Wine journalists are jaded folk – spoilt by too many impressive tastings, lunches and dinners. But when Champagne Louis Roederer invites you to an event celebrating 50 years of Cristal Rosé, few refuse. Cristal Rosé is, as Chef de Cave Jean-Baptiste Lécaillon told us, still “a hidden gem” and the rarest cuvée Roederer produces. It’s not often shown, and even visitors to the estate don’t get to taste the wine.  While Cristal – Champagne’s first prestige cuvée – was created in 1876, its pink sibling was born almost a century later. It was Jean-Claude Rouzaud, current CEO Frédéric Rouzaud’s father, who created the wine, aged 32. He had been managing the company’s vineyards and took over the winemaking in 1974.  “His great vision was to put the vines back in the centre of the creative process,” explains seventh-generation Frédéric Rouzaud. For Roederer, site and farming have long been key to what they do (long operating both as a grower and négociant), but Jean-Claude’s move from vineyard to cellar pushed this further, allowing for – as Lécaillon put it – “a creative and constant dialogue between the vineyard and cellar”.  The same year that he started leading the cellar team, Jean-Claude decided to make a rosé version of Cristal. Almost all rosé Champagne was – and is – made by blending a still red wine in with the base white wines. Jean-Claude, however, wanted to use co-fermentation to keep the wine in the style of Cristal, a decision that Lécaillon says was key, making the wine more ethereal, precise and “Pinot-y”, with a juicier texture.  The wine was built around parcels of Pinot Noir in the Bonottes area of Aÿ, which Lécaillon describes as the “Musigny” of Champagne. In his mind, the Pinot Noir from these plots offers a “special tannic complexity” – tannins that are more saline, integrated and aromatic; the Pinot Noir here is, he says, “effortlessly perfect” and the heart of Cristal Rosé. These three vineyards (Bonotte Pierre Robert, Gargeotte and Côte du Moulin) had been used for Cristal since the 1870s, and more recently became the source for Pinot Noir material for their vine nursery – with 150 different massal selections taken from the plots – long recognised for their quality.  The three original Pinot Noir plots are now being replanted and – while the vines mature – another site in Aÿ, La Villers, a mid-slope parcel at higher altitude, is currently being used in the blend (from the 2018 vintage). It is set to form part of the wine long-term, its cooler position thought to be of particular benefit with climate change. Complementing the 55% Pinot Noir is Chardonnay from two sites – Pierre Vaudon in Avize (bringing more power and richness) and Montmartin in Le Mesnil (lending length, salinity and a chalky minerality).  The first two vintages (1974 and 1975) were more experimental, as Jean-Claude figured the wine and style out, but the third attempt in 1976 produced something special – with sufficient phenolic ripeness to produce a rosé truly worthy of the Cristal name. Even now, 48 years later, that wine is singing – combining savoury rye and brown miso notes with pear tarte tatin and an earthy power. While it had a flurry of three vintages at the start of its life, just 25 vintages of Cristal Rosé have been produced to date. The wine needs a year where not only the quality of fruit is outstanding, but the Pinot Noir and Chardonnay ripen at the same time – allowing for their co-fermentation – something that is relatively rare.  Only made with vines that are minimum 20 years old, yields are low for Champagne (at 35-40hl/ha).  The Pinot Noir is destemmed, crushed and left to macerate. Earlier vintages saw this happen over two to four days and at warmer temperatures, but the winemaking has evolved over the years, with a pivotal shift from the 2008 vintage. From 2008. Lécaillon started chilling the Pinot Noir down to -4̊C overnight, prior to de-stemming and crushing the fruit – something which he believes avoids extracting any green character.   The must is then left to cold-soak for between seven and 10 days, with no punch-downs or pump-overs – a true “infusion” (to avoid any microbial spoilage, they cover it with dry ice for the first four days, then use nitrogen). The must isn’t chilled during this time, and the temperature gradually rises to a maximum 8-9̊C. Moving to a cold-soak was inspired by an accident. In the warm 1989 vintage, Lécaillon’s first year at Roederer, they didn’t have a cooling system in the cellar, and the Pinot Noir was left in a reefer – undergoing an inadvertent cold-soak. The resulting wine was so good that it inspired Lécaillon.  Just as the fermentation starts, the must is racked off and blended with the Chardonnay which has been whole-bunch pressed pneumatically (Lécaillon argues the grape’s reductive nature needs a little skin contact to avoid being overly thiol-driven and Sauvignon-esque). Around 20% of the base wine sees oak. After secondary fermentation (under crown cap, something with Lécaillon argues helps preserve precision and terroir versus cork), the wine spends eight years on its lees, developing immense complexity.  “Since 1974, it has been our laboratory of farming, of winemaking,” says Jean-Baptise Lécaillon of the wine. Cristal Rosé was in fact the House’s first cuvée to be farmed biodynamically, and the first biodynamic prestige cuvée in Champagne, from the 2007 vintage. He explains that he is looking for phenolic ripeness, integrated with the salinity of Champagne, seamlessly combining the tannins and acidity; a wine complemented – but not dominated – by bubbles of salt.  The wine is undeniably remarkable. Tasting through a range of vintages from 1976 to the present day, all in magnum (find full tasting notes below), the vibrancy, purity and moreish, saline, minerality of these wines left me speechless. Their ability to age is effortless, with the 1989, for example, still tasting incredibly youthful. Talking about Cristal Rosé’s evolution, Lécaillon explains that he finds the first decade is all about fruit, but then the wines return to their site and soil, becoming wines of place. Conversation strays into weather Champagne today, with global warming, can still make wines that will age as beautifully.  “Champagne is not just about acid; it’s about freshness,” says Lécaillon. He points to the 1976 and 1989 vintages – both incredibly hot years, with the fruit picked at almost 12% potential alcohol and modest acidity levels – and yet the wines are full of freshness. Back then, producers were on holiday throughout August, and the fruit was picked in September (1st for the 1976 and from 5th for the 1989), but with such conditions today they would have harvested in mid-August. It is perhaps, he suggests, a lesson that the region is overreacting to warm conditions – with too many producers chasing acidity, rather than phenolic ripeness. For the skins are, he argues, the key to this sense of freshness, the dry extract that allows the wine to age.   The House has introduced a Cristal Rosé Vinothèque, or late release. To date, there have only been a handful of vintages – the 1995, 1996, 1999 and 2002. The maturation for this wine isn’t set and varies according to the vintage, normally spending longer on its lees, both sur latte (lying down) and sur pointe (upside down), the idea being to build umami complexity in the wine. The sur pointe ageing is unusual, something Lécaillon favours for its more reductive nature, keeping the wine aromatically fresh (the wine is still riddled four times a year in the same position, to agitate the lees and absorb any oxygen). Generally these releases are offered around 15-17 years after the vintage. The dosage is often lower than the original bottling, with the longer lees ageing lending balance without a higher sugar addition. Tasting the 2002 Vinothèque (a wine that feels infantile), Lécaillon says: “Is it better? I don’t know, but it’s another expression.”  I’ve written before about Lécaillon’s tireless approach to wine-growing – constantly looking to learn and evolve, and the week after our dive into Cristal Rosé he was flying to Japan to visit the Fukuoka farm (founded by Masanobu Fukuoka, the author of The One-Straw Revolution and a pioneer of permaculture or “natural” farming). His fight against the “banalisation” of taste continues, as he looks for ever-more ways to enrich the world of Louis Roederer. If the next 50 years of Cristal Rosé is nearly as good as the first, we’ve all got a lot to look forward to.  Five decades of Cristal Rosé: the tasting  2013 Cristal Rosé: A beautiful, late-ripening growing season that provided the last October harvest to date. A wine Chef de Cave Jean-Baptise Lécaillon describes as having “eternal youth” – something that is hard to disagree with after tasting the wine. This is a baby, the nose enticing with delicate floral aromas and bright citrus, not giving too much away. The palate is long and saline, tightly wound, but bursting with bright fruit on the mouthwatering finish, combining lush redcurrant and lemon. Gorgeous. Dosage 7g/l, tasted from magnum.  2012 Cristal Rosé: Lécaillon notes how 2012 was seen as an “easy” vintage on release, riper and richer with a little more Pinot Noir in the blend, but is now entering its second life, with reductive, chalky notes that bring it back to its soils. The wine is beautifully earthy and drastically different to the 2013, with power and intensity. It’s very savoury, a wine that is all about breadth and structure, with wild strawberry and raspberry notes mingling alongside a sea-spray freshness, driving on to a long, mineral finish. Dosage 8g/l, tasted from magnum.  2008 Cristal Rosé: This was the first fully organic vintage for the entire Roederer estate, and marks the start of a new era for Cristal Rosé with its cool “infusion” technique for the Pinot Noir. Paired with the 1995 vintage, the two wines are windows into two completely different worlds of Cristal. With the copper tone of a sunset, it’s a wine of muscle. It’s almost haughty, with length, power and elegance – showing off its flawless structure, with a zesty citrus drive complementing its austerity. The finish is long and saline. It will be incredible to taste this in 20 years’ time. Dosage 8g/l, tasted from magnum.  1995 Cristal Rosé: This vintage was one of the last to see the Pinot Noir soaked at 20-24̊C. It is, in Lécaillon’s mind, the “same terroir, but a different story” versus more modern iterations of the wine. The wine glows golden in the glass – the colour of the sun just as it breaks the horizon. It’s incredibly open, the aromatics constantly shifting to reveal new layers. There’s a touch of mushroom or truffle, but with layers of rich, almost tropical, fruit behind – think peach, mango, peach tea and the bite of pomegranate, with caramel sweetness, but still a saline twist to the finish. A wine of weight and depth. Dosage 12g/l, tasted from magnum.  1989 Cristal Rosé: This was a very warm vintage, harvested from 5th September, and the wine technically doesn’t have high acidity – yet is a wine of impressive freshness. Grilled hazelnuts edge a nose of candied orange peel and pomegranate, and a coffee note that emerges with air. There’s a liveliness to the palate here, even over three decades on, with a gorgeous freshness and creaminess to the mousse. The fruit on the palate is lush, with generous mouth-watering peach and a taut, mineral backbone. It’s amazing how young this tastes still. Dosage 12g/l, tasted from magnum.  1976 Cristal Rosé: Despite coming from another warm vintage (with a very hot, dry August – and harvested from 1st September), Jean-Baptiste Lécaillon notes the freshness on the 1976 vintage, and how it seems to have never become too evolved. It’s much more savoury than the 1976, with rye bread and brown miso sitting alongside caramelised pears, tarte tatin and a hint of Oloroso Sherry. The palate is a rush of fine bubbles, fresh and with a citrus bite but a savoury framework behind. A remarkable wine. Dosage 10g/l, tasted from magnum.  2002 Cristal Rosé Vinothèque: This was disgorged in 2019, spending 11 years on lees sur latte, and then another five sur pointe, followed by an additional four years’ post-disgorgement ageing prior to release. This wine is so tightly coiled, a wine not yet revealing everything it has to offer – although you can see the incredible structure. It’s so vibrant, with energy and a lushness as it drives toward a seemingly never-ending finish. It’s gorgeous, layered with mandarin, grapefruit pith, chalky minerality and smoked salt, lingering on the soft, saline tail of the mouthwatering finish. Dosage 8g/l, tasted from magnum.    The releases of Cristal Rosé to date: 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013 and 2014  Browse all current listings from Champagne Louis Roederer or read more Editorial 

