For me 2008 is more like 1988 (on a slightly higher and more consistent level) than like 1985 …
high tannins, high acidity and classic fruit … but not really great.
There are some very fine wines (La Fleur-Petrus recently, also Pontet-Canet, Montrose, Gazin, Haut-Brion, Palmer …), but nothing really to freak out …
I also wasn´t d´accords with John G. about 2008 Burgundy … (but who cares) ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
I find this discussion fascinating but can’t really participate.
There were 61 classed growths in the 1855 classification. I don’t taste wine for a living, don’t go to bdx for en primeurs, and don’t buy “vintages” (only specific wines). How many of those 61 classed wines made in 1989 have I tasted, and at what stage of development? How can I compare very new vintages like 2008 (of which I have had 10 wines max) with 1989, of which I may have had maybe 25 or 30 but over a span of 25 years of development? I forget the name of the TV show I watched last night; comparing the sensations I felt in, say, 1999 drinking a 1989 Leoville Barton and trying to make a qualitative comparison from that experience to the sensations I feel now, drinking a 2008, and then extending those conclusions to a declaration about vintage quality w/r/t 89 and 08 (or 09 or 10)? Well beyond my ken. I am impressed that you all seem to be able to do this without difficulty and with a degree of certitude that it permits you to get all worked up when someone disagrees with your assessment.
Love Sam Elliott.
Neal, you know better than to question the very core of the experienced wine geek - making big pronouncements from limited sample size. “Daubert” has no meaning here.
Well, by now it should be a given that that’s what this forum, and the few others out there, are about.
But normally, there would be some form of consensus, even by a few of the posters, that I can take to help calibrate my own experience. This thread is most interesting with each seemingly going in different direction on their respective takes.
Interesting as I bought quite a few, for me 2008s, including cases of Pontet Canet and Pichon Baron.
I don’t think it can be a profound vintage as many of the lower wines aren’t great, like a 2005, but the upper 20% of producers i am a big fan of and it reminds me of a modern version of 1988, 89, 90 with a touch more ripeness but the same building power with 88 being overshadowed but producing some fantastic wines…with modern winemaking and viticulture 20 years later 2008 is just a better version of 1988.
The word that continues to comes to mind for 2008 is focused.
Hi Jurgen,
I like your definition of a “great vintage” in Bordeaux and Burgundy- particularly for the pre-global warming years from 1990 and back. We are in accord very much with 1985 and 2005, but I do not think that either 1990 or 2009 are “great vintages” in Burgundy, as both are overtly overripe to my palate and far less interesting than the vintages that followed on their heels: 1991 and 2010 (at least for the Cote de Nuits, as the Cote de Beaune was pummeled by hail in 2010 in certain communes). But, I digress, as we were speaking mostly of Bordeaux previously. I think we have to realize that there are now vast differences (to go back again to your nicely concise definition of a “great vintage”) between Cru Bourgeois Bordeaux and Villages level bottlings in Burgundy today, as the prorpietors of the former are very often now strapped for cash and do not have the resources in many vintages to take the necessary steps in the vineyard and cellar to make top flight wines in certain years, even in vintages where their deeper-pocketed Classed Growth neighbors can do so and make outstanding wines. In our far more volatile climate in this era of global warming, often being able to afford to get teams out in the vineyards to spray against mildew and oidium frequently, harvest at the precisely proper moment (by hand) and making a strict selection in the cellars to capture the potential of a particular vintage is not often part of the Petits Chateaux recipe these days, and they are often stuck making the best of a bad situation in more volatile weather-patterned vintages. The producers at this lower level do the best that they can, but often they simply do not have the resources to maximize the potential of the vintage when weather patterns do not favor them, even if great wines can be made at the top estates. This is the sad reality of today’s Bordeaux hierarchy, where the top sixty or seventy producers can spare no expense to make the best wines possible, while virtually everyone else struggles to just get the whole crop picked and in the cellar in some sort of reasonable condition.
