I always give more scrutiny to 03s because of perceptions and controversy over the vintage.
2003 Ch. Pavie Macquin, St. Emilion
Quite dark, bluish crimson, with no bricking and no visual hints to it’s age. First, very big raspberry and blueberry preserves. Huge fruit on nose, for a Bdx. Big fruit tended to hide secondary aromatics elements but was able to pick up some dusty/mineral followed by hints of cedar/cigar box behind the fruit. Citrus notes. Tannins tamed but nicely structured. Palate matches fruit nose with more cedar with air along with some bay leaf. Overall impression, an unapologetic ripe but not over-ripe lush St. E, fruit-driven style in a beautiful place. This is a real treat now and I don’t think this will evolve much aromatically so drink now or in the next few years. 4+ (out of 5).
I had it last week and had a similar experience as you did. In the context of the vintage, especially on the right bank, it should be considered a success.
2003 Château Pavie Macquin- France, Bordeaux, Libournais, St. Émilion Grand Cru (10/16/2019)
I think this is about expectations. If you are used to “traditional” Bordeaux, this is going to seem very ripe, because it was clearly made from very ripe grapes. If you drink a lot of New World wines made with Bordeaux grapes, this will be very Bordeaux-like. Ripe black cherries front the wine, but for all the ripeness, it is not thick or even particularly rich in texture, as the acid makes it sharp. Green tobacco and herbs mix in with the fruit, with smoked meat lingering in the aftertaste. Tannins are drying despite the juicy fruit. Not woody at all, which is what really distinguishes the wine from a typical well-made California wine. I drink a lot of California cabs, and this was not New World to me. Blind, I might have guessed Tuscan, although a ripe vintage of Bordeaux would have been a close second. An interesting hybrid of sorts. I quite enjoyed it.
[quote=“Steve Costigan” post_id=2832295 time=1571751544 user_id=24162I think BDX defies conventional wisdom in 03 with way more hits than misses. Not so much in other regions in France however.
[/quote]
I agree…It’s funny how people continue to try to make the conventional narrative fit even 10 years after it’s become obvious that it’s not such a good fit. I’ve been at tastings of '03 Bordeaux where people go to great pains to “pick up a faint roasted note” on wines that have no such notes at all. Of course there WERE wines with overripe or roasted elements in this vintage (and in all vintages, but probably more here), especially on the right bank. However, I see people working hard to find these characteristics in even the most solid of left bank '03 Bordeaux, and when they can’t find the “roasted” notes or “alcoholic warmth” they’re looking for, they instead try to claim that they think the wines won’t last much longer, or are already past their prime. While these wines may not last 25+ more years, most of the good ones I’ve had are still quite fresh and primary and should certainly go another 10+ years.
You should have opened this with Alfert. He’d have loved it.
2 great myths about bdx 2003: (a) that Parker labeled it a vintage of the century or anything like it and (b) that the wines are undrinkable. Some are, some aren’t. There are some outstanding individual wines. I can’t recall thinking anything I’ve had from St Emilion was outstanding, but I acknowledge the possibility.
Soutard 2003 was good (15,5/20) in february 2019 (same rating in march 2016). Not more …
Still waiting in my cellar :
Canon la Gaffelière 2003
Larcis-Ducasse 2003
… and the polemic Pavie 2003 (I could open it next saturday in Bordeaux, with good friends - they will taste it blind).
The wine should be tasted during a good dinner, among worldwide excellent wines.
Looking forward to hearing their pronostics … (and wish this ripe wine will surprise the group).
I will report here.
The most important thing is that Steve enjoyed it - which is the whole point. Whether others have or would is another matter, of course. Whatever one’s opinion about the strengths or weaknesses of 2003, it continues to be the most divisive Bordeaux vintage ever. Personally, I like about a dozen and loathe the rest, including Pavie-M, but that’s just my taste.
The idea that there was a “conventional narrative” is a bit odd because at release, if there was one, it was almost unanimously in favour, not against. Things changed once the wines started to mature, but perhaps the pendulum has swung too much the other way now and it’s time to re-assess.
We all feared at the time that 2003 was the first of many such vintages - luckily that hasn’t happened yet.
I don’t remember anyone saying 2003 was a great vintage at the time. The reactions were either cautious/mixed (Parker’s view – some monumental wines other disasters) or solidly negative. At least among the rabble I read at the time
Not sure which way to go with this information.
Climate change is real but didn’t affect anything wine related or climate change is fake which is why there was no change in wine. Either way everyone who was all doom and gloom thinking French wines were over can now start buying again.
Forward thinking wineries and growers in Napa are looking into grape varieties other than Cab for the future, its been in the news.
There were brutal heat spikes in 2017 around Labor Day which baked a lot of grapes, production numbers dropped at many wineries, Sonoma Zins in particular got zapped.
Lots of aspects in winegrowing and winemaking are shifting.
Well, yes - whether one likes or dislikes the 2003 vintage, it is certainly different to any previous one and the fear was that it could become the norm, which it hasn’t. None of the subsequent hot vintages have suffered from the taste of raisins and syrup that affected the majority of 03s.