I should restate my final comment: I bet if we drew a Venn diagram of our taste in Bordeaux, my guess is, at least with the left bank and perhaps Pomerol, we would have significant overlap. The First Growths, VCC, Cheval Blanc, Montrose, Leoville Barton, Grand Puy Lacoste, et al. And of course, would love to share a bottle some day. Happy Thanksgiving to all!
For clarity – I did not say and do not believe that Modern Bdx does not age. This is more a question of what you get on the other side of all of those years. And, it’s a question of whether what’s on that other side is interesting for some fact beyond its ability to survive.
I read through the post Howard referenced and selected some quotes that I found interesting. It’s not my intent to re-litigate modern versus traditional. I’m curious to hear whether others are finding that the more modern examples are aging in a way that’s notably different from the traditional examples we’ve become accustomed to.
Couple of other thoughts:
- It’s not helpful on any level to compare 1920s Pavie to modern Pavie.
- As J. Gilman’s post on the last page points out – this is about a lot more than just how ripe the wines are. I have pictures from vineyards in 2006 in St. Emilion where the grapes are literally raisins on the vine. Does anyone think that anyone was making wine with raisined grapes in 1982?
For those interested in the old thread from several years ago but lacking time to go through it:
I think it’s fair to say that terroir is easy to see at 12.5 degrees but hard to find at 15. The definition of ripeness has changed, and if I am being simplistic, it’s interesting that winemakers who talk only of “physiological” ripeness are generally waiting too long to make interesting wines.
- Mark Golodetz
A bunch of Barolo heads and I tasted the 90 Barolos blind. The objective was whether it was possible to identify modernist vs traditionalist. No one was able to do so. Just an observation.
IMO, tasting young wines, especially in blind format, most tasters will appreciate opulent fruits and concentration as long as the wine in in balance and not too extreme. I do appreciate modernist wines, like the 04 or the 06 Masseto, perhaps soulless but boy they are tasty. I am definitely a Parker progeny. I still agree a lot in Bordeaux but I strongly disagree on the special cuvee CDPs, domestic Pinots and Chardonnays and the 97 Harlan.
- Kevin Shin
I personally know a lot of critics with a few decades of experience who don’t have a clue. Great knowledge but no palate.
- Kevin Shin
me: isn’t that the truth.
“Soulless but tasty.” I find this a useful expression, and not one necessarily to be used as ammunition against modernist wines. I had the 2005 Clos Erasmus a while back, and found it “soulless but tasty”. It was a really well-made wine, I think, very easy to drink, and not without some complexity, but there was nothing about it that made me want to buy a case and put it down for 20 years. Just for the record, I think that most, maybe all, of the traditionalists around here are open to that kind of experience. As long as the wine is not made by Sparky Marquis! However, creeping soullessness is the real issue here.
- Bill Klapp
Here’s a rather prophetic quote:
Not only when will they do it, but where will they do it? The answer is that I don’t know, but I personally believe that it could come from an unlikely place. Perhaps it’s a subregion in Australia or California? I could see it being somewhere on the California central coast. I don’t think that “modern”, or essentially “primary” style wines will ever disappear because they offer a visceral level of pleasure and there will always be an audience for that. However it is part of the human experience to seek greater meaning in things and at some point we will come full-circle towards wine with real “substance”. I assume this will likely not come from consumer demand, but from the winemakers who grow weary.
- Taylor Broussard
More great stuff from Taylor:
Bill, I think you’ve hit on a number of critical points but I don’t believe that they apply only to Robert Parker or any prominent wine taster. Instead, I believe you are speaking to knowledge in general (beyond even wine). It is not exclusive to any individual or group because it is the nature of seeking truth/wisdom.
You speak of the dialectic; so do you not believe that those who are entrenched in traditional wines are not influenced by group-think? Aren’t there those (including here on WB) who carry along tasting traditional wines with the belief that it is what they “should” like, despite not reaching it through some type of personal, intellectual pursuit? There is no intellectual integrity in either position, old or new world if it is not born of some type of personal experience or personal pursuit for meaning. Even if you believe they are right in whatever position they take, it’s hardly good company in the end.
