If you want it all without spending $5000, I would not get the same vintage. I’d ask this board, what is the best vintage for drinking now for each Chateau for eg $500 or less. That would be a lot of fun and more instructive than all the same vintage where two are great two mediocre one sucks and $5000. The thing about first growth Bordeaux is that in the same vintage they can be in wildly different stages of advancement which defeats your purpose.
Margaux 1983
Haut Brion has the most choices of outstanding year, open now, and OK price
Latour hmm…You might get really lucky finding a 1990 at $500
Lafite 1998
Mouton avoid several vintages. Eg 1988 100 Spectator points, and it’s not close to 100 points. I think 1989 and 1990 are also controversial.
Pick wines that this board AND two critics agree is a ready to drink but young vintage in your price range that represents the house style.
If price does not matter I’d most want to drink today (unless I had guaranteed fill and provenance on 1982 or older):
I would love a '45 First Growth tasting but from price, availability and maturity point of view, '90 would be about just right. I don’t believe the '96 are ready yet.
For about $1500 or there abouts: 1999, or build a collection from 83 or 88.
For about $3K you could acquire all 5 1990’s on winebid right now: 1990, Bordeaux Red Blends (Claret) | WineBid
2-3 are outstanding: Latour, Margaux whilst HB is very good rivaling 89 and ~1/2 cost. some regard the 90 latour and mgx as some of the best in modern BDX 1sts.
This would be my choice, you could do a dinner for 8. “Buy in” might be $400-500.00/person and you’d have a grand time.
Throw in some 90 vintage champagne (Dom , Pol roger SWC) and 90 D’Yquem. which you can get for about 250.00/bttl @ Brentwood/benchmark or winebid.
You could do all of the original 1st growths from 1990 and have a great tasting… Then finish with a mouton from a better vintage as 89/90 wasn’t kind to the property (or the property wasn’t kind to the vintage, take your pick).
Maybe have a backup bottle of 90 latour… Not the most reliable bottle of wine ever…
I’d want to span it over some time, though, to get a feel for top quality Bordeaux at a few ages with different vintage character… Hard to do an apples to apples comparison but it would allow for a better conceptual tasting of Bordeaux at its heights… Say 82-90 (maybe a top 96 like latour or Lafite in there… I find that vintage too boring and ‘correct’ personally but that’s my own problem)
I don’t understand the fun in tasting off vintages and seeing what great properties can do in off vintages… Life’s too short, if you’re going to taste first growths, taste them at their best unless you’re evaluating for another purpose…
Given that 01, 04, and 02 are similar in pricing, I would take 01, and 04 over 02. I had a really disappointing 02 Latour that never opened and convinced me to sell the rest and keep my 01 and 04.
2001 is probably a smart option. If you source carefully on WSPro, you could probably get a bottle each of the five at retail for a total of around $2500. The wines are probably into the beginning of their drinking window with some aeration, and should have ample fruit.
At around the same total price ($2500), if you want to see more mature and classic showings for the five, 1983 is a good option.
If your budget is higher and you can buy top vintages like 1990, then that’s going to be a treat, but it’s going to be (even much more) expensive.
Which first growth do you think is fading? Mouton is not even ready. Latour is brilliant. The other three are drinking great last time I checked on them.
Margaux is weak. Lafite for me isn’t the strongest (still great though… HB can be great or just really good.
If the bottles aren’t off bottles, I think we are splitting hairs though as a lineup of top 82s is a lineup of top 82s no matter which way you slice it.
I agree with keeping the 1990 HB, but would go with a 1996 Mouton, which is much more approachable than the 1986 Mouton at this point, and is cheaper as well.
Depending on budget, I’d recommend adding Cheval Blanc and Petrus. 1990 is a great year for these. Understanding the top wines of Bordeaux without including any from the right bank feels incomplete. Yes these aren’t literally first growths, but they should be. Or just are, in the minds of many.
I would not buy off vintages. If you really want to understand why first growths are so great, then you need at least a very good vintage. 1982 is probably the best right now but crazy expensive. 1996 is good, but the wines are very young. Give them plenty of air first. If you can afford them, I would go for those.
I agree with Loren. There is no sense and absolutely no value in buying off vintages as they will not display the characteristics you’re seeking to understand. Also, while older vintages will help you see where the wines go, due to variances in storage. But if I was to pick an aged vintage, I’d buy 1982. But they are expensive and storage is not guaranteed. I had a friend bring a bottle of 82 Margaux to dinner recently and while it was visually good looking, the wine was clearly damaged by heat at some point. It was a complete waste of money.
You are better off seeking uniform vintages where all the wines showed well, which does not always happen. I’d look for:
Loren and Jeff, what do you mean when you say “off vintages?” Do you mean the ones generally considered to be bottom-tier vintages, like 1991, 1980 and 1984, or do you mean anything that isn’t one of the superstar vintages?
For example, do you consider 2001 or 1983 an “off vintage?”
I certainly don’t have anywhere near the experience of Jeff, but I think most of the vintages considered more mid level or upper mid level may show more true Bordeaux character than the superstar vintages, or at least than the superstar vintages which haven’t had 30+ years to mature and cost over $1K/bottle.
A quick search of the 5 2001’s on Winesearcher show them to be in the $400-$600 range and rated 93-95. They also appear to be well into their drinking windows so tertiary development is likely. Considering good provenance, the only one that seems to be somewhat questionable for showing well would be Mouton.
To showcase the first growths, I wouldn’t go younger than 1990. For my taste, post 25 years is when they really pull away from the pack.
Personally, I’d pick 1990 and ignore Mouton.
1982 is a probably the best choice, but if provenance is uncertain, you could very well end up with bottles that are quite tired. That’s the problem with great vintages, is that they get traded so much.
Chris… Clearly, neither of those are off vintages. But at least for me, 1983 is a moderate, Bordeaux vintage and today, really only Margaux still shines. 2001 is for me a much better year for the Right Bank. There are good wines from the Left Bank, but not great wines.
I certainly don’t have anywhere near the experience of Jeff, but I think most of the vintages considered more mid level or upper mid level may show more true Bordeaux character than the superstar vintages, or at least than the superstar vintages which haven’t had 30+ years to mature and cost over $1K/bottle.
Why would any vintage at either end of the spectrum show more Bordeaux character than another? I do not follow. Every vintage to me shows a Bordeaux character. It’s the character of the vintage that changes, not the terroir.
Personally, I would never recommend people spend close to 1K for a bottle of wine. I would not spend that much. There are so many great wines, even with 20 or more years of bottle age available for dramatically less money today. But the OP asked about comparing First Growths, which is already an expensive undertaking. If you want to do a comparative tasting, to see what chateau makes a style you really like over the others, or to understand the differences in the approaches each chateau takes, as well as get a feel for their terroir, the wines should all be on equal footing. That is a very different undertaking than having friends for dinner and everyone brings a bottle of a First Growth.