What vintage would you pick if you were hosting a tasting of first growth to a group who had yet to experience any?
1982
Without price parameters it’s tough to give an appropriate response. But assuming price is a consideration, 2001 is a much underrated vintage that should be showing pretty well.
1982, 1990, or 1996. 1982 and 1996 are quite strong across the board, though I think Lafite and Margaux, while very good in 1982, are a little overrated, HB is underrated, and Mouton is atypically extraordinary. 1996 is remarkably strong from all 5 chateaux. In 1990, Lafite, Latour, HB, and Margaux all made excellent to incredible wines, and Mouton isn’t particularly special, which is pretty typical.
Wow never had any?
What have they been drinking?
What is your goal?
Tough question without parameters.
1996 is a great year and very drinkable now.
1996, no question. '82 would be $$$ & some are fading.
- But I don’t have any of them so you’d have to supply the wines.
I might consider 1985. The first growths are all in their drinking window and should give a fair accounting of what a fully mature, good vintage tastes like. Make no mistake, that is not damning with faint praise. A fully mature first growth from a good vintage is extraordinary. And they are definitely more affordable than the various vintages of the century. At 30 years old, you never know what you are getting in the marketplace, but they seem a decent bet.
If someone else provides the First Growths, I’ll bring a 1959 Huet 1er Trie of their choice as a nightcap. The 1959 Lafite and HB are about as close to perfect wines as I’ve had.
In my experience, the only first growth in 1985 that is even close to extraordinary is Haut Brion. The others aren’t bad, but I think Lynch Bages, Gruaud Larose, LLC, Leoville Barton, LMHB, and Pichon Lalande are better wines in 1985, and nothing in 1985 reaches the level of a first growth that performs up to par in a great vintage.
There’s a whole thread recently praising the 1996 vintage in Bordeaux…
In my old tasting group we have done:
- 59
- 61
- 66
- 70
but that would be tough to do nowadays. oddly enough the 66 tasting, done at home, was much fun because there were some real surprises with Latour. 59/61 done at restauarants SF/Napa.
More recently we did 89 which was very good:
HB, Lafite/Latour/Mouton (Latour was my fav.) and Margaux. some are available via auction/secondary market, HB will be very expensive due to ratings but I would not underestimate
how well Paulliac would show.
I have 86 but still waiting… have checked in on Mgx (tannic/tight), Mouton and Lafite (quite good). Latour was underwhelming. unsure how HB will show.
For modern vintages I like 90 and 95/96.
So if I did one this yr? re-do the 89, 90 and maybe 95 or 96.
Am I the only one who loves 83?
Not as much experience as a lot of people here but I’d buy 83s blind.
Nolan,
that’s a good suggestion to pick some “off” vintages like 83/88 with some age. 83 Margaux was outstanding. tougher to source sometime, but they don’t break the bank. (but Mgx has gotten pricey).
99 is also an underappreciated modern vintage that I would drink even young.
If I were buying I think I would have to do 1999.
A contrary view to some of the suggestions so far: 2002 because it was an “ordinary” year and you should be able to source relatively inexpensively. Because it’s a more normal vintage, I think the reasons the firsts are the firsts shines through perhaps more brightly.
I’d chose 1970 or 1975…or 1966 if you can find it.
Charles would have to clarify and refine his question for our answers to be of much use.
Is cost and accessibility no object and he simply wants a great year for drinking them now? Is he asking what would be a smart vintage to pick as far as value for the dollar? Is he trying to pick the vintage which would best show his friends what is great about 1st Growths? Is he trying to pick the vintage which showcases the difference in style between the houses?
If what you want is to contrast the five terroirs, 1990 to me seems like the best combination of a great year yet rich open and accessible, and accessible matters because a comparison of the five is worthless if they arent wide open enough to tell their styles apart. Second under these two criteria would be 1982 but at least one of them would be OTH and the cost would be absurd. Any other vintage to me seems either not top level because of quality or age, or too young like maybe 1986 Margaux and Mouton, or a few of the 1996.
A lesser vintage, or older tasting than 1982, seems worthless in forming opinions of each Chateau based on that one bottle.
If what you want is to evaluate them as a whole rather than contrast them, then a younger vintage is OK.
Thanks for the responses I’ve gotten thus far, seems like I have quite a bit to work with. I purposely left my question a bit vague to gauge opinion with out restriction, though I do think some background information will help narrow down my options.
I’m hoping to host a small tasting for a group of six or so people. Each of us have cut our respective palates and are capable of understanding and appreciating wines of this caliber, but have yet to splurge. Since I would be the one providing the bottles, I’m looking to stay budget conscious with out sacrificing quality.
My goals for the tasting are to gain better understanding of the house style for each producer. I thought sticking with a single strong vintage maybe the best way to go about an even comparison, but I may be mistaken. Any further suggestions are much welcomed!