218 of the 2009 Crus Bourgeois were also classified for the 2008 vintage.
164 of the 2009 Crus Bourgeois were also classified in 2003.
126 of the 2009 Crus Bourgeois were part of the original 1932 list.
101 of the 2009 Crus Bourgeois were part of both the 1932 list and the 2003 classification.
95 of the 2009 Crus Bourgeois were classified in 2008, 2003 and 1932.

Source:  Alliance des Crus Bourgeois du Médoc

Frédéric de Luze

In its second year, the annual awarding of cru bourgeois status has been achieved by 246 left bank Bordeaux properties for their 2009 vintage.  This is three up on the 2008 vintage.

The numbers involved for the 2009 vintage were not too dissimilar from 2008. Just 5% more properties applied for the cru bourgeois moniker for their 2009 wines, but the success rate was 3% lower than for the 2008 vintage.  Some 218 Châteaux have achieved cru bourgeois status for both their 2008 and 2009 vintages, with plenty of new entrants in 2009, as well as properties not in it for this year.

Frédéric de Luze, the president of the Alliance des Crus Bourgeois and owner of Chateau Paveil de Luze in Margaux said it’s been “a very positive year, and constructive. We feel all the châteaux owners are happy, it’s a good opportunity, and they are still happy to be cru bourgeois. They’re still proud of cru bourgeois, which is quite difficult to get.”

With some 32 million bottles being marketed under the cru bourgeois name, de Luze added “this makes cru bourgeois the strongest force in Bordeaux, as a club of producers.”

To take account of vintage variation, the minimum benchmark for entry to cru bourgeois status is “to make a better vintage than the average [quality] of the vintage” explained François Nony, of Château Caronne Ste Gemme, and vice president of the alliance.  He added “In Médoc 2,000 estates could apply. Most don’t apply because technically they can’t” because they don’t (yet?) have a proper cellar or vat room, or don’t have the necessary land associated with the entry requirements for cru bourgeois.

One of Nony’s criticisms of the previous cru bourgeois system was that 100% of a property’s wines were classified as cru bourgeois.  With the new system, for the 2008 vintage, he said “about two-thirds of [a chateau’s] production was cru bourgeois. The other third was declassified as a second wine” and is not therefore in the cru bourgeois system.

Something new for next year may be cru bourgeois tiers, which is being studied, though de Luze said “it’s a bit in advance to talk too much about it.  The châteaux would like it because it’s a sort of competition.”

The price:quality ratio of cru bourgeois was also emphasised, with the implication that cru bourgeois might become the new crus classés for ordinary mortals. Nony said “my wine, Caronne Ste Gemme is still selling at the same price as in 1997.  We know we have to fight to keep our customers.”  On this point de Luze added “in 1985 Paveil was half the price of Ducru Beaucaillou, now it’s about a tenth.” Given that prices of cru bourgeois, in the UK at least, range from around £10 to £25, this may be a marketing angle to explore.

Ins and outs

Châteaux choose whether to enter the exam, so reasons for ins and outs could be (a) improvement in quality (b) first application in 2009, (c) loss of quality (d) not entering in 2009, having been awarded 2008.  Consistent patterns of membership will only emerge over time, and that is what should become the hallmark of cru bourgeois.

New in 2009

1. Château Blaignan, Médoc
2. Château d’Argan, Médoc
3. Château Gemeillan, Médoc
4. Château La Chandelliere, Médoc
5. Château La Gorre, Médoc
6. Château La Grange De Bessan, Médoc
7. Château Les Trois Manoirs, Médoc
8. Château Livran, Médoc
9. Château Loirac, Médoc
10. Château Plagnac, Médoc
11. Château Saint Aubin, Médoc
12. Château Tour Saint-Vincent, Médoc
13. Château Bel-Orme Tronquoy De Lalande, Haut-Médoc
14. Château Corconnac, Haut-Médoc
15. Château de Sainte-Gemme, Haut-Médoc
16. Château Dillon, Haut-Médoc
17. Château du Galan, Haut-Médoc
18. Château Peyredon Lagravette, Haut-Médoc
19. Château Puy Castera, Haut-Médoc
20. Château Tourteran, Haut-Médoc
21. Clos la Boheme, Haut-Médoc
22. Domaine de Cartujac, Haut-Médoc
23. Château Lalande, Listrac-Médoc
24. Château Caroline, Moulis en Médoc
25. Château Duplessis, Moulis en Médoc
26. Château Gressier Grand Poujeaux, Moulis en Médoc
27. Château Moulin A Vent, Moulis en Médoc
28. Château Vieux Coutelin, Saint-Estèphe

