La dégustation se déroule le 02/04/04 au Château Pavie en présence de Gérard Perse.

Ci-dessous, le lien qui présente les conditions de cette belle occasion.

8 vins au programme dont le grand pavie

Château Sainte Colombe 2003: 40 ha en Côtes de Castillon. Belle robe rouge. Nez légèrement dominé par l'alcool. En bouche, sensations assez marquée par une amertume franche et par l'impression d'un jus un peu vert. Cette première analyse passée, le fruit resurgit et offre au vin une certaine rondeur. Petite matière qui donne un sentiment de dilution.

Château Clos L'Eglise 2003: 16 ha en Côtes de Castillon. Superbe robe sombre. Nez axé sur le pruneau et la fraise des bois mais en finale un tantinet réduit. Bouche suave et ample mais largement dominé par un boisé très ferme. Ceci dit, très belle matière et acidité qui répond présente. La finale remet au goût du jour la planche de bois. A revoir après digestion de l'élevage.

Clos des Lunelles 2003: 8,5 ha en Côtes de Castillon. Grosse présence de la myrtille au nez. En bouche, on retrouve ce boisé outrancier et qui masque dans un premier temps les superbes notes de fruits rouges avec aussi la menthe et le cacao. La matière est imposante, riche et onctueuse. Concentration, volume et toujours cette impression persistante d'un vin puissant. La finale, toujours très boisée, se termine par des tannins un peu trop secs et arides.

Château Lusseau 2003: 2 ha en Saint Emilion Grand Cru. Un vin qui m'a franchement laissé de marbre. Passé la superbe robe noire, le nez est inexpressif à  ce stade. Fermé et opaque tel la robe. En bouche, c'est plat, mou, sans envergure et sans charme. De jolies notes de vanille, de café et de réglisse rehausse un peu ma perception pour une sensation de richesse mais cela reste limite. La finale est à  nouveau marquée par le bois et toujours cette pointe de sécheresse.

Château Monbousquet 2003: 13 ha en Saint Emilion Grand Cru Classé. Très belle robe sombre, profonde. Nez très aromatique, fruité et aérien, sur des notes de myrtille, de cassis, de petites baies. En bouche, on retrouve cette richesse du fruité avec une matière puissante, ferme mais sans être agressive ni trop démonstrative. Cela se joue en finesse et élégance et aussi avec de la persistance. Les tannins sont bien présents, enrobés mais assez massifs tout de même. Belle finale longue et sur un je ne sais quoi de «after eight».

Château Pavie Decesse 2003: 4 ha en Saint Emilion Grand Cru Classé. Robe noire, tout simplement. Bouche ample et grosse structure avec une très belle vivacité en attaque. Boisé massif et omniprésent. C'est très riche, solide et puissant. Des notes de violette, de rose, de cerise et de cerise à  l'eau de vie. Jolie complexité avec toujours ce boisé qui domine. Finale longue et chaleureuse mais marquée par une petite sécheresse des tannins.

Château Bellevue-Mondotte 2003: 2 ha en Saint Emilion Grand Cru entre Pavie et La Mondotte. La robe est lumineuse, superbe. Le nez laisse apparaître des notes animales et racés avec un soupçon d'écorce d'arbre. Peut être un peu de réduction? Très puissant en bouche, très riche et volumineux aussi avec une grosse présence tannique. Pour moi, c'est presque un peu trop surextrait. A nouveau, cette sensation de sécheresse en finale qui sans cela est superbe de par sa longueur et son amplitude bien qu'un peu marquée par l'alcool.

Château Pavie 2003: 35 ha en Saint Emilion Grand Cru Classé. Robe belle, profonde. Nez un peu vert et un tantinet «terrien». En bouche, première sensation dominée par la présence alcoolisée. Ensuite vient le boisé, énorme. Toutefois, superbe impression de fraîcheur. La matière est massive, ample, superlative. A nouveau, je me trouve face à  un vin que j'estime trop richement surextrait et légèrement déséquilibré par cette puissance qui me laisse perplexe car toujours à  la recherche d'une finesse ou d'une élégance que je ne trouve pas dans ce vin. La finale, très longue mais trop boisé à  mon goût me laisse une nouvelle fois en bouche un sentiment de lourdeur et de masse importante.

