Is "Never drink a Bordeaux that is less than 20 years old" just a silly idea.

I went in big on Cru Bourgeois 2000 Bordeaux futures and I still have a few cases that I am saving for the 20 year mark, but every time I read CT notes on old Bordeaux, many of them say “tired and over the hill” or “DOA.” What say you?

IMO, very few Cru Bourgeois are better at 20 than they are at 10. You might think differently, but cuz you asked…

IMO, that quote wasn’t made with Cru Bourgeois in mind.

I don’t have the Bdx experience of many on WB but I tend to agree with Jeff. I like some fruit with my savory.

Depends on the wine, and because it does, the statement in the title is true

I suspect that this is rhetorical, you are a very savvy wine drinker.

But yes, that is a silly statement. I like my wine mature, but not all Bordeaux need 20 years, and not all even make it to 20 years. Many Crus are quite approachable and enjoyable 10-15 years out. It can also be vintage-specific; not every vintage produces monolithic wines. Heck, I had a lovely 2009 Lanessan a couple nights ago. I’ve started popping a lot of 2000s this year, and only the big guns, like Lynch Bages, am I saying, definitely hold on. And that Lynch was gorgeous, but at the price point, at least wait until it is at peak.

I like my wine on the mature side, but that’s dumb. I’ve been drinking 2004s for years.

You mean this quote from the OP?

I had a 2000 Leoville Barton the other night that would be too young for some here (fortunately a friend brought it for me). It was very enjoyable now with tertiary flavors emerging, although not fully developed. It was not, in any way, infanticide. I think 20-25 years for a good vintage from a good producer is about my sweet spot and while this one would have benefited from a few more years, it was lovely now.

Jeff, no I meant the quote in the title. :slight_smile:

It really depends how you like your Bordeaux. I’m in the secondary to tertiary age period so for me, 2000 CB is just about getting there. I would generally agree with the 20 year rule at a minimum although I basically never adhere to it because I’m so impatient. It’s easy to enjoy younger bordeaux but even easier to enjoy mature bordeaux.

I say crack one, and report back. You’re uniquely situated to answer this for yourself.

I’d only be worried if I was reading notes by people I have come to trust, writing about wines I own. But I’d be checking in on CB, and I probably would have started a while ago.

Are there any wine rules starting with never or always that are correct?

+1

+2. A typically pithy and incisive comment from a Howard.

It does depend on the wine. A lot of CB don’t need 20 years. But many won’t develop the same degree of complexity that the big boys do when given 20 years.

I have enjoyed quite a few '12 right now

I think anything younger than 1990 is too young. In the last couple months I’ve had 4 Bdx’s from 1966-1990 that were drinking great, the two from 96 and 00 needed hours to come around and even then were not nearly as good as the older ones. BTW, the 66 Ducru and 75 PLL were both wonderful.

The exceptions can be great, though!

With most if not all wine rules “it depends” right?

I’ve been buying cases upon cases of 2005 for $10-$50 and 80% of them are smack in the middle of their perfect drinking window for me. Secondary flavors are developing, there’s still plenty of primary fruit, tannins are nicely integrated etc.

If you’re acquiring really nice wines, that have serious stuffing, they need more time of course.

This is true. Can’t recount how many Cris that I’ve had from the 1980s over the past several years, including an 86 Potensac last night. Some great ones, like Meyney, Sociando, Chasse Spleen, La Lagune, La Louviere, Olivier, Lanessan, et al. Still have some in my fridges. But many are also quite enjoyable in that window that Jeff espouses.