I like reading the recent 1988 LLC tasting note thread. Also, I recently picked up a 1988 Leoville Barton on a whim that I’m excited to try. I know these three years are considered a run of good vintages (89 and 90 being truly great), and this amount of age on Bordeaux is right in my wheelhouse. There seems to be good number of these wines on the secondary market. All these factors are coming together to pique my interest!
So, that brings me to my questions. What are the characteristics that distinguish these vintages from one another? Which are the producers to look out for in each of these vintages, both the top wines and the best values? Any sleepers? Other advice?
Hi Noah, lots of folks here with the knowledge and experience you seek.
I like 1988 as it was the least ripe and most old school of the three. I have enjoyed many 1988s but you need to like slightly austere old school claret.
89 and 90 were both really good years. World class wines I have had the priviege to taste are the 1989 Haut Brion, La Mission Haut Brion and the Pichon Baron. Just amazing wines.
Down the food chain a bit, Leoville Barton and Leoville Poyferre did well in both 89 and 90. Even cheaper, I have like the 89 Talbot and Prieure Lichine and Beycheville.
In 1990 there are lot to like across the board. All three Leovilles did well in 1990. i
I would be remiss to not mention a stellar 1990 VCC.
I don’t drink a lot of 1st growths but others can help here
1990 was my favorite ‘across the board’ vintage until 2005 came along. I doubt I have any of the former left, and if one is back filling, be mindful of the risks entailed with that.
That was a good trio to stock up on, since 1991, 1992, and 1993 didn’t win any friends.
1988 at its best is elegantly understated- and I love them. The one thing many of them lack is a lengthy finish. Even the best are a bit clipped compared to the very best vintages, but still with good length. Lafite, Petrus and Magdelaine are the standouts for me. Mouton is also very good- far better than some initially predicted. Occasional encounters with Lynch-Bages and the Pichons have proven most enjoyable. La Mission is quite good too. If I could go back in time, I would have bought a lot more 1988.The wines are still in a good place and will likely live a very long time. I enjoy them most with a robust lunch- steak frites being a great choice.
1989 is on the ripe and flamboyant side- not quite to the degree of 1982, but more in that direction than any other vintage of the 80s for me along with a handful of the best 1983s. With time many of the Pomerols have become a bit riper and simpler than I would like (no recent notes for Petrus), but Pauillac has surprised strongly to the upside. Lafite is glorious- on a par with the 1990 though stylistically very different. Mouton is also exceptional, as is Magdelaine. Latour is magnificent with an extraordinary fragrance- but is more of a midweight which is fine for me, but lackluster for that reason to many. Palmer was hanging in there last time I had it a decade ago- but I liked it more in youth. A real standout in this vintage for me is Lynch-Bages. Even though I do not generally like the style of 1989s compared to 1988 or 1990- I will never turn down a glass of 1989 Lynch-Bages. And in the legendary category is 1989 La Mission Haut Brion. There are many 100 point wines out there, but this is one that is truly thrilling. I have not had a good bottle of Haut-Brion- mostly due to provenance concerns (see caveat at the end of this post.)
1990 at its best is the ultimate claret vintage from a more traditional point of view. They do not thrill or overwhelm- they are harmonious and just the right fit for a fine meal. The wines are well rounded- great ripeness, great aromatics (the florals in particular), mid to full bodied and with lengthy fragrant finishes. They inspire joy and comfort- they are endearing. For my palate, 1990 Lafite is the ultimate claret. Other high points are Lafleur and Lynch-Bages. I have had mixed results with Margaux and Latour- the former sometimes being overblown and the latter at times seeming stubbornly closed. Pichon Lalande surprised bigtime to the upside with cellar age, and Pichon Baron is as good as it gets. L’Evangile and La Conseillante are also fantastic, though the former is passing peak. Magdelaine has proven quite variable. Mouton- quite problematic at release- has come out interesting and enjoyable, if not at the level of the best wines of the vintage.
One important caveat- 1988, 1989 and 1990 had already been in the marketplace for a few years when the wine markets really took off, and a few years before Parker’s wise warnings about provenance pushed the trade to the far better practices we see today. I witnessed many a languishing case- mildly compromised by sitting on warm shelves too long- eventually sell, and those bottles still sometimes come to market. Because the damage was minor and happened over time, the bottles are not obviously problematic externally- and you only know when you open them and find them a bit tired. It is less of an issue than 10-20 years ago, but you should still buy these with some caution.
These days it’s hard to go wrong if you have well-stored bottle. 88s were fairly hard for a long time and came off a little lean as they aren’t super ripe, but my recent experience with them has been excellent, even with lesser wines like Cordeillan Bages. 89s and 90s from the classic Chateaux are usually great, and there’s no need to go up to 1s growths for a top experience. As mentioned above, 89 Lynch Bages is great - and 90 too. 89 Pichons are each lovely in their way.
I don’t think there is any reason to preferentially seek out or avoid any of these unless you are really partial to riper wines, in which case I’d stick to 89/90.
We just drank a 1988 Ch. Magdelaine which was really good. I think all of these vintages are in a great zone for drinking - just at be careful with provenance.
One 88 I would certainly watch out for is Calon-Ségur.