J'avais déjà  eu un écho de la part d'Alex...
Je ne sais pas ce que recherchent Perse et Rolland avec ce style de vins..(jjj)

Alain

Flatter l'ego des gros portefeuilles amateurs d'étiquette, et puis, tout le monde connaissant les énormes carences des dégustations primeurs, la concentration à  outrance permet de gommer beaucoup de défauts...

Sans parler que cela plait a un certain critique.

Avez-vous dégusté les vins Perse/Rolland ?

Trouvé sur le site de Farr Vintners:

The controversy about Pavie 2003 hots up today with Robert Parker unable to stop himself from launching an attack on British wine writer Jancis Robinson's tasting ability and her honesty! Parker's keenly awaited Vintage Report will be published in the Wine Advocate at the end of April.

This debate seems to be coming to a head and it's not just about this one wine but also about the power of wine writers and the way that certain producers appear to be making wines to score points from the "The most powerful critic of any kind anywhere". To refresh your memory, Jancis Robinson (and many others with a "traditional" palate) hated this concocted wine that tastes more like Zinfandel than Saint Emilion and rated it 12/20. It is widely anticipated that Robert Parker will love it and we predict a massive score. Read on.…

"Pavie 2003 - Completely unappetising overripe aromas. Why? Porty sweet. Oh REALLY! Port is best from the Douro not St Emilion. Ridiculous wine more reminiscent of a late harvest Zinfandel than a red bordeaux with its unappetising green notes. (I should make it clear that these notes, were written long before I knew what wine it was - and I have witnesses!!)" - Jancis Robinson

Robert Parker replies: "All I can do is write what I truly believe and let the chips fall where they do. I have neither backed off the criticism of some of my favorite estates that faltered in 2003, or hid my enthusiasm for those wines I feel are compelling. I suspect most other writers have done the same thing.

"I had Pavie four separate times, and,recognizing everyone's taste is different, Pavie does not taste at all(for my palate) as described by Jancis. She has a lamentable and perplexing history of disliking not only all of Perse's wines, but virtually all of the garagiste wines of St.Emilion. The irony is that she seems to be very fond of Le Pin, which some of these wines resemble, and is the inspiration for many of them. That is her opinion, and she will have to answer for it as all of us do that practice this rather whimsical craft. These recent comments (assuming they are accurate) are very much in keeping with her nasty swipes at all the Pavies made by Perse (1998 onward), and mirror the comments of not only reactionaries in Bordeaux, but also segments of the wine trade that are furious with Perse over his pricing shenanigans…

"As most of you discussed, Francois Mauss and his jury of primarily Europeans reached different conclusions about the Perse wines in 1998 and 1999 because the wines are very classical, just more concentrated than many of their peers. Moreover, Perse is a lover of the great classic vintages of Bordeaux, and 1929 and 1947 right banks are his reference point… he would never drink or even produce a wine such as described by Jancis. Moreover, the line about "not knowing" is funny....yes, one can do these tastings blind, but Pavie is the only premier grand cru estate to use an antique form of bottle that...even when covered up, stands out like a black sheep. Of course, she realizes as I do, that most consumers won't even have a chance to offer their opinion until 2006...when the 2003 Pavie is bottled and released.…

"Two last thoughts to ponder...why do some people object so strenuously when dedicated young men and women try and take an obscure piece of property,and passionately attempt to produce something special? And somewhat related… what is wrong with these young Bordelais adopting time-honored Burgundy wine-making techiques...cold macerations, malolactic in barrel, an aging of the wine on its lees, and minimal fining and filtering in their efforts to maximize whatever terroir and vintage character that is available?"

et la suite ... (de la même source)

The controversy over Pavie 2003 rumbles on with many others adding their views to the discussion. It seems to be developing into a Brits v. Yanks debate with Steve Tanzer backing the views of Parker and Suckling. There has also been much support for Jancis from many of our friends in Bordeaux as well as from many leading British wine tasters.