This year marks the 50th birthday of Cristal Rosé, Champagne Louis Roederer’s rarest wine. Sophie Thorpe caught up with CEO Frédéric Rouzaud and Chef de Cave Jean-Baptiste Lécaillon about this very special prestige cuvée and tastes through five decades of the wine

As Champagne Louis Roederer celebrates the 50th birthday of Cristal Rose, we talk to Jean-Baptiste Lecaillon and Frederic Rouzaud 

Celebrating 50 years of Cristal Rose Champagne

Five decades of Cristal Rosé

Inside Burgundy – Jasper Morris MW  “Bountiful and beautiful” reads the headline of Jasper Morris MW’s overview of the 2022 vintage in Burgundy. He finds it to be an overwhelmingly consistent vintage – one with “occasional touches of greatness”. He compares the whites to those of 2020, with a touch less energy but more precision, and the reds to 1985, 1999 or 2002 – “just short of top flight but a really lovely flavour profile of medium density and longevity”. Although he feels that it is not largely a year set to be legendary, these are wines that will drink well early, are unlikely to shut down and also have the capacity to age. It is a “fine and classic” vintage, but some areas have particularly impressed him: the whites of Puligny-Montrachet (where he feels there is a return of the appellation’s typical floral aromatics, and it's the finest vintage since 2017 or maybe 2014) and the reds of the Côte de Beaune, which he feels offer “just that little bit extra” in comparison to those of the Côte de Nuits, highlighting in particular the performance of Pommard and Volnay. In Meursault, he feels quality is generally excellent, but notes the sunny conditions led to the odd heavy wine, particularly so in Charmes.  He notes that in Nuits-Saint-Georges there was a storm a week after the much discussed event of 22nd June in Gevrey – impacting volumes largely, however he notes that there were a few wines with “furry tannins and less precision”. By contrast, Vosne-Romanée escaped the excesses of late June and is “looking very good”, with “some spectacular individual performances”, including Georges Noëllat and Mugneret-Gibourg. Although Chablis was at risk of frost, Morris explains how it escaped a repeat of the damages of 2021 and recovered yields with secondary buds. He argues that 2022 is “a very good vintage of clean, pure, well-constructed wines which are recognisably from Chablis – not the mouth-puckering style of previous decades, but Chablis in its modern image, which I would argue is every bit as valid”. Although accessible in youth, he feels the wines will age and some have “the potential to thrill”, not yet revealing everything they have to offer. For him it sits above most recent vintages, bar 2014, rivalling the wines of 2020.  Explore Jasper Morris MW’s full report, notes and scores on Inside Burgundy (subscribers only)  Burghound – Allen Meadows  In Allen Meadows’ report on Chablis, the Mâconnais and the Chalonnaise, he writes that the “relatively tranquil if incredibly warm” growing season resulted in “ripe, delicious, plump and round whites and very ripe yet still fresh reds, both of which should repay short to mid-term cellaring”. Like Morris, he emphasises the consistency of the year – and a rare vintage where both colours excelled. Despite the exceptionally hot and dry conditions, the 2022s are “fresh, bright and utterly delicious, if not classically styled, reds and whites”.  He feels that the best 2022 whites are defined by their freshness, while for the reds it is their generous textures – “a seductive blend of velvet and punch”. Although it is a consistent year, he warns that a handful of wines are a little heavy with acidities not always as high as he’d like.  For the whites, he compares them to 2020 or 2017, but with a little more flesh than the latter, and the reds are again closest to the best 2017s but a little riper. The best 2022s, Meadows says, are “lovely ‘do everything’ wines. This is to say that even if they’re not destined to be great wines, they do everything well.”  As for the Côte de Nuits, Meadows declares 2022 a “modern classic”. Despite the hot, dry growing season, “the wines, while ripe, are wonderfully refreshing and transparent”, “vibrant and inviting”, impeccably well-balanced”.  Interestingly, he suggests that the vintage’s lower alcohol levels are attributed to inefficient yeast converting 18.5g/l sugar to 1% alcohol, rather than the standard 17-17.5, something that producers can’t explain.  The reds are, he says, “fun” – “ a pleasure to drink”, yet also offer “substance, complexity and intellectual titillation”. They combine transparency with concentration, he feels, and that is a seductive combination. The tannins are “ripe, pliant, and, for lack of a better term, don’t stick out”, while the acid levels maintain balance, even if they aren’t analytically that high. He emphasises the wines’ approachability, yet also their ageability.  Although he doesn’t pretend that it is entirely uniform, with some wines that don’t meet his standards, it is “less variable than probably any vintage since 2015”. Comparisons are various and tricky, but he feels that 2022 is a combination of two-thirds a ripe vintage, with one-third of a fresher one – such as 1990 and 19991, 1996 and 1997, 1999 and 2000 and so on. Whichever you compare it to, Meadows is clear that the 2022s “belong in any serious Burgundy collector’s cellar”.  Explore Allen Meadows’ full report, notes and scores on the Burghound site (subscribers only)   jancisrobinson.com – Matthew Hayes  Jancis’s “man on the ground” in Burgundy is Matthew Hayes, and he provides the bulk of her coverage, although she will offer thoughts following tastings in London in mid-January.  “Beyond any doubt, 2022 has produced excellent, both red and white, up and down the Côte d’Or and beyond,” writes Hayes, although pinning down where it sits on the spectrum of great to good proves tricky. While there are outliers, he feels that the wines generally show “impeccable balance of tidy, ripe fruit, discreet acidity and equally (and mostly) refined tannins”. Many of the Grands Crus, he says, are concentrated and intense, yet “disarmingly understated” – not as rich and savoury as 2019 or 2020, but there are nevertheless “some absolute crackers”. He finds that the classification of wines is generally reflected in the wines, with each tier offering a significant step up in quality. Most importantly, although exceptions exist, it is “across the board and in both colours” a year that has produced fresh and balanced wines for the medium to long term – with value and quality.  