Author, Stephen Browett, and the panel, used these hard words on the power St. Emilions:
Quote: “I don’t normally name the wines that scored badly, but the likes of Pavie Macquin, La Mondotte, Troplong Mondot, Larcis Ducasse, Beausejour Duffau, Pavie Decesse and Gracia received low scores from most of us – none failing to average even 15.5 out of 20. These had clearly been over-extracted at birth and they suffered now from excruciatingly dry, rasping, woody finishes. Despite high scores from some critics, I would be very wary of buying these wines unless you like power above finesse. For me, they are charmless, soulless wines that could come from anywhere in the world and have none of the class and sophistication that one looks for in great Bordeaux wine.”
Sounds like what we’ve been debating on this site:
Saint Emilion – These were controversial wines. Leaving aside the First Growths for now, the winner here (yet again!) was Le Tertre Roteboeuf. This was my own top scorer too. In a dead heat for second place were Canon (which I also loved) and a very good effort from Figeac. I don’t normally name the wines that scored badly, but the likes of Pavie Macquin, La Mondotte, Troplong Mondot, Larcis Ducasse, Beausejour Duffau, Pavie Decesse and Gracia received low scores from most of us – none failing to average even 15.5 out of 20. These had clearly been over-extracted at birth and they suffered now from excruciatingly dry, rasping, woody finishes. Despite high scores from some critics, I would be very wary of buying these wines unless you like power above finesse. For me, they are charmless, soulless wines that could come from anywhere in the world and have none of the class and sophistication that one looks for in great Bordeaux wine.
I was part of that tasting - great event - the St Emilions were difficult. From my write up:
Born in a ripe year that fell towards the end of the peak period for fashionable ‘bodybuilder’ Merlot, the more modern styles of Saint Emilion have not aged gracefully. Tasting manipulated and worked, fruit that was pushed too far and subjected to excessive oak has led to dry wines with harsh, leathery tannins that lack sweetness and, frankly, are challenging to drink. At their worst, these are blocky, alcoholic husks that are severe rather than generous and lack fruit.
That shouldn’t detract from the fact that Ausone and Cheval Blanc were amongst the wines of the vintage, just behind LMHB and Mouton (both 19/20) for me.
That sounds like a fine event Matthew, wow.
I bought the Pauillacs (as I always do), but no 1’st growths this Year…
-And I’m glad to see My Pontets, GPLs and Barons in top.
How did You find the Duhart M, Armailhac and other of the “lower” GCC Pauillacs ?
I rated Pavie pretty highly - 18.5/20 - and it felt really quite elegant. I was surprised at the ‘reveal’ stage. I don’t think Angelus showed that well. Didn’t really feel up to the mark of some of the better wines.
I’ve done my own retrospective on 15+ right bank bordeaux that I personally bought in this vintage (additional along with some 2000, 01, 03 and 04s). Almost across the board, my assessment is similar to what is quoted above, and your own assessment. I did this at home, perfect conditions and stems, with multiple glasses of each wine, many over the course of 2 days, rather than at a large tasting with small, single pours. I ended up giving away almost every single one of these post-modern St. Ems. They were generally terrible and getting worse. I am a big fan of the 2005 left banks.
Pavie is an interesting discussion. Perhaps this is where terroir can partly overcome manipulation to some degree. While I thought most of the 2005 St. Ems that I had where objectively bad, Pavie to me, is only subjectively not great. I see the quality of the materials and totally see how this wine appeals to many fans. It is very Napa, and Napa sells. I could not call it elegant, it’s a pretty big, dense and bold wine. Not my style, but I get that it appeals to many, including some close friends of mine. I have had this wine multiple times, including a bottle back in July shared with one person over a dinner.
I’ve never bought into the sense of place thing… I’d be more for a wine that could be from anywhere that was better than anything over a ‘solid’ bottling showing typicity…
Tertre R 05 is a real killer… i get to taste all their family estates in a mini very next week with Francois son
I found Angelus and Pavie to also be superstunners but they aren’t going to taste like what people think Bordeaux should taste like. I still think for top wines/heavily extracted wines (which I think can be great in top vintages) people will be more forgiving tasting them at age 25-30 than today. Big 05s are great wines in a bad spot IMO.
I find the bolded quote interesting. In what way do you feel that the merlot of 2005 was more manipulated, larger scaled, etc., than the same wines from 2009, 2010, and, almost certainly, 2015 & 2016? If you found the results bad in 2005, wouldn’t you expect similarly bad results in 2009, at the very least, as a warmer and larger-scaled vintage? I don’t own any St. Em wines from 2009 or 2010 that I can recall, but the prevailing logic for palates with which mine aligns seems to be “be very wary” and so I have been…
You make a point here I am starting to wonder about as well. I am beginning to think that while modern style wines from mediocre terroir often fall apart, wines from better terroir sometimes age out of the mistreatment. For example, when I went to a Cos d’Estournal tasting a year ago, the 2009 and 2010 seemed way over the top but the 2005 was starting to settle down and may well taste like Cos with time.
I had the 2003 Cos a few months back. I would not go seek it out, but it was a very likeable “time and place” wine. I was at a big steak dinner with some clients, think over-sized everything, thick and spicey grilled steaks, perhaps too much seasoning. We ordered some high-end Napa Cabs, and I brought the Cos considering the audience. The Cos showed far better than the well-known Napa Cabs. Not my style of Bordeaux, but it was quite enjoyable in that mix. I’m headed to the Masters for a weekend with some clients, and this is pricesly the kind of wine for me to bring and serve to Cab-oriented clients and friends. I’ll sneak in some classics, too.
Glad there is starting to be some vocal pushback against the over-extracted style now among the critics, media etc. Over time it may swing the pendulum back a bit towards the classic style that has longevity.
Speaking of which, I loved this quote (albeit about a different region)
I’m not offended that we’re called ‘classic’; classic is what endures.
-María José López de Heredia
Thanks Ian! I was hoping to find more notes on Sauternes from past vintages, but it looks like they hadn’t tried Sauternes before this current tasting of the 2005 vintage. If anyone finds any retrospectives on sauternes from past vintages, let me know!
+1. I own a scattered assortment from 09 and 10, but stopped buying many of these because I felt they were doing the same thing Napa wines were doing, only in a less interesting way.
I had an interesting experience comparing the 2000 and 2005 Canon La Gaffeliere. The 2005 CLG was heavy, clumsy, and seemingly overextracted – not a bad wine exactly but lacked subtlety and interest. The 2000 CLG was very substantial also but much more layered and sophisticated, it had some degree of delicacy to it and a nice crunch rather than just that heavy brown sugar quality. I thought the 2000 was much, much better than the 2005. Interesting to see two years so close together present so differently, from a domaine that has seemingly had a pretty consistent modernist approach over the years.
