These days, I am a little obsessed with assessment of quality. Not so much in terms of good/better/best per se but more in terms of regional/villages/1er cru/grand cru. Some will say it is pretty much the same, but in an exam situation like the WSET or the MW, we are often asked to position the wine "within context of origin", in other words not only to justify how good is the wine among its peers, but also to position it within a certain quality segment of that region where it comes from.

In fact, the whole point of assessing wine for quality within the context of the WSET Systematic Approach should be to establish value but also to ascertain whether the wine is correctly positioned within the "quality segments" of its region of origin. Sometimes, one can find some pretty good deals of wines classified "basic" but with a quality much higher than normally found within the category.

In Burgundy such segmentation is probably the most sophisticated with a system of appellation that aims to clearly identify the wine within a clear hierarchy of quality. At the base is the regional appellation and at the top are the Grand Cru vineyards.

So, what makes a wine just Regional while another makes it Grand Cru? Yes, it is where the grapes are picked from. But how do such wines taste in the glass?

To find out we tasted:

Dme François Lamarche, Bourgogne 2009

Dme François Lamarche, Bourgogne Hautes Côtes De Nuits Rouge 2009

Dme François Lamarche, Bourgogne Hautes Côtes De Nuits Rouge 2007

Dme Robert Groffier, Gevrey-Chambertin 2009

Dme Sylvain Cathiard, Vosne-Romanée 1er Cru En Orveaux 2009

Dme Robert Groffier, Chambertin Clos De Bèze Grand Cru 2009

Here, we will compare in contrast by flight to figure out the differences:.

In the first, we wanted to establish the differences between a Bourgogne AOC and Hautes Côtes De Nuits AOC.

Dme François Lamarche, Bourgogne 2009

Dme François Lamarche, Bourgogne Hautes Côtes De Nuits Rouge 2009

Here the differences are clear from the outset. The Bourgogne is a shade darker. Its nose fresher, fruitier, and generally more expressive. On the palate, it is smoother (perhaps due to its 0.5% extra in alcohol) and slightly longer on the finish. The better of the two.

But just. Both wines, in fact, are rather light, lean, and simple in terms of aromatic complexity. Both are savoury and rather restrained, clearly expressing an "old world" style, however have a rather coarse texture (the Bourgogne less so). With a pale ruby color (the Bourgogne slightly darker), fruity nose, crisp acidity, and generally good quality, they express their Burgundian origin well. But overall, we are in the presence of simple wines, good every day drinking to enjoy young.

And so, good examples, I felt, of what to expect for a Regional, and Sub-Regional Appellations wines from Burgundy.

Dme François Lamarche, Bourgogne Hautes Côtes De Nuits Rouge 2009

Dme François Lamarche, Bourgogne Hautes Côtes De Nuits Rouge 2007

Here, it is interesting to discover that the '07, from a lesser vintage, is in fact much smoother than the '09 - not so much because the tannin have 2 years more of age but certainly because they are silkier and the body "thicker". It is also a shade darker, closer to the Bourgogne. On the nose, it seems more expressive than the '09. However, it is clearly showing its age, with a large, fading, garnet rim as well as well defined tertiary aromas of leather, forest floor, and very subtle notes of dried red fruits. Are we in the presence of a bad '09 bottle?

The '07 is ready to drink now. Certainly, the consensus among ourselves it that it is at peak. We feel that it can keep another 6-12 months but will not evolve and certainly not improve. Even with a high acidity, the tannin here is low, the body is lean, and the fruits to evolve are subtle at the very best. Further it's bouquet of tertiary notes seem somewhat "dislocated". In other words, not tightly and elegantly interwoven. Mind you, it is a nice nose. Pleasant and enjoyable. But it somewhat lacks the finesse and elegance of a higher quality wine.

Again, we are in the presence of a simple, if good for its type, wine. It is lean, it shows some complexity, it had the ability to age until now, and gives us a sense of origin. But not much more and therefore we begin to understand to what a "Sub-Regional" wine can give us.

