TN 2016 Chateau La Conseillante - my first amazing (important?) experience with 2016 Bordeaux

Pop and pour, then revisited regularly for 5 hours. Checked in one last time 24 hours after opening from remains poured into a half bottle and sealed overnight with about a 1 inch airspace.

very deep purple-red color, an aggressive nose showing largely undeveloped primary fruit, cool and with some sweet notes- but fruit covering both the red and black sides of the spectrum, dark petals, on the palate at first a full-bodied intense wave of crushed raspberries, blackberry notes, hints of chocolate, but closed on the mid-palate, substantial yet very silky tannins, fine long finish with marble streaks and firm acids, with time cassis notes developed as well as plums and more sweet blackberry notes, the wine fleshed out even further- amazingly- showing itself to be a wine of formidable scale by La Conseillante standards, but even as it developed throughout the evening always that racy intensity of crushed raspberries remained at the core, despite the scale this is not a terribly generous wine at present- as the wine aired a sort of closed mass developed in the mid-palate, it was not overly hard or indicative of any excesses- but rather this mass is reminiscent of that closed ball of fruit wrapped in chalk and tannin that sometimes comes with a Musigny or Clos de la Roche when it is shut down, the oak makes a small appearance but is already being well absorbed into the overall structure, the following evening the wine had opened further- a profusion of violet notes on the nose along with chocolate notes and cassis, on the palate still a very large wine but thoroughly velvety, the core is still closed but more sedate now, knockout finish, this is a really big La Conseillante- but everything is in proper balance and if that tight little core of fruit in the middle explodes in time as it has in vintages past then we are in for a real treat when this matures, I will need to try more 2016s to know whether the departures from the norm are driven more by vintage or by the change in the winemaking team- but for now, as is the case at Chateau Palmer, this appears to be one of those happy cases where change is on balance for the better, as longtime fans know- La Conseillante has historically had a habit of seeming rather tame at release only to start getting unexpectedly complex and exciting around age 10, so I think it will be a decade before we see what is really going to come of this- but the potential here is thrilling to consider. If the scale of this is preserved and the usual progression takes place on top of that, I could see this being a vintage of historic importance at La Conseillante.

(*****), 2031+, but I certainly think it worthwhile to check in on this at around age 10. That is when the 1998 started to really get exciting.

EDITED to add TN language for a revisit of the remains of the bottle 24 hours after opening.

Thanks. Very interesting.
I thought of this thread immediately:

Nice note, Tom!

I didn’t grab the 2016 - drew a line in the sand at the 2014 vintage given my spritely age of 53 - but have definitively been following with interest the changes at some pretty classic estates like Conseillante, Figeac and Les Carmes. All three of these flipped to modernist consultants in or around 2014 and made some significant changes in their chais and their winemaking processes. All of them are now getting 97-99 points scores in recent vintages. Formulaic? Vintage? Them becoming what they were meant to be? Existentialism aside, I really don’t know, but am not a fan of the products of these consultants at other estates, especially in that 10-15 year range of maturity. I grabbed some 2016 Les Carmes in 375s out of curiosity, but did note a significant stylistic change in that 2014 vintage, which was perhaps saved from being too glossy given the vintage. This 2016 Conseillante really does not read like the 1998, either in its youth or even last time I tried it several years ago, where it showed some pretty classic Pomerol merlot ripeness but in an elegant vein. I just backfilled on some 2004 and 1998. I have had some awesome bottles of this grand estate over the years. I think this is CraigG’s favorite Bordeaux, no?

I have had a couple of post Jean Michel Laporte wines. Definitely a stylistic difference, and certainly good wines, and way short of spoof. But the older wines always struck me as being more genuine, closer to the chateau terroir.

It is interesting that all the old war horses, Conseillante, Canon and Figeac are making wines that score close to three figures, a far cry from where they were. That they are tasty now is beyond doubt, but what that means in long term development, ah, that is the question.

How much we have lost, if anything, is hard to say, and we will need fifteen plus years to be able to draw any definitive conclusions.

I have no concerns at all about the 2014. It’s a beautiful wine. I haven’t tasted the 16 but bought a few bottles and I have no doubt I’ll enjoy them, regardless of details of style.

With regard to scores, Parker rated La Conseillante 95, 97, 97, 96, 97, 96, 98 for 82, 89, 90, 00, 05, 09 and 10 respectively. Now it’s not Parker doing the rating and the people who are may be more likely to favor a less powerful style of Pomerol (vs. its peers), so I’m not sure there is any information there in the points. That argument seems stronger for Figeac.

Neal Martin scored those same vintages: 93, 97, 93, 93, 96, 95 and 97, so not a huge difference (and the 1990 he thought was over-the-hill, which accounts for some of the relative lowness of the score). He also scored the 2015 a 96 and the 2016 a 97.

You and Mark are hitting on a very key point that explains why I hedged my bet a bit on this TN despite thinking good things are yet to come.

First- the question of vintage, and I would welcome any thoughts on this. At times, for better or for worse, there are vintages that are what I would call true outliers- meaning that in at least one respect they are so far removed from the normal range of what we see in the bottle that the vintage can be said to be singular with no viable comparative vintages and very hard to predict (for the good ones that is.)

What makes an outlier is largely dependent upon a person’s tasting history, and I would argue one needs some degree of experience with virtually every vintage covering at least a 30-40 year span, with that experience happening over 20+ years. I am taking Sanford Meisner’s definition here - “it takes 20 years to become a master of anything”.

