Poll: Top Red Bordeaux vintage of the Century

[Howard Cooper]

We are now 20 years into the 21st century and so it is time for a poll on the vintage of the Century in Bordeaux. I am picking 2005 but could change to 2016 in the future depending on how the vintage turns out. 2000 for this purpose is in the 21st century. I did not include 2020 for obvious reasons.

[Victor Hong]

Flawed poll. Multiple choice is THE missing choice.

[Brady Daniels]

What’s drinking well now?

Have 2000 and 2005 (my last Bordeaux EP vintage) lived up to their initial hype?

[Robert.A.Jr.]

I’m still thinking but am struggling with one choice. It’s probably 2005, but hot damn do I love 2014 and bought more of it than any other vintage, and well, everything I have touched in 2016 has been great. I have not had enough 2016s, though, to really prognosticate on whether it is best overall. And 2000s are starting to drinking quite nicely . . . .

[Marcu$ Stanley]

It is a tie between 2000 and 2009 for me (unfortunately poll did not let you pick two). I think it is far too early to annoint 2016 and I haven't been blown away by what I've tasted of it either -- people talking about 2016 seem to be perhaps overly influenced by critics, who have a big bias to pump up recent vintages.

2005 hasn't proven itself yet, it needs to emerge from its slumber before a real judgement can be made. Also, 2005 right bank has some real issues.

[Howard Cooper]

Flawed poll. Multiple choice is THE missing choice.

Intentional. There can be only one!

[Robert.A.Jr.]

Flawed poll. Multiple choice is THE missing choice.

Intentional. There can be only one!

Assuming this is even possible, “objectively” best? Or, unabashedly, “subjectively” best?

[Howard Cooper]

I’m still thinking but am struggling with one choice. It’s probably 2005, but hot damn do I love 2014 and bought more of it than any other vintage, and well, everything I have touched in 2016 has been great. I have not had enough 2016s, though, to really prognosticate on whether it is best overall. And 2000s are starting to drinking quite nicely . . . .

I really wondered if you would say. 2014. Do you like 2014 more than 2001.

[Howard Cooper]

Flawed poll. Multiple choice is THE missing choice.

Intentional. There can be only one!

Assuming this is even possible, “objectively” best? Or, unabashedly, “subjectively” best?

Isn’t the best way to get to objective for each person to put in their favorite?

[Victor Hong]

Flawed poll. Multiple choice is THE missing choice.

Intentional. There can be only one!

Then, what is the point of our buying all these wines, across all these vintages?

[Marcu$ Stanley]

Yeah, the reason I would want to choose both 2000 and 2009 is that one is more structured/classic and the other is more lush/seductive. Don't make me choose just one !

[Br1an Th0rne]

We are now 20 years into the 21st century and so it is time for a poll on the vintage of the Century in Bordeaux. I am picking 2005 but could change to 2016 in the future depending on how the vintage turns out. 2000 for this purpose is in the 21st century. I did not include 2020 for obvious reasons.

We won’t know the top Bordeaux vintage from 2000-2019 until 2040, at the earliest. More relevant poll for right now might be “best Bordeaux vintage between 1980-1999”. I would vote for 1990 in that poll

[Howard Cooper]

[Howard Cooper]

We are now 20 years into the 21st century and so it is time for a poll on the vintage of the Century in Bordeaux. I am picking 2005 but could change to 2016 in the future depending on how the vintage turns out. 2000 for this purpose is in the 21st century. I did not include 2020 for obvious reasons.

We won’t know the top Bordeaux vintage from 2000-2019 until 2040, at the earliest. More relevant poll for right now might be “best Bordeaux vintage between 1980-1999”

Start the poll

[D@vid Bu3ker]

After 2004 the wines got (mostly) too heavy for my preference. So with that said I chose 2000. I prefer drinking 2001 and 2004 now, but see way more upside whenever I try a notable 2000.

[Robert.A.Jr.]

Todd -

I find your “pop-up” Ads quite offensive. At a time when I am trying to have a sophisticated and relevant discussion with my good friend Howard, somehow I got logged off and then flagellated with Ads regarding my age, ED and suggestions of grandeur if I only eat certain foods and take these little blue pills! First off, how did it know my age? Second off, how did it know . . . Wait, it knows nothing. Does that food work?

