Ageworthiness of Modern versus Traditional Bordeaux

Interested to get the board’s collective wisdom on the changes in Bordeaux over the years and which are for the better and which might either be subject to some reversal over time or might mark a change to something fundamentally different.

The thought arose after tasting a few +/-15 year old Bordeaux recently and finding them markedly different from the 15 year old bottles I would have been drinking in the mid-to-late 1990s.

On the positive side:

• Today’s wines are cleaner. Gone are the days of Cordier funk.
  
  
  
• They seem to be more likely to arrive intact (not having been mistreated on their route to retail).
  
  
  
• Most drink well from release and they generally seem to rarely close down the way they did 20 years ago.
  
  
  
• There’s a lot more correct, quality Bordeaux to chose from at every price point.

On the other hand (and, some of these comments are a matter of opinion):

• The wines are, as a rule, a lot riper. This may be ‘global warming’ or, in many cases, it may be later picking… but, the wines definitely lean riper — particularly for more modern producers.
  
  
  
• Owing to the higher ripeness, its harder to find pyrazines / green notes in the wines. For many if not most people, that may be regarded as a positive. I’m not so sure — but, that’s a personal thing.
  
  
  
• Owing to the higher ripeness, the tannins are rounder and the wines often don’t have the same ‘grip’
  
  
  
• Oak treatment is more aggressive and more producers make up for a lack in aromatic complexity produced by the riper fruit with oak and toast.

I think this trend started in earnest with the Right Bank 1998 vintage and built up from there. These wines are getting older and it seems like we should be able to make a list of those that fall distinctly into one category or another to start to make some judgements. I don’t have a strong opinion other than to say I’ve had a number of +/-15 year old Bordeaux that don’t seem to be evolving the way I would have expected (for example) a 1985 Lynch Bages to taste in 1998. Many, while perfectly tasty, are just that — tasty but rather monolithic and lacking much in the way of developed aromatic complexity one loves in Bordeaux. Others, like a recent bottle of 2001 La Tour Carnet, fare worse when the toasty oak hangs on longer than the fruit and becomes disjointed in wine (IMO).

The 1996 Leoville Barton is drinking fantastic right now. Aromatically, it is a bomb. It is rich and full, having put on a great deal of weight in bottle. I bring this up because, in the early to mid-2000s, I debated getting rid of it. The wine seemed to always be in a shell. It was lean and closed both aromatically and on the palate for a number of years. That’s not something you typically see with the more modern / riper / oakier style. I similarly mentioned the 1994 Grand Puy Lacoste, which went through its own evolution (it’s a lesser wine but it went through no less a metamorphosis).

I am sure they exist — but, can anyone draw reference to some of the more modern wines that have matured to develop more traditional and less oak-driven aromatic complexity with age? Do others find that some of the very highly toasted wines have issues as they get older as described? Or, am I inferring an issue from a limited sample? What are some modern day wines we should start to follow to make inferences about how changes in winemaking show up with extended aging?

Curious what others think here.

Cheers.

What is ‘Cordier funk’’?

I like some Cordier funk! Some of the older Gruaud Larose are phenomenal.

Cordier wines of the 80’s had this wonderful aromatic funk to them. It was probably a bit of Brett but if you are into that type of thing it added complexity and depth without detriment to fruit. Gruaud Larose 85 and Talbot 86 are examples.

I have the same difficulty imagining the aging curve of post 2001 Bordeaux as I do with post 2002 Napa cabs. The wines are just plain different from their predecessors in pretty much every way as you well describe.

My knee jerk reaction has been to agressively backfill.

No expert here, but from what I’ve had, Gruaud Larose is really different now. That old brett is pretty much gone.

If you want to talk about differences over the years, I think a lot of it depends on who made the wine before and who is consulting now. Same with Napa really - there are a few consultants who make a lot of wine and consistently get high points for them.

Stick to the tried and true that eschew the modernist consultants that seek ubiquity, as they are stripping Bordeaux of its soul. Sadly, more and more have flipped, recently adding stalwarts like Lanessan, Figeac, La Louviere and Conseillante to the list of points-chasers. I’m with Carlos: backfill. Backfill and give love to the classicists that have not sold out.

