This came to me while reading a post that some one wrote when I was questioning the Quality of the Banfi Brunello. A poster wrote that the wine couldn't achieve greatness because of the enourmess case production. After a little research I discovered that this wine had production of about 35,000 cases. I compared this to production of first growth Bordeaux - in most years they have production in the vicinity of 22,000 cases, not very diffrent all things considered.

I know what all of the arguments are in refrence to production as related to quality, diffrent lots and the what not. My question is this, what is it that these certain wineries are doing diffrent that allows them to turn out such high quality product with relatively high production.

This is a highly debateable topic I think. Is production tied to quality or are these two factors really not related in truth only being tied together by the fact that most large production wines are made in a style that is not intended to be of the highest quality in the first place.

TCK

there is a major difference between a first growth estate like latour and banfi. latour may make 22000 cases of their first growth, but depending on vintage, anywhere from 40-60% of their wine is declassified into their second and third labels. the regular banfi brunello bottling would be the equivalent of latour's third label.

Please don't think that I am comparing the two, I am not. The question is why do you think that certain wineries can produce great and consistent wine in spite of very large yields. Also, my 22,000 case # was for the top tier wine, when are you saying the wine could be declassified - after it's been released as Lafite or Latour?

TCK

Another "Great" topic. But, 1 that I am NOT experienced enough to comment on. Don't know enough on the inner-workings of Wine-making, Wine-management, Vineyard-management, Grape-production, Etc...

Good questions/topic, though.

The first growth owners etc taste all of the wine produced from a vintage. They then allocate wine they feel is of a quality to be considered their Grand Cru to their first bottling (i.e. the "Chateau Latour" of that vintage), they also dedicate a certain percentage to their second wine (i.e. the "Pavilion Rouge de Chateau Margaux"), the rest of the vintage's year is sold off to negociants or some Bordeaux estates bottle a third wine (usually a generic) and then sell the rest off.

The allocated percentages to each bottling change every year. However, certain areas of an estate's vineyards are often relegated to one or the other bottling (i.e. the outer wall vineyards of Latour often make it into their second bottling, Les Forts de Latour).

first, i was using the 22000 number as a hypothetical. in some bordeaux cases it could be even greater. the declassification is done before the wine is bottled. the estates go through a rigorous selection process to determine what will be in the top blend. yield has nothing to do with the amount of cases an estate producers. it has more to do with how many acres they have with vines.

I am clear on that Ojeffso and thank you. So then would you agree that when someone states that one wine can not possibly be as good as another and cites case production as the reason why then that person is not making a viable argument. Large case production made with reasonable yield control can also make excellent wine.

I bring this up only because it is a misconception in my opinion that high case production is directly correlated with with poor quality when in fact it is overcropping for large case producers that is the actual culprit.

TCK

bordeaux estates have been proving for years that one can produce up to 20000-30000 cases of excellent wine. as a note, if a first growth such as latour, cut their production to 5000 cases, declassified the remainder, they might be able to make even better wines. unfortunately, this might not be economically feasible.

I'd really like to see more wine produced that is 1) generally available, 2) well priced and 3) is really good.

I am tired of these wines that are limited production, mailing list only, can only get them if you can have stuff shipped to you. Etc.

Is that too much to ask?

tj-there is plenty of wine that fits your criteria. if you had substituted profound for really good, that would be another story.

well, i guess that is what i meant. I really am bummed that I have problems getting some of the stuff you guys seem to get (easily).

I will post the same response here:

I believe that this actually belongs in the "Wine Learning Center" section. Because, that is exactly what it is to any one that is interested in Wine (on any level).

As a generality, the assumption that quality goes down as case production goes up is a reasonable one imo. The majority of the best wines on the planet are limited in production.

Jones that is sad but true. I guess I need to move to California, or, a little closer -- WEST VIRGINIA! Yee-ha! It's reciprocal!

But, that is because of the wine making practices used by most large scale producers. It is possible to make a lot of very good wine it just might not be cost effective I guess.

Actually, it is much more cost effective to produce lots of wine rather than a little (for all the standard business reasons).

The key is "very good" versus exceptional. I think of it this way - If you took ever Grand Cru Red Burgundy vineyard, mixed them, and then produced a single bottle would that single bottle be better than Romanee Conti? I would argue the answer is no. The greatest of wines speak of their place (terroir). The bigger the production the more muddied the terroir thus imo a decrease in quality.

Hmmm...

I think that I felt that the hands on grape growing needed for high quality wine would counterbalance the obviouse benefits gained through the larger operations economy of scale, that one I'll have to think about from a cost standpoint.

As far as the Terroir argument, thats truely intriguing. I like that opinion. Based on that statement - if all of Corton Charlemagne were also owned by a single high quality producer like DRC, there could potentially be a wine with a rather high case production in Burgundian terms that was of superb quality based on the potential of the place behind the grapes.

Therefore the new opinion is that the quantity of great wine that can be produced is tied to the size of the source of the grapes. This then dictates the maximum number of cases that can be made from a certain plot without the winemaker either overcropping or blending and therefore diluting the wine with lesser juice.

Now were getting somewhere!

tck

I am reasonably familiar with the economics of a sub 1000 case highest quality possible winery and with a very small production negociant operation. It is much cheaper for one producer to make 100,000 then to have 100 producers make 1,000 cases each.

Also remember TCK the entire appellation of Corton-Charlemagne is quite small. The biggest Grand Cru in Burgundy is Clos de Vougeot (and many if not most people would argue that only the mid to upper portions of Clos de Vougeot are of true Grand Cru quality) and it is only 140 acres. 140 acres is a pittance for most large scale producers.

In Burgundy, I took a mini bus tour and saw over 80% of the Grand Cru vineyards in about an hour. The bus driver would point and and name off all of the famous vineyards. Then he explained that they trimmed all but one branch and limited that branch to 5 clusters. I'm not sure that is what he actually said since he had a stong accent, but the point was that they severely limited the production of these small vineyards.

I just bought some 99 Darioush Darius II, or something like that. It is supposed to be from the best 1% of the Cab crop (840 bottles or 70 equivalent cases).