Was this recently?
On the subject of oak, as Howard wonders, I think the level of toasting has a big impact on smell and taste. I’ve stuffed my head in barrels in a couple of estates - same cooper, different level of toasting - and the difference is enormous. At one estate - LLC - we (i.e. wifey and I plus the cellar-master) found exactly the same oak aroma in Clos du Marquis as in the heavily toasted barrel (and he confirmed at the time that it was not an experiment he wished to pursue further). I don’t normally drink wines which use this type of oak as a rule anymore, but I can quite imagine that trying anything after Les Grands Chênes must taste fresh! I agree that I’ve never noticed the oak in SM, nor in many Loire reds for that matter - it must be the effect on my palate of all that bell pepper!
Sorry, I’m new here… are you telling me people actually pay for this kind of misinformation?
I had a 1928 Bordeaux last night and can assure all concerned that it isn’t remotely the same experience as a young wine made with “riper” or “more uniform” fruit. There are always going to be some people who’d rather drink young wine, which is fine, but that’s not where I’d look for buying advice. Anyway, it doesn’t require a whole lot of discussion because the claim is easily testable - try some well-stored '90s, '86s, '61s, or whatever, then try some '15s and '16s, and if you still prefer the '15s and '16s then buy 'em, drink 'em up, and enjoy.
I believe it’s the retailers who (happily) pay for this sort of “information”.
The 2005s are drinking great? That’s news to me.
Keith I saw a picture of that ‘28 Mouton! Sorry I couldn’t join you!
I have to say that this thread represents the best of WB to me. Great informed discussion with a diversity of opinions on an interesting topic that I have little in-depth knowledge of, so I can use this information to improve my Bordeaux drinking/purchases. Thank you!
Sheez Johnny. Read the last sentence. 
I’m actually surprised to read this. I have been trying a lot of 2000s recently. And while the left bank GCs are still young , they are also quite enjoyable and starting to near the window. I have not popped bruisers like Montrose and Leoville Barton. I cannot imagine mistaking them for a Northern Rhône. At least not since lunch.
I think a lot of this thread suffers from a ‘Loaded Question’ scenario. Before you answer the question of does Bordeaux need 20 years of aging to drink well, you have to ask yourself what the question itself means. What does drinking well mean TO YOU? If you like to drink your Bordeaux young and at release, you may want to drink a ‘modern’ (the definition is clearly up in the air there as well) Bordeaux. If you like to drink your wines at age 10, when they are still primary you can drink either probably, and maybe with an edge towards ‘modern’. If you think drinking well means tertiary aromas, than 20 years isn’t enough for any Bordeaux no matter what style it is.
I just had a wonderful Lascombs from the 60s out of a half bottle no less. I am starting to think that I really only like Bordeaux when it is 40+ years old. Even if a Bordeaux is ‘drinking well’ at age 20, it doesn’t have what I want out of a Bordeaux. So it may be open and lovely, but is not drinking well for me. So I think you need to figure out how you like your wines first, and then go from there.
Welcome to the board!
I keep my hands off the better 2000s … still too primary.
On the other hand I´m prettey sure that there will still be enough fruit when they are close to maturity, but it needs patience …
what vintage should have enough fruit if not 2000 ?!!!
There might be problems with some minor crus that have been blown up with a lot of oak, but not the wines from great terrroir.
From my recent experiences, I think many of 2000 Bordeaux are entering their drinking window. Still youthful, but developing enjoyable and complex secondary aromas + flavors. Branaire Ducru, Grand Puy Lacoste, Pichone Lalande, Pontet Canet, Léoville Poyferré, Smith Haut Lafitte, Troplong Mondot were all drinking beautifully when opened in the last year or so. That said, I think all of them, with the exception of Branaire Ducru and Smith Haut Lafitte, will continue to evolve and improve, where well stored. Other recent bottles that were still quite primary and tight as a drum include Pichon Baron, Ducru-Beaucaillou, and Angelus.
I had the 2000 Pichon Baron a month or two ago and it was fantastic. Stored since release at 55 degrees, just emerging from its shell, lots of primary fruit and at the front edge of what will be a very long drinking window. My quick notes were:
“A wow wine right out of the bottle, no decanting – on the nose, violets, perfume, some incense, grape sorbet, but also a
meaty edge that adds complexity. Not quite as ready on the palate where some tannin was evident and there was just a touch of tartness on the back end. But it was still delicious, with beautiful balance and rich midpalate depth combined with crispness and precision of fruit. Continued to open up throughout the night. This will be a great one for many years and is wonderful right now, especially if you like primary fruit”.
In answer to the title question, yes I absolutely believe modern Bordeaux, at least on the left bank, need 15-20 years of aging to begin to drink well. And that’s just the start of the drinking window, obviously they evolve for many years beyond that. Look at left bank vintages like 2005 and 2010, does anyone believe that those are ready to drink now? I feel like the “modern” style is bigger, richer, and more extracted, producing more tannins that demand longer aging. Just because the fruit covers those up when they are young doesn’t mean they aren’t there. I suspect modern Bordeaux might even require longer aging than it did in the old days, there is more of everything to tame.
Re the Dunnock statement, he says that big Bordeaux now “offer pleasure” in their youth. Sure, because they are “smoother” and more selected and engineered to have big slick fruit. But that doesn’t mean they are anywhere near ready. The mouthful of fruit you can get from a modern young Bordeaux is nothing close to the experience that Bordeaux will give you once it enters its true drinking window.
I really dislike a lot of modern Bordeaux when young. Then, the oak really is offensive. For me, if I want a younger Bordeaux, I would rather have a Cru Bourgeois.