[Todd F r e n c h]

Todd -

I find your “pop-up” Ads quite offensive. At a time when I am trying to have a sophisticated and relevant discussion with my good friend Howard, somehow I got logged off and then flagellated with Ads regarding my age, ED and suggestions of grandeur if I only eat certain foods and take these little blue pills! First, off, how did it know my age. Second off, how did it know . . . Wait, it knows nothing. Does that food work?


6CCE7A51-EEC0-4CBE-9157-115E79F7221E.jpeg


5B306613-CBE3-4218-BBAE-854C1147528C.jpeg

Good thing ads are targeted to the specific user’s browser history and searches...

[Robert.A.Jr.]

Todd -

I find your “pop-up” Ads quite offensive. At a time when I am trying to have a sophisticated and relevant discussion with my good friend Howard, somehow I got logged off and then flagellated with Ads regarding my age, ED and suggestions of grandeur if I only eat certain foods and take these little blue pills! First, off, how did it know my age. Second off, how did it know . . . Wait, it knows nothing. Does that food work?


6CCE7A51-EEC0-4CBE-9157-115E79F7221E.jpeg


5B306613-CBE3-4218-BBAE-854C1147528C.jpeg

Good thing ads are targeted to the specific user’s browser history and searches...

Were that true, I’d get Boss, et al, to the relevant question, “what skinny cut suit makes my @ss look best?”

[Robert.A.Jr.]

I’m still thinking but am struggling with one choice. It’s probably 2005, but hot damn do I love 2014 and bought more of it than any other vintage, and well, everything I have touched in 2016 has been great. I have not had enough 2016s, though, to really prognosticate on whether it is best overall. And 2000s are starting to drinking quite nicely . . . .

I really wondered if you would say. 2014. Do you like 2014 more than 2001.

I think 2014 is better from a breadth point of view, a greater range of higher quality wines. I wish I could recall exactly what 2001s tasted like on release, but I also think we are seeing riper fruit here in 2014 but in a classic cut with a bit higher acid. I do like 2001 very much, however. And ironically, have a 2001 Sociando Mallet standing up right now. That is one one where I definitely think it was the QPR of each vintage, 2001 and 2014.

[Charlie Carnes]

Todd -

I find your “pop-up” Ads quite offensive. At a time when I am trying to have a sophisticated and relevant discussion with my good friend Howard, somehow I got logged off and then flagellated with Ads regarding my age, ED and suggestions of grandeur if I only eat certain foods and take these little blue pills! First, off, how did it know my age. Second off, how did it know . . . Wait, it knows nothing. Does that food work?


6CCE7A51-EEC0-4CBE-9157-115E79F7221E.jpeg


5B306613-CBE3-4218-BBAE-854C1147528C.jpeg

Good thing ads are targeted to the specific user’s browser history and searches...

Todd!!! Best ever! Bobby, love you bro.

[Robert.A.Jr.]

Todd -

I find your “pop-up” Ads quite offensive. At a time when I am trying to have a sophisticated and relevant discussion with my good friend Howard, somehow I got logged off and then flagellated with Ads regarding my age, ED and suggestions of grandeur if I only eat certain foods and take these little blue pills! First, off, how did it know my age. Second off, how did it know . . . Wait, it knows nothing. Does that food work?


6CCE7A51-EEC0-4CBE-9157-115E79F7221E.jpeg


5B306613-CBE3-4218-BBAE-854C1147528C.jpeg

Good thing ads are targeted to the specific user’s browser history and searches...

Todd!!! Best ever! Bobby, love you bro.

I know, f*ck. Like a goober, I walked up to the mound and tossed the biggest, highest, slowest slow pitch that even Todder could knock it out of the park.

[O.G. Nikolai]

"Surprisingly" no call for 15 and 18.
16 favored all apellations perfectly. Easy call.

[HenryB]

to be fair, 18 has only just gone into bottle.

[O.G. Nikolai]

Neither is 19. Will surpass 18 on terms of balance and finesse i suppose.
The little brother of 16.

[Vince T]

"Surprisingly" no call for 15 and 18.
16 favored all apellations perfectly. Easy call.

That may be, but 2015 had some really delicious wines out of the gate, like DDC and Rauzan-Segla.

[HenryB]

I know, f*ck. Like a goober, I walked up to the mound and tossed the biggest, highest, slowest slow pitch that even Todder could knock it out of the park.

