It is cultural thing (claret/clairet/clairette). Yes, in France it is light-colored wine but english speaking people use the word for very dark wine. In my country, clairet is usually (almost) white wine made of dark wine grapes.
Claret is an anglicisation of the word and is based on it. Somehow the English eventually used that term to refer to all Bordeaux wine and not just Clairet.
But the wine itself didn't change, what changed is just foreigners inappropriately using words to describe one type of wine to describe others.
"Foreigners inappropriately using words" is a ridiculously elitist description of "language use changing over time."
At the time the word "Clairet" (in English use) was adopted Aquitaine and Bordeaux were English possessions. The aristocracy of England spoke a lot of French. The wine they consumed was imported from Bordeaux and the volume of exports of wine drove the expansion of viticulture in Bordeaux, with the draining of marshes and the expansion of the ports, etc. They called the wine Clairet or Claret, because that's the colour the wine was at the time. The wine changed, but the word did not, because it came to mean "Bordeaux wine."
There's no patent, trademark or copyright that can make a word mean anything else. The French language and the French wine industry does not "own" the term, because the word is as legitimately English as any other imported French word in the language as it is several hundred years old. There are thousands of such words in large part due to the Norman invasion but also other reasons.
It's not "foreigners" inappropriately using a word. It's a historical use.
And yes, the wine changed. Bordeaux's exports in the 15th, 16th, 17th century were different. What it is known for now is not what it was known for then.
But you're lucky, there's relief for you. It's only really the British that use this term, and less so every generation. Most of us just say "Bordeaux."
My original point still stands: the predominant style of wine production of Bordeaux changed. From a light wine in the style of a rose to a more extractive, tannic, and higher alcohol wine. That production involves more skin exposure during primary, but it also often involves picking the grapes at higher phenolic ripeness.
(I have a vineyard and grow and make my own wine from it.)
Regardless, the TFA was about Burgundy, which as I pointed out is actually a more useful comparison point for harvest date since AFAIK there's been less change in the grapes grown or style of wine produced.
> which as I pointed out is actually a more useful comparison point for harvest date since AFAIK there's been less change in the grapes grown or style of wine produced.
Sorry for the late reply, but you should check out the underlying paper if you haven't yet: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2016.00069.... Their result crucially depends on assuming a 7 day adjustment in harvest date in the early years to compensate for the change in style of wine produced. Possibly necessary, but I think it greatly undermines the strength of their conclusions.
Have you written anywhere else about your grape growing experience? I've been trying to learn more about the recent short season northern grapes that have been coming out recently.
