WS gave the vintage a 95 to left bank and 94 to right bank. RP bestowed a 95 to St. Julien, St. Estephe, Pauillac and to Sauternes/Barsac, a 90 to St. Emilion, an 88 to Graves and Margaux and an 84 to Pomerol. I tried a lot of them and there were a few reds that I found were solid, but really none that I’m compelled to have again. For the sweeties, I’m a high acid, no oak guy. In the best vintages I like Sauternes, but find they still pale in comparison to late harvest Chenin and Riesling. In '03, the wines are flaccid and charmless. Ymmv, of course.
Yeah, I don’t like sweet wines of any variety so I have no opinion on that. As for the reds, I mostly bought left bank, picked carefully, and have had lots of success. I have heard very good things about the firsts – too rich for me.
There was lots of garbage in 2003. Way too hot. A lot of wines that seemed ok in 2006 became brittle. Fortunately I didn’t buy more than a few that did not pan out. Even on the right bank, there were some beautiful wines (although, it has to be said, they sometimes don’t really behave like bdx).
And WS is nuts.
I’m still tasting the '70 Brane-Cantenac I had a few months ago. That was some phenomenal juice.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
agree with 1998 napa
bob
Even when first released, there were some that were excellent, like Nickel & Nickel Cabernet Sauvignon Rock Cairn and Celia Welch’s Staglin.
2003 in most of Western Europe.
The 2003 European heat wave was the hottest summer on record in Europe since at least 1540. France was hit especially hard. The heat wave led to health crises in several countries and combined with drought to create a crop shortfall in parts of Southern Europe. Peer reviewed analysis places the European death toll at 70,000.
Yep. Remember it well and there was certainly plenty of discussion about it on the various wine boards at the time. To my tastes, the wines that fared best were Barbera, but I didn’t buy a single wine from Europe that vintage. Too many other vintages out there for my scarce dollars.
Rated too high initially
2004 Burgundy is the obvious one. If you get a drinkable wine its a bonus.
2003 Bordeaux. Personally I feel almost all wines are a mess. Even the Cos I had the other day, while good, was hardly exciting.
Rated bit low initially
2004 Bordeaux. More structured vintage. Leaner and a bit patchy but quite a few really good wines.
2008 Burgundy. The village wines struggled to ger ripeness but at the top end they are fabulous. Lots of intensity. Vibrant.
I’d forgotten that. That’s a good one.
As of summer, 2007, no critic had called or even raised concerns about the “green” flaw in the 2004 red Burgundies. Since I used critics to get insights into vintages in barrel…and hadn’t tasted them in barrel…I was pretty shocked by the problems I found when I visited Burgundy in May 2007.
Because of that, I let all of my subscriptions to “critics” lapse. What’ s the point, if you cant trust them or their palates.
From barrel, WS gave most top 1986 Bordeauxs scores in the 70s in the 80s. A year later they upped most of them 10-15 points. That was pretty entertaining.
Rovani, when he was reviewing Burgundies for WA, extolled the 97s and dissed the 98s.
Didn’t they also have a cover billing 2000 as the best ever for Barolo? I was in the Langhe in 2002 and 2004 and I remember the locals were scratching their heads about that one.
True. Most of the ones cited are more about style than being wrong. 2003 has some great wines IMO, but if you don’t like big, fruit forward wines, you aren’t going to like even the best among them.
97 Brunello and 04 Burgundy are really good examples I think. The former for over rating and the later for missing it completely.
95 vs. 96 Bordeaux is interesting. I think 96 is the better vintage which is pretty much what Parker said over WS. Well made wines are great from both vintages at this point.
Along the 2003 vein, I am surprised no one mentioned Burgundy. Pierre got ripped at the time for saying it was an outstanding vintage. I don’t drink a lot, but I have been surprised how the ones I have had really improved and settled down. Again, they have a lot of fruit, so many don’t like them just for that.
While I respect those critics who are willing to go out on a limb and be counted regarding their assessments, too often some of them jump out quickly to be first on the block. In time, I suppose, one tends to ignore the critics who have often missed the mark.
Stuart, was there something wrong with the 2004 Burgundies? ( …just kidding. ![[basic-smile.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/83717c74df9b0ce202453063bc4f11baf0ee6b8a.gif "smile"){kind=small}
)
Hank
Yes, that was when Suckling was still at WS and he rated the vintage 100 points. WS subsequently revised the rating after Suckling left and Bruce Sanderson was assigned to cover Italy. WS revised the Piemonte vintage rating for 2000 down to 93 points.
+1000
TTT
They did, which was odd, but '97 is way worse than '00. It was the first of the modern ‘bad-hot’ vintages, I don’t think the producers were ready for it. Problems with alcohol, stewed flavors, VA…
1975 Bordeaux. The opposite of 1970.
Jay, my recollection is that both got pretty middling reviews. Which was erroneous and in which direction?
I think WA and WS overrated 2000 Bordeaux, with Parker rating the vintage 94-97 pts for all of the red wine communes. There are some wonderful wines, but many have not lived up to the hype. Many highly rated wines seem verging on dilute with hard, excessively drying tannins (I know, it could be a phase and it’s too soon to judge the best wines, but I have my doubts).
Part of the reason for the hype was the absence of a great vintage across all communes in Bordeaux since 89/90. 1995 was solid, 1996 was a Left Bank year, 1998 a Right Bank one, et cetera, so the critics beat their breasts a lot harder than they would have if the 2000 vintage had come shortly after 2005/09/10.
1997 was overrated in Napa, Tuscany and Piedmont.
Typo?
If not, what’s your thinking?