We have all seen those who bow to the pressure of reputation or perceived “consensus” in wine. Has anyone here not seen Grand Cru Burgundy show poorly yet looked across the room or table and see some fellow taster wax poetically about it all the same? This is a pattern of human behavior, aside from Parker and the wine critics. There is no respite, regardless of what side you are on, from this type of behavior (And we are all victim of it at some time, I’m sure!). The pursuit for truth, knowledge and authenticity is a decidedly personal one with few to walk alongside with, even in wine.
I would even state (as I have before) that there is some good in modern wines. Clearly it is not all the same, but there are “profound” elements in some of these wines. They are not to be abandoned, but rather married with other characteristics to create some type of larger, better whole. Intense primary/fruit elements are not in their own sake things to be avoided. When paired with other complementary elements of place (terroir) and varietal notes it can become something incredible. In this sense, neither is to be abandoned but rather the pursuit of both like a rising tide that raises all (in all things, balance!). Besides, not all that is seemingly intellectual is best. Isn’t the basis for catharsis both an intellectual and emotional moment? In the same way some of the most profound elements in wine are the marriage of the visceral and the intellectual. I do believe that there are wonderful elements that are learned, but the transcendent wines should reach across these boundaries.
This isn’t to say that you disagree with that statement nor is it a refutation but rather a re-statement that I think that is the basis of your argument - balance. However it is not entirely one side (the traditional) versus the other (the modern). In both cases we have lack of balance and there are many intellectual wines that lack some of the visceral pleasure that might elevate it to another level. In the same way, we have modern wines that seem virtually exhausting because it appeals to only one element.
- Taylor Broussard
For me, the things that I look for when trying to ascertain if a property would make it into the traditionalist camp include date of harvesting (is late harvesting the norm here?), malolactic fermentation in barrel, heavy-handed extraction, micro-oxygenation to manipulate palate opulence and tannin perception, and which tonneliers are used (if Taransaud is the tonnelier of choice, it is usually a pretty safe bet that the wine will lean away from the traditionalist side of the ledger- though not always, as Ducru-Beaucaillou is making one of the most classically old school wines in the entire Left Bank these days and yet use exclusively Taransaud for their barrels). And again, there is slippage on some of these fronts with each passing vintage- for example the Moueix properties on the Right Bank, Canon and Beychevelle (another wonderful old school estate) are now using partial malo in barrel for their wines (probably to make them show better earlier for the En Primeur tastings). So there are no hard and fast rules, but these are good parameters to look at along with tasting the wines (when and if possible).
- John Gilman from his post on the last page of the referenced thread
Cheers.
Objection, counselor. Calls for speculation.
Until we drink them at 20-30 years out, it’s all just speculation.
Which is what makes the debate fun.
Of course it comes down to personal preference, which is what most of us have acknowledged the last 187 times we’ve had this discussion.
Bordeaux that’s ripe and sweet in its youth can turn surprisingly complex with age. Lots of 1990s turned out that way after initial complaints that they were too good too young to age well. A fair number said the same about 1982. You say that was before the true modernistas took over, or maybe that was before your time?
To Jim’s question about whether the recent versions are aging like their ancestors:
Our group had a decent selection of 1998 right bankers and Graves earlier this year. In the lineup:
Angelus
Conseillante
Evangile
Figeac
Pavie
Pavie Macquin
La Fleur Perus
La Mission Haut Brion
Haut Brion
Pape Clement
The Pavie garnered a lot of thumbs ups from people who profess to hate modern, sweet, too-ripe Bordeaux. It wasn’t oozing tertiary complexity but actually had nice earthiness and a minerally acidic balance. I was only one of many who thought so. Another wrote:
The 1998 Pavie was not the monster I was expecting. This was my first “Perse” Pavie, i thought it was a brilliant earthy mineral fruity St-Émilion. A real joy to drink, with some angular parts in mouth but the precision is there.
The 1998 Angelus was actually the lushest of the group. The rest were displaying varying levels of complexity but all were aging in a classic fashion.
The 2000s haven’t hit the 20-year mark yet and plenty of those are developing nicely with early complexity starting to show, just like the old times. The 2009s and 2010s have another 10 years to go before I’ll write them off.
That said, I have to agree with those who say it depends on the wine. You can improve your odds by choosing carefully. Not everyone is making wine from raisins. I no longer buy Pavie (they’ve moved further ripe since 1998) but I still have faith in, say, Leoville Poyferre.
