A 2017 Observation About 1980s Vintage Bordeaux

WINE TALK
41

This is the crux, for my mileage. Yes, many Bordeaux from 1995-Present are great wines and many are aging well. Even 20+ years later for many of these vintages, however, it still isn’t clear that they’re developing like vintages from the 80’s and before did/are. A bunch of the possible culprits for why this could be have been articulated beautifully in this thread (brett, elevage, vineyard practices, climate, and more).

I think even many of the ever-scarcer traditionalist Chateau taste different now that they did 25 years ago or more— perhaps only Sociando Mallet hasn’t budged at all, but even redoubtable estates like Leoville Baron, Montrose, PLL, LLC, etc. are different today in subtle ways, especially in the tannins, brett, acids and things like ultra-low oxygen exposure during elevage.

Perhaps these will still blossom like the 80’s wines have, they’ll just take longer due to better storage and purer fruit? As a point of reference, we did a big 86 Bordeaux horizontal in 2008 in NYC with all of the top wines from the Left Bank, and at 22 years these wines were all showing wonderfully even if some showed they’d get better for a long time. In contrast, the 95s and 96s from the same estates (now basically the same age as the 86s in 2008) are still so young, “pure” and almost grapey for my tastes. Maybe that “incredible” purity so many critics go on about isn’t such a good thing after all.

42

If you don’t like the modernist wines (or, if you go into anaphylactic shock just seeing Rolland’s name attached to the wine), you are unlikely to find much charm in the wine at 3, 13, or 30 years of age. If this is what people mean by “bdx nowadays don’t age like in the good old days get off my lawn” then it is hard to argue with but also not of much use. “I don’t like wine that I don’t like and don’t think I’ll like that wine later in its life”; not much to argue about there.

But we shall see how the wines of “quality” producers age. There is only one way to tell until Musk finishes his time machine.

43

Robert, I meant to add that that old thread on BWE was lost to history when the site moved from an MSN domaine. None of the prior content was migrated to the new site.

44

In this case, you may have been very lucky with your tasting. On any given day in 2008 you could have caught pretty closed examples of 1986 PLL, Gruaud, Cos, Mouton and likely others. My impression of 1996 is that it’s developing like a slightly softer version of 1986, and I have zero concern about the future of the wines.

If we ever have another vintage like 1985, people will really be wringing their hands in despair about the modern wines showing too well young.

45

My brother from a different mother, OK, and father :slight_smile: I am not picking on you, but I still would like to know which specific wines and vintages have not aged, or have been perverted and are now worse, than they were previously in the 80’s or 70’s?

46

Also had some bad experiences with 2005 right bank and in some cases left bank as well. To give one specific example, I have had several opportunities to compare the 2005 Canon La Gaffeliere to the 2000 CLG, and in each case the 2005 was far inferior. Superficially rich but heavy, pruney, not balanced or refreshing. The 2000 was more layered, balanced, and complex. You could worry about the high alcohol levels in 2009 and 2010 as well, although the 2009s have been shedding some baby fat and doing good things over the past couple of years.

But there are a ton of terrific recent years that aren’t 2005/09/10. Try 2002, 2004, 2008 if you want recent years that are more classic. The 2000s also seem to me to be aging very well. It’s a more classical vintage than people give it credit for IMO. I really like Bordeaux around that 15-20 year point when they still have fruit but have smoothed out and added some layers, the 2000s seem there right now.

(With that said, I started collecting too late to have experienced a lot of the 80s wines through their full evolution…as Pat says above, one striking thing about more recent wines is that they seem to keep their fruit for a really long time, don’t know what that says about long term evolution. It may just mean they take longer to reach the same point, but who knows?)

47

Exactly. That’s why the only issue that gets under my skin is the purposeful change of traditional wines I love for what apparently amount to reasons other than the quality of the finished product in my view and the view of many of us here.

There’s still plenty of good traditional Bordeaux even if it turns out it doesn’t age quite the same way as vintages of yore. I feel Pat’s concern as we have similar palates but there isn’t anything to be done other than having faith that producers like VCC, Montrose, Ducru, Barton, Calon Segur, and the like will continue to commit themselves to the type of wines many of us know and Iove. And to make our preferences known in the market to the best of our abilities. Hey Figeac, DDC, Pape Clement, Poyferre: are you listening? And I don’t mean to the Ching-Ching of the cash register.

48

I have a different interpretation of what is going on here. I don’t mean to ignore Parkerization and a set of very warm, very ripe vintages since 2003, but in this thread people are talking about Bordeaux being lost by 1996, including Chateaux that didn’t change styles.

