Does Modern Bdx Need 20-Years of Aging to Drink Well?

[Sc0tt_F_tzgerald]

For those advocating 20-30 years out for current wines, how do you know for sure? Hasn’t wine production changed dramatically since 1989 (30 years ago)? Is the notion of drinking old English claret an overly romanticized thing of the past? Is 10 years the new 30? Not criticizing, just interested in the debate.

[Howard_Cooper]

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.

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.

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.

I also had a bunch of 1979s young, although over time. It was the first vintage I really purchased in any quantity after I started working and so these were the wines I had to drink - at least until I got delivery of things like 1982 Gloria, Chasse Spleen, Latour du Pin Figeac, etc. As you said, the 1979s were not at their peaks, but they were delicious. And, those 1982s were so enjoyable that they allowed me to keep my hands off my classified 1982s for the first ten years or more.

I had the Palmer probably 15 years or more after you did and it was fabulous then also. So, I probably had it around its peak, you had it when it was young, and we both really enjoyed it. That really shows the value of vintages like 1979 and, more recently, 2001, 2004 and 2014 that IMHO have pretty wide drinking windows.

[Howard_Cooper]

Back to the Dunnuck statement, out of curiosity, I jumped on Leve’s site to check out what he says about just one representative classic Chateau and its drinking window: Montrose. He says two decades to civilize the 2016 and recommends 20 for the 2018. Leve is a modernist, in my view, and yet not even he goes that far. I will agree that many Bordeaux are now made to be flashier early on, but I submit, are these really “Bordeaux” or wines that now just happen to be made in Bordeaux? Frankly, many of these could really come from anywhere, having lost the typicity that is so unique to Bordeaux. And, will they ever show those secondary and tertiary characteristics that make patience so worthwhile? That first whiff I had last week of a 1973 Latour, with my close friend MarcF, now that speaks Bordeaux. At least in my humble, yak palate view.

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?

“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.

So, you guys don’t drink any Bordeauxs until they are 20. Even you Robert, the champion of moderately priced Bordeaux and of vintages like 2001, 2004, and 2014 (and I very much mean this as a compliment)? Not all Bordeaux is Latour, LLC, Montrose and Sociando Mallet. Many Bordeauxs can be drunk in the first 10 years with a lot of enjoyment and the benefit is that these are the wines that are less expensive.

I have not had them from 2014, but are you guys really telling me that wines like Gloria, Potensac, Lalande Borie, Chasse Spleen or even Cantemerle and la Lagune cannot be drunk with pleasure now? Can you guys find wines from 2014 from this thread Best Bordeaux $20-$50 range - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers that the OP can drink now and say, wow, Bordeaux is really well priced and good?

[Robert.A.Jr]

Not at all, Howard. My notes on young Bordeaux are all over this Board. Heck, I’ve been waxing rhapsodically over the 2014s, like Lanessan and Sociando. They will all be ridiculously better, however, in 15-20+. My comments are more on the big guns, the major Classified Growths, like Montrose, Leoville Barton, GPL, etc. As you know the upper echelon of Bordeaux historically are less approachable in their youth, and then flesh out beautifully in time. I’ve recently had 2010, 2009 and 2005 Leoville Barton. A friend brought them to dinner. Opening them was, IMHO, a waste. While they showed an impressive but very primary ball of fruit on the wine, and the density impressive, I cannot say they were more enjoyable than a mature Bordeaux of lesser quality.

I am a drinker not a collector. I drink quality wines that are affordable, with a smattering of higher end wines. I can say unequivocally, as much as I love the 2014 Sociando and Lanessan - using them as reference as I have had several already from that vintage - yes they were enjoyable but they are still outclassed by bottles with 15-20+. While not quite 20, I love the 2000 and 2001 versions of these wines. Drinking so well right now and still improving. Ultimately I even think the 2014 versions will be better. Given time. I bought lots of each to drink in my dotage.

[Howard_Cooper]

Not at all, Howard. My notes on young Bordeaux are all over this Board. Heck, I’ve been waxing rhapsodically over the 2014s, like Lanessan and Sociando. They will all be ridiculously better, however, in 15-20+. My comments are more on the big guns, the major Classified Growths, like Montrose, Leoville Barton, GPL, etc. As you know the upper echelon of Bordeaux historically are less approachable in their youth, and then flesh out beautifully in time. I’ve recently had 2010, 2009 and 2005 Leoville Barton. A friend brought them to dinner. Opening them was, IMHO, a waste. While they showed an impressive but very primary ball of fruit on the wine, and the density impressive, I cannot say they were more enjoyable than a mature Bordeaux of lesser quality.