Read Matthew Hayes’ full vintage report, notes and scores on the Jancis site  Decanter – Charles Curtis MW and Andy Howard MW Decanter’s Chablis coverage comes courtesy of Andy Howard MW. For Howard, 2022 is “a very good year – and potentially an excellent one” in Chablis, earning a 4.5 rating (out of a possible five). He finds the wines offer good balance and taut acidity, combining typical minerality with riper fruit thanks to the warm, dry conditions. He suggests the wines blend the freshness of 2017 or 2021 with the ripeness of 2019 and 2020, but picking date was key to retaining acidity – and some who missed the mark produced higher-alcohol, tropical wines. The best, however, will “age beautifully for many years”, thanks to their “winning combination of fruit ripeness combined with fresh acidity and classic Chablis notes of salinity and minerality”, making it “a year to stock up on”.  As for the rest of Burgundy, Charles Curtis MW writes that the reds offer “lush fruit expression, full body, well-developed but velvety tannins and abundant extract”, while he argues that the whites are mostly best for early drinking, with similarly “lush fruit” and “relatively soft acidity”. It is the acidity that limits the wines, in his view, mostly for the whites – meaning they earn a four out of five, while the reds reach 4.5 in Decanter’s vintage rating system. The reds “will age gracefully in the cellar”, and he feels are largely homogenous. Although he found the whites more varied, he notes that those of the Côte de Beaune’s most famous villages – Meursault, Puligny-Montrachet and Chassagne-Montrachet – were generally consistent.  Explore Andy Howard MW’s Chablis report, notes and scores or dive into Charles Curtis MW’s report on the rest of Burgundy in 2022 on the Decanter site (subscribers only)  Vinous – Neal Martin  Once the satirical introduction, with a commentary on pricing, is out the way, Neal Martin dives into his detailed report on 2022 – a year that he feels is “a treasure trove of bright ‘n bushy-tailed whites and reds in a season that implied such wines would be impossible, wines predestined to give immense drinking pleasure”.  He highlights how June’s dramatic thunderstorms were key and have defined the vintage, balancing the hot, dry conditions. “I posit that vines were stressed, but stress that they have learned to cope with,” he says. Pairing this with a shift towards a gentler touch in the winery has sculpted the 2022s – wines which he is clearly impressed by.  As we found, he emphasises that producers are split on whether the wines should go through another winter’s élevage or should be bottled early, emphasising that the high volumes of 2023 and limits on cellar capacity are a consideration at some addresses.  All in all, “I cannot remember a Burgundy vintage that elicited so much joy from barrel,” he says. He highlights the whites’ “freshness, particularly their textures, and the deft use of extract that lends weight and presence and heightens umami”, while the reds “fit more into the mold of cooler and classically styled vintages. Lighter colors, delineated aromatics, often tensile, surprisingly vibrant wines with ample weight and length, despite comparatively higher pH levels that vary between 3.25 to 3.50 pH”. The lower alcohol levels (12.8-13.5% for the most part from his conversations) are key, “lifting terroir expression and enhancing that elusive, intangible notion of Pinoté. Prosaically, it imbues the 2022s with drinkability.” The wines’ approachability is perhaps their weakness, he suggests, as the wines are “blessed with the balance and substance to mature exquisitely in bottle”, yet the reality is that most will be consumed within the next five years.  While quality is very consistently high, he doesn’t feel that the year is “a bevy of potential legendary wines” – not perhaps quite reaching true greatness in his book. That said, he advises readers to “fill their boots” where prices seem fair, for it’s a year he “will enjoy returning [to] time and again”.   Explore Neal Martin’s full report, notes and scores on Vinous (subscribers only)  Wine Advocate – William Kelley  Last out of the gate with his report is William Kelley, declaring 2022 “another very strong Burgundy vintage, offering excellence in both colors and in a wide variety of styles, foregrounding the fascinating nuances of site that render this region so interesting”, with wines that are “succulent, suave and charming”.  He notes how the dry, hot conditions somehow slowed the fruit’s development, as well as being another to emphasise the importance of June’s rainfall, as well as the sprinkling that fell in late August which “unleased ripening”. He warns that picking dates were key and at the extreme fringes, “early-picked 2022s present a delicate, pretty style that can lack a little substance” while later-harvested wines “span a spectrum from deep and muscular to overtly fat and jammy”. Fortunately, however, he finds that most wines sit between the two – “harmonious and charming with alcohol between 12.5% and 13.7%, reminiscent, in reds, of a hypothetical marriage of 2017’s easy charm with some of 2015’s depth and in whites, evoking a somewhat more giving, open version of the 2020 vintage”. These are, he says, “pleasure-bent Burgundies that will delight in their youth and at maturity”.  The success of the year is not merely due to the growing season, he writes, however, but the adaptation of producers to warming conditions – both in the vineyard and winery. Pricing remains a challenge, and he discusses the various factors at play, but celebrates the fact that few producers looked set to increase prices. Beyond this, he also highlights the ongoing threat posed by the troublesome rootstock 161-49C – highlighting that this is another reason to take advantage of “a comparatively abundant crop of high-quality wines”, something which “isn’t to be taken for granted”. Having re-tasted many 2021s in bottle, he also emphasises that “while 2021 is far from consistent or uniformly great, any Burgundy purists who have overlooked the vintage may want to reconsider their position”.  Explore William Kelley’s full report, notes and scores on the Wine Advocate (subscribers only)  Explore a selection of the critics’ favourite 2022s or read more about Burgundy 2022

