TN: An unimportant tasting of 2016 Bordeaux

My monthly blind tasting group sampled 2016 Bordeaux last night. The wines ranged from a cru bourgeois (Poujeaux) to a second growth (Leoville Barton). There were six Medocs, including four St. Juliens, plus a Pessac-Leognan and a Pomerol.

Overall impressions:

  • The wines shared the fresh quality I’ve consistently found in ’16 reds across France and Northern Italy (Burgundy, Beaujolais the Northern and Southern Rhone, Piedmont and Tuscany): bright fruit (fully ripe but definitely not overripe), concentration, with ample tannins and acidity. I’m loving this vintage!


  • These were pretty tight, not showing a lot of fruit, and the tannins and acid were conspicuous, but nonetheless they seemed balanced because they had such concentration. Their backwardness and tightness reminded me of the young Bordeauxs I tasted in the late 80s and early 90s.


  • These were a hit with the group, even those members who often prefer more approachable wines, and even with one person who tends to dismiss Bordeaux. I would guess that my scores will rise when I retaste the leftovers tonight.

These were decanted into pouring bottles about an hour ahead, and then resampled (topped up) after we’d been tasting them for an hour or hour and a half. I repoured myself a bit after everyone had left, four hours after they’d been opened. They definitely improved with air (no surprise there) and on repouring.

The wines were served double blind; we just knew they were ’16 Bordeaux, but not what the properties or appellations were, as we usually do.

All wines from Zachy’s.

Ranked in my order of preference:

Ch. Petit- Village (Pomerol), $80: Quite tight and ungiving on the nose, even with some time in the glass. Very tight in the mouth at first, but beautifully balanced. With air, this became one of the more approachable wines on the palate. (It’s 75% merlot and 18% cab franc.) Finish: Long and very concentrated, with perfect balance. Although this was the only Right Bank wine, it wasn’t an outlier. 92 points (group’s 2nd/3rd tie)

Ch. Leoville-Barton (St. Julien, 2nd growth), $94: Rich, deep, concentrated blackberry/black currant and oak on the nose – outstanding. This was one of the few where I could peg individual flavors at this stage. This had 2016 written all over it – a lushness, but with a backbone of tannin and acid that made the wine (and me) sit up straight. Oak in abundance at this stage, carrying through to the finish. Oak really came to the fore at the back as it sat out. But everything seems in place for a wonderful, slow evolution. I found this tightened up a bit when I resampled it 3 hours after opening. 91+ points (group’s 1st place)

Ch. Branaire-Ducru (St. Julien, 4th growth), $65: Lovely sweet, crème brulee nose (oak). Tight and tannic, but with such great balance and concentration. Very classic. Tasting it after everyone had left, I’d raise the score a bit. It really came together. 90+ points (group’s 4th)

Ch. Duhart-Millon (Paulliac, 4th growth), $95: Dark chocolate and a trace of black rubber on the nose. Later some eucalyptus showed up. Hard tannins (I guessed St. Estephe.) “Classic but a little less charming,” I wrote. This is old-style Pauillac/St. Estephe type wine, for sure. Will this turn into something more pleasing? I’m not 100% confident. 90- points (group’s 5th/6th place tie)

Ch. Poujeaux (Moulis en Medoc, cru bourgeois), $40: Nice nose with oak and black fruit, and a trace of red currant, as well. Both rich and tannic, with great fruit showing – more than most. Slight green hint suggested cabernet franc, but that’s only 5%; it’s 50% cabernet sauvignon. Very pleasing and a good value (as Bordeaux goes). 89 points (group’s 7th place)

Ch. Lagrange (St. Julien, 3rd growth), $60: Shows little on the nose. “Tough but seemingly balanced,” with a long, tannic finish. Sort of opaque at the moment – difficult to assess. I gave it 87 points during the main tasting, but bumped that up to 90 on retasting at the end of the evening. (Group’s 5th/6th place tie)

Ch. Larrivet Haut Brion (Pessac Leognan), $40: An outlier from the first sniff, which yielded a sort of cherry soda nose. In the mouth, this was markedly less concentrated and tarter. Still, it’s quite pleasant now, and certainly more approachable than the rest. The cherry/candy nose put me off, though. (It’s 55% merlot.) I’d say 85+ points (group’s 2nd/3rd place tie)

Ch. St. Pierre (St. Julien), $65: Something was off here. Three other people thought it was corked. I didn’t pick up classic TCA wet cardboard, but got something like damp, rotting wood. Little fruit showing, tannic, with less concentration. The group’s and my last-place wine. A score wouldn’t be meaningful. (Group’s and my 8th place, though one person ranked it second and one sixth. Go figure.)

