I’m scared to open any of my '05 Bordeaux, since they were so beautiful young, then shut down so hard soon thereafter. It’s a shame to ‘waste’ a wine by opening it in an awkward phase, particularly when it likely can go many years. Of Bordeaux, the most I have of one vintage is 2005, with about two and a half cases. I imagine many others bought into the vintage as well, so I wonder what the recommendations are, based on experience, on when the '05’s should be enjoyed? I’ve got a rather wide variety of price points and regions.
In general, keep holding. Definitely keep holding your “big boys.”
Some lesser petits are drinking well (Bolaire, Croix Mouton) others are ok (Fleur Morange Mathilde) and some are tight (Faizeau VV, Belefont). Mid-tier wines are enjoyable but show more potential (Haut Bergey, du Tertre, Giscours). Good mid-tiers are tight (GPL, Haut-Bailly, Gaffeliere, Pontet Canet) and the first growths LOL.
Easy rule for me in good vintages is 10 years for petits, 15-20 for middies, 25+ for greats.
I like this.
Of 2005s, in recent memory, I only had a Chateau Talbot (drank Dec of last year) and Ch. Carbonnieux (last month). Both were tannic and tight.
Faryan’s rule looks like a good one to follow.
For the wines in my cellar- 15+ as a starting point. FGs and equivalent 20-25+.
Backfill 99’s and keep your hands off!
Faryan is a child. For me, this translates into “old for the petits, really old for the middies, dust for greats.”
Honestly I don’t think they need anything like this much time (which is not to say they won’t be fabulous then). I do not think they will reward drinking for at least another 5-10. Although I had a Fleur Cardinale a few weeks ago that was beautiful. Better later, but really good now.
I would say hold off a good while yet, not knowing what you have specifically of course. A recent '00 Palmer was far too young, to the extent that this potentially great wine just came across as diffuse and ho-hum. That’s a waste of a bottle for me. Maybe one approach (with 2.5 cases) is to open one of the lesser wines you have to see how it fits with your taste preferences: if it’s too young for you, you’ve learnt something and can leave the others undisturbed; if it’s too old for you, you know you can probably crack one of the ones up a notch; and if it’s baby bear then you’ve enjoyed a really nice bottle of wine 
I had three a few weeks ago: Rol Valentin, Lynch Bages, Le Gay. The bigger guns, the Le Gay and the Lynch Bages, were seriously tannic and still tight and a bit shut down, but showing promise. I’d sit them for at least 5 more years…maybe more. The Rol Valentin is drinking really well and has much finer, softer tannins. Still, it will probably be better in five more years. I’d sit them if you can stand it.
I opened one of my Bellefont-Belcier 2005s earlier this year, and it was quite delicious, though in a very forward, raspberry liquer-like primary way, not tasting like something I would pick out as Bordeaux in a blind lineupe.
I think the only other 2005 I’ve had in the last year was Reignac, and it was pretty tannic and woody and closed.
Unless you have lots of something and just want the education, I wouldn’t think this is a good time to experiment with 2005s. I think 01-04 generally drink pretty well now, though.
Hi Todd -
Tough to answer your question without knowing what you have.
The 10-year minimum is generally a great rule of thumb for reasonable quality Bdx from a vintage like this. I’ve cracked a few Crus this year and some showed well, but still tannic, while others were just starting to peak out. I will not crack my better St. Ems. until 2015 or later, and the cab-driven Medocs even later.
If you do not have more matures Bdx in your collection, go with some softer years like 2001 and 2004. Lots of nice selections from that vintage.
How is this relevant?
For me, this translates into “old for the petits, really old for the middies, dust for greats.”
Honestly > I don’t think they need anything like this much time > (which is not to say they won’t be fabulous then). > I do not think they will reward drinking for at least another 5-10. > …
![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}
Brian, I think you are reading too much into this. 1) Faryan is a young guy and can easily wait for 25+ years for his greats to mature. I, on the other hand, have more years behind me than in front of me. 2) I think the wines generally need at least 5 years, and surely would benefit from 10
Neal, you said “another 5 - 10 years,” not “5 - 10 years”; I was merely reading what you wrote.
Question for you, only because I’m curious: would your thoughts on this matter be any different if you were a “young guy”? If “yes,” how so?
My petits are just now coming out of slumber. I am waiting 10+ years to touch any of my classified growths. I really went long on the petits in this vintage, a strategy that has made for some great drinking for not a lot of coin.
Hmm. Are we having a language issue here? I said I think they need, on average, another 5-10 years before they will reliably give pleasure.
And yes, it matters how young you are. If you are 30, in 25+ years you can enjoy the wine. Given my age, in 25+ years I will be drinking them through an IV bag.
You seem bound and determined to be offended by something, but I can’t figure out what
when you say “they” need, which wines are “they”? The petits? The middles? The greats?
And I’m not offended by anything, I’m just trying to understand what you’re saying while at the same time separating the wheat from the chaff.
For the better classified growths, starting in 15-20yrs from vintage for Right Bank and starting 30-35yrs from vintage for Left Bank. Unfortunately, I think 2005 will end up being alot like 86 which does not bode well if you’re over 25yrs of age.
You are looking for a fight. An internet fight. Look elsewhere. I’m enjoying the 2000 Dame de Montrose too much to play