It’s obviously the sort of question nobody ever agrees on, partly because as amateurs, we’re hardly likely to buy again wines we have disliked, just to prove a point about their ageing potential! Time is too short and money is too scarce. Of those mentioned, I only have past and recent experience of one or two:
Kirwan - I did try the 66 and the 78, from older vintages, which certainly aged better than anything post-Rolland. The wine was entirely different.
Lascombes - Many years ago in the 80s, I was lucky enough to try a 61 and a 66. Notwithstanding the awful Bass-Charrington period, nothing since it became the Bride of Frankenstein has aged in the same way. Of course the 61 and the 66 are long past it now, but just the idea of trying a modern Lascombes in another twenty years sends shivers down my spine.
La Tour Carnet - Great bottles of 59, 61 and 66, enjoyable in 82 and 90 - they all aged gracefully. Can’t say the same for any Magrez era vintages. As Jim said, the 01 is just old oak juice.
Malescot - Once again, the 61, the 66, plus the 78, were great wines with 20 years ageing, likewise the 1983. I quite like some of the modern ones and it’s a little too early to tell, but I’m skeptical.
At what age does a comparison work for your query? Wines from the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, 70’s 80’s Etc?
I have pictures from vineyards in 2006 in St. Emilion where the grapes are literally raisins on the vine. Does anyone think that anyone was making wine with raisined grapes in 1982?
Sorry, but this has never made sense to me. I know your pics. How many vines do you have pictures of? There are probably 300,000 vines planted at Pavie at any given time. The vineyard is roughly 37 planted hectares, out of 42 hectares in total. I am not sure what your picture shows relative to the size of the vineyard. That’s like a grain of sand at the beach.
Tasting the wine tells you what you need to know, good or bad.
Regarding Chateau Lascombes… This is a more difficult wine and situation to assess. Personally, I find the wines oaky. They are not in my cellar.
However, it is not only changes in the winemaking and vineyard management to look at here. Today, Lascombes is about 117 hectares. In the 1960’s, the vineyard was closer to 50 hectares of vines. This increase is due to replanting, purchasing additional vines and in 2008, they began renting more 25 hectares, so the vineyard is radically different than what it was in previous decades.
The Pavie 1998 is indeed a glorious wine, but it is certainly the outlier among the Perse wines, as Alain Raynaud was the consultant, who IMHO makes much better wines than Rolland.
I own and drink the wine, and it has been maturing beautifully.
The 1998 Pavie is an interesting discussion point here. Who grew it, who made it? Perse did not buy the Chateau until 1998, so I assume grapes were already in the ground. I do not think Rolland was involved, either.
This is a comment on Leve’s website:
In 1998, Gerard Perse, who already owned Chateau Monbousquet purchased Chateau Pavie from the Valette family for $31,000,000. Chateau Pavie experienced a rebirth thanks to the drive and the spare no expense attitude of Gerard Perse and Chantal Perse. At the time of the purchase, the vineyards were in poor shape.
Pavie required extensive replanting to reach the proper level of vine density. There were also parcels that needed cultivation. At least 25% of the vineyard needed extensive work.
In 2002 Gerard Perse expanded the vineyards of Chateau Pavie by 2.5 hectares when the vines of Chateau La Clusiere vines were incorporated into Chateau Pavie. This was allowed to take place because of the similarity of terroirs which led the INAO. In 2002, to authorize the integration (or, perhaps the reintegration) of Chateau La Clusiere into the vineyard of Pavie.
So is the '98 Pavie really a Perse-era wine?
I had it and liked it very much in 2016.
Here is my note:
The color itself was fundamentally different than the darker, more brooding, opaque Pavies of late. Actually showing some brick red and a texture of earth. Lovely nose of red berries - yes, red, not all darks - some wet earth, tobacco and a kiss of cedar. A nicely perfumed wine. The palate shows full maturity to me but it still closes with larger tannins. I wonder about those tannins. A nice range of red to dark fruits, bitter dark chocolate, wet earth with a grainy, river-bed texture. A little heat but nothing overbearing. I also found the oak-regime in check, though I noticed on CT that some found the oak obstrusive. Paired quite nicely with a seared flank steak with a light balsamic glaze and oyster mushrooms.
And from the Champion of modern Bordeaux, who says that these new wines can indeed age, here is what Leve said about the 1998 Pavie in the same year that I drank it:
Similar to the last bottles tasted, the wine lacks excitement. More interesting on the floral, licorice, earth, dark cherry, plum and stone nose than on the palate. There is no reason to hold this wine any longer hoping for further development.
