I bought a few cases of the '14s as futures. Most of them haven’t risen in price much since then. I don’t really sense a lot of urgency to buy anything early except .375s or magnums, or those few wines where there’s a lot of hype and a low-ish first tranche release prices. Also, I’ve now tasted a few '14s and really liked them.
For those with short memories or short email retention schedules, here is Rimmerman’s last hype of the new '61. Dated 11/4/2010 (just weeks after the harvest)
UPDATE: 2010 – This Year’s Vintage of the Century
Now What?
After 2009 was proclaimed the Vintage of the Century by pundits worldwide (a ridiculous notion), and the Bordelaise raced to charge prices that made even the most liquid investment bankers suck wind…2010 may be even better.
Yes, I’ve said it.
How can this be? I don’t even have my 2009s yet?
Take a deep breath and lets look at this scientifically.
In certain areas of the Left Bank the anthocyanins were among the highest ever recorded, far higher than 2000, 2005 or 2009 and that’s a very good thing for your cardiologist and your cellar.
Anthocyanins are the flavonoid pigments that morph into extractives noted as a carrier of color, depth, tannin (and resveratrol) – they are the basic keys to the “oomph” behind the liquid you consume and to the degree of terroir transferred to bottle. Years low in anthocyanins (such as 1997 or 2007) generally produce under-ripe and lightly colored wines with somewhat green tannins and limited ageing potential. In years such as 2000, 2005 or 2009 that number is far higher. As an example, a particularly esteemed vineyard in Margaux had anthocyanin readings in 2000 of 1765 mg/l for Merlot and 2197 mg/l for Cabernet. In 2005, a fabulously tannic and deeply gritty year, 2058mg/Merlot and 3133mg/Cabernet. In the “Vintage of the Century”, 2009? 1975mg/Merlot and 2117mg/Cabernet. What about 2010? In 2010, the Merlot was 2811 mg and the Cabernet 3343 mg – even higher than 2005 or even 1986. You can do the math but these are readings that don’t come around very often, not even in 1961.
mvDX30jwHYA
That would be a good t-shirt slogan.
Those are crazy prices. I’ve bought the following online in the last year: 1995 Montrose for $90, 1996 Lynch Bages for $120. BACK-FILL.
Thanks Pat. I own plenty of Lynch Bages back to 85 and Montrose to 89. The prices I saw for the '14s seem reasonable relative to '09 and '10 and what might be coming in future vintages.
Tom
Always hilarious to hear some of the out of the loop civilians POV. And on the flip side some of the civilians get it more right than the pros.
But cmon, can anyone really make a coherent argument that 1961 can compete with 2016? Just taste the grapes for Christ’s sake. Then think of all of the technological advancements. And while we can debate it’s philosophical greatness, you’re Trippin if you think you can argue old school techniques can hold up against the tech we have now in terms of greatness in any sense of the word… any argument otherwise is kind of adorable.
16 might not be the best year on record for climate, but it’s amazing a la 15, more tech than 9/10, great grapes, and all and all will be the year on record to beat, if not as delicious as the humid induced deliciousness of 09s.
There were like 20 decent wines in 61, 10 great and the winemaking made most taste like crap until they were 35 yrs old, yet everyone complains about Bordeaux’s current golden era because if takes less time for them to taste good. Please, stop romanticising total crap from a comparative sense.
Blake – this will lead to nowhere I guess. You won´t convince those who think we are living in the worst times of all due to modern winemaking. I too think we are living in the best times of all having hundreds of well made Bordeaux in different styles to chose these days. But … .
My problems are the generalizations so often and the contests all the time. Vintage xy better than xy. Really? For every wine? For every area? For whites, for reds, for sweets? For every person? That´s impossible.
Even Parker, the persona non grata for so many here on this board, warned pretty often. Don´t believe the hype and pay every price – the next so called vintage of the century is already waiting. I think this was and is a wise advice.
The modern era is by far the worst for pricing, that much is undeniable
J, that was a button pusher of a post. The version of myself with less vineous fluid in my veins couldn’t agree with you more. The current version of myself however says, higher alc, higher extraction, viva Rolland!!
