I guess I wasn’t paying much attention to Parker or Bordeaux at the time. I hereby retract this:
Here is his initial report on the '95s in February 1997 and his follow-up from bottle a year later, with comments on '96:
1 Like
I can’t recall who said what about the vintage, but there was a major spike in prices in the Summer of 1996, going from an initial price of $600 a case to $1500 in a matter of weeks. This suggests there must have been some critical support for the vintage, and it also coincided with the first major buying spree from the Far East, in this case Singapore.
I did not get to taste the ‘95 vintage en primeur in April, but did manage to go in June and tasted the UGC wines at Chateau Loudenne with a few friends including an MW and Alain Raynaud, who was President of the UGC at the time. When we got together to compare notes at dinner that night, we all felt underwhelmed by the wines. Apart from Pichon Lalande which was excellent but not great, none of the wines showed particularly well, and any time I tasted 1995 after that, I always felt the same sense of disappointment. The major exception has been Haut Brion which was head and shoulders the best 1995 I have tasted.
I love the 1996 left bank and Graves. Beautiful if a little tightly wound. The flavors were fresh, balance impeccable and it seemed very homogenous. Even wines I am generally not fond of such as Las Cases and Barton were extraordinary. And they have aged well. A Ducru which I drank a month ago was quite lovely, but could have used another few years of cellaring.
1 Like
One factor in the pricing may have been that the dollar was quite low against the franc in 1995 and 1996 – about FF5 = $1. The dollar had only been that low against the franc once in the previous 15 years. So the '95 futures would have priced at a very disadvantage exchange rate for Americans.
Thanks John, the chart was useful; plugging in the numbers, the franc changed from 4.8 to the dollar in April to 5.2 in June. I passed on the Haut Brion in April at $600, and got serious sticker shock when I came back in June, and the price had increased to $1500.
We do not agree. There is nothing stern about 1996 Left Bank wines. Or do I find them highly acidic. In fact, those wines have been a pleasure almost since release
John thanks for sharing snapshots of Parker’s vintage summaries. Awesome that you’ve kept those scraps around for as long as you kept the wine!
Much of that I’m sure was demand. The dollar rose significantly against the franc in '97 and '98, as the wines were landing in the US. But the exchange certainly can be a factor (e.g., the '85s).
(This stuff sticks in my memory because, whenever I visited France between 1983 and 1999, the franc was in the 5-7 range. I missed out on the dollar’s peak in 1985 of 10F = $1. 
)
FWIW, because I recall buying 95/96 First Growths, though I was probably not fast on the draw, 95 was $100-$125 and that was a big jump from 94. 96 was $125-150. Lafite was always the most expensive
Like you two, I am not exactly sure why we would lump 1995 and 1996 together other than the fact that they were back to back vintages. I also like 1996 as a general rule (but not always) better than 1995s and very much like 1996s from the left bank. Don’t think I have ever agreed with both Jeff AND Mark before. In fact, I cannot remember Jeff and Mark agreeing before. This is really a banner day!!!
I was buying this stuff back then and the “hype” was largely on the consumer side. There was pent up demand as noted above. We continue to see more buyers chasing a limited number of wines which drives the prices up and '95 was early in this process. Yes scores were high but I don’t really recall critics saying these are as good or better than '82, '89, 90 etc. My memory is not great but just know when I was buying that was opinion from reading barrel scores/tasting. I do think '95 has ended up being a harder vintage that originally expected but of course opinions on the wines can and should change as things evolve. This was 25 years ago. Pretty sure all my '95 Bordeaux are long gone and I would agree that with hindsight it was overrated. I’d say this was also due to the prior string of so-so vintages which should not matter in a vacuum to a critic but likely does in reality.
Mark and you get it right on occasion. I know it happens, every time you guys and Alfret agree with me😁
That’s caliginous!
![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}
I’ve found just about all of the classified growths I’ve had from 1996 to be stunning, and they’ve been approachable for some time. The best clearly have many years ahead of them. Ducru, Margaux, Lafite, L-B, Clerc Milon, d’Armailhac and even gasp Cos have all been excellent in the past 2-3 years. I also have very much liked Angelus, though of course not a Left Bank wine. I’m not as enthusiastic about 95s, but there are some good ones (Ducru, Haut Brion). Anyway, for 96 at least, I don’t see it as an overrated vintage.
Around 1998, Suckling started trumpeting the 95s as the first great vintage since 89/90. I recall Parker was more circumspect with his general take on the vintage but he gave out lots of 93-96 point scores, including to a number of Left Bankers (to maybe 15 or 20 chateau like Ducru, PLL, GPL, Cos, etc), which were very high scores back then (as high as many 82s and 89s). And I was paying attention as I was just starting to build my cellar in the mid-90’s, and I still cared what the critics had to say.
I get why some don’t think 95 and 96 should be lumped together but these wines seem to have a lot in common stylistically when tasted side by side. The 95s are usually firmer, but my main impression is that neither vintage is really ready yet for peak drinking (and that they may lack enough midpalate concentration to match the best of the 80’s). But after 25 years, what does needing more time say about these wines? For example the top 86s, a famously tannic vin garde year, were drinking sensationally by 2008 or earlier.
I’ve seen some young bordeaux show thin and a little weedy (eg some 89s tasted in the mid-to -late 90’s), only to deepen and blossom stunningly with enough age. Maybe the best 95s and 96s just need more tine, which is how I voted in the poll above. I’m still sitting in most of my stash and I plan to do some big tasting in 2025, because surely we can know what we have by age 30?
I had a 95 Angelus recently that was just gorgeous. 95 was a birth year wine for my daughter so I bought a number of bottles (money constrained at the time, so not a ton). All I have left is some Margaux, Angelus and a magnum of Calon Segur. Not worried about the first two, but heard the Calon Segur has had mixed results.
We really do not agree here. Most 95 BDX are hard, austere wines, similar to 86. The fruits are more red. You can like them or not. There are a few exceptions, but that’s their style.
96 left banks have more concentration. They are more elegant, reminded, creamy, silky and generous. The fruits are darker. Personally I find all the 96 BDX at close to full maturity, including the Firsts. Some can improve, but most are in those prime.
I’m sure lots of folks on here enjoy 95 for those classic characteristics. I on the other hand wasn’t even allowed to apply for the friend of a friend membership into the AWFE!
You and AlFERT are pretty much Johnny one notes with some kind or other of Cabernet based wines. Mark and I have broader tastes. I mean, Mark is even starting to drink and post on German wines.
Put another way, I’ve yet to have a 95 or 96 that could match, let alone surpass, a top vintage of the same wine from the 80’s.* I used to think that this was just a maturity issue, and as I prefer my claret tertiary for the most part, all the best of the 95s and 96s needed was more time. My doubts have grown that they’ll ever do what the glories of 80’s bordeaux can, hence this thread.
*excluding chateau that are well know for making lackluster stuff in the 80s.
Here’s some more contemporaneous coverage.
I would agree with some of the comments above, namely that 1995 and 1996 are not really comparable. I always found the few Left Bank 1995 Bordeaux to be relatively hard, austere (still remember the 1995 Pontet Canet I tasted at the Chateau).
1996 is a significant contrast, and the 1996 Pichon Lalande has always been great in particular. But others have shown quite well, including 1996 GPL, 1996 Montrose…