John compares the 2008s to the 1985s. It’s a ‘harmony’ and ‘balance’ kind of vintage. 2002 is a much more heterogeneous vintage and it’s quality is generally confined to the left bank. Even the good wines in 2002 tend toward being a little foursquare, comparatively. They also have quite a bit of grip.
Where does Gilman place 2014?
I think Parker was more ebullient than Jancis or other critics about the virtues of 2008. OTOH, the Chateau themselves were more guarded in their praise and I believe Latour bucked the trend that year and came out very early with a low EP pricing. Other FGs followed. I purchased Latour and Lafite and then some Cos and Pontet.
There has been some back pedalling about the inherent quality of the vintage especially on the left back. Based on what I have read, Right is still looking quite good at the 10 year retrospective.
Personally I have not tasted any 2008s to express an opinion.
However, I had not read it being referred to as ‘profound’ until now.
Interesting. I have heard from numerous sources that the 85s drank well from the get go and never shut down. But I can buy the harmony and balance line for 08 with no skepticism, even with the difficult showing of young 08s I experienced, it’s the “profound” aspect that’s hard to grok.
We can turn this around and ask if we think the 85 was a profound vintage. I’m no sure I could go that high as much as I love wines from that year.
Interesting…the only '08 I’ve had was the Feytit Clinet from Mag. it was a very nice wine and a good value @ $100 per mag. I also own Gazin, Montorse, Pichon Baon and a bunch of Pontet Canet. I wasn’t planning on checking on the vintage for another 6 months to a year…might have to move these up on the dink list as the wines from '08 are still relatively cheap.
I have picked up Montrose, Pichon Baron, Cos D’Estournel and a few others but have not tried any yet.
Cheers
He eviscerated the 2010 Pavie and ‘09 Cos. And with good reason.
I already gave an opinion in the other thread.
Plenty of good wines in ‘08 but nothing great. Plenty of great wines on both banks in ‘09 and left Bank in ‘10.
If you like classicism I think 2014 may end up being a similar but slightly better version of 2008.
I would say there are a lot of very good wines, somewhat more classically styled than some of the surrounding “great” years, but I am hard-pressed to say profound.
They do make for pretty good drinking now at the good lower levels, for sure.
That’s odd, since '85 was always very round, ripe and plush. It doesn’t seem like a Gilman vintage.
Magdelaine is spectacular in 2008- the last great vintage IMHO though the 2009-2011 are certainly quite good. L’Evangile is also exceptional. That is a long-time favorite of mine, but I have been frustrated by the slight elevation in oak levels (or at least perception of such- I have no idea the actual stats) and the slightly bigger style. The 2008, for me, was a return to the lovely- and deceptively ageworthy- midweights of the 1980s, and the wine is already showing a nice array of earth and leather notes. I would also highly recommend Palmer.
I do not have a ton of 2008 TNs for Bordeaux, but all across Europe it has been a vintage I have liked very much. The wines are definitely more mid-weight in scale, and the best are pristinely balanced with a really nice display of their respective terroirs. The exception of course is champagne where the best wines have a great deal of depth and body. It is a vintage not unlike 2001 in red burgundy where you saw early on a lot of the earth, stone and spice notes that often take time to develop.
Comparisons are difficult- 1985 perhaps? And with that comparison I am not thinking early days, but rather long term potential as well as the outcomes expected. 1985 is a vintage that people long thought to be early maturing, but recent bottles of 1985 Mouton and Margaux were still showing very little age on the rim, and still slowly growing in stature despite being more or less mature. I suspect 2008 will be the same and prosper for quite a long time. In the case of 2008 Magdelaine, I have had that wine 3 times since release and what started as a pretty forward charmer in the vein of the 2006 has started to gain a good deal of body and excitement. For anyone who watched the 1998 La Conseillante transform from a gorgeous and vibrant early drinker into a tight, muscular and meaty thriller of a wine needing a lot of cellar time- same progression here.
