Beaujolais Nouveau on 11/27 - beyond polemics

1. When you pitch it as a gimmick----gimmicks have a shelf life. Once they get old and tired (ho hum, another year of Nouveau *yawn*) it gets more and more difficult to sustain the original intensity.

2. Nouveau is simply not a wine to be taken all that seriously. The emphasis is on "quickly made" and not "quality product". This is NOT a knock on Nouveau, mind you: it is simply acknowledging that it is the very essence of an ephemeral wine. The only wine I can think of that is in any way equivalent is the German 'May Wine'. And that is totally dead in the US. Haven't seen it in the longest time.

3. Nouveau is pitched as a Thanksgiving wine in the US. Because of the timing. And it is not particularly good with the trad turkey feast. That's not good.

4. The price barrier has indeed become a major issue. When a nouveau is priced at $14--20, that pretty much locks out casual sales and impulse buys. Especially for a wine that is in the public consciousness for all of about two weeks max. The importer/distributor/retailer has to seriously consider the wastage (non sell, or sell at a discount) factor when he considers his total purchase. When all three tiers are hedging their bets---knowing there will be leftover product on the floor that need to be discounted and disposed of----and the price becomes an obstacle to the buyer, that's pretty much a damper on any trendy wine.

5. The essential nature of Beaujolais---the AOC style that has developed over the years, if you will, based on the primary characteristics of the grape---simply does not appeal to a great number of wine drinkers. Again, that's not dissing Beaujolais/Gamay, that's simply an acknoledgement gleaned from many years of observation. I have always suspected that this is due to the lack of body of basic Beaujolais (that grown in the lower end where the ground is flat and the wine is rarely inspired). Yes, the Cru are more developed, have more texture and weight, but they have never been distributed all that well (comparatively), and they prices they must demand are equal to other more well known areas/varieties/styles, so they lose in competition for share of dollar.

Here's a reality check: If you could buy only one bottle of wine, and the choice was between three equal priced (let's say $20) wines; and those three were a Chianti Classico, an Sonoma Cabernet, or a Beaujolais Cru...which would you be most likely to choose? (I suspect the strong majority would place the BoCru third almost every time).

Here's a reality check: If you could buy only one bottle of wine, and the choice was between three equal priced (let's say $20) wines; and those three were a Chianti Classico, an Sonoma Cabernet, or a Beaujolais Cru...which would you be most likely to choose? (I suspect the strong majority would place the BoCru third almost every time).

You must be asking the wrong people!!

$20 Beaujolais should provide much better drinking than a $20 Chianti Classico.

And who cares about Sonoma Cabernet anyway

I had one of the 2006's in Nov 07, and it was impressively good.

What producer?

I don't doubt that the better ones age well for some time.

Maison de Lamartine, I believe. I tried to find my notes for it, but I seem to have lost them.

Here's a reality check: If you could buy only one bottle of wine, and the choice was between three equal priced (let's say $20) wines; and those three were a Chianti Classico, an Sonoma Cabernet, or a Beaujolais Cru...which would you be most likely to choose? (I suspect the strong majority would place the BoCru third almost every time).

Toss up between the CC and the BoCru, depending on my mood (probably a bit more often leaning toward the CC; and in fact, if you were to ask me right now, I'd say the CC). The Sonoma Cab would always be third for me.

Here's a reality check: If you could buy only one bottle of wine, and the choice was between three equal priced (let's say $20) wines; and those three were a Chianti Classico, an Sonoma Cabernet, or a Beaujolais Cru...which would you be most likely to choose? (I suspect the strong majority would place the BoCru third almost every time).

Toss up between the CC and the BoCru, depending on my mood (probably a bit more often leaning toward the CC; and in fact, if you were to ask me right now, I'd say the CC). The Sonoma Cab would always be third for me.

Not important (the Sonoma Cab, I mean). You could put any number of alternatives in there that, for different people, would increase the likelihood of the BoJo being last choice. For Rahsaan, I could put in a Loire Cab Franc. For you I might put in a Rhone red, or something similar.

My point remains: when it comes down to it, Beaujolais is simply not the first choice of wine for the majority of people out there. For the $20 I mentioned I could easily find about twenty wines in my local stores that would be favored before a Beaujolais.

[Of course, in my house, where my wife does not particularly care for Gamay as a variety, there's not question of ranking. ]

Mind you, it doesn't make Gamay/Beaujolais a bad wine: it simply means that for the great majority of people, Gamey is not a major player for personal preference.