Thanks Bob for saying exactly how I feel! All my peak bdx experiences have come from older bottles - between 35 and 90 years old. The older the better in general for most classed growths on most vintages (with some exceptions). With enough age the good ones become something magical and special.
Brodie
Absolutely. My point as that everyone has a different definition of drinking well, and you have to establish what that is for your tastes. Critics like Jeb Dunnuck will tell us when a wine is open and ready in general. But that does not mean it is open and ready FOR ME.
2000s still taste very young for the most part, even primary, but they’re enjoyable and not closed. 2005/2009/2010 also young, but generally closed and not enjoyable in my book.
I don’t remember which of these vintages had stupid people saying, “such wonderful ripe fruit! Won’t ever close!” - well, there is always someone who says that and the wines don’t pay attention and always close anyway. Some for longer than others.
Provocative NYT article from 1987…
WINE; A MUSTY MYTH
THE ONLY THING HARDER than getting people to accept a good idea is getting them to abandon a bad one. A relevant example: the almost universal reverence for old wines.Let’s suppose for a moment that we’re eavesdropping on a small gathering of wine connoisseurs. A lot of good food has been eaten and good wine drunk, and now it is time for the high point of the evening, the opening and tasting of a rare old bottle. For sake of argument, we’ll say it’s a 1945 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild. It could as well have been a 1958 Beaulieu Vineyards Private Reserve or some Burgundy of equally impressive age and lineage.
The wine is opened. Tension mounts. There is sniffing, swirling and, finally, tasting. Affirmative nods follow; also appreciative murmurs and ecstatic sighs. The wine, we conclude, is terrific. But wait; listen to what these sages have to say: ‘‘Fantastic; tastes like a young wine!,’’ or ‘‘It’s still full of life,’’ and ‘‘It’s got the color of a wine bottled last year!’’
What they are saying, what they are exclaiming over, in effect, is that the wine, in spite of its great age, still displays some of the charm of its youth. The inescapable conclusion: If youthfulness is such an asset, why all the fuss over age?
It is a bit more complicated than that, of course. A truly great old wine combines the subtlety of age with the freshness of youth, taking care to see that the latter does not overwhelm the former. But a lot of old wines are not truly great. They are just old. Which means they are brown in color, musty in the nose and taste like dried leaves. To a dedicated expert, perhaps, these wines have some information, some arcane pleasure to impart. Like listening to a French tenor on a 1910 wax cylinder. For most of us, old wines are just something to be able to say we’ve had.
The wine trade, unfortunately, works hard to foster the old-wine myth. Even inexpensive bottles are often pictured in beautiful wine cellars, surrounded by other wines hoary with age. Novelists and screenwriters dote on them. Thomas Mann wrote about the '28 Veuve Clicquot; James Bond said, '‘Ah, the ‘69 Bollinger.’’ Demimondaines order by vintage with not a clue as to what the wine is like. In fact, we all pull that trick once in a while. It’s easier to memorize a few vintage numbers than to learn about the wine.
I’d hate to know how much money is spent by anxious hosts of a Saturday afternoon, buying a few bottles at the last minute and hoping some impressive-looking label dating from the Johnson Administration will complement the lamb and wow the guests. And guests rarely know any more about wine than their host. Those who do know that a simple, fairly inexpensive wine is often more fun to drink. Nothing is more irritating than having to praise a wine because the label is impressive. To people not well versed in wine, old wines rarely taste great.
There was a time when wines achieved great old age because it took them many years to become drinkable. A century ago, the wine-making process was still basically empirical. Vintners knew what was happening but not why. So, little could be done about controlling tannin and alcohol in wine. Tannins, which can take years to soften, more than anything determine the age of a wine. Today, wines are made to mature much more quickly and, consequently, to be drunk much younger.
The most famous red wines of Bordeaux, the Lafites and Latours and Margaux and Moutons, are made to last and there is no doubt that they get better as they get older. But even these rare and expensive wines usually reach their peak at around 10 years of age. Hundreds of lesser wines of the Bordeaux region are usually ready to drink in two or three years.
Some of the greatest Bordeaux wines, those from St.-Emilion and Pomerol, rarely mature as well as the best of the Medoc and Graves wines. Thirty-year-old Chateau Petrus, for example, the most famous of the Pomerols, is rarely the equal of a great Medoc of the same age. Some fine Burgundies will last for decades, but few of them will improve after 10 years in the bottle. Most good Burgundy is ready to drink, is at its peak, after five years.
California wines age, too; some of them quite well. Probably only a handful will achieve great old age and remain drinkable. It’s too early to tell. There aren’t that many wineries more than 15 years old and most wine makers make modest claims for their first three or four vintages.
Perhaps the collecting and drinking of old wines should be seen as a pastime apart from the fundamental enjoyment of wine. But no one who seeks to enjoy wine as part of everyday life should be too concerned with antiquity. There is too much good wine around, from last year’s Beaujolais to the year before’s zinfandel to the Burgundies of two years before that.
These are the wines that are available now, that are meant to be enjoyed now and replaced by other wines tomorrow. Rare old wines have their place, but probably not at the dinner table tonight. Rare old books are beautiful to behold; but they don’t have much to do with reading.
[/quote]
Sorry this is not provocative, it is ill informed nonsense (well IMO anyway).
I think that the two bolded quotes demonstrate the author’s ignorance and lack of relevant experience. I defy anyone who actually knows about Bdx 1st growths, has them in their cellar and actually drinks - to say that they peak at 10 years. Ditto for high quality red burgs being at peak after 5 years. ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Taste is a very personal thing.