Dme Robert Groffier, Gevrey-Chambertin 2009

Dme Sylvain Cathiard, Vosne-Romanée 1er Cru En Orveaux 2009

Dme Robert Groffier, Chambertin Clos De Bèze Grand Cru 2009

At first glance, we immediately see that this flight is in a different league than the first three wines. Just looking at the color, even the one of the more "delicate" Vosne-Romanée, they are clearly darker. Their color also pushes much closer to the rim than even the first two '09.

Comparing the two Gevrey with the Vosne-Romanée, both are darker. The Grand Cru the darkest.

On the nose, all three are savoury, complex, and elegant. Wines with "breed". The Gevrey is more dense than the Vosne-Romanée. It shows darker fruits, with clear, well defined, black cherries and violets. It also displays a touch of strawberries and spices. The Vosne-Romanée is more delicate, slightly more "open" with "looser" aromatics, more seductive and amenable. Mind you, it is very complex, also with touches of strawberries and spices. And a note of rhubarb. Something I am starting to discover that I find more and more in higher quality Burgundian Pinot Noirs. A sign of quality perhaps? The Grand Crus is brooding. Certainly the densest of all three. it is closed, not showing much of itself. Without experience, one would perhaps tend to think it is of lesser quality. But here, it is difficult to describe but, by smelling the wine, one can "smell" it is thick. Certainly, we need to consult the palate to taste whether it will reveal more of itself.

On the palate, all three wines are beautiful and silky. All three are 13.5% in alcohol and so we might think the body is the same. However, the Gevrey is "thicker", more concentrated, than the Vosne-Romanée. The Grand Cru certainly the "thickest" with the most concentration. In fact, the Grand Cru also displays the most beautiful mouthfeel. In perfect balance, it feels like a perfect "ball" in the mouth. Silky, smooth, full bodied, it comfortably fills the entire mid-palate perfectly and wants to remain there for as long as possible. This is certainly a sign of very high quality. The other two are also in very good balance. But whereas the Grand Cru is a perfect sphere, the other two feel more like oval in shape. Another sensation that is difficult to describe... The Gevrey is smooth and silky, the Vosne-Romanée is supple and silky, and the Grand Cru plush and velvety.

All three wines are excellent quality. Both the Gevrey and the Vosne-Romanée are already showing great complexity and elegance. Both also showing very good balance, and finish. If one needs to justify the Vosne-Romanée as being a 1er Cru versus the Gevrey being a Villages wine, it is, i suppose, in the finesse of the aromatics. The Vosne-Romanée is more elegant and the more complex of the two with notes of rose petals and delicate violets. Perhaps it is also its silkiness versus the more velvety nature of the Gevrey.

The Grand Cru is clearly apart. Clearly on top of the hierarchy. It is dense, demonstrates power but in a very understated way (much like the expression "an an iron fist in a velvet glove"), and already has a perfect balance of components. The aromatics is somewhat closed now but surely, it will evolve in a beautiful way as it has the necessary flesh and structure to do so. This is a wine to keep for at least 10 years in the cellars to discover how beautifully it has evolved.

To recap the tasting and really understand the difference between the bottom of the hierarchy versus the top, a compare and contrast exercise between the Bourgogne and the Grand Cru is absolutely enlightening.

Side by side, the Grand Cru is the darkest, but much. On the nose, the Bourgogne is much less dense but also a little bit more rustic. And exuberant. It shows itself without being shy in all its red fruit character. The Grand Cru, as mentioned, is brooding but you can tell it is aristocratic. Clearly reserved with great density. On the palate, the Bourgogne is also more rustic, a bit more coarse than the Grand Cru. Certainly much leaner and thin. The after-taste is incomparable. The Grand Cru lasts at least 15-18 seconds while the Bourgogne disappears in 3 to 4.

An interesting exercise. In valuable in the way to understand the differences and very very clear in terms of what make the Bourgogne AOC in its class and understand that for what it is, it is pretty good in fact.

What about value. Well, I paid the Bourgogne about HKD 200+ while I paid the Grand Cru HKD 3,500+. Is the difference in price worth it?

Only time will tell...