My point remains: when it comes down to it, Beaujolais is simply not the first choice of wine for the majority of people out there. For the $20 I mentioned I could easily find about twenty wines in my local stores that would be favored before a Beaujolais.

Hoke, I am sure that you're correct that the majority of wine lovers don't favor Beaujolais, but my entirely unscientific hypothesis is that there is a growing minority of wine drinkers who place Beaujolais fairly high in their esteem. In fact, didn't Asimov do an article on that topic within the past 6 months? Part of this (if true) is due no doubt to the increasing presence in the US of quality producers such as Brun, Tete, Lapierre, Desvignes, etc. but part (I think) is also due to the changing preferences of the American wine-drinking public, away from blockbuster wines and toward more restrained, food-friendly ones. Of course, all the usual caveats apply about anecdotal information, and you're in a much better position than me to judge the accuracy of what I've just said, but them's my thoughts on the matter.

Mark Lipton

Last year, a semi-local wine mag writer touted the positive aspects of Beaujolais and called it the 'new Merlot'. And that after drinking pinot, and cabs, and merlots that this added a breath of fresh air to a red wine and to their lives. She pointed out that many connoisseur wine drinkers look down on this wine; but when looked at from a fresh view and a fresh palate - it does have its place and it is a nice wine and one that it is put in a less than desirable place with such experienced and knowledgeable people.

My point remains: when it comes down to it, Beaujolais is simply not the first choice of wine for the majority of people out there. For the $20 I mentioned I could easily find about twenty wines in my local stores that would be favored before a Beaujolais.

Ok, fine. If you put it that way

Not to mention the fact that many of the better Beaujolais are creeping well above $20 these days.

On the issue of Nouveau prices, I only ever buy the stuff once it goes on clearance

How long does that usually take?

I want to say 6 - 8 months, but I'm not 100% sure. At which point, the price is usually cut by half.

Liquor Barb outlet here in Edmonton still has last years vintage!!!!
Most Nouveau is around $19 Cdn here. $4 more I can buy Baudry Chinon!!!

Liquor Barb outlet here in Edmonton still has last years vintage!!!!

Let's have a vertical!

My point remains: when it comes down to it, Beaujolais is simply not the first choice of wine for the majority of people out there. For the $20 I mentioned I could easily find about twenty wines in my local stores that would be favored before a Beaujolais.

Hoke, I am sure that you're correct that the majority of wine lovers don't favor Beaujolais, but my entirely unscientific hypothesis is that there is a growing minority of wine drinkers who place Beaujolais fairly high in their esteem. In fact, didn't Asimov do an article on that topic within the past 6 months? Part of this (if true) is due no doubt to the increasing presence in the US of quality producers such as Brun, Tete, Lapierre, Desvignes, etc. but part (I think) is also due to the changing preferences of the American wine-drinking public, away from blockbuster wines and toward more restrained, food-friendly ones. Of course, all the usual caveats apply about anecdotal information, and you're in a much better position than me to judge the accuracy of what I've just said, but them's my thoughts on the matter.

Mark Lipton

Mark, I would definitely agree that there is a small number of people (your growing minority) interested in Beaujolais. Not Nouveau certainly, and not even the general distribution BoJo AOCs, but certain producers and certain Cru, yes. Tiny numbers however.

I'm not sure that it could be due to the changing preferences of the American wine-drinking public, however. Too small to be a trend; likely to small to be even a blip, truth told. We must, always, remember that we few are very few (strictly quanitatively speaking, of course) in the mass of American wine drinkers who can appreciate wines, notably fewer in the greater mass of American wine drinkers who just drink it without thinking much about it, and almost infinitesimal to the entire mass of Americans.

Let's just say that a very select few are showing more interest in top-quality artisanal-oriented producers, and leave it at that.

Of course, it's that aspect of rarefied producers and the special nature of those wines that keeps us wine geeks motivated.

She pointed out that many connoisseur wine drinkers look down on this wine;

Now that statement I would NOT agree with.

I don't think a real connoisseur of wine would look down on good Beaujolais. If they do I would question their credentials.

It's another thing to say someone does not care for a grape or a style, or that they have other preferences. It's another thing to say that 'connoisseurs of wine' look down on it. That's just rank pretention; and people of that sort shouldn't be paid attention to anyway.