For myself- in Bordeaux, I claim that mastery for 1963 to the present. And in that time I think there have only been 2, maybe 3, true outlier vintages. 1977 and 2000 for sure, maybe 1975.

I will know better later this year when I put on a tasting of 2016s to include Mouton, Ducru and Montrose among others- but I suspect 2016 may well be another rare outlier vintage. I am going to put some 2011-2015 wines in that tasting to help be sure.

Combine that with the timing of the new wave of consulting arrangements to hit old guard chateaux- and yes it becomes almost impossible to really know what has happened in the cellar and vineyard versus vintage.

FWIW- here is my take on why I am enthusiastic about 2016 Chateau La Conseillante,

1. I do not find any excesses of oak- the most obvious and easiest hallmark of the “new methods” when taken to extremes.

2. The fruit feels natural and not overly extracted. This is a very hard concept for me to explain. 2012 Margaux is a good example of a wine where I thought a mid-weight beauty was made to reach a bit further than was possible. It shows in a slight lack of balance and fruit/oak elements that seem to get a bit beyond what the structure will allow. I actually think 2012 Margaux is a pretty nice wine and should evolve well- but I think it could have been much more and would have much greater nuance in future had it been made with a mindset more in line with what the vintage had to offer.

The 2016 La Conseillante is a huge wine in terms of fruit- but also in terms of tannins and structure. So it all balances.

3. Everything I am expecting to see is there right now- the youthful velvety fruit, the streaks of mineral bordering on clay. Aside from the scale of the wine- all is as I am used to seeing within the general range of my history with La Conseillante.

4. Everything I am hoping for in future is not there yet- the saddle leather, the forest floor notes. In other words- whatever is going on, nothing has been done that I can see that is upsetting the future trajectory. No you cannot make secondary and tertiary elements appear sooner than they should- at least not to my knowledge- but in line with #3 above the picture I am seeing now is a familiar one, with very subtle hints (mostly on that tight core) that what we all hope for is yet to come.

And as Mark says - we will need 15 years to see if it comes off (though I think 10 should do the trick- time will tell.)

For my part, and not intended as a brag but in the spirit of this forum and saying when you put your money where your mouth is, I bought a 6 pack yesterday after the initial tasting and another tonight after coming back to the wine 24 hours later. Whatever happens, I have a front row center seat for the action- and I am looking forward to the show.

Fantastic post, Tom. Thanks for taking the time to write that.

And yes, I checked WineSearcher for current retailers and price . . . .

Grabbing a six-pack+ is big. Mind if I ask your age and what your projections are on ideal drinking window?

I’m also really curious on how you defined an “outlier” vintage and why 2000 would be within that definition.

Ok, one last question, have you tried 2016 Figeac and Les Carmes to render similar impressions?

Thanks!

Robert

My reservations are more textural. Once the wine becomes a little thicker and less fresh, does it stunt the development of the tertiary. To be honest, Tom, I was less convinced by Conseillante than I was by Pichon Lamde, VCC and especially Mouton.

A strength of Conseillante traditionally is that it is not “thick”, it has great fruit but a certain lightness of touch.

I am 45 years old, so while I will not see the ultimate ends of many 2016s- if I am fortunate I will at least see them entering maturity.

As for ideal drinking window- I would suspect 15-20 years is enough for this one to really start showing well assuming it matures as I hope. No way to really know. The 2014 should make an interesting comparison in 10 years time. That pairing will answer many questions I think.

On the question of an outlier vintage- the best way to put it is to say that in at least one respect a number of wines in the vintage achieve a distinction that is so extreme as to set it well outside the “normal range” one develops a sense for after years of tasting a wide range of vintages. In the case of 2000, it is the sheer size and scale of everything. And it can be a blessing and a curse too. 1945 and 1961 certainly meet my definition, but plenty of wines in both vintages came to bad ends. Only the very best were able to cope with the extremes of those vintages.

And “outlier” as I define it does not capture every great vintage. 1959 and 1985 are good examples. Neither tests any major boundaries- aside from possibly remaining shockingly youthful for so very long- rather they are remarkable for being so harmonious. Yet in scale, aromatics, flavors, structure etc. they are all within the range of most vintages- just ideally aligned.

And no- I have not tried 2016 Figeac. I stopped buying wine late last year, so now that I have bought several cases of 2016 Bordeaux since then I really cannot justify adding Figeac to the mix. The wine is nearly $300 here, and after a magnificent 1971 presented at a recent tasting I will content myself with securing the odd lot of 80s or 70s bottlings. The 1982 I had last fall was less ready than almost any 82 I have tried- so Figeac, especially with the recent changes, is decidedly in the no column for recent and future vintages. Even if they come out well- I will not be around to see it.

Interesting- I had not considered texture as a predictor. I will give that some thought and look back over my past notes. Balance, ripeness and oak presence- and how those may impair early hints of future development- are my usual checkpoints.

Looking forward to 2016 Mouton. I may not be adhering to my no more wine mantra (though making up for it by selling as I buy), but I have had a no first growth policy for new vintages in effect for a while, and I broke it to secure a case and a tasting bottle of 2016 Mouton due primarily to your enthusiasm. Whether for better or worse (as with the 90- though it has come out rather well with time), when everyone gets to talking about a particular vintage of Mouton- that always gets my full attention and curiosity.