can't really explain why this is, but maybe the information on the Chateau, provided at the tasting, will give the answer. Situated on 12 acres of clay and limestone, Chateau Laniote produces 20,000 bottles per year. The blend is 85 percent Merlot, 15 percent Cabernet Franc and 5 percent Cabernet Sauvignon.

That explains it! Each bottle of wine is 105 percent grapes!

It's that extra five percent that gives it the edge.