For me,
Try Palmer
I’ve had very nice bottles of 1979 Haut Brion and Lynch Bages in recent years.
What about 2005?
What about 2005? Love the left bank, the highly-touted, highly-rated Parker St Emiiions mostly suck, I got rid of them.
I bought plenty of 2005, just seeing if perhaps I should rethink 2008.
Margaux, the appellation, was incredible in 1979, so not only is the Margaux itself, stellar, but Giscours, Palmer, Du Tertre and Prieure Lichine were all fabulous wines. Everything else was generally very good, and Ausone and Haut Brion were the wines of the vintage.
Hi Folks,
I did not taste the 2014 clarets, as the last vintage I covered En Primeur was 2012. After that, I took a poll of subscribers about continuing coverage of En Primeur in Bordeaux or devoting that ten day block on the road in Europe each spring to another region. The overwhelming majority voted to exchange En Primeur Bordeaux coverage for more Champagne coverage, so that is where that segment of the spring trip finds me now each year. So, I am not sure of the style or quality of the 2014 vintage in Bordeaux, but based on what Mark said, it does sound like a vintage I would like.
As far as the 2008 Bordeaux vintage, the reason I like them so strongly is their inherent sense of elegance out of the blocks. They are complete wines, with excellent ripeness (they would have been considered a very ripe vintage in the 1960s or 1970s) and depth of fruit, coupled to excellent soil signatures out of the blocks. It is a short crop, which may be the reason that the grapes eventually ripened up so nicely, as a large cropload probably would not have had time to completely ripen during the Indian Summer conditions that made the vintage. The growing season was not dissimilar in Bordeaux from Burgundy in 2008, with an up and down spring and early summer, beautiful weather in July, cool, overcast and unseasonable weather in August (which seriously caused ripening to lag way behind normal), but then gorgeous weather in both September and October, which allowed the grapes to ripen to optimal condition under sunny skies and cool evenings. Everyone picked from mid-to-late October, making this truly an “old school” Bordeaux vintage. Sugar levels, at the end of the day, were very good- Leoville Las Cases came in at thirteen percent natural- acidity is bright and bouncy, and the wines have depth, transparency and impeccable balances. There is plenty of fruit down in the core and the wines are beautifully balanced, with good, ripe tannins and plenty of length and grip. All they need is time.
As I said above, it is the inherent elegance of the vintage that makes me use the moniker of “profound” for the wines, and I do really believe that they will be thrilling to drink when they start to properly blossom another ten years down the road. And, when I look back at my favorite Bordeaux vintages from yesteryear, it is the elegance of the top years that stands out for me, with years like 1953, 1961, 1966, 1970 and 1985 amongst my absolute favorite Bordeaux vintages because of their great sense of elegance and perfumed beauty. If you have had the chance to drink a bottle of 1966 Palmer you will know what I mean. Power in a Bordeaux vintage is a pretty frequent and rather pedestrian characteristic in this age of global warming, and I am hard-pressed to think of any great vintage of the past that traded mostly on its power. Maybe 1947, 1959 (though the vintage is very, very elegant to drink today) and the Right Bank in 1975, but beyond those, there were not a lot of great vintages in the second half of the 20th century that traded on their power. In this century, only 2005 comes to mind as a truly great year that is also a powerful year (I am still not certain of where the 2000 vintage will fall on the Gironde- there is certainly plenty of power here, but since the start, I have always liked the 2001s more and am waiting to taste the magic in 2000- maybe they are still just too young…) I am less sanguine today of how 2009 will turn out than I was back in the spring of 2010 tasting the wines, as they seem more overripe to me with each passing year, but they are still young and it is too early to judge with any hope of accuracy how they will eventually turn out. I have had severe doubts with 2010 since the get go and the few I have had to slog through in the last few years have certainly not dissuaded me from my present opinion of a vastly overrated vintage. Time will tell with the 2010s as well, but I have little hope for a vintage that has the highest level of measured tannins and acidity ever found in the region, coupled to very high alcohols and overtly overripe fruit tones, as I cannot think of a single vintage anywhere that possessed that combination of elements and aged gracefully. If the 2010s do eventually blossom into great wines (a very big “if”), it will be completely unprecedented that a vintage with this disparate an array of constituent components did so in the long and illustrious history of Bordeaux!
John,
I think its interesting that you didn’t mention 1982 and 1990 as superb vintages of Bordeaux.
IMO 1985 has little similarities with 1998. I tasted both vintages when they were young (more than 100 Chateaux) and 1985 wines were charming from the get go while the 2008 are way more structured wines with not the same early appeal. BTW. This is true for Bordeaux and Burgundy. 1985 Burgundy is a superb vintage while 1998 Burgundy hardly so.
