We had a 1996 Sociando Mallet a few years back in a 1996 Left Bank horizontal. It showed reasonably well, but the tannin, with a slightly hard edge, was still front and center. I am happy to say that a bottle consumed on Christmas Eve was showing much better, and at least in my opinion, has entered a relatively broad drinking plateau. It still shows a lingering primary character within what is overall now a mature wine dominated by secondary characteristics, almost like one of those vestiges of vegetation types from earlier climates one can observe in hidden valleys in Joshua Tree. I find I often prefer this stage of development to the “fully mature” ones where the fruit may start to cook off. This wine is surprisingly sweet and round on the mid-palate, but the impression fades gracefully to mineral/herbal overtones on the perfectly balanced finish. One has the impression of capturing a long span of time in a single mouthful, and yet with each stage seeming to resonate with the others in the sequence. No trace of those troublesome bell pepper notes that we taste in the 2000 and 2003, this is a really a fine wine that is coming into its own.
Not so ready was a bottle of 2000 Lagrange (St. Julien), which still strikes me as primarily (>50%) primary. Moreover, the wine seems to be showing more Merlot than I recall, giving it a slightly fruity, even generic quality. I am hoping that some more bottle age will sharpen this up, since even the Merlot component (forget about the Cabernet, wherever it is) has not budged much…
Thanks for the detailed breakdown. The only Sociando I’ve had that felt really “ready” was a 1985. I think you can find great, very drinkable examples from the less celebrated vintages (a 2001 I had earlier this year was superb), but my experience with the bigger vintages, including 1990, 2000, and 2003 is that they need decades to reach true maturity.
Where we part company is that I happen to love the green pepper note, which I find is almost a signature of the Chateau. I like the little twang of freshness it imparts on the otherwise typically dark and structured wines.
Too bad also about a lackluster Lagrange. Like Sociando, it’s one of my favorite overachievers from Bordeaux and a solid value.
I would say that the 1990 is ready as well, although in that case, there was some residual tannin. In the case of Bordeaux, if you want to burn off every last molecule of tannin, you are always going to be drinking them at >35 years…
I think 82, 85, 89, 90 are “ready”. 86 is actually ready as well, just remember to give it 3 hrs of air. Had the 2000 over the holidays, and while too young, was enjoyable. I also regard the green stuff as part of the signature of Sociando, and any number of classically styled Bordeaux, and it doesn’t really put me off at all. If you want Bordeaux that is completely ripe with no herbal or green notes, better look to California.
I am a huge fan of Sociando. Good news on the 96 opening up, it’s been stern for a while.
I agree that the 82, 85 and 90 are fully mature but still have years to go. Had an 82 recently that improved all night long.
It’s probably too soon to be sure, but I think the 2003 is a momument in the making. You have to like the house style – dark, semi roasted fruit, with the signature green-tabac facet – but the 2003 has it all.
Mileage may vary of course bottle by bottle. I had a 96 Pichon Lalande a few years back that was starting to show well (although I would not have called it as being on the maturity plateau). But then a bottle for my brother a year ago last fall was not really even close…
I will say it again-backfill on 1996 Left Bank. This is the last great vintage for balanced and not overly ripe Cabernet Sauvignon fruit in Bordeaux. This recommendation is for the Left Bank only.
Personally, I find most all classified Left Bank '96 Bordeaux still needing time, including Sociando, Lynch, Lagrange, GPL, Leovilles, etc., but the one wine singing now to my taste is 1996 Pape Clement.
Nice note Carl. 1996s from the Left Bank I have had recently have been drinking well. I recently did a TN on a 1996 Pichon Baron that was very drinkable, albeit still primary.
Marc, interesting what you say about the 2005. I have never opened any of my 2005 Bdx (Left or Right Bank). I thought they would be totally unapproachable. May be I should think about an experiment … ?
I think that there are different definitions of “ready” here, with mine being the presence of secondary characteristics (normally with “primary” being <50%). Versus accessible, which can mean 100% primary, but drinking well enough that there is some kind of lively expression on the palate and the nose (this could be the case for a young wine not yet closed down). Needless to say, I have a hard time seeing a 2005 Bordeaux as having secondary characteristics.
Most 96 LB Bordeaux will take 20 years to arrive, I think (we’re almost there!). The 86 Left Bank didn’t start drinking well until 2006-2008, and I think that’s what many of the 96 Medocs are doing.
Of course, the 96s have had an early charm (especially aromatically) that the 86s didn’t possess and many 86s will likely never lose all of their hard, dry tannins, but it looks like there’s a similar timeline in the development of these two Cabernet Sauvignon vintages.
That is what I would say. I see the 1986 vintage as one of the most backward in memory (with those hard and dry tannins), so comparisons with that vintage require judgments to be adjusted a bit.
Certainly 20-25 years is the normal criterion for maturity of a Bordeaux–we had a Leoville Barton tasting where the wines plotted on a straight line intersecting maturity at 20 years, although there will always be some who want the highly advanced (tertiary) characters (Francois Audouze, for example).
Or for that matter, there are still people waiting to taste their first bottle of 2000 Pegau, a wine that IMO is now on the long downhill slide…
Which Bordeaux vintages since 1970 absolutely required 20-25 years to open up and shine (as opposed to survive or continue to improve for 20-25 years)?
Tons of exceptions and caveats of course, but off the top of my head:
DEFINITELY
-1975 (still needs time!)
-1986 (arrived in force by 2008, drinking wonderfully for those who enjoy some rusticity)
-1995 (the modern 1975, especially in the Medoc?)
-1996 (smell great, but need more time. Cru bourgeois have been drinking well for a while now)
-1998 (both banks are tough still, with notable exceptions)
MOSTLY
-1978 (I’m guessing here; all examples I’ve had have been mature but they have that stern tannin on the finish still)
-1988
-1989
PROBABLY
-2000 (a split personality vintage, with some early maturing chateau and others needing ages still. Very high yields complicates the generalization)
-2005 (hard to predict. TONS of extract and tannin but it’s all so fleshy and ripe that maybe the structure loosens up sooner than antecedents?)
-2010 (???)
Mostly would agree with this. As you say, the 1996 Cru Bourgeois are drinking well (and Sociando is that, although usually considered more backward for some reason). The first and second growth 1996 are probably a few years out at least…
I would probably quibble with the designation of 1975 as requiring more time. This is another example of a hard, dry tannin vintage, which if you could not handle it, would require very long times to tame. But you are going to do so, you will likely do it at the expense of burning off the remaining fruit–this is the way a second bottle of 1975 Leoville las Cases showed. And a 1975 Haut Brion was otherwordly–this is like arriving in Heaven and looking for some other place to go on to. But then the 1975 Haut Brion (and apparently the 1975 Mission Haut Brion, although I have not had it) avoided some of those hard, dry tannins that we see in the other appellations.