After extensive tastings in the region, the world’s leading wine critics are ready to declare their verdict on Burgundy’s 2022 vintage – a year that shows incredible promise. Here’s your crib-sheet to what the top tasters are saying about the year so far

The leading Burgundy critics’ views on the 2022 wines – with a summary of what Neal Martin, Jasper Morris, Allen Meadows and William Kelley are saying

Burgundy 2022 – what the critics are saying

Burgundy 2022: the critics’ verdict

“People seem to like it,” says Callie Louw in his thick Afrikaans accent. The winemaker behind Porseleinberg shrugs, casual about his wine’s success. Since its first vintage in 2010, this Swartland Syrah has rapidly become one of South Africa’s best and most sought-after, much to his bemusement, it seems.  The 173-hectare estate is rugged and wild, sitting atop the Porcelain Mountain (Porseleinberg in Afrikaans) in the Swartland. The first vines had been planted here in 1997, with wines previously marketed under the Schonenberg label. Louw first came across the site while at Rustenberg, who sourced fruit from there – the bunches and individual berries were so tiny that Louw thought at first that the owners weren’t giving them the best fruit (although he may not have put it so politely). But those miniscule bunches were all these rocky schist soils, with almost no topsoil, could muster. However small the yields, the quality and concentration was enough to convince Marc Kent (Managing Partner and Technical Director at Boekenhoutskloof) to buy the farm in 2009 – and he approached Louw, who was then working at Tulbagh Mountain Vineyards (now Fable Mountain Vineyards), to develop the property.  The team instantly set about a massive planting program and there are around 90 hectares under vine today. Most of the fruit was destined for Boekenhoutskloof’s flagship wine, The Chocolate Block, but with 4.5 hectares of older plots and a ramshackle shed-cum-winery, Louw – with Kent’s blessing – decided to do something different, and Porseleinberg was born.  “It’s a really special site,” Louw says, explaining how the vines sit on almost pure bedrock with just a skin of topsoil over the blue schist. “We’re effectively farming little bonsais here.” It tells you just how challenging this site is that only half the vines they planted in 2009 survived; but the results are clearly worth the effort. And they weren’t the first to recognise the site’s potential – as well as Rustenberg (where Adi Badenhorst was then winemaker), Eben Sadie had sourced fruit from the property for Columella in 2000 and 2001. While the wine came originally from just 4.5 hectares, today there are 14 dedicated to Porseleinberg, with the first of the younger vines coming on stream from 2013. When Louw arrived in 2009, the vines were dry-farmed – and he managed to get 3.5 tons/hectare of fruit in 2010. But the yield was a tiny two tons the following year; it was clear that dry-farming just wasn’t an option for this site, the soils too poor to hold onto the water – if the skies even gave any. “Schist is actually spelt wrong, it’s supposed to be s**t,” Louw says, laughing. Despite the need to irrigate, he’s well aware of the costs involved – particularly given any water they use needs to be pumped seven kilometres and up the mountain. During the drought between 2016 and 2018, the river they use for irrigation dried up, Louw’s house water ran out in May – and police were patrolling water sources. There’s no avoiding how precious a resource water is here.  The site had been farmed organically and Louw continued this, however in 2016, when they looked to plant another 45 hectares, he wanted to make sure that he gave these new plantings the best chance – and be able to farm organically in the long term. As of 2023, the property is once more certified organic, having been able to return to the process in 2020. And it is firmly in the vineyard that Louw focuses, feeling not just that quality comes from the vine – but from the soil, as he gradually looks to build the level of organic matter. “The only thing that I can do better is farm better,” he says.  The winemaking is relatively simple and hands-off (as Louw says, “I’m quite proudly lazy in the winery.”) – but has evolved over the years. Louw uses 100% whole-bunch, although the fruit is crushed lightly (previously by foot, now by being run through a pump) to avoid carbonic fermentation and its more confected aromas. The fermentations are all native, with alcohols generally sitting between 13.5 and 14%. Maturation is in a combination of foudre and concrete, and varied more over the first four vintages as Louw figured out what worked (with the 2010 and 2011 vintages aged in concrete only). While some of the early vintages spent up to two years in concrete and oak, he has reduced this to 12 months (from 2014), favouring more time in bottle prior to release instead.   Although the wines are decidedly fresh and balanced, the pHs are naturally high – between 3.7 and 4.1, with most vintages sitting at the higher end of that spectrum. Given the risks of bacterial spoilage that this brings, SO2 levels are relatively high (around 100ppm total) – something Louw feels is essential for wines that are absolutely built to age. And that’s something that has long set Porseleinberg apart.   “I’m still wearing the pants I bought in 2004 – I know nothing about style,” Louw jokes. There’s no shortage of brilliant new-wave South African wine, however most are built to be open and approachable in their youth – not necessarily glou-glou, but leaning into the lighter style of reds that has become fashionable. Porseleinberg was, at least at first, decidedly not. The earlier vintages are stern and serious, and need(ed) significant time to resolve and soften – it’s that style (whether Louw would describe it as such or not) that has earned the wine the moniker “Cape Cornas”, a style that is both thanks to the natural intensity of the low-yielding site and Louw’s love of old wine.  But the 2018 vintage brought a significant shift – one that has taken Porseleinberg to new heights. Louw visited a friend who was working at Domaine Jamet, and saw how rather than using punch-downs or pump-overs, they submerged the cap throughout the fermentation and maceration, allowing them to extract more gently. Most winemakers might have trialled the technique on a parcel, but not Louw – who says, frankly, “I put my chips all in.” He returned to the Swartland and set to work, making his own plates to hold the cap in place during fermentation. Fortunately for him, the gamble paid off.  