I believe it’s primarily about tasters and not changes in wines or winemaking. Many of us here started drinking Bordeaux in the 1980’s or 1990’s. At that time, we bought primarily wines from the 80’s, because that’s what was most available and reliable. There was a glut of good vintages. Wines from the 70’s were thinner on the shelves and less reliable, but what I remember is that at the end of the 80’s, my best Bordeaux experiences were 78’s and 79’s (as well as a few older wines that I saved up for).

As we aged, those wines from the 80’s showed us in real time how Bordeaux ages. At first we liked 82’s and 85’s in their youth, and later we realized they could develop to be more than those 78’s and 79’s were. Now we know that 30 years later, they are still great and still developing, and all that time they have been a staple of our cellars.

Now here’s the thing: Along the way we (I mean “I”) realized that I like 20-40 year old Bordeaux much more than I liked those 78’s and 79’s at age 10. So when I bought some 1999s and 2001s hoping they would replay my old 79 experiences, I was a bit disappointed. In reality if I had been drinking in 2010 exactly the same 1979 PLL and Gruaud that I drank in 1988 (i.e. the nine year old version) I would still have been a bit disappointed as my taste had changed. At that point I would rather drink the 20- or 30-something versions. And sure enough, as 1999 and 2001 PLL age, I’m liking them more and more (particularly the latter).

The key thing about the 80’s (other than a bunch of good vintages) is that they grew up with us in a way that we liked them at all ages. I believe that’s why we have such a special fondness for them.

49

Deja vu, Jeffois?

You do realize that you and I have had this very specific, itemized discussion more than once on this site, right? The last time was when I railed on many of the modern St Ems ten or so years out. The notes are on this board. I’m not avoiding your question, we’ve just been down this path.

But let me pick one example, and it’s an example where perhaps the wine is not bad*, say like a 2005 Lascombes or aged badly like a 2005 Fleur Cardinale, but where the wine arguably is objectively decent but, for me, subjectively not decent: Pavie. I have had multiples bottles of the modern Pavies, wines that you gush over on your site, from many of the vaunted vintages, including 2000, 2003 and 2005. And some from less rides vintages like 2001, 2004 and 2008. Some of these have been full bottles sampled over the course of an entire evening. I do not like them from the ripe years, the years where they seem to get 100s left and right. They are over-the-top to me. In this same period, I have had killer bottles of 1961, 1982 and 1998 Pavie (before Perse had an impact), and these wines are far, far superior to modern Pavie.

\

  • Well, Jancis, Gilman, Levenberg, Golodetz, et al, will tell you it is bad. They are closer to right here than I am when I say they are arguably decent from an objective standard.
50

I hope my post does not come across that way, at least not the first part, which is really more about appreciating Bordeaux with a certain amount of age on them versus younger ones. The second part, well, touché. I detest what Rolland and his ilk, the critics and the buying public have done and are doing to that once-classic region. The good thing is, there remain stalwarts that I love and have always loved, like Sociando, and more importantly, at 52, I really should not be buying new releases anyway.

51

Yes, we have. But it is a slow news day and I’m in front of the screen a lot over the next few days, doing a massive updating on my site. So I need a break flirtysmile


But let me pick one example, and it’s an example where perhaps the wine is not bad, say like a 2005 Lascombes or aged badly like a 2005 Fleur Cardinale, but where the wine arguably is objectively decent but, for me, subjectively not decent:*

And have you tasted older, pre 2001 vintages of Fleur Cardinale to compare with the changes in the wine? You might not like Fleur Cardinale, which is fine. I get that. But this is a good example of the point I am making. You offer to examples to show how wines have gotten worse in modern times.

Pavie. I have had multiples bottles of the modern Pavies, wines that you gush over on your site, from many of the vaunted vintages, including 2000, 2003 and 2005. I do not like them from the ripe years, I have had killer bottles of 1961, 1982 and 1998 Pavie (before Perse had an impact), and these wines are far, far superior to modern Pavie.

This is more of a fair point. You do not like Pavie made today, when based against previous vintages. I get that. That is where personal taste comes in to play.

*** Well, Jancis, Gilman, Levenberg, Golodetz, et al, will tell you it is bad.**

And I care why? The market You are fun and interesting to chat with. I value your views because we chat on here.

Now, surely, you are not basing your view on just 2 wines, are you? This is why I asked for real specifics, not just blanket statements, so we can have a dialogue.

52

Thread drift: do you consider your vintage to be an average of ‘64 and ‘66 given the challenges otherwise? A ton of great Bordeaux just your style down that route.

53

I hope you’re right and I’ll be the first to rejoice if I’m wrong (when the wines are fully mature).

I will confess to picking nits here to some extent, in that I’m quite high on the best of the 95s, 96s, 98s and 00s. My nit is that the results so far still aren’t quite as good as the 80’s.