To the OP’s question, I personally do not think the modern wines age well and will not hit the high notes with the tertiary development that some of us love in traditional Bordeaux. I’ve posted thoughts here over the years as I sample and evaluate these modern wines over the years, but also recognizing many of these wines have less than 15-20 years on them. Perhaps I’m just a yak palate and a dullard, and eventually these wines blossom, but that’s not where I bet my money. And while I may be philosophically liberal, I work too hard to spend my money in anything other than a conservative manner that I know will yield results. I’ve pretty much disposed of all the modern crap that I have picked up over the years. I’ve made my bet.

PS. I remain shocked that Carlos does not adore Loire Cab Franc! Come on, my Puerto Rican brotha!

They said 1982s were too ripe and they turned out OK.
They said 1990s were too ripe and they turned out OK.

Will the 2009s or 2010s develop that tertiary complexity that makes Bordeaux so wonderfully Bordeaux? I understand the doubts. That these are a bridge too far. Especially the lower acid 2009s. Only time will tell. I’ve placed my bets on a few 2009s and 2010s and hope I’m still around in another 10-15 years to find out.

In 3 weeks I will attend a tasting of 20+ St.Emilions 1998 (incl. some of my bottles) …
we´ll see …

It’s an interesting conundrum, this. I used to think that all “modern” wine aged badly (I put modern in inverted commas because I think there’s a style which is already on its way out, with Parker’s retirement). Also, like many here and elsewhere, it seemed logical to me that wines which were fruit-forward and approachable young would not age well. But some recent experiences have shown me that this is not necessarily true.

From the Right Bank, this year, I’ve had Faugères 98 and 00, both of which were surprisingly good, neither of which I liked when they were younger. Larmande 98 was also much better than expected. OTOH La Dominique 01 was awful. Chauvin 98 was quite good but actually needed longer still.

From the Left Bank, many lesser 00s I’ve tried have been fading, like HBL or Haut-Batailley. As for Gruaud, the 01 and the 02 I tried were already declining. Other 02s such as Léo-B or Branaire have been excellent, likewise Armailhac 01 and 04, which were better than the 00. Calon-Ségur 96, like Léo-B 96, was just as good as I would have expected from a claret at peak.

As for 2003, which is my least favourite vintage ever, I have to admit that those I’ve tried this year have mostly been much better than I ever imagined possible. Perhaps I was lucky with the bottles, but apart from one, they have all been good.

So I’m relatively optimistic about the future. It’s an obvious truism, but good wine will always age well. There are good modern and post-modern wines, then there are the others.

Alcohol level.

I’m not sure where more recent vintages are, but the older ones, in general, were at optimal levels.

I hosted recently a tasting of 16 1998 Right Banks for the Commanderie Bordeaux in PR and all wines displayed classic characteristics and were wonderful after 3 hours in a decanter. Zero spoof.

Like Robert, I think that a lot of this is producer specific. This is why to me, Bordeaux has become kind of a minefield, other than with respect to the handful of producers that I have a decent amount of experience with in modern vintages.

Jim, I believe that you have said on other posts that you are just kind of getting back into wine after being somewhat away from it for a number of years. I think you would find the linked thread helpful in getting more to the state of Bordeaux today - although things keep changing as producers are bought and sold, change directions, etc. Traditional vs. Modern Bordeaux? - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

I’m curious. Specifically, what wines previously know for aging no longer age?

I’m not asking about a single vintage, for example 2003, I’m looking for wines that previously aged and now, are thought to no longer have the same ability to age.

The question as posed is, to my mind, too binary. There are certainly wines that seemed “modern” (alcohol and oak) when they were bottled and will never improve, some that seemed grotesque when bottled that have actually turned out to be ok if not to my tastes (looking at you, Lascombes), and others that have matured nicely. As for modern bdx not lasting more than 15-20 years, I can say that for my tastes, the 2000s have yet to reach maturity.

So, I can resolutely and without question say “it depends.”

I had a 1961 Pavie at Bern’s that was amazing. There is no chance, IMHO, that any Perse-era Pavie hits that level of complexity.

We’ve made lists and discussed these wines many times before on this site and the discussion, admittedly, becomes, “I agree to disagree”.