Leve has like 10 notes on this wine since release, and the last two show that this wine, to him, is not aging well.
I’ve had multiple, full bottles of 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2010, and recently a 2015, Pavie, and I’d take that 1998 over these Perse-era Pavies any day of the week. As I would again the '82 and the '61 that I had at Bern’s.
If you are wondering whether I am a masochist drinking all these new Pavies, it just so happens to be my best friend’s favorite Bordeaux. When in Rome . . . .
But 3 points below its high in 2011 when you said “the wine will only get better from here”. And then you started scoring it lower, culiminating in a note that calls the wine uninteresting.
![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}
Just for the record, I’m only teasing you here. Notes are snapshots in time.
The sacrifices we make for friendship…
Excellent point about the 1998 Pavie. Further evidence that we can’t just draw a line on the calendar and say that after 19xx, Bordeaux became excessively modern/ripe/spoofy.
I like your wine by wine approach. It certainly drives what I buy. I think a lot of the modern-era, ripe versions of 2009s, e.g. the Pichon, Gruaud, Pontet-Canet, Haut Bailey and even some right bankers like Clinet, Clos Fourtet, Beausejour Duffau will turn complex in another 10 years. I could be wrong. It will be a while before I find out if my bets paid off. Let’s make plans to open a few together in 2029 and see if they’ve aged like true Bordeaux. And if your well-aged = my well-aged.
This topic is also easily observed in Napa wines, which at one point were modeled after Bordeaux in style.
My first inkling of modern style wine aging differently was the wine which brought attention to Helen Turley nationally, the gold label (reserve)1985 BR Cohn Olive Hill Cab. I put several bottles away and opened one at the long gone Manka’s in Inverness in the late 90’s. It was still looking young, purple almost to the rim where magenta had a thin line. It still had the intense primary grapiness it did on release. I tried another about 12 years ago and the fruit had diminished a bit, but it was still frozen in time after 20 years.
I agree totally the 12-12.5% ABV style in the days of yore, seems to be the threshold level for wines which develop more complexites, some terroir based which shine. Consider all the notes about the wines from both Bordeaux and Napa posted frequently, all drawing such positive comments and affirmations of the joy and the rewards of aging a wine that develops in that style we all miss so much with the modern styles. I look forward to experiencing secondary and terciary characteristics, the myriads of mimicries and the subtle nuances waiting to emerge from the 1960’s, 1970’s and early 1980’s Napa wines in my stash and others’, you know Mondavi, DC, Heitz, Mayacamas, Inglenook, Burgess, Souverain, etc., the complex classics.
For my palate, the 09 and 10 are two greatest back to back vintages that one day will easily surpass the 59 and 61. If your definition of great vintages include the 59, 61, 82, 90 and etc., you will not consider the 08 as a great vintage. It is a red fruit driven vintage with high acidity and tannins as others pointed out. For the right bank, I find the 08 similar to the 98.
Kevin Shin, who probably tastes more mature Bordeaux that most of us combined, posted this earlier today on the Gilman 2008 thread.
I think it is highly relevant to the discussion on this thread, since the debate often brings up prior reference points like 1990, 1982 and 1961. While I was not chasing Bordeaux when the 82s came out - I was quite busy chasing sorority girls - the comment I frequently hear is that some maligned this vintage as too ripe, and look what it became. I love 1982. Have had a lot of it over the past 5 years, and a solid smattering of 1990s. I’ve had some '61s, but not enough to really comment on that vintage, or 1951.
However, I really question whether these are reference points to how 2009 and 2010 will mature and evolve. I would love to see a comparative analysis of the alcohol levels and use of new oak in reference point Bordeaux during all of these discussed vintages. Some 2010s busted 15% alchohol. Is that really a reference point for a 1961 or a 1982, leaving aside the obvious example of the oft-cited and allegedly “legendary” 1947 Cheval Blanc, which I have never had and likely will not ever get a chance to try? I will be in my late 70s when the 2010s hit the maturity that the 1982s are currently in. I highly doubt these will be the same wines, but perhaps then my palate, like my father’s and Parker’s in their 70s, will have drifted toward riper more oaky wines. I’ll be back here posting about the greatness of these vintages and modern wines that I once maligned, lol.
