Contest: Describe What is Wrong with Pierre Rovani's Evaluation of George Duboeuf and Win a Touraine Gamay Sampler I've arrived in France and visited the Beaujolais and Puligny-Montrachet. Someone sent me Pierre Rovani's explanation of George Duboeuf's vinification techniques, excerpted from a computer wine bulletin board. It reads: I can only assume that you haven't tasted and Duboeuf wines in the past few years and are basing your comments on the somewhat distant past. A number of years ago he had producers with whom he had contracts using an artificial yeast that promoted fruitiness. That yeast was also responsible for tropical flavors like banana... and had a way of masking some of the differences between the crus. When he realized what was happening that was stopped. Today, the growers he buys from typically only use indigenous yeasts. The "Duboeuf signature" of the old days is no longer there... and I'd bet money you'd adore the wines if tasted blind. The reader who best described what is wrong with this evaluation, in cogent and polite terms, will win an exciting Touraine Gamay Sampler. Just click on the comments section. Frankly, it is scary that Mr. Rovani, who is no doubt an honest and hard-working fellow, writes about Duboeuf as if Mr. Rovani is a flak for the Duboeuf organization. I don't care that Rovani likes the Duboeuf wines, but I do object to him acting as a PR piece. Imagine, reporting that Duboeuf discovered he had producers using "artificial yeasts" and Duboeuf putting an end to such practices. Amazing....
the problem with the statement is obvious - dubeouf wines taste the same now as they did in the 'distant past'. i'd bet money on it having tried them.
I really would like to get that Gamay Sampler, so I have to submit an answer. It is probably a trick question with five correct answers. Let me see if I can get all five.
do they even visit the facilities anymore? i've heard the rumours out there in the world about thow Parker & his staff taste wines anymore.. .any chance that a barrel was sampled out without the estate being held into true account?
it was a scary article, and i wonder why that piece and the yellowtail article (both same importer) were in the advocate...
I haven't seen the articles. What does he say about yellowtail and duboeuf. I only know what Mr. Rovani has written on the internet bulletin board.
I like the notion that the whole banana-candy yeast thing was done by rogue producers within the Duboeuf empire, and once the chief found out (he was shocked, shocked) the practice was nipped in the bud.
My entry for your quiz: Rovani wrote 'Readers who remain sceptical about the 2003s should know that not a single member of the group [tasting the '03 oak-aged Moulin-à-Vent] guessed Beaujolais...' - which I take to be approval, ye gods.
I vote for Jonathan. Just getting practice.
il n'y a pas de quoi fouetter un chat!
The biggest problem I see with this statement is the idea that a group of people who have sold, what, about 1,000,000,000 bottles of Frooty Banana Bubble-Yum flavored wine that all tasted pretty much regardless of cru or vintage could somehow then be capable of developing sudden concern that the terroirs of the crus of Beaujolais were being "masked." How would such a concern develop -- spontaneous generation?
no such thing as artificial yeast; all yeast is natural, just not indigenous.
Mr Rovani has his yeasts confused...
debrouille-toi toute seule!
You mean that banana terrior I loved so much was not due to the fact that the fact that Duboeuf 's producers were surrounded by row after row of Plantains? I still have a bottle of 2001 Duboeuf "Me'lo Y'low" in the cellar.
The concept that "no members of the group thought the moulin a vent was a beaujolais" manifests exactly what is wrong about the wine advocate, m. rovani and , presumably, mr. parker. let me think - beaujolais. gamay, moulin a vent - the wine DOESN'T taste like these but it is all of these and that is good???? tastes like port not bordeaux but is supposed to be bordeaux. also good, no great. there are a surprisingly large number of excellent beaujolais shipped to the USofA, delightful drinking, refreshing, terrific with food. the way to find them is to avoid the flower label. and best to get a grower's bottling.
Is there a time limit to this contest?
No, no time limit.
Anybody up for a blind tasting? I'm more than a little curious now
Count me in. 2003 Roilette just got 90 points in the WS! The vintage rocks!
Okay - Rovani fails to mention George Duboeuf's use of thermo-vinification! They heat the fermenting grapes and then they bring the temperature down quickly. This too masks the difference between crus. However, as a smart man once wrote of this winemaker, "Duboeuf is a commercial wizard and he wants to be perceived as being open to new techniques and not being stuck in a rut." We can only expect more!
that is just sooooooo depressing.
So who got the case of gamay?
Anonymous
The bulk (ha ha) of Dubeouf's wines are certainly nondescript, no argument. However I tasted through the 2003 crus on three separate occasions and felt they were good examples of their respective appellations. Mindblowing, no. Bubble Yum? Defnitely not. Somewhere in the middle, yes. Typical Gamay fruit, and yes I could tell the difference between crus. They might not have been bottles for the snobs to appreciate, but I think they were fine "segue selections" to move Nouveau drinkers to "real" Beaujolais. And it isn't nice to see casual wine drinkers graduate to higher levels?
Oh my G.., there is a dictator in that blog, watch what you're saying...!
it's more like the window for discussion keeps getting lowered. it's a shame. reliance on the wine press is a shame. the fact that in these troubling times someone uses the title "dictator" in these proto-facist times, let's remember "it's about what's in the bottle" not about what the wine press dictates.
I have to agree with anonymous.
Does anybody know what flower is on George DuBoeuf's beaujolais label??
Joe Dressner is a helluva a guy! He knows everything there is to know about the Beaujolais! |