Of course, none of us know exactly whether these modern wines morph into beauties 25+ years out, but the track-record that I have personally experienced with them, is that they will not. Granted, I drink a fraction of the wines that you have exposure to, and am a rank amateur, but I have focused the majority of my wine consumption over the years on this region in France. Even you as a champion of modern bordeaux cannot discount that a change in winemaking style has generally occurred over this region.

Obviously, defining what is “modern” is a bit like the Supreme Court many moons ago trying to define what is “obscene”. When I use that term, it is the crop of wines over the last 15-20 years that have engaged the modernist consultants like Rolland, with later picks, riper fruit, higher alcohol, more merlot blending, and excessive use of new and more toasted oak. If a Leoville Barton uses a piece of modern technology such as an optical sorting machine, I would not necessarily put that in the pergorative “modern” camp that I am discussing. I recognize that wineries, today and in day’s gone past, engage new technologies and farming practices. The concept of modern, that I am speaking about, is a style that is not terroir-driven, it is product and result-driven, without care for whether the wine tastes like a Graves from a dry year or a Napa Cab from a normal year. The goal is the best points-possible product, which for some may be fine, but for others that seek character and distinction in wines, it is everything.

Lascombes
Leoville Poyferre
St. Pierre
Kirwan
Smith Haut Lafite
Certan de May
Clinet
Malescot St Exupery
And a whole crop of St Emilions - the entire appellation is close to DTM.

A wine that straddles, is Pontet Canet. I have some but really no longer buy it. It’s not OTT but it has lost its level interest. I still think it will age, but does it get better 20+ years out?

Just a few examples, IMHO, that went to the dark side.

It is not imho that they do not age. It is that they age differently.

Happy TDay!

On Pavie, we do not, and will not agree. I’ve had Pavie back to the 20’s and IMO, the wines today are much more interesting. Not for you, but IMO.

However, you liking a wine is not the same as the topic, which is not the same as listing wines that used to age, but no longer age. So, let’s look at your list.

Obviously, defining what is “modern” is a bit like the Supreme Court many moons ago trying to define what is “obscene”.

But the point of the question in my post is, what wines previously known for aging, no longer age? Not what wines did you previously prefer.

Lascombes It is an oaky wine, and not my favorite style. But it has never been a strong performer previously, at least from the 60’s forward. I had a 28 last year that was quite good.

Leoville Poyferre What older vintages of LP have you tasted? At least to me, the wines today are not only much better wines, they age quite well. The 82 and 90 are still going strong, as is the 96 and 00.

St. Pierre What older vintages have you had to compare with today? I’ve tasted previous years in the 70’s and 60’s, and except for the 61, those wines were not all that good in that period.

Kirwan I do not think I have ever tasted an older vintage. What years are you referring to?

Smith Haut Lafite The wines can be oaky young, but they fill out and blossom with age. What older vintages are you referring to? I never see them?

Certan de May Seriously? How do you come to this conclusion? The same owner and people in charge of the wine for decades. NOTHING has changed. CDM has never been a long ager IMO. 20-30 years, which is already a long time.

Clinet I am surprised you ever liked the wine. Again, what older vintages have you tasted that tell you the wines no longer age?

Malescot St Exupery While this wine should never be in your glass, what older vintages have you tasted that you liked? IMO, it was a serious underperformer prior to 2000.

As for you and St. Emilion, well, that was a relationship destined to never work out

You forget, Jeff, I live near Bern’s!

Without going through the laundry list, some recent wines that I have had there that have been a 1964 Poyferre, 61 and 82 Pavie, 47 Haut Bailly, 82 St Pierre, etc. Sure, I don’t have free reign like you do to a wealth of Bordeaux, but that does not mean I have not tried over the years many of the wines we are discussing. And not just from Berns. Just like you are, I’m pretty comfortable with my opinion. You saying many of these wines never aged well even in the past tells me we have very different tastes.

Jeff, it seems like you are mixing your own personal qualitative assessment with ageability. Your most impartial statement seems to be regarding Lascombes.

Having said that, the long-term impact of most modern oenological work in Bordeaux is too recent to compare with 50 year old wines.

The point of my comment about trying vintages was, what previous vintages of the wines I questioned have aged? Not that you have not tasted them.

Yes, my friend, you know I have love for you, but I am fairly certain, with most wines, including older vintages, we would not share the same tastes.