54

My birth year is the worst, 1965! But I did have a 1965 Mouton last year that was quite decent.

I have had some great 64s and 66s at Bern’s. I do not generally try to source wines that old given the vagaries of what you get. The '66 Magdelaine I had recently came from Chambers. I trust their sourcing.

55

I find current Lascombes over oaked as well. But have you tasted any vintage of Lascombes from 1967 to 1999 that you really liked?

[bI remember tasting 2005 SHL about 4-5 yrs back with Robert…it was wayyy over the top…while the '04 SHL previously was a gorgeous, classic sip…[/b]

Big difference in vintages there, with 04 being not nearly as ripe or concentrated, and naturally more acidic. All Bordeaux is going to be that way when looking at 04/05.

You do know that is what people said about 1982 Leoville Poyferre and other 1982 Bordeaux when those wines were first released. The same was probably said for 98 and 00 Pape Clement.

56

I didn’t mean to single you out, and no your post didn’t sound that way. My point was that people who dislike so-called modern bdx often say that they won’t age, which is either just a WAG or is really a reflection on the fact that they never liked to wine in the first place.

57

Interesting discussion but I would have to say UNLESS you bought on release and stored properly, provenance is increasingly important as the years pass. I use 89 Lynch Bages as an example as I’ve drunk from bottles I know were stored correctly from release and tasted youthful even fairly recently.

58

Hi Jeff
When you asked for examples, perhaps you should have stated how many you wanted [basic-smile.gif]

Those two did however start a dialogue, which is good grouphug .

Are there any wines you might offer up to Robert, where the winemaking has modernised, but you feel (for a traditionalist leaning wine drinker) they might actually prefer the modernised version over the old traditional wine. I suspect there are some good candidates, though I know too little too offer up any myself. Unless they’ve modernised at Cissac [wink.gif]

59

There are three different themes going on here, and I think Jeff is conflating them a bit. One was a post about how 1980s Bordeaux knocked it out of the park, another separate one was a comment on whether modern Bordeaux will age well, and a third is whether wines from the current generation will drink like the 1980s Bordeaux (without necessarily saying one is better or worse).

To Jeff’s questions, which I have itemized in the past, spawning the exact questions he is posting now, here are a few wines that I liked before and either do not like now or actually hate them.

Meyney
Leoville Poyferre
Troplong Mondot
Poujeaux
Les Carmes Haut Brion - Loved it in the past, detested 2012, enjoyed 2014. Reading Jeff’s notes on 2015 and 2016, sounds like it is going the way of Troplong.


Here are a handful of 2005 wines that I personally believe, after having tasted many of them on release, mid-term and at 10-12 years, do not think age well, and in fact, think they drink worse:

Fleur Cardinale
Lucia
Monbousquet
Haut Bergey
Barde Haut
Lascombes
Fourtet
Pierre Le Lune (sp?)
La Vieille Cure
La Clotte

Of these wines, I have also tried some 2001, 2003, 2008, 2009 versions as well. Consider me into S&M, I guess. Once the baby fat and opulent fruit starts to fade a little, most show more significant heat and oak. I do not see alcohol and oak integrating. I ended up getting rid of just about every modern St. Em. I bought from this period.

The list is longer, but I need to run to a call.

This gives Jeff enough ammo to fire away. :wink:

60

It is about time! The suspense was killing us neener

Meyney
Leoville Poyferre
Troplong Mondot
Poujeaux
Les Carmes Haut Brion - Loved it in the past, detested 2012, enjoyed 2014. Reading Jeff’s notes on 2015 and 2016, sounds like it is going the way of Troplong.

I could not disagree more, but fair enough. Although, what vintages of Troplong Mondot could you have ever liked? And how can you have a beef with Meyney? Things did not really change until 2014! Isn’t a bit early for that call?

Here are a handful of 2005 wines that I personally believe, after having tasted many of them on release, mid-term and at 10-12 years, do not think age well, and in fact, think they drink worse:

Fleur Cardinale
Lucia
Monbousquet
Haut Bergey
Barde Haut
Lascombes
Fourtet
Pierre Le Lune (sp?)
Troplong
La Vieille Cure

With the exception of Troplong Mondot and perhaps very old vintages of Clos Fourtet, what older vintages of any of these wines have you tasted that you liked, or thought they aged well?

I know all those wines, and we agree on Monbousquet, which remains too oaky for me, and the same for Haut Bergey, and Lascombes, which all suffer from the same issue. With those exceptions, I really like how many of those wines have aged, though, with the exception of Troplong Mondot and Clos Fourtet, they really do not have the terroir and stuffing for multi decade aging. Nor are they priced with that expectation.

You get what you pay for, when it comes to long time aging with “most wines”, even more so in the Right Bank.