The more recent vintages display more perfume, precision and finesse, without sacrificing the almost fearsome structure that makes them so age-worthy – and, as Louw says, it means he does even less work in the winery (“I fit about one more beer in a day,” he says, smiling). While earlier vintages were more about their tannic framework, the fruit, Louw suggests, is more present now – covering the tannins in the wines’ youth.  When I ask Louw if he wishes he’d used the submerged-cap technique from the start, his answer is no. “It’s amazing to grow up with the wine,” he says. And somehow that makes sense, for this is clearly a very personal project. Although Boekenhoutskloof might own Porseleinberg, it is run and managed totally separately. During our conversation and as we taste through a complete vertical, back to 2010 (the first time Louw has ever had the chance to do so), it is clear that this is not just a wine from this specific place, but also from this specific wine-grower. Over 12 vintages, the style evolves, the variation between years shining through, but the mineral backbone and structural imprint of this site remains. It’s a remarkable wine, and one that is only set to get even better as the vines age and Louw builds on his experience. Ignore it at your peril.  Tasting every vintage of Porseleinberg: 2010 to 2021 2010 Porseleinberg: From the original 4.5 hectares, the first vintage of Porseleinberg offers a savoury, bloody, iron-rich nose, with an edge of herbal, menthol notes and dried red fruit. The immense structure is still present, although the tannins have softened with over a decade in bottle. That structure is complemented by a bite of fresher, dark fruit and juicy acidity. Aged for 16 months in 65% foudre and 35% concrete.  2011 Porseleinberg: This wine still feels young, the nose brooding with dark fruit, leather and liquorice, the palate tightly packed with intense, black-berried fruit and a chalky grip of tannins. With the year’s conditions only two tons per hectare were harvested, the smallest crop ever from the site – and given the small volumes this was never released, with only 800 bottles made. Aged for 24 months in concrete egg.  2012 Porseleinberg: This is more supple and soft than the 2012, with a savoury and saline profile. There’s more elegance than the first two vintages, with dark, intense fruit yet with an appealing purity, complemented by notes of tobacco spice and liquorice allsorts. Only 2,760 bottles were made. Aged for 12 months in concrete egg.  2013 Porseleinberg: The fruit here is distinctly different – sweeter strawberry with a touch of herbal eucalyptus alongside savoury hints that point to the beginnings of tertiary development. It’s incredibly concentrated, structured and compact – a wine that is built for the long-haul. Aged for 24 months in 60% foudre and 40% concrete.  2014 Porseleinberg: The 2014 was one of the more open vintages in the line-up, from a particularly wet year and late harvest. The nose entices with an earthiness, a dusting of cocoa, deep red cherry and chocolate-covered strawberries. There’s a juicy purity to the palate with a chalky grip and savoury, smoky edge to the long finish. Aged for 12 months in 100% foudre.  2015 Porseleinberg: This is still a little reductive, and will benefit from additional time in bottle. As this reduction blows off, it reveals a fynbos-accented nose of dark fruit. From a cool vintage, the palate is a tight ball still – intensely mineral and chalky, with impressive purity, but it’s not yet revealing its potential. One to watch. Aged for 12 months in 90% foudre and 10% concrete egg.  2016 Porseleinberg: The 2016 vintage brought the driest winter in decades and another tiny crop. The wine is full of sweet red fruit, but there’s a firm, stony minerality to the nose, as well as floral and spicy tones that give it lift. There’s a fine-boned framework here and gorgeous freshness. Aged for 12 months in 70% foudre and 30% concrete egg.  2017 Porseleinberg: The 2017 vintage is sweet and concentrated; offering both a swarthy dark profile and a sweet, red-fruited intensity. It’s tight and bold, with an iron backbone, firm tannic structure and a powerful finish defined by its dark fruit and minerality. Aged for 12 months in 70% foudre and 30% concrete egg.  2018 Porseleinberg: The 2018 vintage is the first in which Louw used the submerged-cap technique – and there’s an instant shift in the style of the wine. It’s brighter, more aromatic with more intense herbal and spicy notes, while the palate is layered with juicier, crunchy red fruit that masks the tannins. The finish is long, spicy and mineral. Superb. Aged for 12 months in 90% foudre and 10% concrete egg.  2019 Porseleinberg: This vintage saw a break in the drought for South Africa, with rainfall around average and a relatively cool growing season. The nose here is dominated by herbs and spice – green peppercorn, dried rosemary and sage; leading on to a palate that offers pure red-berried fruit. There’s a mineral, chalky, furry grip of velvet tannins that frames the generous cherry fruit, with a saline mineral finish. Delicious. Aged for 12 months in 90% foudre and 10% concrete egg.  2020 Porseleinberg:  The 2020 vintage was warmer and the wine speaks to that – with richer and darker fruit character that dominates its profile. The warmer conditions have added a polish to the wine, with more open feel, despite the trademark structure that sits behind the fruit. The wine is a little reductive at this stage, and needs more time to unfurl. Aged for 12 months in 90% foudre and 10% concrete egg.  2021 Porseleinberg: The latest release of Porseleinberg is unsurprisingly impressive, but with a finesse that suggests it could be Callie Louw’s best vintage to date. A long, cool growing season with sufficient rainfall resulted in a leisurely harvest in 2021, allowing the team to take their time to pick. Since the shift to submerged cap in 2018, quality here has leapt ahead. The 2021 shows a spicy, mineral intensity – with the fruit more subdued, taking a backseat to the stony structure and texture of the wine. It’s supple, flowing across the palate like silk, yet with a super-fine grip of mineral tannins and the shy fruit that points to its immense age-worthiness. Savoury herbal tones mingle with the red fruit, while there’s a saline freshness and spicy pepper tones that linger on the long finish. Amazingly approachable now, it will only improve with a couple of years in bottle and continue to evolve over the next 15 years or so. Aged for 12 months in 95% foudre and 5% concrete.   Browse all current listings of Porseleinberg 