I like 2008 Bordeaux and think this is indeed a so called old school vintage. But to name “old school” as something that is the poster child for good wine is misleading IMO. I had many Bordeaux from 1970 – a vintage you love - that were diluted, unripe, way too high in acid and tannin to be an enjoyable drink. Even with 25 years age on them. A few top wines exist such as Latour. But from vintages 1982 and 1990 many superb wines emerged. And the market price reflect this.
I am way more optimistic than you about wines from 2000, 2009 and 2010. How pessimistic were people when the 2003 Left Bank wines hit the market. Today many wine freaks are way more careful with predictions how the good 2003 wines will be when really in a drinkable age. I am certain the same will be true with many of the 2009 and 2010 Bordeaux. And btw: To bash an entire vintage was always wrong. Regardless what area we are talking about.
Hi Jurgen,
You jump around a bit between 2008 and 1998, so I am a little confused with which vintages you are describing. In any case, I too remember both 1985 Burgundy and Bordeaux vintages quite well when they were released, and have been fortunate to follow both vintages all along their evolutionary paths. So, I agree with you that 1985 and 2008 Bordeaux vintages were quite different in personality out of the blocks. My point is that both vintages will end up producing very elegant wines at the end of the day. The '85 clarets were very easy-going, round and succulent in their youth, but deepened structurally around age twenty and are even better today than was the case in their charming first two decades. The 2008s are more structured (as you mentioned) and will need those first couple of decades to blossom, but I like their size and shape and expect great things. I did not mention 1982 or 1990 as favorite vintages of mine, as right now, neither one is a favorite. I am currently working on a series of tastings of the 1982s and do not want to come to any conclusions until we have worked through all three lineups. So far, our group has only done one of the three tastings, and other than Pichon-Lalande and Ducru-Beaucaillou in our first tasting, the wines were in the “good, but not great camp”. That said, we have only dipped our toes in the water of the 1982s and I will have a much better sense of where the vintage is at the moment in a month or two. The 1990 vintage has some good wines, but also some overtly roasted and rather inelegant wines as well, and for that reason, I do not rank it as one of my personal favorites. Ironically, given the relative styles of the two vintages in their youth, I vastly prefer 1989 claret to 1990 today, in general vintage terms, though as you rightly point out, both vintages have their share of good wines and vintage generalizations are by definition, restrictive. As I said about 2000, we will see where they end up and I could be very pleasantly surprised down the road, if they can shake their rather sullen characters of the moment and start to sing. I know others have far more faith in 2009 and 2010 than I do- time will tell.
All the Best,
John
sorry – forget 1998 – I mean 2008 – typo.
John,
what is a great vintage? That is a pretty difficult question to answer but I have a simple one. In these vintages even the Petite Chateaux in Bordeaux and the village wines in Burgundy are without flaws and taste way above their status. That was true in 1985 Bordeaux and Burgundy, in 1990 Bordeaux and Burgundy, in 2005 Bordeaux and Burgundy and in 2009.
Frankly I cant see the roasted quality in 1990 wines you describe. 1990 Haut Brion, La Mission Haut Brion, Cheval Blanc, Pichon Baron, Leovillle las Cases, Leoville Poyferré, Chateau Margaux, Lynch Bages, Petrus and many other wines are amongst the best these Chateaux ever produced. Did you encounter roasted qualities in these wines? Even the so called lesser wines are still very fine such as Marquis de Terme, Meyney, Les Ormes de Pez etc. Why is this not a superb vintage?
Thanks John and Juergen For the excellent discussion.
I am curious, John, what mid-tier Bordeaux from the 2008 vintage, say $100 or less, you’d recommend seeking as a backfill?
It is interesting to get differing opinions especially on the 2008 and 2010 vintages. Of the - according to ‘conventional wisdom’ - ‘non-trophy’ vintages in that decade 2008 is my favourite probably/provisionally.
I have tasted and own a few excellent 2008s - Conseillante, Fleur De Gay on the RB but sadly not Figeac, which is excellent. Seems like it is a very good RB vintage, especially in Pomerol.
On the left bank, Montrose, Pichon Baron, Leoville Barton and Haut-Bailly. All very good. Of the first growths I have tried Mouton is just magnificent. Nine is better but the eight also really stood out at a tasting we did a couple of years ago at 67 Pall Mall with Neal Martin and Philippe Dhalluin (sorry to name drop). I much preferred the eight to the five and six.