My point remains: when it comes down to it, Beaujolais is simply not the first choice of wine for the majority of people out there. For the $20 I mentioned I could easily find about twenty wines in my local stores that would be favored before a Beaujolais.

Sorry if I took your specific example too literally, Hoke. I will say this: I would drink Cru Beaujolais on a regular basis if I could afford to (hell, I'd drink a lot of things on a regular basis if I could afford to!). But I do get your point - for the overwhelming majority of folks, Beaujolais just isn't on the radar. But I will maintain that it's a matter of unfamiliarity rather than an actually experienced-based bias. A bet you a good Morgon could lure a lot of New World Merlot, Shiraz, and Pinot Noir drinkers.

But I will maintain that it's a matter of unfamiliarity rather than an actually experienced-based bias. A bet you a good Morgon could lure a lot of New World Merlot, Shiraz, and Pinot Noir drinkers.

Guess I'm just being even more disputacious today than usual, Ryan, but I can niggle even at this.

First, I don't think it is unfamiliarity with Gamay/Beaujolais. I'd say it's more unfamiliarity with really good Beaujolais. Plenty of people hae Beaujolais relatively early on. They have it, they enjoy it, it's easy to drink----but there's the rub: it is almost never compelling or truly memorable. Face it: Beaujolais, for most people, simply does not inspire them to continue seeking out better examples; it rather inspires them to move on to something else. I believe it is due to the essential nature (or you could say the essential limitations of) the variety: it is seen by most as a pleasant but rather lightweight drink, rarely memorable. Few people have the opportunity to have the really good ones; on the other hand, few people ever bother to look for them, or even imagine that they are out there.

Second sentence quoted: you put an interesting problem on the board. You compare Morgon with...specifically, New World Merlot, Shiraz (by which I must assume you mean New World, and to put it even closer, Aussie and California), and Pinot Noir (which, according to your wording, could be either New or Old World). I'd give you the Pinot Noir, for the reason that a good Morgon (or perhaps even better, Moulin-a-Vent) most closely approximates a fair-to-middling Burgundian PN. But jump from New World Merlot and Aussie Shiraz....to Morgon? Directly? I question that.

Hoke,

Your wrote:
"First, I don't think it is unfamiliarity with Gamay/Beaujolais. I'd say it's more unfamiliarity with really good Beaujolais. Plenty of people hae Beaujolais relatively early on. They have it, they enjoy it, it's easy to drink----but there's the rub: it is almost never compelling or truly memorable".

Interesting point.
I'd say Muscadet is much the same. It's generally affordable if not downright cheap, is meant to be enjoyed young, and has no "standard bearer", i.e. an estate that's a household name.

As for comparing Chianti, Sonoma Cabernet, and Beaujolpif (French slang for Beaujolais - "pif" = "nose" and drinking the wine is supposed to give you a red nose...), I do not doubt you for a second of consumer choices in the US.
Seen from here, though, these are three very different types of wines, and I find it hard to classify wines according to their price category, feeling there is nothing approaching an objective yardstick. In other words, we're talking apples and pears here.
However, I'm more than willing to believe that the average consumer views things this way.

Finally, I have had aged (decades old) cru Beaujolais a couple of times in my life. One was a Moulin-à-Vent that had taken on fine Bugundy (Côte d'Or) characteristics and would have foxed just about anyone if tasted blind.
Admittedly, this type of wine is realtively rare.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Hoke:"First, I don't think it is unfamiliarity with Gamay/Beaujolais. I'd say it's more unfamiliarity with really good Beaujolais. Plenty of people hae Beaujolais relatively early on. They have it, they enjoy it, it's easy to drink----but there's the rub: it is almost never compelling or truly memorable. Face it: Beaujolais, for most people, simply does not inspire them to continue seeking out better examples; it rather inspires them to move on to something else. I believe it is due to the essential nature (or you could say the essential limitations of) the variety: it is seen by most as a pleasant but rather lightweight drink, rarely memorable. Few people have the opportunity to have the really good ones; on the other hand, few people ever bother to look for them, or even imagine that they are out there."


Memorable has different meanings for different people. To me drinking a nice glass and sitting in my back yard looking at the trees and hanging with my dog and checking out the garden and the grape vines and appreciating the beautiful view on my property is a memorable occasion and snatches a pleasant experience even if for a 1/2 hr to an hr and 1-2 glasses of wine. That is memorable to me.

sorry for typos, I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet!




edit: memorable could be that nasty, funky gross wine you just tasted too. A different type of memorable. Yech!!!

