Herein is the true problem, and I have decried this many times. The new style of winemaking that I eschew, is absolutely homogeneous. One cannot discern whether a wine is Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Pinot Noir, etc, or wether it is from Africa, Europe, South America, etc.
How about buying less expensive Bordeaux that drinks well young and is not necessarily modern.
1 Like
My brother, that is silly and false.
Montrose is one of the longest-lived wines in all of Bordeaux. Of course, there are Bordeaux wines that even in sunny, ripe vintages that will be much better in 20 years, and probably 20 more years after that. But you are looking at a very small number of top Left Bank wines that are better at 40, than they were at 20.
But that is the exception and consumers are paying for that ability in the wine to age and evolve. That being said, the majority of the higher scoring wines, pricey wines etc, or whatever category you are thinking of are frankly delicious at 10 years of age.
The big difference in wines coming out of Bordeaux today is that they taste, smell and feel great on your palate at an earlier stage. Previously, due to harsher tannins, a lot of Bordeaux was simply not fun to taste young. Today, the amount of tannins present is equal to previous vintages. But the difference is the texture in the tannins, (as well as the ripeness in the tannins) allowing the wines to give pleasure early.
This is not to say that a lot of wine that’s great to drink at 10 will not be better with more age. The point is, almost all Bordeaux offers a lot of pleasure and complexity early in life.
For the posters recommending 2014 over 2018. There are some nice wines in 2014. And several merit buying, especially from better estates in the northern Medoc. But there is a massive difference in the style and level of quality found in 2014 Vs 2018, and they are not interchangeable. Giving an example, it would be like going back in time 30 years ago and telling the OP to buy 1981 Vs 1982. Not exactly, but it is a reasonable comparison.
FWIW, we had a tasting of six 2009s a couple of weeks back - Domaine de Chevalier, Pontet Canet, Leoville Poyferre etc. The Domaine de Chevalier was the only one that looked like it might NOT need another decade +. Personally, I found 5 out of the 6 wines still far too young and monolithic. Quite unenjoyable. These were served single blind (and double decanted) and I picked only one wine correctly - not suggesting I would pride myself on nailing 6/6 but I found very little commune typicity and more similarity (tannin! oak! rich fruit!) across the wines.
20 decades is a long time. I think I’ll skip the 2018.
Drinking well? A lot of younger modern Bx are “drinking well” at age 5 … if you mean “acessable” for the primary fruit …
Mature? Far from that … usually the best wines in the best vintages need 20, 25, even 30+ years for full maturity, the better wines still 10-15 years … (always depending).
As recommended above: why not look for close to mature vintages … they might be even cheaper …
Its an interesting question but I would proffer that ‘modern Bordeaux’ dates back to at least 2000 at the start of the ‘garagiste movement’ and has seen a lot of development and refinement since that time. There have been hits and misses and lots of ink and computer time spent on the subject but my drinking and tasting experience suggest that the quality of the year and the terroir will out a lot of the time. We had the fabled, praised and derided 2003 Pavie served blind at a Super Tuscan dinner last year and most of the 9 of our group picked it as a 12-15 year old St Emilion of excellent quality. This is a wine we all had tasted young and it certainly did not taste like that in 2005.
Most recently we have had a 2005 Left Bank/Graves non-First Growth ‘stars’ dinner serving Palmer, SHL, Haut Bailly, Pape Clement, Ducru, Montrose, Cos, Pichon Baron, Pontet Canet and LLC. All but the Las Cases opened beautifully ( notes and story on Cellartracker ) with plenty of enjoyment but a sense of many years ahead for all. LLC was excellent but still very tight as you would expect. Next week we have the 1sts to look forward to !
I think the lesson for us was that, for wines stored from early purchase and stored in temp controlled cellars at 14-16C in Australia, at around 14 years these wines are opening up after a sleep of at least 12 years for most of them. I suspect 2010 and 2016 will be similar. The more exotic years like 2009, 2015 and 2018 may still have long evolutions but give more earlier. Some will be like the 1982 Lalande will always be fabulous from the get-go : my wife and I drank a case far too young ! The 2009 Palmer seems a bit similar on recent tasting !
I am not sure that answers the question but at least it comes from a pretty strong amateur experience and passion ! My view is that the vintage, the terroir and the quality of the maker will win out over time. It’s fun learning !
I think it’s pretty clear that all Bordeaux wines are more enjoyable young than in the past. The clientèle has changed - so apart from a few loonies, nobody wants to make wines that are undrinkable before they’re fifteen or twenty years old.
Ta take this from another angle, a few years ago many people, myself included, wondered if modern Bordeaux would be able to age as well as the wines did in the past, on the basis that you couldn’t have it both ways. Well, they do, so you can have your cake and eat it. Obviously, the complexity and nuances of a twenty year old wine are not the same as the youth and sparkle of a young wine, but both offer pleasure. Which of the two pleasures you prefer is a matter of taste, like the difference between a “modern” RB and a traditional, or “post-modern” LB.