Not sure if tihs is a troll post or not Google ads are run based on your search history, their demographic data of you, etc. Reminds me of when a conservative politican publicly called out Twitter for 'hosting' lots of adverts to gay porn sites.... Cant find the image now though.


OK my retelling wasnt quite accurate, but https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ls-twitter

[O.G. Nikolai]

I am on your side and glad to own both and more. Big supporter of 15 vintage. Love Margaux and Pessac wines.
But 15 suffers in terms of top quality in all apellations i'm afraid.

[Marcu$ Stanley]

Glad to see all these votes for 2000, which was underestimated for many years IMO

I'm with John Gilman in thinking 2010 quite overrated.

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

2005 for me, but I haven't tasted enough to have an opinion on post-2015 vintages. 2010 a close second. 2014 or 2000 third.

[Rich K0rz€nk0]

I favor the earlier vintages. I think the jury is still out on the more recent. I actually loved 2004, more classic to my tastes, underrated, can find it for a fair price, and it ages well. 2005 was over-ripe and the more recent have been more hit and miss inconsistent for being over-done.

2000 is also exceptional, its a toss up for me but gave it to 04 for the pricing and availability. Things that I also consider on what makes a vintage great.

[Jim F]

I like 2015 a lot also. Really tasty out of the gate. Bought quite a few 2014’s, but I suspect it is a good/ very good vs great vintage. RE: 2000 and 2005, I seem to recall RP calling both the greatest ever, at their release times. TV interview stuff. Nothing against RP here ( I always thought he was ok), but.....so far, I find 2000’s to not quite have the stuffing I expected. I am kind of glad I auctioned a bunch off. I bought 2005 very light and kind of 3rd tier wines because I was offended by the prices at that time.

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

I favor the earlier vintages. I think the jury is still out on the more recent. I actually loved 2004, more classic to my tastes, underrated, can find it for a fair price, and it ages well. 2005 was over-ripe and the more recent have been more hit and miss inconsistent for being over-done.

2000 is also exceptional, its a toss up for me but gave it to 04 for the pricing and availability. Things that I also consider on what makes a vintage great.

Interesting to see you say 2005 is over-ripe while simultaneously calling 2000 excellent.

[Pavel Tchichikov]

in which universe does 2008 not get a single vote? One possible explanation is that anyone who's considered 2008 picked 2016 instead.

2001 is best for drinking in the past few years, but by 2040... hmm.... perhaps 2005, with 2008, 2012, 2016 not far behind.

But in 2021 we want to drink 1921s on their 100th anniversary, no?

[Pavel Tchichikov]

Interesting to see you say 2005 is over-ripe while simultaneously calling 2000 excellent.

You don't say.

Terroir extraction from a glass of 2000 Bordeaux is a procedure I never attempt without local anesthetic.

[D@vid Bu3ker]

in which universe does 2008 not get a single vote? One possible explanation is that anyone who's considered 2008 picked 2016 instead.

2001 is best for drinking in the past few years, but by 2040... hmm.... perhaps 2005, with 2008, 2012, 2016 not far behind.

But in 2021 we want to drink 1921s on their 100th anniversary, no?

2008 was overpriced for the quality. Pretty much every vintage since 2004 shares that fate. I will not live long enough to enjoy 2016 at maturity, so it’s quality is irrelevant.

For anyone over 50, Bordeaux lost its way in regards to price a long time ago. (2014 excepted)

[Keith Levenberg]

Trouble deciding between 2000 and 2016 but can't really cast a fully informed vote because the price bubble that started with the '05s and then got seriously stupid with the '09s and '10s kept me from tasting as many of them on release as I otherwise would have. Fortunately the price bubble coincided pretty closely with the Parkerization bubble and a lot of the wines I missed turned out to be better off missed. Hard to put any vintage in contention for vintage of the century when some properties that have no excuse for making less-than-magnificent wines made wines that are arguably bad. So '09 and '10 are out. '05 is a tougher call as it seemed less naturally vulnerable to cartoon wines and the peer pressure for cartoon winemaking wasn't quite as fierce yet - whenever I've had one in a vertical, it's been a standout vintage, no question. But I just don't own enough to compare to 2000 and 2016, where I've tried most everything.

[David_K]

I haven't tasted widely enough to cast an informed vote but I do chuckle when people say that as between 2009 and 2010, they prefer 2010 because it's more "classic," which is something you see people say a lot. It may be more tannic, but it's arguably further away from classic than 2009 is.