Porseleinberg has become one of South Africa’s most collectable wines. As the estate releases its 12th vintage, Sophie Thorpe tastes through a full vertical and talks to winemaker Callie Louw about what makes the site, and wine, so special

Porseleinberg is one of South Africa’s most collectable wines. We taste through a full vertical of the Swartland Syrah and talk to winemaker Callie Louw

An icon in the making – Porseleinberg

Porseleinberg: an icon in the making

Saint-Emilion has been hitting the headlines. And not in the way it would like to. In July, just after the region’s châteaux submitted applications for the 2022 classification, two of the region’s four Premier Cru Classé A estates – Chx Cheval Blanc and Ausone – announced that they would be withdrawing from the classification system. This week sees a dispute over the 2012 classification enter the courts – with accusations that the results were fixed. The Médoc’s leading names were ranked in 1855 – with but one change (Ch. Mouton Rothschild's promotion) in 1973. The classification was uncomplicated, with no fussing over terroir, tastings or winemaking talent; it was based purely on price. It’s hard to believe that it remains relevant today – but, while of course there are properties that stand out, it’s more or less accepted, and reflective. Across the river in Saint-Emilion, they wanted something different. Something fairer. A system that flexed with an estate’s waxing and waning. The ambition was – and is – laudable. The reality, well… The classification is overseen by the Institut National des Appellations d’Origine (INAO) – the body responsible for France’s appellation system. The concept was mooted in the 1950s, with the first list published in 1955. The idea was that it would be re-drawn every 10 years – both to be more democratic and provide an incentive for long-term quality. Unlike the Left Bank’s system, it would assess terroir and include a tasting of the wines. The aim was, and is – as a spokesperson for the INAO told me, to help consumers distinguish between the region’s many properties and help “maintain a level of excellence”. The classification is based on a scoring system out of 20, with the breakdown of scores different to qualify for Grand Cru Classé (requiring a minimum 14 points) versus Premier Grand Cru Classé (requiring a minimum 16). In 2012, the possible points for Premier Grand Cru Classé were broken down thus: 30% based on the quality of the wine – with a tasting of 15 vintages; 30% on the estate’s terroir; 35% on the property’s renown (both national and international), promotion and distribution; and the remaining 5% on viticulture, vinification and traceability. Even the first, 1955 list was disputed, changed just three years later, then again two months later, before settling on 63 Grands Crus Classés and 12 of the elite Premiers Grands Crus Classés. The very best of this latter group were named “Premier Grand Cru Classé A” (the rest Premier Grand Cru Classé B) – with just two making the cut, Chx Ausone and Cheval Blanc. Since 1958 the region’s wines have been re-classified regularly – if not quite on the 10-year cycle forecast, in 1969, 1986, 1996, 2006 and then 2012. But there has always been an undercurrent of discontent. In 2006, five properties filed lawsuits and the ruling was declared invalid, with the 1996 classification reinstated. For the 2012 classification, the INAO seemed determined to clean things up. The tastings and site inspections were, for the first time, outsourced by the INAO, with wine professionals from other regions (Burgundy, the Rhône, Champagne, the Loire and Provence) roped in – including Marcel Guigal and Robert Drouhin. A company called Qualisud was to handle the tastings, while Bureau Veritas would take on visiting the estates. These independent authorities would, they thought, make it indisputable. The result was two new Premiers Grands Crus Classés A estates – with Chx Angélus and Pavie; while Larcis Ducasse, La Mondotte, Pavie Macquin, Troplong Mondot and Valandraud all promoted to Premier Grand Cru Classé B, and significant changes to the Grands Crus Classés (with a new total of 64 estates). But of course that wasn’t the end of it. Enter Chx Corbin-Michotte, Croque-Michotte and La Tour du Pin Figeac. The latter two had applied for and hoped to be promoted to Grand Cru Classé, while Corbin-Michotte was demoted in the 2012 rankings. They argue that the decision against them was “incomprehensible”, challenging the criteria for classification and insisting that two individuals – Hubert de Boüard (of Ch. Angélus) and Philippe Castéja (of Ch. TrotteVieille) – had “undue influence” with their roles within the INAO. It’s alleged that de Boüard was “present at all stages of the process elaborating the 2012 classification” (with it implied he influenced the ranking not only of Angélus but seven properties for which he consulted), while Castéja “pulled strings” to guarantee TrotteVieille’s Premier Grand Cru Classé status. The case went to administrative court, however the plaintiffs lost in 2015. They appealed, but lost again in 2019. And now they’re taking it to the criminal courts, with jail time and a fine of up to €500,000 on the cards for the accused. When I asked Frédéric Castéja – Philippe’s son and General Director of Borie Manoux – about the accusations, he told me: “I can only tell you that the Attorney General has dropped all accusations against [my father] and stated that he was not concerned at all with this so-called ‘influence’.” “When it comes to a public ranking, the level of controversy is as high as the stakes,” the INAO told me. It’s unsurprising, perhaps, given the impact the classification can have on an estate’s bottom line. After their promotion in 2012, Chx Pavie and Angélus saw instant price hikes: 2012 Angélus was released at 30% more than the 2011 en primeur, while Pavie went up 58%. That’s big bucks. And beyond the actual wine, it’s the land prices that really rocket. It wasn’t just these three (relatively minor) properties that seemed dissatisfied. Rumour has it that each year, the Médoc’s First Growths, Cheval Blanc, Ausone and Pétrus (“the group of nine”) all meet to taste the latest vintage. After Pavie and Angélus became newly minted First Growths, the group reportedly preferred to restrict the group to the original set. And in 2012 Ch. Ausone quietly removed the classification from its labels – a hint at what was to come. Eric Morain – one of the lawyers representing the three disgruntled estates – has commented that the classification has become “a system that sells the brand and no longer the grape”. La Revue du Vin de France’s 2021 Man of the Year, the attorney is a specialist in the world of wine and has earned a reputation for standing up for the little guys. He was instrumental in establishing the Syndicat de Défense des Vins Naturels (which introduced the Vin Méthode Nature trademark last year – a formal definition for natural wine in France), and has defended several wronged natural wine producers, such as Olivier Cousin and Alexandre Bain. Morain’s latest crusade, however, is against two goliaths – with connections and deep pockets. “The classification was thought out and developed and judged by people who had a direct interest. The rules were not the same for everyone,” Morain said on email to me. De Boüard and Castéja should have recused themselves, he argues. For Chx Corbin-Michotte, Croque-Michotte and La Tour du Pin Figeac (“They aren’t notable, just winegrowers who do their job well,” Morain says), this isn’t about money. They just want someone to admit they were wronged, unfairly excluded from the ranking. “Will they be convicted?” Bordeaux expert Jane Anson pondered, “I would imagine not, but I guess we will all have to wait and see...” For her, the drama is an unnecessary distraction “from the excellence of the wines and the entire classification”. In the meantime, the process for the 2022 classification has been rumbling on, with applications submitted this summer. Some changes have been made, again trying to make the classification – once and for all – watertight. Independent third party Bureau Veritas is now in charge of both tastings and site inspections, and the weighting of the tasting element has been increased for the Premiers Grands Crus Classés (bringing it in line with the weighting for the Grands Crus Classés) – worth 50% of the score (previously 30%) – while the portion for a property’s terroir has been reduced to just 10% (previously 30%). The puzzle is why the criteria remain different for a Premier Grand Cru Classé versus a Grand Cru Classé – something for which I haven’t been able to find an answer. Given estates need to score 17 for the heralded Premier Grand Cru Classé A, 16 for Premier Grand Cru Classé B and 14 for Grand Cru Classé, why make things even more complicated and declare that, for example in 2022, the quality of terroir has more