Scott, I don’t know what your preference is, or your budget, but as Greg says, backfilling is easy - if you like the 2009s you bought, why not just buy some more? Many are around the same price as they were at release and some are actually cheaper than EP (eg LLC, PLL). Alternatively, buy some of the other more mature vintages. Try some of the cooler ones to see if you like the taste.
I’m sure 2018 is good, but is it really “even better than” ___ (insert the year of your choice)? It’s only a matter of time before another vintage is “even better than 2018”. This is how EP works - it’s in both the producers’ and the critics’ interests to maintain the idea of a perfection spiral.
There have always (at least in my lifetime) been a number of excellent Bordeaux that tasted good at 10 years old. 1970 Leoville Poyferre was delicious in 1980 and 1970 Palmer was delicious at 12. I loved 1979 Leoville las Cases when it was younger (in fact this wine tasted better younger than older). 1982 Cos D’Estournal was fabulous at 10 and in fact I can remember getting together with friends to taste classified 1982s in 1992 and, while the wines were not fully mature, all of them (including Lafite) tasted fabulously. The ages I am describing reflect actual times when I had the wine (in many cases for the first time). Yes, these wines continued to improve after these times and they were not at their peaks, but they were very tasty.
Yes, 1970 Latour still tasted very closed in the 1990s and needed a lot of time to come around. But, even with Montrose, I had a 2005 a couple of years ago that was horribly young, but very tasty and would probably do fine with a steak to absorb some of the tannins.
HAHA, my opinion is decidedly neither silly nor false, but I will concede, it is drizzled with a hedonistic vein of hyperbole, supported by a long and complex dissertation as its finish.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
I think what Jeb would say is that bdx wine is better if it can be enjoyed now and later, and it is hard to disagree. I have my doubts that the more modern wines that are more forward earlier in life will deliver the same pleasure at what used to be regarded as maturity, but i_n theory_, if vineyard practices could produce a Montrose that is delightful at 10 and regal at 20, we’d be ahead of the game, wouldn’t we?
My first Thanksgiving in NY was in 1983, and the 1979s were readily available. We drank that day Grand Puy Lacoste, Lynch Bages, Palmer and Las Cases (all around the $15 mark).
They were delicious, and drank a easily a hallmark one expects from a well balanced vintage with silky tannin, and little edge. The best was Palmer, but when I went to buy a few extra bottles, Gary Fradin at Quality House told me he was sold out. Some other punter had drunk it at Thanksgiving, and come in half an hour earlier and took the lost.
We are talking about a wine that was four years old, and so good to drink. It shows how some excellent wines can be drunk early, and then some…not so much. Case by case, bottle by bottle.
“If,” then perhaps.
But like you, I have my doubts.
And bear in mind, Jeb starts off by saying Bordeaux that requires even 10 years of age are a thing of the past. It’s like the movement is to create a wine to pop and pour. And gulp. Back to Gerhardt’s point, if you want primary fruit - though the more modern wines are primary fruit, oak and alcohol - go for it. But if we are talking about the historic essence of Bordeaux, elegant wines that are layered with ancillary and tertiary characteristics, and have that sense of place, I’m not seeing it.
I stopped reading here. Sorry.
Depends on which wines and personal preference. I get the most out of the Bordeaux complexity that starts showing up at 20-30 years. Sure modern Bordeaux can be drunk younger without having to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous tannin. It can be enjoyable but for my palate it’s not Bordeaux’ zenith.
When I read a quote like that from Jeb Dunnuck above, my reaction is that his personal opinion of the best that Bordeaux can be differs from mine.
1 Like
This question can not be answered in a general statement. Do we talk about Merlot or Cabernet based wines? What is the style of the vintage? The top 1999 Left Bank Bordeaux are all fully mature while most of the 1996 are still painfully young.
As was said already: That the tannins are less rustic today than they were in the past does not mean the wines have a limited life. IMO. Because the amount of tannins is as high as in former times. Its just different. The drinking window is wider. And that is an advantage. No?
Jürgen, I agree that a wider drinking window is an advantage as long as the peak is not blunted or lowered.
I don’t think it’s less rustic tannins that have people concerned about the ability of many modern Bordeaux to develop the classic complexity we seek at 20-30+ years out. It’s increased ripeness, lower acidity, higher alcohol, and increased use of new oak that is of concern.
I’ve heard this story before, in 1982 and 1990, and both of those vintages developed the magic in the bottle. But more estates keep pushing the envelope further, and no one will be certain if or when a line was crossed until 20 years down the road.
I far prefer red Bordeaux with a significant amount of maturity. That often means 20-30+ years for me, and the lower end of that range can be far too young for many wines. To me, it almost doesn’t matter what the young vintages will do, because one can get older, ready-to-drink vintages for about the same prices in many cases, and even for less money in some cases (a lot less if we’re talking about top wines from good, but not great, vintages).
Jeb’s statement ignores individual preferences.
Like something I would have written, though not as eloquently as Doc writes it.
+1