Out in 2009

1. Château Fontaine de l’Aubier, Médoc
2. Château Grand Bertin de Saint Clair, Médoc
3. Château Hourbanon, Médoc
4. Château Laffitte Laujac, Médoc
5. Château le Barrail, Médoc
6. Château l’Inclassable, Médoc
7. Château Listran, Médoc
8. Château Moulin de Brion, Médoc
9. Château Moulin de Cassy, Médoc
10. Château Charmail, Haut-Médoc
11. Château Haut Madrac, Haut-Médoc
12. Château Lamothe Cissac, Haut-Médoc
13. Château Larrivaux, Haut-Médoc
14. Château Maucaillou Felletin, Haut-Médoc
15. Château Moulin de Laborde, Haut-Médoc
16. Château Grand Tayac, Margaux
17. Château la Galiane, Margaux
18. Château le Coteau, Margaux
19. Château Tayac, Margaux
20. Château du Glana, St. Julien
21. Château Lalande, St. Julien
22. Château Bel Air, Saint-Estèphe
23. Château Domeyne, Saint-Estèphe
24. Château Segur de Cabanac, Saint-Estèphe
25. Château Tour de Pez, Saint-Estèphe

Margaux
Château D’Arsac
Château Deyrem Valentin             
Château Grand Tayac                    
Château Haut Breton Larigaudiere
Château La Galiane
Château La Tour De Bessan         
Château La Tour De Mons            
Château Le Coteau
Château Mongravey                        
Château Paveil De Luze
Château Pontac Lynch
Château Pontet Chappaz
Château Tayac                                    

Saint-Julien
Château du Glana
Château Lalande

Pauillac
Château Fonbadet                            
Château Haut-Bages Monpelou
Château La Fleur Peyrabon          
Château Plantey
Château Tour Sieujean

Saint-Estèphe
Château Beau Site
Château Bel Air                                
Château Clauzet                               
Château Coutelin Merville
Château De Côme                            
Château Domeyne
Château La Commanderie
Château La Haye                             
Château Ladouys                             
Château Laffitte Carcasset            
Château L’Argilus du Roi             
Château Le Boscq                             
Château Le Crock                             
Château Lilian Ladouys                
Château Petit Bocq                           
Château Picard                                   
Château Plantier Rose                      
Château Segur de Cabanac          
Château Serilhan                             
Château Tour de Pez                      
Château Tour des Termes             
Château Tour Saint-Fort

Sources: 
Oxford Companion to Wine 3^rd edition, 2006 (and pers. comm. with assistant editor)
CIVC (pers comms., Aug/Sep 2010)
UMC (website and pers comm., Sep 2010)

Notes

* The CIVC does not include the Réhoboam in its list of sizes, saying it no longer exists for Champagne, though both the OCW [2006] and the UMC do list it.

** The Solomon has proved the most controversial to pinpoint accurately. Both the CIVC and the UMC (Union of Champagne houses) state it at 18 litres / 24 bottles. Other sources, not cited here, have the Solomon variously at 20 litres /26.6 bottles, or 21 litres / 28 bottles, but I’m inclined to go with the CIVC and the UMC.
** Both the CIVC and the UMC deny the existence of the Melchior.  The CIVC says “the Melchior was never used in Champagne. There is no record in the known archives.”  The OCW says the Melchior is 18 litres /24 bottles (the size of the Solomon, here), but does not specify this size for Champagne, so the 18 litre /24 bottle Melchior could yet be a correct size/name for a different region. But it’s clear there is no Melchior in Champagne.  