When we visited Pichon Baron with BWE in 2015 we tasted the 2008, 2009, 2010 triumvirate and there was a very clear pecking order. Eight very good indeed, but nine a big step up, and ten in a league of its own.
Around the same time we visited Pichon Lalande and tasted the 2008 next to the 1995 and preferred the former.
Re 1990 fwiw I think LLC and Lynch Bages are a little overcooked. Otherwise I generally really like the vintage. We are doing an informal 1990 tasting in London this Thursday.
I really like 2009…I think it is a modern day 1990, especially on the left bank, as the wines will always be fruity and opulent and pleasurable to drink even before maturity…but they still have an underlying balance that keeps things in line and not too overdone. Not surprised to hear Gilman questioning 1990 and also 2009 as the vintages have some similarities to me. I think 1990 is a great vintage and 2009 may well be, I just keep having excellent 2009s, but if you don’t like fruit you don’t like fruit.
Agree with Gilman that there seems something off about 2010, while it’s a good vintage the right bankers have often seemed overwrought to me and the left bankers rigid and excessively tannic, although they have potential of course.
Had a lot of the 2008 Pichon Baron when young, it’s a really excellent wine that was a great bargain on futures but the price has elevated since. It will drink earlier than 09/10 and is in no way an “off vintage” for the chateau. Elegant but powerful, great cut and precision.
I don’t drink as much Bordeaux as I did when I was younger, but my favorite vintages of the 2000-2010 era have been 2005 and then 2001. I like 2010 more than 2009, which often seem to have acidity levels that are too low for me. Same issue I am having with some, but not all, 1990s. Fro me, a bit too flabby to be great.
Maybe it is just because I am a left bank kind of guy, but I think 1989, 1996 and 2005 have been really excellent vintages.
For me, the acidity is there in both 1990 and 2009, it’s just in the background. So the wines don’t have a crisp acidic bite but the fruit doesn’t feel sloppy either. It’s kind of giving an invisible structural underpinning to opulent wines.
But it doesn’t surprise me that if you like your acidity to stand out more you prefer 89/96/01/05 to 90/09, or that people would have similar issues with 1990 and 2009. As I said, 2009 feels like a modern day 1990.
Howard, I’m guessing you meant to type 2010, not 2001, as one of your two favorites from 2000-2010?
Marcus, I agree that 2009s are reasonably balanced even though lower acid than 2010s. If the 2009s turn out like 1990s in another 10 years I will be a very happy camper. If I can keep from drinking them too soon.
I think Howard meant 2001
+1 on Haut Brion, and maybe sort of reasonable as far as 1st Growths go. Margaux was quite good as well.
Gruaud Larose 79 has been delicious pretty much forever.
My main issue with the 09s isn’t low acidity (which seems adequate), but overly spikey alcohol. Even the 09 Magdelaine shows a touch of heat and booze. If that integrates with time (and it might not be much of an issue on the Left Bank), the good 09s will rival the 90s.
OK, OK!!! Just chewing the cud here!!!
Well, I’ll do my best to explain my probably rather confusing (or confused!) reasoning!
It’s always hard for us mortals to get a handle on a vintage. I live in a small village north of Paris. There are no tasting clubs and the only tasting I do is from my own cellar. I don’t like opening CCs at under 10 years old - it seems like a waste. So I open Crus Bourgeois instead, which may not give an infallible guide, but which usually prove fairly reliable. Sometimes, there are exceptions - 2002 was an appalling CB vintage but quite a good CC one; likewise, 2003 was an awful CB vintage but amid a swathe of poor CCs produced some stars. In all other vintages, CBs give a good idea of what the CCs will produce later on. From what I’ve tasted so far, 08 is in the same category as 2001, 2004 and 2006: Neal Martin described it last year as a “useful” vintage. So quite complex, quite intense, with fresh fruit and enough grip for medium-term ageing, while waiting for the big guns to mature.
For many years, I preferred 01 to 00 and in some cases (eg Issan), the 01 is better, but as we approach the 20 year mark, it’s becoming clear that 00 is moving ahead. I suspect in ten years from now, we’ll think the same about 09 or 10, compared to 08.
I used 95 and 96 as comparisons, because I was trying to think of older vintages in the same category: in 96, for example, a wine like Calon-Ségur was nothing special at first, only coming good last year - now I would say it’s better than its counterpart in 2000 (and 2003). So my point was that there will probably be the odd star in 08 which will outshine wines from better vintages. And yes, I don’t think that either 95 or 96 were truly top vintages, in comparison to 1990 or 2000.
Hope that’s clearer! Anyway, just my point of view, nothing more.
Thanks to John and Jürgen for making this such an interesting thread!