In contrast, village wines from Burgundy these days, at least at the top domaines who are making more money with the surge up in prices, can now afford to be as picky about what goes into their village wines as they were formally only with their grand crus and very best premier crus. So, the attention to detail and effort to make great village wines today in the top cellars has never had a precedent in the history of Burgundy and this is truly a golden age for this level of bottling. Certainly, specific vintages favor Villages level plots of vines more than others, but in my experience, it is more the efforts of vignerons to make this level of wines higher in quality (with the attendant financial werewithal to do so) that is the more important factor in the quality of top village wines today, rather than the quality of the vintage in general. As Veronique Drouhin said to me recently when we were talking about this topic, “we have come to realize that for many wine lovers who are new to Burgundy, a village wine is their first real introduction to our region, and we need to take care to ensure that we do the best job we can at this level and make a favorable impression with the wine.” Happily, top producers now have the resources to do just this and the result is there are more and more truly exceptional villages level bottlings available in Burgundy today, and they are really no longer a barometer of the overall quality of a Burgundy vintage in general- or at least, that is my impression.
All the Best,
John
Hi Robert,
I do not have time to check on current prices, so I may have a few in this list of 2008s I really like that have crept over your threshold pricetag. But, the last time I wrote an article on the 2008 clarets, these were the estates I thought really did well in this vintage and produced good values as well: Haut-Bailly, Latour-Martillac Cantemerle (always a steal in pricing in my book!), Chasse-Spleen, Potensac, La Tour de By, Beychevelle, Lagrange, Clos du Marquis, Croix de Beaucaillou, Grand Puy Lacoste, Calon-Ségur, Prieuré-Lichine, d’Issan, Lafleur-Pétrus, Nénin, Tournefeuille (one of the unsung gems in Lalande de Pomerol when the oak is not too strident in the wines), Corbin and Canon. Obviously, this is a pretty wide list in terms of hierarchy and you are not going to get the same ultimate quality with the second label from Ducru or a La Tour de By as you will from Magdelaine, Pichon-Lalande, Trotanoy, Montrose or Ducru’s first label for example, but all of these estates I felt really captured the potential of the vintage to their utmost, as viewed through the prisms of their respective terroirs. There are probably quite a few others, like Pontet-Canet, Sociando-Mallet and La Lagune, but I have not tasted them.
All the Best,
John
My fav of the '08 vintage at this point has been
Larrivet Haut Brion…some new oak…but had lots of that stony classic graves goodness.
Thanks, John. Exceedingly helpful. You’ve also identified some of the Chateaux that I buy with frequency already, just for whatever reason, not in 2008. Good to hear they shined!
“Recession vintage” means you buy MORE of it, not less! ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Must be nice to be rich and recession-proof! I’m just a little ole country lawyer.
Thank you for posting that Neal, and it’s something that extends much wider than Bdx enthusiasts.
+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. [/quote]
Thanks for all the suggestions.
Am opening a 79 Gruaud Larose soon, will see what that’s like.
The nice thing about the '08s is that you can still get, for example, Pontet Canet for $100.
I tried this last night:
Duhart-Milon 2008: Opened at lunchtime, decanted at 5pm. It needed four hours to really open up, not because of the level of tannins or the youthfulness, just because it was quite reticent at first. Textbook Pauillac aromas of cigar box, pencil shavings, cedar and cassis, with a crisp, elegant attack of blackcurrant and cedar: it moves seamlessly through the gears to a slightly austere finish dominated by blackberry, with a hint of raspberry. Quite intense, quite fresh, very elegant, this is old-school Pauillac, although much better made than the Duharts of the 90s. Oddly enough, it’s almost Loire-ish. Very good, but just lacking the zip and that deep, throbbing bass of a great vintage. 91 pts
This was very enjoyable but slightly underwhelming, bearing in mind the good reviews it has had. In spite of the decanting time it needed, the Duhart tasted quite forward and mature - I think blind, I would have said 2004, even 2001. So basically, very much along the same lines as the CBs I had tried. I’m happy to have plenty more, but if I had to choose between this and the 2003 to take to a desert island, I would take the 03, especially since the price was the same (10 years ago I would never have expected to be writing that now!). As a wine for the future, it’s going to give plenty of pleasure for the next decade, but probably no more.