I am a drinker not a collector. I drink quality wines that are affordable, with a smattering of higher end wines. I can say unequivocally, as much as I love the 2024 Sociando and Lanessan - using them as reference as I have had several already from that vintage - yes they were enjoyable but they are still outclassed by bottles with 15-20+. While not quite 20, I love the 2000 and 2001 versions of these wines. Drinking so well right now and still improving.

Well, the OP just asked for Bordeaux that he could drink on the younger side. He did not specify the level of wine, at least as far as I read. I agree with the advice to buy 2014s rather than 2018s (and to look for 2001s and 2004s ( not sure how well the 2024s are drinking now )) but wouldn’t an answer to the OP be look for 2014 Lanessan?

[D.Callahan]

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.

Pardon the thread drift but…

I am not terribly conversant on Bdx. but my impression was that new oak has always been the rule for each vintage. I don’t remember anyone commenting on the proportions of new oak when discussing any release. Maybe I missed that conversation?

Harvesting at increased ripeness may be the new trend which would cause higher alcohol levels but are you saying that vintners are deliberately lowering the acidity levels through intervention now? Would prolonged maceration time on the skins or more pump overs contribute to the change? I would really like to know more about common practices in Bdx. I have heard a lot of discussion about the changing face of Bdx wines but little about the mechanisms used to bring this change about.

[Alan_Rath]

I don’t remember anyone commenting on the proportions of new oak when discussing any release. Maybe I missed that conversation?

You’re right, it doesn’t get a lot of attention, but there is a reasonable range of new oak across Bordeaux. It’s a question I often ask while tasting wines at UGC, and the answers can vary from as low as 40% to 100% (and probably even less on the low end for some less expensive wines). I think there is a bit less emphasis on new oak in recent years, though some producers still insist on 100% new in every vintage, regardless of vintage character.

[Robert.A.Jr]

I can’t seem to figure the oak thing out. I don’t like new oak, generally speaking. Yet, some Bordeaux handle it well, on others it’s a kinky mess. Is it the type of new oak, the toast, etc.? Sociando is generally all new oak and yet it does not often express oak as a primary note. And then it often shows Cab Franc to me, but only has 5% in the cepage. Go figure.

[Neal.Mollen]

I can’t seem to figure the oak thing out. I don’t like new oak, generally speaking. Yet, some Bordeaux handle it well, on others it’s a kinky mess. Is it the type of new oak, the toast, etc.? Sociando is generally all new oak and yet it does not often express oak as a primary note. And then it often shows Cab Franc to me, but only has 5% in the cepage. Go figure.

This is why one should not be doctrinaire, grasshopper.

[Robert.A.Jr]

I can’t seem to figure the oak thing out. I don’t like new oak, generally speaking. Yet, some Bordeaux handle it well, on others it’s a kinky mess. Is it the type of new oak, the toast, etc.? Sociando is generally all new oak and yet it does not often express oak as a primary note. And then it often shows Cab Franc to me, but only has 5% in the cepage. Go figure.

This is why one should not be doctrinaire, grasshopper.

Well technically I am a doctor of something, mostly BS, but I am debo’naire.

[Pat_Martin]

I can’t seem to figure the oak thing out. I don’t like new oak, generally speaking. Yet, some Bordeaux handle it well, on others it’s a kinky mess. Is it the type of new oak, the toast, etc.? Sociando is generally all new oak and yet it does not often express oak as a primary note. And then it often shows Cab Franc to me, but only has 5% in the cepage. Go figure.

Who knows, you (we) might like Sociando even more with less or zero new oak?

A wine handling oak vs being improved by oak seems like very different propositions. But we the consumer never get to do such compare and contrasts at least for a single Chateau.

[Howard_Cooper]

My sense has been that we emphasize oak too much in determining what is modern from what is traditional and other things not enough - things like picking dates, alcohol levels, extraction techniques, native or cultured yeasts, etc. Certainly, wines with too much new oak taste very oaky when you taste them young. But some wines integrate the oak well with age while others do not. Is this based on the level of toast? Is this the level of fruit - do some wines have enough fruit, etc., to be excellent when the oak integrates while other wines have nothing left so that there is nothing but oak. Is it terroir? I don’t know, but the best way of determining whether the wine will survive the oak, IMHO, is history and track record.

So, I don’t really like much new oak on wines made to be drunk young and am agnostic about new oak on wines that are made to be aged.

[Neal.Mollen]

I can’t seem to figure the oak thing out. I don’t like new oak, generally speaking. Yet, some Bordeaux handle it well, on others it’s a kinky mess. Is it the type of new oak, the toast, etc.? Sociando is generally all new oak and yet it does not often express oak as a primary note. And then it often shows Cab Franc to me, but only has 5% in the cepage. Go figure.

This is why one should not be doctrinaire, grasshopper.

Well technically I am a doctor of something, mostly BS, but I am debo’naire.

