opinion / myths and realities
Primeurturity in Bordeaux: Should it reconsider en primeur and blending?
Benjamin Lewin MW
of the Médoc in 1855 had a completely different composition from those of today, but the key to quality—then as now—was getting the best blend for the year. Before the AOC was invented, the blend as often as not might include grape varieties from the Rhône, as well as from Bordeaux. Before it became possible to age wine prior to bottling, the blend was of course made shortly after the harvest; today, there is the option to blend at any point during the period of aging. Opinions used to differ on what would be the appropriate time to blend in order to get the best result. Some people believe that the sooner the varieties are blended, the better they marry together, and the better the final wine. The earliest practical moment is after malolactic fermentation is finished. Others hold the contrary position: that you are in a better position to judge the quality of each lot if you keep the individual varieties separate until the last moment. As a practical matter, the increasing importance of showing the wines en primeur has forced earlier blending; now most châteaux blend before the en primeur tastings in April. (Some make a “representative” blend, reserving the option to change it later.) Some years ago, when I was writing Claret & Cabs and was especially interested in the effects of other varieties on the blend with Cabernet Sauvignon, I had a most interesting tasting at Léoville- Las-Cases. The grand vin comes from a single block of 55ha (136 acres), entered by the famous gate topped by its fierce lion. It has a variety of soils, and it runs down a gentle slope to within about 1,000ft (300m) of the river. The grand enclosure is planted with Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, and Merlot; there is no Petit Verdot. The final blend of the 1999 vintage was 62% Cabernet Sauvignon, 18% Cabernet Franc, and
V 74 | THE WORLD OF FINE WINE | ISSUE 87 | 2025
arieties may come, and varieties may go, but blending remains the key to Bordeaux. The wines
If the en primeur system did not exist, would most châteaux go back to blending two years later? Why not keep wines under glass and blend even later to achieve a more perfect result?
18% Merlot. More than a decade later, we tasted samples of the individual varieties, which had been bottled separately. The Merlot showed surprisingly fresh fruits, with a mineral impression and faint touch of tertiary development, overall distinctly softer than the other two individual varieties. The Cabernet Franc was all fresh black fruits, more refined and precise, than the other two varieties, with taut edges. The Cabernet Sauvignon gave the most complete impression of any of the single varieties, showing as black fruits with a herbal edge and a touch of herbaceousness only on the aftertaste. It was the most closely related to the grand vin (not surprising, since it’s the dominant component). This was all very interesting, but the
revelation came in comparing the grand vin with blends freshly made from the individual varieties. The Léoville-Las- Cases showed more development than the varietal wines; but there was no doubt that the blend was more complex than any of the components. After this tasting, we tried new blends made from the individual varieties. Blends with 10% more of either Cabernet seemed credible alternatives to the grand vin. A blend with 10% Merlot seemed to lose the typicity of St-Julien. Further experiments suggested that a blend with 5% extra of each Cabernet showed the greatest finesse of all. So, what seems to be the optimum blend may change depending on the point at which the blend is made.
The counterargument is that the wine develops more complexity if its components are allowed to marry together as soon as possible. (Indeed, you might take intermingling varieties in the vineyard to provide an even more extreme example of this approach. Michel Deiss in Alsace argues that complanting varieties actually changes their development so that they tend to mature together.) Furthermore, if you take the view that it is better to blend early, then blending later would be akin to the (illegal) production of rosé by mixing red and white.
Late-blended NV grands vins? So, might Bordeaux make better wine if the blending was done later? If the en primeur system did not exist, would most châteaux go back to blending two years later? Following the argument to a logical conclusion, since the top wines are rarely ready to drink upon release, why not keep wines under glass and blend even later to achieve a more perfect result? Château Latour left the en primeur system in 2012 and now releases its wines much later, when they are ready to start drinking; the 2017 was released in 2024. If it weren’t for the financial pressure of being locked into the en primeur system, other châteaux might follow—and there would be an opportunity to try later blending. Perhaps rereleases equivalent to Champagne’s late disgorgement would acquire similar prestige. For Vintage cuvées of Champagne,
late disgorgement offers an opportunity to see alternative routes of maturation. Reblending Bordeaux at, say, ten or 20 years after the vintage could offer an equivalent opportunity to re-optimize the vintage. (Late disgorgement doesn’t change the blend, of course, but often the dosage is reduced to rebalance the wine. Since sugar is not an issue in Bordeaux, the equivalent would be an adjustment of the blend.)
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220