What a wonderful tour!

They all sound like they will be right up my alley.

Thank you for that great review!

These were my impressions as well from UGC back in January. Needless to say, I’ve dug what I’ve tried so far and it may be time to get back into buying Bordeaux to lay down again

My actuarial calculations are fighting my taste buds over these wines.

Sounds fun. We used to do Bordeaux at release tastings that became the bases for my purchases, but we stopped when Matt R left NYC late last decade. 2016’s looks like my kind of Bordeaux that may urge me to buy and store a few.

I only read about important tastings and not unimportant tastings. Did it at least use Callaway’s jailbreak technology? Callaway Golf | Official Site | Clubs, Golf Balls & Gear | Media I did not realize until recently that this was important in winetasting events.

More seriously, I have only tasted one 2016 Bordeaux so far (a wonderful Pichon Lalande) and am interested based on that wine to try more examples. Thanks for the notes.

Those were great times indeed!

2016 looks like a good year, but I feel like the wines won’t really be that additive to my holdings, and space/storage is an issue.

John - coming from you it can’t help but reek of importance.

But I’m a little surprised by the notes - no cast iron pan? Surely there must have been some abundance of nuance there?

Good tasting though.

Agree they are showing well right now. What struck me at the big tasting I went to a couple months’ back is the overall consistency up and down the hierarchy. While I think the best '15s probably are on a par with the best '16s, '16 seems more consistent across the board.

Great notes. Thanks.

Sounds like 2010. How would you rate these 2 vintages against each other.

Thanks for the notes, especially on Barton and Branaire, two of my favorites.

It is interesting to note how much slack is given to Bordeaux while being slathered in new oak.

And no beams of X and Y!

John, fight the urge. You too old. Backfill with a comparable vintage!

Having tasted a few 2016s, I have gone back and bought heavily. Of all the recent vintages, dating back to 2009, and including by my count, at least four vintages of the century, I find that it is my favorite, and by some margin. This was even before opening the breathtaking 2016 Mouton, certainly the finest young wine I have had in years.

So after a week of reflection, I went out and bought six more cases of 2016s, including three and a half cases of Mouton, blowing most of my budget for this year. I will probably not be around for the thirty years they will take to fully mature, but I have no doubt that my progeny and his progeny will have some of the greatest and most compelling wines Bordeaux has ever made.

Pretty bold statement there, Mark! Sounds tempting. Mind if I ask your age? I will likely pick up a smattering of wines that I know I enjoy even at mid-life, but I’m not going for wines that take 20-25+ to hit peak window. Perhaps at 75, when I’m still cycling, traveling and living a healthy life - God willing - I will either regret, or just backfill. We have certainly had a wealth of solid vintages since 2000.

Mark, what 2016s have you been buying.

has anyone had the 2016 GPL?

I am deep into my middle age.
I bought recently the Mouton as well as VCC, Ducru and Figeac, all of which I had purchased before, just adding to the numbers. I had also some small amounts of Canon, Montrose and Beychevelle. More deep than broad.

Stealing this

Excellent wineries all but are any of them wines one can drink on the younger side.

I didn’t have enough 2010s to have a real basis for comparison. My own sense is that the fruit profile is a bit different in the '16s, and the acid may be a bit more conspicuous relative to the tannins. It’s striking to me how '16s have a signature fruit and structural profile – I might call it crispness or freshness for lack of better terms – all the way from the Gironde to the Rhone and the Tanaro, and maybe to central Tuscany.

I would be interested to hear what Mark G and others would say about '10 versus '16 in Bordeaux.