The American critic Stephen Tanzer writes "This is the last specific comment I will make before the publication of Issue 114, but I would like to briefly comment on the 2003 Pavie. Basically, Jancis Robinson's note did not resemble the wine I tasted. (I did not taste the same sample she tasted, so I can't tell you if her bottle was representative.) Yes, Pavie was picked extremely ripe and very late (until October 10), but it's a hugely rich (14%+ alcohol) and impressive wine. I actually had the chance to retaste Pavie, blind, with the rest of the St. Emilion Premiers Crus Classés (minus Cheval Blanc and Ausone, which do not participate in these group events) on Friday morning (yesterday), and it was the best of the bunch. What struck me at this second tasting was that despite its obvious superripeness and high level of ripe tannins, the wine had plenty of energy in the middle palate."

mmh la querelle des "anciens" et des "modernes" continue de + belle!

Je ne suis pas un goupie de Pavie "New style", mais quand même... le comparer à  du Porto... je trouve ça excessif!

Par contre, que Parker se réfugie derrière le GJE, je trouve ça finalement assez comique!

Alain

oui, la bataille fait rage et Parker se cache derrière François Mauss en disant: "lui il est européen et il a bien aimé le vin"...

on se demande bien pourquoi Parker a perdu le contrôle et attaqué de telle façon Jancis Robinson...inquiètant et un peu décevant...

SUITE ....

Michael Schuster, an extremely experienced and thoughtful wine taster, adds a balanced and eminently sensible view on the 2003 Pavie debate :

Ch Pavie 2003: there is, rightly, more than one view.

The new style of Ch. Pavie, made under the direction of owner Gérard Perse, has divided experienced tasters from his first vintage - 1998. The 2003 is no different. Here is my note from my 2003 report for The World of Fine Wine:

“Ch Pavie 1er Grand Cru Classé St Emilion ???
Deep purple; very strange nose for claret: a ripe, raisiny, slightly medicinal combination of port and the bitter almond of Amarone di Valpollicella, along with slightly herbal characteristics; fresh, concentrated medium weight with a very dry tannin and an alcohol 'hot' aspect; ripe, mineral backed fruit, pure, complex and refined, if faintly raisiny; excellent length, but spirity. The issue here is not whether this is this good wine - it is. And indeed the class of the vineyard shows. But whether it is good claret, good 1er Grand Cru Classé St Emilion? If it is, then most of the top properties in St Emilion are out of step!”

Why no score? I tasted this wine twice during the en primeur week, once at the UGC tastings, once with Gérard Perse at Pavie. Just as a wine I scored it 17/20 and 17.5/20. In other words it is good quality wine. But good quality what wine? I don't know. Which is why I don't give it a score in my report. I simply can't see how it represents top quality St Emilion. At least not St Emilion as I know it.

There IS more than one view about this wine, and it is absolutely legitimate that there should be. Not all, but many experienced tasters who have tasted, drunk and appreciated fine St Emilion over many years find that it is unlike any other top claret at this stage (from whatever commune), and for them it doesn't represent claret as in their experience.

That matters. It matters because when you or I buy a bottle of wine, especially at around £100 / $150, we are buying into a particular experience, a very particular set of tastes, smells, textures. And if those are not what is in that bottle, then we may well not want to purchase it. That is not the same as saying it isn't good, it is saying that's not the style we want or expect when buying a wine from this location - i.e. specific brand “Pavie, 1er Grand Cru Classé St Emilion”, general brand “Bordeaux”.

If my wife wants to buy a well known brand of perfume, she has a pecise set of smells in mind; smells she knows she likes, and smells she has come to expect from that bottle, that brand name. If those have changed when she opens her new bottle she will be both confused and disappointed. Not necessarily because the perfume isn't good, but because it isn't what she expected or what she wants. It is no longer Brand X. She would like to have known that in advance - so that she could make an informed choice prior to purchase.

The issue with the new Pavie is that many of its characteristics are not, for the moment anyway, a normal part of what we associate with wine from this location, with this ‘brand', when young; and we can't be sure how it will turn out when mature because it has no track record yet in this new style.

And for that reason, especially at this sort of price (and because for most consumers an important part of the quality of a wine has to do with its specific characterisics), it seems absolutely fair for some tasters and consumers to be wary at least, and to express their doubts, just as it is fair for those who are enthusiastic to express their enthusiasm.

It is not that there isn't room for change or experiment, but this experiment, for the moment, is more than many who are familiar with the product can understand. And that is why there are understandably, and justifiably, contradictory views on this wine.

Michael Schuster 14.4.03