Ok boys and girls, I’m off to a party! Hope you all have a wonderful Thanksgiving with family, friends, pets and great bottles of wine! I’m bringing some modern stuff to the party, plus something special for my clunky country palate.
David- I had a number of 2010 at release and fell in love with the Pontet and the Pape Clement. While different in style and terroir, there was a wine that that the Pape reminded me of as it had the same elegance and structure/profile - the 2000 Leoville Les Cases. If the 2000 LLC turns out great (and I think it will) then the 2010 Pape should be just as great 10 years later. I believe in it so much I bought a half case which is for me an extravagant purchase.
I don’t know that it’s the alcohol level so much that matters, or any single one of the things Gilman stated in his post on the other thread, as he himself acknowledged regarding his comment on the barrels. If it were that easy, people would just pick a week later and be done with it, or take whatever other single step they would need to make. The reason for hiring a consultant like Rolland or Turley is because that consultant will note that in one case picking time may matter, in another case it’s vinification temperatures or practices, in yet another it’s something else. And when we’re talking about wines of thirty years ago, as Jeff said, there’s the issue of replanting, which would involve clonal selection, rootstock selection, trellising, facings, density, etc.
Rolland for one has said that he wants to make wine that tastes good now, and in looking at a vineyard and tasting the wine from it, he has to make specific changes to obtain the quality he is looking for. Those changes vary by winery.
And to me, that’s the biggest part of the issue - if the goal is to make wine in one place that is similar to another wine from somewhere else, wine becomes a little less interesting. Years ago I was talking to a wine maker in France while tasting his wine and I said it really reminded me of another wine from Spain. He asked which one and when I told him, he started laughing because he made that wine. He was excited that I recognized it and explained that in one place his problem was the vigor of the vines and the early spikes in sugar, while in the other place he had to coax the wines to produce riper fruit. But in the end, the wines were quite similar.
I’m not the greatest taster, but I’m not sure it’s the best plan to have wines from all over tasting like each other. Regarding aging Bordeaux, I quite like an older Bordeaux from time to time. I drink far less of it than others here, but have noticed a big difference in the wines of St Emillion over the thirty or so years I’ve been tasting. I don’t know whether the more recent wines can age but I suspect some of them will age very well. Perhaps differently, perhaps not so much. However, when the consultant says that ageability is not his interest, current consumption is, and when he consults for dozens of wineries, I would think that Mr. Alfert is prudent not to bet on an outcome that was never the objective in the first place.
I do love the idea of tastings at 20 years in. Used to do it with Spanish wines, never with Bordeaux. And 98 seems like a good year to start with.
Pape is one that has had the modern moniker hung round its neck, but one that I agree is likely to age well. If LLC evolves at its traditional pace, the 2010 Pape may be ready before the 2000 LLC!
Sorry but I disagree. I have tasted the 2010 Pape three times once in barrel and twice in bottle, and it is a very ripe modernist wine that I very much doubt will end up showing the Graves terroir which define the best Papes.
This probably gets to the heart of our discussion, and I am sure the tannins will soften and the wine will become easier with age, but having tasted young Papes since 1988, I found this Pape another example where I shook my head and hoped that one day Magrez would one day come to his senses. Pape Clement is a jewel that has been temporarily lost.
I agree with Mark. This wine is a modernist nightmare to me. Actually, to me it is second to Lascombes as the worst example of a modern left bank. I hope this is not perceived as a criticism of anyone’s palate, clearly this wine just hits me very wrong.
Now that said, the slutty side of me has been known to partake in the Pape Clement Blanc, but for the price, get Merry Edwards.
Interesting that Lascombes is front and center in this discussion. When the merchants got together and classified it a second growth in 1855, they got it seriously wrong. It was interesting when every scrap of Bordeaux classified growths was being bought up, Lascombes languished on the market. The terroir is sub par according to the locals, and when you take the modernist approach to cover the deficiencies of terroir, you are more likely to screw it up with Cabernet than Merlot. Cabernet does not take kindly to extraction and the result tends to be an oaky mess. Add an estate like Lascombes to the mix with shaky vineyard quality, and the recent problem wines are almost inevitable.
No offense taken here. I can only report what I tasted. I’ll invite you over for dinner in 2035 and we can see how it all turned out