[David M. Bueker]

I have previosuly mentioned that I do some wine tastings for charity. These are normally with non-geeks. This year I am adding a Cru Beaujolais to each tasting. I am going to pour it blind & get reactions before I reveal what it is.

We'll see how non-geeks react.

Here's a reality check: If you could buy only one bottle of wine, and the choice was between three equal priced (let's say $20) wines; and those three were a Chianti Classico, an Sonoma Cabernet, or a Beaujolais Cru...which would you be most likely to choose? (I suspect the strong majority would place the BoCru third almost every time).

Over here, there are not many wine types which are better than the Beaujolais crus from Chermette (Vissoux) whose 07s are on offer for under €14 at a tasting this Saturday along with his BN 08. There is mainly quite ordinary Chianti Classico available at this price but Fèlsina at €15 is outstanding; otherwise we are looking at over €20 for similar quality, e.g. Fontodi. More competitive at or below €14 are certain lesser Bordeaux, but they require a lot of seeking out, and some Dolcetto/Barbera, Loire, Languedoc/Roussillon and Rhône reds. As for Sonoma Cab, we don't see that here.

I'd say it's more unfamiliarity with really good Beaujolais.

That's actually what I intended to mean - should have been more explicit, but thought the reference to Morgon would indicate it. My bad.

Second sentence quoted: you put an interesting problem on the board. You compare Morgon with...specifically, New World Merlot, Shiraz (by which I must assume you mean New World, and to put it even closer, Aussie and California), and Pinot Noir (which, according to your wording, could be either New or Old World). I'd give you the Pinot Noir, for the reason that a good Morgon (or perhaps even better, Moulin-a-Vent) most closely approximates a fair-to-middling Burgundian PN. But jump from New World Merlot and Aussie Shiraz....to Morgon? Directly? I question that.

Yes, I meant New World in all three cases. Here's what I base the 'jump' on: I think of Morgon as having a relatively lush, somewhat juicy, and darkish fruit character of cherry and plums sorts of fruits. Although I admit that it doesn't really compare to Merlot and Shiraz in body and structure, it's fruit profile in my mind is precisely the sort of thing that New World palates like: lush, juicy, dark, smooth fruit, which sounds quite a bit like Merlot and Shiraz to me. It might be a stretch, but like you say, novice wine drinkers like basic Beaujolais because it's easy to drink and enjoy. But they then probably give it up because it doesn't have the body and rich fruit of say, New World Merlot and Shiraz, which are two of the early favorites of the novice drinker. The compromise, in my mind, is Morgon. So there's my logic, and my two cents.

My only probems with BN are twofold. First, the people that treat it like a major event in quality wine - as has been pointed out, it is just a party.

Second, the fact that we get 3 producers, and that the basic villages wine costs $15 means that I'd rather buy something a lot more interesting with the same money (usually from the Rhone)

I like Budgie Legs very much. The crus and villages wines can be fantastic.

Budgie Legs Nouveau is plonk, and in this part of the world it's expensive plonk. Also, from the beefy producer whose wines are ubiquitous here, it smells of bananas.

If I want uncomplicated, young red wine, I have a lot better and cheaper alternatives than Beaujolais Nouveau.

-Paul W.

As I type I am drinking some DuBoeuf BN. It has been years since I bought any BN. I rarely buy it because at this time of year the meals I cook demand a heartier red or for Thanksgiving I prefer a good riesling. I bought my bottle tonight on a whim in the Ginza district of Tokyo for 1850 yen (about $19.47) and they gave me a wine glass also! I am having it with some yakitori that I bought from a street vendor outside my local train station; yakitori yum-yum!

Of course, there are trends in wine just like everything else.
Even among the more staid, bourgeois wine drinkers among us .

A recent trend is to knock Beaujolais.

I disagree that this is recent. We had the same conversation 5, 10 and 20 years ago (maybe not here!).

Tom T.

We did have it here here Tom.

Tim Harrigan

I buy a few bottles of BN every year. Habit maybe, but it's something different, it's inexpensive and I like but don't love it. Tried the DuBoeuf yesterday, probably the low-end variety. It was in a little wooden (actually probably plastic) keg with a spout. I was unimpressed. I bought a couple bottles of the Brun Terres Doree Ancient Vines for drinking next week for $16.99 minus my ITB discount. Haven't tried it yet.