[Rich K0rz€nk0]

I favor the earlier vintages. I think the jury is still out on the more recent. I actually loved 2004, more classic to my tastes, underrated, can find it for a fair price, and it ages well. 2005 was over-ripe and the more recent have been more hit and miss inconsistent for being over-done.

2000 is also exceptional, its a toss up for me but gave it to 04 for the pricing and availability. Things that I also consider on what makes a vintage great.

Interesting to see you say 2005 is over-ripe while simultaneously calling 2000 excellent.

Lol, I had a feeling that would stir some controversy.

I know, lots in common. Both had perfect growing conditions; just brilliant raw materials and heralded; etc... Yet I'm not trying to broad stroke a vintage, its subjective for my experiences and tastes. I was a huge St. Émilions fan for personal reasons; and other right banks. I felt that's when the right banks first started breaking towards the so-called "modernist" route with 05 and onward; higher alcohol and extraction just seemed to go to 11 vs 2000 in my tasting experiences. Then I look at things I held in verticals. Cos, Gloria, Segla, and more. Many are a push, however I feel the 2000s are more up my alley than the 05s for finesse. Maybe I trend toward the 1b in the 1a vs 1b of heralded vintages in that given time period. And maybe I don't like perfect vintages, I like ones that struggle. I like having odd tastes. Fair point though, its interesting.

Just my 2 cents.

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

Cool. Your explanation does go a long way in clearing-up my confusion. I need to do a better job of remembering that Bdx. has a right bank, as I am primarily a left bank drinker.

[Howard Cooper]

I favor the earlier vintages. I think the jury is still out on the more recent. I actually loved 2004, more classic to my tastes, underrated, can find it for a fair price, and it ages well. 2005 was over-ripe and the more recent have been more hit and miss inconsistent for being over-done.

2000 is also exceptional, its a toss up for me but gave it to 04 for the pricing and availability. Things that I also consider on what makes a vintage great.

Do you like 2004 over 2001?

[Jayson Cohen]

I usually agree with Pavel, who has inexplicably gone Berserk. But I think Br1an is right. We won’t know for a long time.

I do think stars aligned in 2016. The wines are bigger than I prefer, but our grandchildren (literally or in wine geekdom) may well be taking about them with glee in 30-50 years.

[Jayson Cohen]

But in 2021 we want to drink 1921s on their 100th anniversary, no?

Yes. Keith is buying.

[Rich K0rz€nk0]

I favor the earlier vintages. I think the jury is still out on the more recent. I actually loved 2004, more classic to my tastes, underrated, can find it for a fair price, and it ages well. 2005 was over-ripe and the more recent have been more hit and miss inconsistent for being over-done.

2000 is also exceptional, its a toss up for me but gave it to 04 for the pricing and availability. Things that I also consider on what makes a vintage great.

Do you like 2004 over 2001?

Good question, and partially shit answer coming on my part. Still take 04 as my 1a and 1b is 2K, then following that is 2001. I'll be candid I have not had many 01s but from what I have had it was another under-appreciated vintage exhibiting great balance and super value. I don't have any in my cellar right now, I drank them all lol. I should have more as its kinda in my ballpark so it does speaks to a buying opportunity.

Reflecting, I wish I bought more back in time as they were overshadowed by 2K and right-bank really excelled; they were cheap and I could have cleaned up. But that was back when I was getting in to wine. And the personal reason I alluded to for my right-bank affinity... the night my daughter was born I stopped at a LWS on the way home from the hospital and picked out a nice bottle of wine to indulge in take in the fact I was scared shitless before going back the next day. It was a 1996 Haut Corbin from St. Émilion. Still have the bottle on a shelf. That changed everything. Then the right bank (mostly) changed. Nothing is forever.

[Howard Cooper]

I favor the earlier vintages. I think the jury is still out on the more recent. I actually loved 2004, more classic to my tastes, underrated, can find it for a fair price, and it ages well. 2005 was over-ripe and the more recent have been more hit and miss inconsistent for being over-done.

2000 is also exceptional, its a toss up for me but gave it to 04 for the pricing and availability. Things that I also consider on what makes a vintage great.

Do you like 2004 over 2001?

Good question, and partially shit answer coming on my part. Still take 04 as my 1a and 1b is 2K, then following that is 2001. I'll be candid I have not had many 01s but from what I have had it was another under-appreciated vintage exhibiting great balance and super value. I don't have any in my cellar right now, I drank them all lol. I should have more as its kinda in my ballpark so it does speaks to a buying opportunity.

