Consider two extreme systems for describing wine: One is to assume that origin is important and to assign every plot of land a position in a hierarchy. Burgundy is the paradigm, of course. An alternative is to give no description at all except for the name of the producer; in the most extreme version, even the vintage would not be stated.
Burgundy epitomizes the success of a terroir-based system, with wines from the top sites (not just Romanée-Conti) reaching stratospheric price levels. But stripped-down descriptions can also be successful; the most expensive Vin de France, which carries only the producer’s name (Liber Pater) and the vintage, lists at more than $4,000 per bottle.
The perception that a hierarchy adds value to a region has spread across France and beyond. Pouilly-Fuissé gained a lift by adding a hierarchy in the form of introducing premiers crus, and Beaujolais is trying to do the same. Previously, Muscadet tried to lift itself out of the doldrums by adding crus. The Languedoc has made attempts to put in place a partial hierarchy. In fact, there is virtually no part of France without some sort of hierarchy. Interestingly, this applies only to wine. There are AOPs for chickens and cheese, for example, but no formal hierarchy among AOPs.
Informal hierarchy
Formal hierarchies are scorned in the New World, but anywhere there has been a move toward geographical descriptions, some sort of hierarchy has formed de facto if not de jure, because some areas are recognized as superior
This Article was originally published on World of Fine Wine
