To me, 09 and 10 are big and alcoholic vintages but there is less overt wine making going on than there was 1998-2005, for example. Perhaps they have become more sophisticated in the application of that makeup. I find extractions are more delicate and precise and tannins finer than was often the case in 2005. Does that make sense? I suppose a contemporary vintage could be equally as alcoholic but I’d expect the wines, in general, to wear it more lightly.
I will have to look when I get home but I don’t think I bought a single 2005 St Emilion. A number of Pomerols though
Notably, this is a guy who does not have an allergic reaction to chateaus associated with Rolland… he had very positive things to say about many estates that get bashed for being Rollandized, eg. Pape Clement, Smith-Haut-Lafite, Leoville-Poyferre, etc.
When we did a St-Emilion “first growth” dinner in London two years ago I couldn’t finish my glass of 2005 Pavie. I found it abhorrent. It clearly needed a lot of time but it was anyone’s guess around the table how it would evolve over time.
I have a lot of sympathy for the proposition that great terroir will win out over manipulation in the long run, especially as I have seen it happen, so I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of the Perse era Pavies eventually coming round. The 2005 Angelus was drinkable but so overtly manipulated to taste superficially flattering, but the wine underneath was prosaic.
Getting back to the Farr’s tasting I found it interesting that Ausone was the pick of the right banks. I know some seasoned tasters over here who regard modern Ausones as being overly manipulated, even a ‘horror show.’
Thanks, Matthew. It’s funny to me that I consider Bordeaux more of a minefield than Burgundy these days.
Vince, true!
I love that, a horror show of a wine. Lol.
Interesting report. I am sure to read more detailed analysis by Neal Martin or Jancis in the future.
I did buy a couple of Troplongs and Canon La Gaffliere in my moment of weakness but it would seem that is the full extent of my bad exposure to the vintage.
I purchased heavily from the Left bank. Right bankers I liked and purchased were VCC, L’Evangile, La Conseillante, La Fleur Petrus, Cheval Blanc and Ausone.
2005 Pavie Macquin love/hate: didn’t care for it at UGC tasting on release. But couldn’t pass up a case for $80 at Costco, later sold for $285/bottle. Sadly, those days are gone…
You mean a case at $80 / bottle, right? Because if it was a case for $80 that would have been amazing.
Do you find this true of all wines? Just curious, because to me, this kind of goes against what I as a winemaker try to do with all of my wines.
There are plenty of ‘nice’ wines out there where you can’t tell what the variety or varieties are and where the wine is from - and to me, it is ‘easier’ to make and market these.
Curious to perhaps have this conversation play out a bit more . . .
Cheers!
I believe that technology advances in the past decade have made it possible to create bigger, bolder wines that don’t show some of the same things these 2005’s do. Spinning cones, Reverse Osmosis, new chemicals, advances in oak toasting, different oak alternatives - all of these have been and continue to be used worldwide - and not just with larger mass market wines. And for those who believe that Bordeaux is ‘immune’ from these ‘advances’, well . . .
Great Post, thanks for sharing. I am not surprised for example with Pavie Macquin, a 2005 that exhibited a very high alcohol balance - 15,5% I believe - and the evidently extracted new oak tannins. Certainly it comes from top notch terroir in Saint Emilion, but really it’s pushing the winemaking envelope.
Kudos to you, Larry.
I have no need and no desire for a wine that has no sense of place. Or a sense of itself.
The opposite is the homogenization of wine.
Ausone an overtly manipulated wine? That´s really new to me. I wished I am able to afford this caricature of a St. Emilion! The few times I had it in blind tastings I was blown away by it´s quality. Even the 2003 version is a stunner.
Jürgen, it is most interesting to talk about Ausone. Jean Claude Berrouet prefers the older school style at Ausone, before the Vauthiers took full control in the mid 90s. But I recall tasting the 95 a few years back, which is gorgeous. And the 2005 from barrel while having struck me as somewhat big in a modern sense from barrel had such intensity and depth that at least a very good example of a wine that will be most amazing because of the exceptional terror. At a 10 year anniversary tasting in London back in 2015, it was quite impressive, but maybe not having that added nuance and freshness of the style encountered in Petrus, which has less new oak, whose grapes were picked earlier etc. What is most interesting is that the Vauthiers are scaling back on new oak in recent years. Great news, I say! Tasting in 2015: http://wine-chronicles.com/blog/bordeaux-2005-ten-years-on/
ok but wines of the vintage based on the Farr vintners tasting in question:
LMHB
Ausone
Latour
BTW. For wines of this caliber 12 years of age is still pretty young. I wouldn’t expect those wines from a big vintage being ready for consumption.
And the other two wines are raised in 100% new oak too. I think LMHB is around 14% alc. or slightly above.
Good points indeed. I wanted to stress about how the Vauthier family has decided in last couple of vintages to lower the new oak. New oak, per se, 100% is not by itself a bad thing. Au contraire. It can be simply fabulous. But the danger IMHO - for lovers of fresher expressions of Bordeaux - is when you combine the new oak (and let’s just say medium+ toast to high toast) with alcohol levels exceeding 14.5% . That seemed to me to be the case with Pavie Macquin for example. Anyway…
Good to hear from you Ian, and thanks for the data point. I sold my 2005 Pavie several yars ago, and while at its infancy it tasted less “spoofed”, I wouldn’t be shocked if it comes up like that over time. To my palate “spoof” becomes apparent with some age, unless its completely out of whack in infancy (e.g., many 2009s!). I recall tasting in the last 5 years various mid-aged Pape Clements which are too spoof to my palate, but are enjoyable to those that don’t miss out on “grip” and prefer round/smooth tannins and jam fruit. Chacun à son goût…
Regarding 2005s, having tasted it broadly, I’m somewhat dismayed to hear these updates on the St Emillions. The vintage should have provided ample lattitude for vignerons to produce balanced wines. Sure, merlot required a bit more care, but this seems in hindsight like point mongering for a fatigued Parker palate.
For traditionalists, it’s pretty clear: avoid all recent St Emillion until there’s more clarity as to whether or not the recent practices of these chateau bear wines of classical style. Only time will really tell.
Panos,
Vauthier decided to lower the % of new oak over the last vintages. Most of them being good but not outstanding more or less. (2015 the exception). When another 2005 comes along – will this wine be raised in lesser new oak?
BTW: 2005 Petrus is raised in less new oak but wasn’t amongst the wines of the vintage at this blind tasting.