I do not know why I continue to remain surprised by how people continue to form strong opinions on wines they have never tasted… I suppose I should be used to it by now 
Greetings from Bordeaux!
I do not know why I continue to remain surprised by how people continue to form strong opinions on wines they have never tasted… I suppose I should be used to it by now
Greetings from Bordeaux!
Jeff - if you think that people shouldn’t opine on wines they haven’t tasted (fair point), how do you feel about the bordelais asking folks to pay a king’s ransom, and often more than current pricing on older vintages, for wines that are still in barrel and they won’t have an opportunity to taste until cracking the first bottle of their case 10 years out?
Hey, they both have a 1 and a 6, so why not?
I’m too old to buy new wine. I’m watching the developments here with detached bemusement rather than my former intense anticipation.
I trust a Rimmerman pitch about as far as I can throw him. But just because he says 2016 is awesome doesn’t mean it must be wrong. If guys like Quarin and Leve who have tasted the wines give them a resounding endorsement it’s worth paying attention.
Readers, go back to Post 23. ![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}
Grasshopper, my ITB friend, one could posit the exact same thing about the pimping of all of these modern Franken wines.
Neither you, nor Leve, can honestly say what these wines will taste like in 25 or so years, which is really the sweet spot for fine Bordeaux. We do know what wines from these historic vintages taste like 20 - 35+ years out. We also know that many of them were not crap 10 years out, either. So all of these modern advancements you guys tout, you are only guessing about what they ultimately will create, no different that the folks here opining to Leve’s irritation, about 2016s that they have never tasted.
At least for my palate, which I’m guessing is Neanderthal by “post-modern” standards, these fabricated wines are not holding up. In that 10-15 year window, most that I have tried - and that is many, including many which I stupidly bought - show poorly and I do not see them improving at all. I think even Leve notes many are meant to be consumed early. Is that Bordeaux or new world? Primary characteristics over secondary and tertiary? So drink up that 2010 Bellevue! And thanks for calling me “adorable”.
Daniel,
if you are focusing on the cult wines it´s true. If you focus on other top wines it isn´t. Wines like Domaine de Chevalier, Grand Puy Lacoste, Gazin etc. are not overpriced. You can find top Bordeaux to very reasonable prices IMO.
Yes, but Jeff in your case, does it make any difference? ![[stirthepothal.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f40faec63ca1018898a40805efbf9f0066a3d205.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]"){kind=small}
I’ll put the tone of condescension down to too much alcohol, as also, much of what you wrote. Over the years, I gave done several 1961 tastings, it is also a staple at several parties of friends born in 1961, and most recently we did a comparison of 1959 and 1961, where the 1961 killed the 1959s with one exception (lafite), and were brilliant.
I am not sure where you are getting the figure of 10/20 from, I can rattle off thirty of forty wines which are extraordinary with over 50 years of bottle age. That is not to say there is anything wrong with 2009, but I seriously doubt whether it will show as well with bottle age as 1961 did in its prime. 1961 was a tiny crop of perfect grapes. 2009 had record levels of tannin, alcohol and acid. The grapes were very ripe, alcohol levels were elevated, and the wines for me were exotic and interesting,and I am pretty sure the wines will be easier to drink young, but will never have the depth of the 1961s.
Know? Perhaps not. But I have a very good idea about how wines develop based on have tasted enough wines in barrel and bottle to know how wines will or will not develop, in most cases.
In 25 years or so, which is really the sweet spot for fine Bordeaux.
At what level are you taking about? For most wines, even the collectible wines, that is at peak maturity. Very few wines will be able for more evolution past 25 years. The great ones, yes. But most are not worthy of that much age, at least to me. I want some life, fruit and vibrancy in my wine. But that’s just me 
In that 10-15 year window, most that I have tried - and that is many, including many which I stupidly bought - show poorly and I do not see them improving at all.
Brother, you did not like them young, so naturally, you will not like them at maturity. It would be fun to see you blind taste a lot of wines.
and only 84 more vintages to go in this century so lap 'em up. 