Reflecting, I wish I bought more back in time as they were overshadowed by 2K and right-bank really excelled; they were cheap and I could have cleaned up. But that was back when I was getting in to wine. And the personal reason I alluded to for my right-bank affinity... the night my daughter was born I stopped at a LWS on the way home from the hospital and picked out a nice bottle of wine to indulge in take in the fact I was scared shitless before going back the next day. It was a 1996 Haut Corbin from St. Émilion. Still have the bottle on a shelf. That changed everything. Then the right bank (mostly) changed. Nothing is forever.

I asked because I think 2001 and 2004 are somewhat similar styled vintages but with 2001 to me being a bit stronger of a vintage. But, then again, I think mostly Medoc and don't buy that much right bank wines. If I thought more right bank, my view of vintages might be different.

[Marcu$ Stanley]

I favor the earlier vintages. I think the jury is still out on the more recent. I actually loved 2004, more classic to my tastes, underrated, can find it for a fair price, and it ages well. 2005 was over-ripe and the more recent have been more hit and miss inconsistent for being over-done.

2000 is also exceptional, its a toss up for me but gave it to 04 for the pricing and availability. Things that I also consider on what makes a vintage great.

totally agree, I thought I was the only 2004 buff in existence. It's just a very charming vintage. Without question I have had more good experiences with 2004 so far than with 2005. There is something about the ease of expression and light but substantial nature of the fruit that is just wonderful. It kind of reminds me of 2002 in Burgundy. It also opened up fairly early (at a little over 10 years old) but isn't falling off with age at all. 2004 is the best of the so-called "off vintages" that I've had. Especially on the left bank, 2001 and 2008 have harder, stiffer fruit somehow, don't have quite the same charm, and took longer to come around. With that said, 2001 was very nice on the right bank.

I also think 2000 is great and glad to see it getting credit. Unlike 2005 and 2010 it combined classical vin de garde structure with a certain lightness of touch, and the right bank train wrecks we saw in 05/10 are nowhere to be found in 2000.

I think with time 2009 will be seen as great and better than 2010. Yes it's a warm rich "Napa" vintage but it's still very Bordeaux and that will become more and more evident with age. It reminds me of 1990.

[Jayson Cohen]

I think with time 2009 will be seen as great and better than 2010. Yes it's a warm rich "Napa" vintage but it's still very Bordeaux and that will become more and more evident with age. It reminds me of 1990.

I’ve found alcohol noticeable enough in 2009, especially on the right bank, that I am concerned about them ever coming into balance. Even Magdelaine. We will see.

[A1ex H]

I am much more of a left bank drinker and have really liked some of the more classical wines in 2009. I also think it has been wonderful down the hierarchy - that may be 2009's calling card. 2016 may prove to be the best vintage, and 2019 could prove to be greater than 2009, but it is too early for me to tell.

[Howard Cooper]

I think with time 2009 will be seen as great and better than 2010. Yes it's a warm rich "Napa" vintage but it's still very Bordeaux and that will become more and more evident with age. It reminds me of 1990.

I am not a huge fan of either 2009 or 2010 but I think 2009 will always be hit or miss. You may be correct that there will be some great 2009s, but for me a number of producers seem to have picked too late and the fruit in these wines is not fresh. Leoville Poyferre for me is a prime example of this.

[Marcu$ Stanley]

Ha, funny you should mention Poyferre as I also thought the 2009 Poyferre was pretty bad. But I think that is more about Poyferre than 2009 -- they always overdo their wines and try to make a right bank wine on the left bank. I usually find them overrated.

[Howard Cooper]

Ha, funny you should mention Poyferre as I also thought the 2009 Poyferre was pretty bad. But I think that is more about Poyferre than 2009 -- they always overdo their wines and try to make a right bank wine on the left bank. I usually find them overrated.

I agree with them being overrated and that is a shame because there are some really wonderful old wines by them. I had the 1970 a few years ago and it was wonderful.

But, while I thought the 2009 LP was just flawed (others thought the opposite viewtopic.php?f=1&t=157799&p=2659383&hi ... s#p2659383 ) I have had similar concerns (but not as pronounced) from some other 2009s I have had. I guess time will tell but not for me as I did not buy any 2009s or 2010s.