On that point, no one could disagree

[NoahR]

Last year did a vertical of Lynch Bages. Brought the 75 and the highly touted 89. The 75 was beautiful and the 89 was dense, monolithic and impenetrable still. There were some more recent vintages that were a bit more “ready to drink” but none of the. were considered the top vintages like 2000 and 2005.

Overall, to my tastes, what good old Bordeaux becomes with age is unique. What youthful Bordeaux tastes like is utterly not so. In a lot of ways we don’t know what Modern wines are going to mature into in 15 years. Based on our collective experiences with, say, 1997 Napa, there’s a lot of worry out there.

I’ve had some 01’s and 04’s that were lovely and hadsoftened but they were certainly not mature, just pleasantly drinkable.

I also think Dunnuck is totally off base with a statement that could only be made by someone who (to his credit, perhaps) tastes so much wine that he is dead to the stifling and mouthdrying effect of tannins. At some point you maybe cease noticing the fact that the back end of your wine is like the choke of an artichoke. Maybe after the 15th barrel sample. Or maybe you just only note the glycerin and plummy topnotes, which might explain why so many of the EP critics seem to have a sweet tooth in their ratings for merlot heavy wines - and they all do. Other than the “major critics” I don’t know a single collector who would routinely rate mid-level St-Emilions over the similarly priced Left Bank classified Growths.

[Robert.A.Jr]

Some valid points, Noah.

I also think XXXX is totally off base with a statement that could only be made by someone who (to his credit, perhaps) tastes so much wine that he is dead to the stifling and mouthdrying effect of tannins. At some point you maybe cease noticing the fact that the back end of your wine is like the choke of an artichoke. Maybe after the 15th barrel sample. Or maybe you just only note the glycerin and plummy topnotes, which might explain why so many of the EP critics seem to have a sweet tooth in their ratings for merlot heavy wines - and they all do. Other than the “major critics” I don’t know a single collector who would routinely rate mid-level St-Emilions over the similarly priced Left Bank classified Growths.

So I was just sorta panning the 2016 Lanessan for its dry oak astringency, and chuckling to see Panos’ CT note calling it “fresh and frank” but then acknowledging his tasting came on the heals of tasting “Grands Chene” - which ironically translates as “big oak”. It’s a sickly oaky wine, so I can see how the Lanessan tastes fresh and frank. It did not show that to me. And I like some of Panos’ writings. This one just was amusing given the perception of one following the another.

[David_Glasser]

For those advocating 20-30 years out for current wines, how do you know for sure? Hasn’t wine production changed dramatically since 1989 (30 years ago)? Is the notion of drinking old English claret an overly romanticized thing of the past? Is 10 years the new 30? Not criticizing, just interested in the debate.

You don’t know for sure. For wines I hope will blossom at 20-30 years, I go on:
Track record
Changes in winemaking team, philosophy
Changes in vineyard or cellar practices
Notes from trusted palates
An early-ish (for me) look at 10-15 years

It’s a calculated risk, but with he above info I’ve won more bets than I’ve lost.

[David_Glasser]

I can’t seem to figure the oak thing out. I don’t like new oak, generally speaking. Yet, some Bordeaux handle it well, on others it’s a kinky mess. Is it the type of new oak, the toast, etc.? Sociando is generally all new oak and yet it does not often express oak as a primary note. And then it often shows Cab Franc to me, but only has 5% in the cepage. Go figure.

Who knows, you (we) might like Sociando even more with less or zero new oak?

A wine handling oak vs being improved by oak seems like very different propositions. But we the consumer never get to do such compare and contrasts at least for a single Chateau.

Oak seems to be a matter of proportion. New oak is a staple in Bordeaux, but what % and for how long can vary significantly, from very little up to "200%” new oak. Someone once said some wines aren’t over-oaked, they’re under-wined. I don’t know how the estates figure it out. And I’m not as accurate as I’d like to be in predicting when oak will integrate well and when it won’t. Keeps it interesting.

[J_B_a_s_k_a_m]

It’s coming up on 19 years for the 2000 Left Bank Crus. Have not seen many notes on these. Is it about time? Look forward to seeing more tasting notes as we head towards a score.

[Glenn_P1]

I had an episode at a blind tasting of 2000 Bordeaux where they were all tight and tannic. No one even identified them as Bordeaux and we thought perhaps Northern Rhône. It should be mentioned that the person putting on the tasting keeps his cellar very cold, but otherwise when these tannins soften the fruit may be gone! Almost 20 yrs old and they weren’t enjoyable!

[Peter_Valiquette]

The big vintages always get the highest scores, but for me, bigger isn’t better in the world of wine. I’d rather have something elegant and expressive over a big tannic monster.

Besides, shouldn’t we be celebrating cool vintages which still achieve phenolic ripeness in this era of global warming? I.E., Bordeaux 2014.