But keep in mind I am one of those people who has found little to love in Bordeaux since the mid 90s. If you share that viewpoint, 2008 is a vintage to seek out. However, if you like the sheer power of 2009 or 2010, then 2008 may not be for you. And to be fair- I think many recent Bordeaux will age and improve just fine. But that mid-weight charmer that is harmonious with a meal is long gone IMHO. I have generally found recent wines are better suited to wider drinking ranges and large tastings- which of course is often the preferred setting these days. At many addresses the change is happily minor, but still noticeable. And so it goes.
Well, on the basis of the Crus Bourgeois I’ve had, plus Chasse-Spleen, Sociando, Haut Bages Lib, Poujeaux and Belgrave, I certainly would not say 2008 is in any way like 1985!
The Crus Bourgeois were an odd lot, in that from the start, they tasted a lot older than they were. It meant that they were very enjoyable young, with secondary aromas and tastes from 2014 onwards, but not at all profound. They weren’t light like in 2011, nor hollow like in 2002, just less ripe than 09 or 2010.
As for the others, they’re perfectly nice wines, but probably not destined for the long haul.
I suppose if I was to compare 2008, on the basis of what I’ve tried so far, I would put it between 2004 and 2006, or a mixture of the two. Perhaps the better ones will turn out like 1995, or even 1996.
If you haven’t got any, I certainly would get a few bottles, because they’re still quite cheap. I bought a case of Duhart recently which I will try this weekend and report back on.
Definitely not 1985; as I mentioned there are stylistic similarities to 2014, although the 2014 is better all round.
If you want an older similar vintage, compare to 1979, a seriously underrated year, with many wines still drinking beautifully.
I agree with him about Pavie and both of you about the modern era of Bordeaux in general (not to say there aren’t a lot of good wines being produced, just that a lot of the historically important names are producing caricatures of wines).
The first part of what you said is tied in with what I was going to post: John’s opinions are very much based on his personal preferences. That’s actually why I like him so much as a critic, but it’s also important context on statements like this. I might like the style of some 2008s better than their 2010 counterparts, but it’s clear to me that 2010 is the better vintage overall, and I don’t think I would call 2008 profound or outstanding as a whole. Hopefully he’ll chime in and explain with a little more detail. He definitely has tasted a lot more '08s than I have, so maybe I don’t have the best picture of the vintage. 2009 as a vintage, and I have tasted a lot of them, is a different story. I don’t think it’s a very good vintage in terms of ageability, at least in general and at the high end. Of course, wines like that haven’t existed for very long, so what do I know?
That is a high recommendation indeed in my book.
20 years ago I repeated the accepted wisdom that 1979s were very good but needed to be drunk up. I finally gave up on saying that as so many are still coasting along beautifully and effortlessly.
I had already stopped buying new release Bordeaux when the 2008s came out but did pick up a few bottles of Magdelaine on John’s strong recommendation and past experience with the house.
I’ve been eyeing some Haut Bailly recently based some the rec of someone or other (I think his name was Mark something?) but with my other eye on the inventory reduction thread I’ve managed to resist so far.
I’ve not seen anything on 2014 from John; I don’t recall seeing anything after (some) 2012.
Wholeheartedly agreed.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but I see nothing about 2008 that could be similar to either of these vintages, both of which have very defining characteristics.
I’ve had this debate with Jayson, but I’m curious - which of the 79s do you like in particular? I’ve always been very fond of the 79 Lalande, and had a surprisingly very good Beausejour Becot, but I’ve been mildly underwhelmed by some of the other 79s I’ve opened. They weren’t bad, but not great. For example, the Mouton was a tannic beast that I’m not convinced will ever be very pleasant.
It’s my birth year, so I have an added stake in this one.
Quite confused with the multiple comparisons, too, with this added in.
Most recently I’ve really liked Haut Bailly (stellar) and La Dominique (on a soft but very lovely downslope). In the past I’ve really liked LMHB. If you can find a not-corked Ducru it’s fantastic but I’ve had a run of bad luck there.