*** The Sovereign is listed in the OCW as 34 bottles “in theory”, but direct communication with Taittinger, possibly the only producer to use this size, confirms it at 35 bottles.

**** The CIVC cites the Primat size above, but it is missing from the UMC list.

Part of the confusion arises because there are no specific rules for the larger formats as they are mostly created for special occasions (at very long lead-times).

 
166 crus bourgeois 2008 were also classified in 2003
119 crus bourgeois 2008 were part of the original 1932 list
 96 crus bourgeois 2008 were both part of the 1932 list and the 2003 classification

Source:  Alliance des Crus Bourgeois du Médoc

1. Michele Chiarlo, Piedmont
2. Pio Cesare, Piedmont
3. Ca’ del Bosco, Lombardy
4. Carpenè Malvolti, Veneto
5. Masi, Veneto
6. Alois Lageder, Alto Adige
7. Jermann, Friuli Venezia Giulia
8. Antinori, Tuscany
9. Biondi Santi, Tuscany
10. Tenute Ambrogio e Giovanni Folonari, Tuscany
11. Tenuta San Guido, Tuscany
12. Umani Ronchi, Marches
13. Lungarotti, Umbria
14. Mastroberardino, Campania
15. Rivera, Puglia
16. Donnafugata, Sicily
17. Tasca d’Almerita, Sicily

1

30

2

5

3

20

4

19

5

20

6

10

7

10

8

35

9

30

10

30

11

35

12

18

13

17

14

8

15

30

16

5

17

1.8

18

25

19

35

20

5

21

20

22

10

23

25

24

25

25

7.5

26

5.5

27

3.6

28

9

29

1.5

30

5

31

7

32

33

33

1

34

1.5

35

5

36

50

37

2.8

38

50

39

10

40

10

41

5

42

13

43

13

44

5

45

20

46

6

47

15

48

5

49

35

50

37

51

30

52

35

Source:  M. Moosbrugger, president of the Traditionsweingüter Österreich, pers. comm., July 29, 2010

Sources: Austrian Wine Marketing Board data and pers. comms., 2010.

 Source : Philippe Guigal (pers. comm.), June 2008

Sources: various national organisations, most recent data available

Drs. Amerine and Winkler (1944) defined five regions of California using a temperature index. Using a seven month growing season, they calculated the ‘degree days’ above 10°C (at which temperature vines generally start growing). Mean monthly temperature less 10 (degrees) multiplied by the number of days in the month, and totalled for the seven months.

They came up with five regions, which still form the bedrock of viticultural climatic data. Their system has been variously refined, amended and critiqued, but not abandoned.

Region I is the coolest.  Each region can be matched to the mean temperature of the warmest month (MJT) – January or July. From the regions that fit into the model, typical grape varieties can be identified.

Source: paper by Dr. Andrew Pirie – ‘Defining Cool Climate’. Stratford’s Brave New World seminar, London, September 2007

Dr. John Gladstones developed the model for Australia. Drs. Peter Dry and Richard Smart developed a homoclime approach, using a range of climatic measures including radiation, rainfall and relative humidity. Pirie brought in growing-season rainfall and humidity to the blooming algebraic calculation, to account for low vine-moisture stress during growing time.

• Temperature: ideally a constant 10-12°C. A temperature without large diurnal and seasonal fluctuations is good, which makes an un-insulated outhouse a poor idea.
• Light: ideally without light
• Vibration: keep to a minimum
• Humidity: a compromise is needed here. The wine prefers a higher humidity, but the label rots when it is too high. Somewhere between 60-80% is thought to be good.

