The family house@Domaine Charles JoguetAs promised a further posting arising from Jonathan Nossiter's Liquid Memory sparked by his comments on Charles Joguet and brands.
'So why was I so anxious? Because the potential drama that underlies Yvonne's estate had already been played out for real with Joguet. Without any children to take over, and deeply in debt, Joguet had sold the winery in 1997. The name of a vigneron who represented the apogee of artistic individuality had become reduced to a brand when the new owners kept the name. When I recently spotted a young man in a Tokyo wine shop with a bottle of 2002 Joguet in his hand, I thought, "Another innocent victim, ten thousand miles away." The wine drinkers across the globe, from Paris to New York to Tokyo, who now buy the wines of "Charles" are in fact buying nothing more than the branded representation of the artisan, an increasingly common problem in every facet of life.'
Did Nossiter seriously imagine that those who bought the Charles Joguet estate would immediately change its name? Charles' name and reputation would have added considerably to the value of the estate, which already had some very good parcels of vines. Surely under Charles' tutelage 'Charles Joguet' was already a brand – albeit a very good one.
Nossiter continues: 'However, it is important to point out that having tasted them numerous times, I wouldn't say that the wines now labeled "Joguet" are bad. But without the touch of the artisan-artist, the Joguet Chinons have become banal. Which may be more dangerous.'
Over the next couple of pages Nossiter keeps referring to the post-Charles Joguet era wines from the Domaine Charles Joguet – 'Joguet brand imposter' and 'the counterfeit Joguet wine'. I do think that the Charles Joguet wines declined after the sale in 1997, although they are now returning to form. But I find Nossiter's view naive and silly – after all wine estates in France do change hands quite frequently and quality levels rise and decline. Why are the Charles Joguet wines now 'brand imposters' and 'counterfeit', when the estate was doubtless properly sold in 1997.
I'm not surprised that Liquid Memory has enraged some reviewers, notably Mike Steinberger in Slate (30th October 2009) in a post entitled In Vino Pompousness.
Did Nossiter seriously imagine that those who bought the Charles Joguet estate would immediately change its name? Charles' name and reputation would have added considerably to the value of the estate, which already had some very good parcels of vines. Surely under Charles' tutelage 'Charles Joguet' was already a brand – albeit a very good one.
Nossiter continues: 'However, it is important to point out that having tasted them numerous times, I wouldn't say that the wines now labeled "Joguet" are bad. But without the touch of the artisan-artist, the Joguet Chinons have become banal. Which may be more dangerous.'
Over the next couple of pages Nossiter keeps referring to the post-Charles Joguet era wines from the Domaine Charles Joguet – 'Joguet brand imposter' and 'the counterfeit Joguet wine'. I do think that the Charles Joguet wines declined after the sale in 1997, although they are now returning to form. But I find Nossiter's view naive and silly – after all wine estates in France do change hands quite frequently and quality levels rise and decline. Why are the Charles Joguet wines now 'brand imposters' and 'counterfeit', when the estate was doubtless properly sold in 1997.
I'm not surprised that Liquid Memory has enraged some reviewers, notably Mike Steinberger in Slate (30th October 2009) in a post entitled In Vino Pompousness.