As far as value goes, it’s fine. EP, it was a mere 31€, which would have been a great buy; now, it’s 60€ over here. The only nagging point is that the 2010, with the drop in price from EP, only cost me 10€ more. I haven’t tried the 2010 yet, but for 10€ more, I know what I’d choose.
John,
one of the reasons I said great years are marked by the fact that even lesser wines are wonderful is that more or less mother nature make(d) the wines and little efforts in the vineyard are needed such as spraying etc. I am with you that in less than ideal years money makes the difference because Chateaux with little financial resources can’t afford the additional work needed to produce very good wine. Due to the ever growing prices Domaines in Burgundy may have an advantage here versus the Crus Bourgeoise Bordeaux but not all because Chateaux like Gloria, Meyney etc. got a bit pricey recently too.
If one considers 1990 or 2009 a great vintage in Burgundy is a question of personal preferences. I admit that many Bourgogne and village wines are or were forward and lush wines with a hedonistic profile. But I can enjoy this characteristic from time to time. I can find joy in a more structured and less ripe vintage as well. In my cellar is room for different styles of wine. Only thing I try to avoid is exaggeration in the one or the other direction. But for me most 1990 and 2009 Bourgogne and village wines weren’t over the top. I like(d) them with only very few exceptions. And btw: the style of Domains is different also. I still remember the bottle of 1990 Roumier Bonnes Mares that was hard as nails even at age 20. When tasted blind nobody would have thought this is a Bourgogne Grand Cru from the 90 vintage. So in 90 and 2009 the picture isn’t as monotone as suspected.
Thanks and all the best
Jürgen
Julian,
I tased a lot Bordeaux from vintage 2008 and yes – this is a so called “classic” or “old school” vintage. I actually think its a modern 1988. And this is true for Bordeaux and Burgundy. Moderate ripeness and in bad cases even a bit green. I own a case of 2008 Duhart Milon myself but haven’t opened a bottle because I think (as the wines of 1988) patience is the key though that wine will never have the same profile as the very good 03 or 09 which I own as well. I guess the 08 will be best at about age 20 and then as a match to a steak from the charcoal grill.
Hi Jürgen,
I didn’t say so, but I would say it needs another few years, obviously. I think 20 years is a bit optimistic, though. It’s only one wine, so of course I’m not suggesting it’s representative of the entire vintage, it’s just a data point. I get your point about 88, it’s a good comparison, although I think winemaking has improved since then. If 2008 produces wines like Calon-Ségur 88, I will not be complaining!
Best,
Julian
With the exception of 2003 Lafite, I’ve yet to have a 2003 that I did not find over-ripe. Now that said, it is also a matter of degree, as not all are roasted. Sociando, for example, carried the heat well in 2003, and I like the wine, but it’s the ripest Sociando that I have ever had. I do not think it will mature like the 1990, but of course we are all making guesses here. I have some 2003s, but it’s not a vintage that inspires me to backfill. Same with 2009. I chose 2010 over 2009. I bought more 2014 and 2005 than these other vintages.
I am backfilling 2000 as that is a vintage I sorta missed on release - new kid, career move, etc - and am liking very much how they are starting to drink. A solar vintage, but in check.
Robert,
the main problem in 2003 wasn’t the heat but the water stress. It was very dry so the vines shut down and the fruit doesn’t ripen. I remember the tasting of all major Right and Left Bank wines blind with the GJE. Several wines were almost undrinkable due to green tannins (shrill and metallic in the mouth). I thought 2003 Pavie is a bit over the top but Ausone was fantastic and wine of the vintage on the Right Bank. The rest was a bit of a roller coaster. St. Julien, Paulliac and St. Estephe fared very well. In 2003 Chateaux must be very selective with the final blend. Those who could afford it and have vineyards on the right soil made fine wine IMO.