Thanks, Lee. Given the perhaps unexpected success of 2008 in Burgundy, allowing for some major enjoyment with ‘early’ drinking, maybe I need to look into some '08 Bordeaux, as I seem to have every OTHER vintage but that!
I can only second that…
Instinct. 
If 08 Bordeaux turns out like the 85s have, we’ll all be very happy wine campers.
The 2008s came to the market at rather a strange time. The Bordelais went a little crazy with 2005, especially the First Growths, raising the prices to absurd levels. While the wines sold out to negotiants, they did not all sell out to the consumer. The merchants weren’t too unhappy; great vintages do sell out eventually. The problem was that 2006 and 2007 were priced based on the very, very expensive 2005s, with practically no takers. Even French Supermarkets, the usual end market when wines fail to sell, could not absorb much. So the warehouses were getting pretty full of unsold wines, and 2008 was on the way, which was, at the time considered to be only slightly better than the previous two. Finally the chateaux reduced prices, and there was a decent campaign, and some cash coming in.
That was when the Chinese entered the market. All the wines began to sell quickly, and the 2008s went even more quickly. This was a godsend to the market.
From memory, John was the only person who really hyped up the vintage, preferring it to both 2009 and 2010. Jury is out on that; personally I am not a fan of the alcoholic Right Bank 2010 wines, but the Medocs are generally quite brilliant, and 2009 at their best, will be a lovely but wines that require careful selection. But if you are a fan of really classic Bordeaux, 2008s are excellent, if a little lacking in concentration. My guess is that 2014 will be the vintage that those with classical tastes will gravitate to, wines that have the concentration that I felt was slightly lacking in 2008.
1 Like
Wonderful analysis, Mark. I preferred 2014 to 2008 on release, but have not had many 2008 recently to re-assess. I probably do need to grab some more and generally still well-priced.
Mark,
I think you’re underestimating the impact of Robert Parker’s positive initial assessment of the 2008 vintage. Sure, he and WA may have subsequently downgraded 2008 a bit and hyped 2009 and 2010, but on futures, 2008 got RP press as great value for a very good vintage. That characterization probably sold a lot more bottles than JG’s “profound” impression.
Regards,
Peter
Yes, Parker did like the vintage, probably resulting in a lot more sold wine than Gilman. But I am pretty sure that at no stage did he declare that he preferred the vintage to both 2009 and 2010. John did, in fact the winemakers, caught in all the ‘09/10 hype, gave John some pretty strange looks when he said the liked the ‘08s more.
FWIW I really loved 2008 Château Latour Grand Vin (tasted during EP this April after the 2018 Château Latour Grand Vin); 2008 Château Palmer (tasted with the export manager who also brought 2000 Château Palmer and I preferred the 2008) and 2008 Château Pontet-Canet (tasted in a flight of 2000-2011 Château Pontet-Canet and this was one of my favorites)!
I miss his roadkill articles and his reviews of young Bordeaux
1 Like
I have 2008
Pichon Baron, Montrose, Ducru B, and Cos D at the bottom of my stack. Holding, unless anyone has other guidance.
Cheers
1 Like
And Kevin wonders why I think he prefers big, modern styled wines???
I just picked up Montrose, have Gazin, and Sociando Mallet. MILLESIMA, on the upper east side has Cantemerle for about $44.00
May of us do. Not a criticism, except for the sweepingly broad-generalizations of what is greatest and what is not. I did not buy much of 2009 at all, in that duo preferring 2010 (left bank) and I did not buy a single right bank wine except for a few Pomerols (2010 VCC and Trotanoy, for example), and over both, would take 2005 and 2014. Both 2009 and 2010 are huge vintages, not necessarily balanced vintages in my mind. I bought a lot of 2014.
Off original topic, but I don’t see the comparisons to former ripe years like 82 and 90 to modern ripe vintages like 03 and 09. Wine making (and increasingly the effects of novel climate conditions on the grapes) changed so much in that time that all the things that went along with ripeness back in the day are gone or at least changed so much that the net effect of ripeness shows very differently today.
Plus, aren’t the alcohol ranges significant, where the average was more like 12.5-13 back then and now we are getting many wines at 14.5+? Wasn’t it 2010 Tr0polong that one critique bragged about it coming in at 15.5?
I agree with Jürgen, and I don´t see 2008 to be really what I would call close to great. Very good, yes, with som outstanding and even great wines, yes, but not overall consistent, and often lacking the special something.
I would even say that not only 2009, 2010, 2015, 2016 are superior, but also 2014 -
I think it was 16.2% and certainly hot and unpleasant. Even Canon, still with avid traditionalist, John Kolassa in charge, could not keep it under 15%. Not a fan of Right Bank 2010s.
Exactly. Once upon a time, lots of fruit back didn’t mean really high alcohol — sure, it was a bit higher than typical but by and large the 82s and 90s stayed within the higher end of historic norms. But 05, 09, 10 and 15 can have some serious booze. I didn’t taste the 2010 on release but I did try a bunch of 09s and many wines on the Right Bank actually have a real heat from alcohol, even traditional estates.
Robert, what 2008s do you consider great and outstanding? Unlike you, I think it is quite consistent, but I can’t think of one wine that I would call “outstanding”.
My best wines was Latour, and even then, it was a decent but certainly could not hold a candle to other recent Latours. Generally that was my problem with the vintage; some really good wines, but as I said, not a single legend.
Haut Bailly