Other considerations

• The running costs of your chosen system to maintain the above maturation conditions
• Insurance costs. Whether at home or away, ensure you have sufficient cover. For really posh wine you  may consider ‘replacement value’ insurance
• The conditions at an outsourced location

The Cap Classique Quality Commitment

This is our pledge/commitment to maintain the highest standards of grape selection, hand-crafted when making, blending and aging the wine on the lees, in keeping with the traditions of this method.

Individual base wines and blends are tasted annually/regularly by the Association’s own members to ensure that the final wine is of a high quality standard.

The Cap Classique Association is committed to the following minimum quality standards:

1.  Grapes are selected from a diversity of regions of the Cape and the different soil types ensures a wide range of aromas and flavours leading to style differentiation and individualism.

2.  Any white and red grapes varieties are permitted to be used to ensure delicate fruit and rich complexity.

3.  Grape selection in the vineyard ensures that only perfect and healthy grapes come to the cellar for vinification. These grapes are only hand-picked.

4.  Whole bunch pressing is recommended to ensure low phenolic content and minimum colour pigment in the juice, used for the base wine preparation.

5.  When pressing the whole bunches, careful selection and separation of the quality juice from the press juice fraction are done for better blending opportunities.

6.  Fermentation of the base wine is done in temperature controlled vessels but could also be fermented in small oak barrels. Malolactic fermentation could be considered or not depending on the style of wine.

7.  Reserve wines may be used from time to time to maintain specific styles during the blending of the different cuvees prior to the secondary fermentation in the bottle.

8.  Every bottle of Cap Classique is matured on the yeast for a minimum yeast contact time of 12 months and minimum of 3 Bars of pressure. The bottles ferment and mature in a horizontal position for maximum yeast exposure and in cool conditions. There are individual members who ensure much longer yeast contact period, depending on the style and vintage.

9.  After riddling and disgorgement Cap Classique wines are left on the cork for some time to ensure integration and balance prior to labelling and dispatch.

10.  The Association has developed their own Cap Classique logo and members have the right to use the logo on the packaging or elsewhere to endorse their serious commitment to quality and the improvement of standards.

Early bud break; thick skinned; dark coloured wines;  low yield is important for quality aspiriations.

Helmut Renner of Weingut Renner on Sankt Laurent: “it is difficult to work with, like pinot noir, but the fruit is darker and more spicy.”

Aka: lemberger (of Germany); kekfrankos (of Hungary).

Dark cherry, bramble and berry fruit, spicy. Firm acidity, plentiful firm tannin, liquorice, powerful.

Andi Kollwentz of Weingut Kollwentz on blaufränkisch: “firm ruby colour, blackberry aroma, black cherry, spiciness, acidity on the higher side (higher than zweigelt, sankt Laurent, pinot noir), lots of tannins. If a lot of sunshine and low yields, can have ripe tannins, a lot of body and long aftertaste.  Ageing quite well.”

There is talk among some producers of imagining blaufränkisch as Austria’s cabernet sauvignon and zweigelt as Austria’s merlot, so strength, backbone and firm acidity from blaufränkisch combined with fleshy, plummy fruit, softer acidity and suppler tannin of zweigelt. The Bordeaux comparison continues with the greater zweigelt plantings, the relative ripening times and ageing potential of the two varieties, and their compatibility in a blend.

A 1922 crossing of blaufränkisch and sankt laurent, by Dr. Fritz Zweigelt.

An early ripening, vigorous variety, so strict yield control is essential for quality production.

Can be made as a single varietal or blended, and in a full spectrum of styles.

Dark, purple colour, fruity, spicy aromas of cherry and berry fruit. Soft tannins, moderate to low acidity, bit of spice.

Andi Kollwentz of Weingut Kollwentz on zweigelt: “purple colour, darker, opaque in youth, softer tannins, blackberry aroma. Plummy when overripe and with a little noble rot. Powerful body, elegant, not too strong tannins. Not too spicy, round and elegant.  ‘the Austrian merlot’, early ripening, alcohol 13-14%. Difficult to comment on ageing of zweigelt, as it is often used in blends especially in the top ranges.”