It was cheap on release and remained good value until five or six years ago, but can still be found for around 100€, making it 25% less than the 89 or the 90. I’ve never found the latter two to be better.
Wow, great expo, Tom. I started drinking Bordeaux a year or so after 89 and 90 hit the market, so many were great right out of the gates, kinda like I had read the 82s were. The 88s and 86s were leaner, harder but you could tell had great materials for the long haul. Some of my all-time fave Bordeaux, which I have enjoyed again into their maturity, have come out of these vintages, 89 Petrus, 89 Haut Brion, 86 Mouton, and just a smidge below, 90 Lynch Bages, 89 and 90 Montrose (yes, Montrose has some variability in these vintages). Magdelaine shines in all of these, 82, 85, 88, 89 and 90 (with 88 being the bottom of that great list but still quite solid).
Noah, If I had to pick a sleeper from the 1989 and 1990 vintages, it would be the 1990 Sociando Mallet, which still drinks beautifully if you can find bottles with respectable provenance. Also in that sleeper category are 1990 La Louviere and 1989 Olivier. And to pair with your 88 Leoville Barton, try to find the 1990, it’s even better! Leoville was strong in that 88-90 run.
I think of 90 as the ripest and most powerful of the 3 vintages, with some phenomenal wines but perhaps a touch less consistent than 89. 1990 Figeac was one of my WOTYs, and L’Evangile is stellar too. many mid range wines like Calon Segur and GPL have performed Well recently too. La Louviere definitely over delivered! But the 90 VCC side by side with the ‘89 was clearly the lesser wine a couple years ago; perhaps it just needs a lot more time.
Don’t count out ‘85 and ‘86 Bordeaux if you’re looking in the 80s as well. ‘85 Magdelaine was WoTN agains the 89 and 90 VCC. And 86 Rausan Segla has been beautiful lately.
1988 is an old-school, classically-styled year. A wet vintage with issues due to rot and a lack of maturity in the fruit. It’s on the austere side. It’s the last high yield vintage before estates started green harvesting. The grapes did not fully ripen. Lots of green and hardness in the wines. Personally, it lacks charm, but it’s got its fans on this board. Sauternes rocked.
1989 is a hot vintage, and a very early harvest. The wines are sensuous, ripe and range from elegant to ostentatious. Good wines come from both banks. Interestingly, other than Haut Brion, the firsts were not successful. You’re better off buying Pichon Baron or Lynch Bages. Sauternes was also a big success. With few exceptions, everything is fully mature and some big name wines are past their prime.
1990 another warm, sunny, dry and early vintage. At their best, these are stunning wines. elegant with, silky textures, opulent, fresh and simply gorgeous. Almost everyone made good to great wine. Reds, whites and sweets. Just about everything is fully mature.
^^ This. These vintages have been heavily traded for some 30 years now and a lot fewer people had functioning wine cellars then than now. These are very difficult vintages to source with confidence.
I enjoyed an1989 Pape Clement on Christmas Eve - decanted 4 hours and was the WOTN as an 02 Clos Lambrays came in second. The Lambrays may eventually be the bettter wine but the Pape was at peak and most probably be there for a long time. Wonderful aromatics and layers of flavor with perfectly ripe and integrated tannins.
Yes, absolutely. I stick to the mouldiest labels with the highest fills.
It probably goes without saying but Ducru should be avoided. I’ve never had a clean bottle from any of these vintages. There are reconditioned library releases around, but you need to make sure they have the official sticker on the bottles. And even then I suspect there are better alternatives - those already mentioned.
For value, Meyney hasn’t been mentioned yet, but it had a terrific run from 82-90. The 88 Meyney has been surprisingly great through the years — I say surprisingly because Parker wasn’t as big a fan of that vintage and back in the day Parker loomed over all of my Bordeayx budget, for better or worse (usually for the better when it came to that era).
I had a 88 Meyney recently that was faded from its peak but it was still lovely. I suspect the 89 and 90 Meyneys are similarly on a gentle back slope.
For a long time, the 1990 Lagrange — the best ever vintage I’ve had from this chateau — offered sensational value. It was ~ $100 not that long ago and 94-95pts in my book. Seems hard to find at auction of late.
Likewise (seconding RAJr), the 1990 Sociando Mallet and 1990 Louviere — two more best-ever candidates — have punched way above their weight for ages and were dirt cheap for the quality.
For pricer wines, I had a 1990 Figeac a few years ago that was as close to a religious experience as wine can do. The 1990 Pape Clement was also really impressive the few times I’ve had it.
1988 is austere, and was difficult in the first decade or two. Has blossomed a little, but still less amiable than the other two. Good wines though, and generally consistent.
I have always felt there was more similarity than differences between 1989 and 1990. Personally, if I were forced to choose, I would go for 1989, because the high points of 1989, LMHB, Haut Brion, Petrus, Pichon Lalande and Lynch were so good. The best of 1990 are close, Latour, Cheval and Haut Brion are close, but not quite as fine.
Statement: overall 89 was more broadly excellent than 90 — eg plenty of chateau made better 89s, overall the 89s have aged better, some 90s were roasted or even pruney, and some notables outright whiffed in 90 (like PLL, Mouton, Canon).
Agree or disagree?
My loose sense is 89>90 on the Left Bank, but it’s harder to argue that for the Right Bank.