significance for a Grand Cru Classé than a Premier Grand Cru Classé estate (20% versus 10% for the latter)? To make it into the upper echelons of the Premiers Grands Crus Classés, reputation is considered key – and this is a sticking point for many. While reputation, promotion and distribution represents 20% for the Grands Crus Classés, it stands for 35% of a property’s score for Premier Grand Cru Classé status. Including elements such as wine tourism, social media, PR and the accessibility of an estate, it has prompted remarks that the size of a winery’s car park has more relevance than the quality of its soils. The INAO emphasises that the criteria are very similar to those of the original classification in the 1950s. Reputation has always been included, they argue – they are simply adapting this to the modern day. Either way, it’s a minor element, they assure me – with, for example, social media representing just 0.3 points, or 1.5% of the final score, while wine tourism makes up a mere 1%. This hasn’t soothed the worries of the region’s two original Premiers Grands Crus Classés A properties, Ausone and Cheval Blanc. News broke soon after applications for the classification closed on June 30th that the prestigious estates had not submitted anything. When I spoke to both estates ahead of en primeur (April this year), the responses were interesting. Pierre-Olivier Clouet, Technical Director at Ch. Cheval Blanc, noted it was “a touchy question” before he continued. “We believe it’s quite difficult in 2021 to classify the wine like in 1855. This is not the same period this is not the same price per hectare, it is not the same price per bottle… Producing an outstanding wine is difficult on paper,” he said. “We don’t produce wine for the critics, for the classification – we make wine for the wine lover. Premier Grand Cru Classé A, Premier Grand Cru Classé B, Grand Cru Classé… we are Cheval Blanc, that’s it.” When I enquired whether he felt a wine’s distribution should have as much weighting as its terroir, he shrugged and smiled: “The answer is in the question.” Pauline Vauthier of Ch. Ausone was less willing to broach the topic, not wanting to be embroiled in the debate. “What counts is the quality of the product,” she said – making very clear that that is where the estate’s focus lies. “There are many classifications and they’re difficult for the public to understand. Ausone prefers to communicate about the quality of its wine.” She added: “[The 2012 classification] created much controversy, and that will certainly be the case with 2022.” When the news broke in July that both estates were withdrawing (along with sibling estates, La Clotte and Quinault l’Enclos), Pierre Lurton (Director of Ch. Cheval Blanc) and Clouet told Terre de Vins that there wasn’t enough emphasis on “the terroir, the wine, the history”. Edouard Vauthier (Ch. Ausone) explained, “Since 2012, some criteria added are not linked into the wine itself anymore. Some people apply for the classification for economic reasons more than quality and the respect of the terroir.” He highlighted that many of their customers hadn’t even noticed that “Premier Grand Cru Classé A” was no longer on the label. Indeed, why would they? Interestingly, these estates agree with Eric Morain on this. For Morain, the tasting component should represent much more – and as long as it counts for so little, “the classification will mean nothing”. The two behemoths are their own brands – brands that are much stronger than that of Saint-Emilion Premier Grand Cru Classé A. The loser, sadly, is set to be the classification itself, and its top-tier properties – which will no longer benefit from Cheval Blanc and Ausone’s halo effect. Of course, the INAO was keen to emphasise that – whether classified or not – the two estates would always be closely associated with the region, and that there were plenty of other estates that eagerly submitted applications. “Ausone and Cheval Blanc have always been driving forces behind the appellation and I hope will remain so,” Frédéric Castéja told me. “The risk is that at the next occasion other top estates (meaning other First Growths) do the same, then if too many leading estates leave, the classification is meaningless.” Morain – unsurprisingly given his campaign against the classification – is damning about its fate. Ausone and Cheval Blanc’s departure is, for him, “a symptom of a system on its last legs”. So is the 2022 ranking set to be the Saint-Emilion classification’s swansong? Perhaps – the more important question is maybe if it matters. “Saint-Emilion has so many châteaux (by far the most of any of the prestigious appellations) that there is a definite benefit to have some way of distinguishing the best wines,” Jane Anson said. “I fully agree with the principles, in fact think the idea of a renewable classification is very much consumer-driven and provides an incentive to estates to keep investing etc, but I think it has become unworkable.” And that is the problem – the theory is excellent, but how can it be put into practice? While the classification sounds helpful in principle, for most people, I suspect it isn’t. There’s too much confusion with Grand Cru, Grand Cru Classé and Premier Grand Cru Classé A or B. Unlike the Médoc’s straightforward numbering of First to Fifth Growth, it is not – to the uninitiated – immediately clear which is meant to be better than the other. Price and branding of an individual estate will be the more important differentiator. Talking to other producers in the region, few have answers – and few wish to champion the system’s survival. I asked Noëmie Durantou Reilhac – of Denis Durantou estates – whether she’d ever wish to see something similar in Pomerol. The answer was a firm no (“definitely”). “What really saddens me is seeing some plots in Saint-Emilion Grand Cru that are truly devastated,” she tells me. When I ask Nicolas Glumineau at Pichon Comtesse in Pauillac – a producer with a little distance – about his thoughts on it, he’s quick to quip: “That’s why we have an 1855 [classification] that we never move.” More seriously, he thinks the decade cycle is problematic. “I have this feeling that one classification every 10 years is probably too fast, too frequent. Probably 25 years – one generation could be enough.” Of course applying for the classification is voluntary – and not everyone does. Ch. Tertre Rôteboeuf, notably, has never played the game – despite the high quality of its wines. (The property is also renowned for handling its own distribution, outside the négociant system.) Ch. Haut-Brion owner Prince Robert of Luxembourg recently highlighted a benefit to being outside the classification – announcing his plans to expand Quintus with vineyards from the recently bought Ch. Grand Pontet. And this really gets to the point of what could make the Saint-Emilion classification work. As Anson said to me, “Saint-Emilion is the only classification in Bordeaux that includes the notion of terroir (and in fact taste) and that is also linked to a specific piece of land.” A classified property can’t automatically include new vineyards – unlike estates on the Left Bank. The classification is admirable in many ways – but how can you really quantify excellence? Is it ever really possible to pin down the true quality of a wine, or estate, with such exactitude? Is the picture not more nebulous than points can ever paint? “All classifications are correct as long as all players clearly know the rules,” Frédéric Castéja noted. “One must remember that classifications are always the picture of the past, but of course confirm the potential of the estate.” For Saint-Emilion, even the past feels in flux – discussed and debated. What the future holds is hard to say – but, for now, we’ll wait to see what’s in store for the class of 2022. Read more about Editorial  Since this article was published, Hubert de Boüard was found guilty of having undue influence in the 2012 Saint-Emilion classification. He was fined €40,000 and has not appealed the charge. Two properties, Ch. Croix de Labrie and Ch. Tour Saint-Christophe, are taking the INAO to court over their applications for the 2022 classification. In January 2022, Ch. Angélus announced it too was leaving the Saint-Emilion classification, stating the system had become a "vecteur d'antagonisme et d'instabilité". This leaves Ch. Pavie as the only remaining Premier Grand Cru Classé A estate. September 2022: the new classification has been unveiled, with Ch. Figeac promoted to Premier Grand Cru Classé A, alongside Ch. Pavie.

Saint-Emilion’s classification is in crisis – embroiled in court cases and controversy. But why? And does it matter? Sophie Thorpe investigates

Saint-Emilion’s classification is in crisis after leading names abandoned the system. We talk to Ausone, Cheval Blanc, Angelus and more about the controversy

Les Castets

Please wait

Les Castets

Filter

Please wait

Related articles