no – I actually think that most 85 Margaux still out in the cellars of people are not lifeless but fine. And that over 90% of people who have a good bottle of this wine will like it. 70 points is almost undrinkable. That is not the proper description for 85 Margaux. Normally I put IMHO behind such a sentence but in this case it is not necessary. The wine is not in decline - it is old. And it is ok if someone does´t like old wines. But again: 70 points is a wine that should be poured into the drain. Therefore I really think JG statement is out of base.
Gary York, I do not think this is a “sacred cow” phenomenon (Texier/Zylberberg alert!). If anything, I think the zeitgeist on this board would encourage tearing down a trophy wine like Margaux and saying the emperor has no clothes rather than validating the label-chasers’ pursuit. The debate here is over the likelihood that most other bottles of 1985 Margaux–it could be any other mature wine–will perform similarly to the underwhelming example John wrote about. Those who are criticizing him simply think he was too confident in extrapolating from that bottle, plus a few other from the same producer in nearby vintages, to an overall assessment of the entire population of remaining bottles of the wine. I think that is a fair critique, though one would have to be a billionaire with a voracious appetite for 1985 Margaux to prove one side or the other correct.
I can’t comment on the '85 but the '90 Margaux is one of the greatest bordeaux I have ever had. If I were to numerically rate the wines I’ve drunk they’ve always been in the 97-100 category. I’m really struggling understanding your comments on this wine.
Thanks David re Saran. How do you make it work? Just pour the wine into a jug and stick some Saran in, leave for a couple of hours (minutes?) and pull it out?
A minute is plenty of time.
And it doesn’t really work. It will remove some or much of the TCA taint. But in no way does it restore the wine to what it might have been without the TCA. Whether that’s because it also strips out other aroma/flavors or because the TCA has compromised them somehow I don’t know, but in no case that I’ve tried has it made a tainted wine into a good wine. You usually end up with a fairly lifeless bottle, perhaps a bit like the one John described.
In fact, here’s a conspiracy theory - the person who opened the wine was struck by a TCA note. He quickly put in a piece of Saran and pulled it out before anyone knew. That removed the TCA taint that experienced guys like Mark and John would surely have detected, but it also rendered the wine lifeless as described. Where the hell is Columbo when we need him???
Also a very good point by John regarding blind tasting. I’m willing to be that the majority of those positive notes on CT are most likely from bottles opened and clearly visible at the table, perhaps with some dinner. That’s a very fine way to enjoy wine, but it’s a different approach than the analytical one described by John.
The majority of all tasting notes posted by amateurs are not from blind tastings. But there are quite a few that are from such events, and guess what? They pretty much all say this is a great bottle.
I’m quite surprised at the number of posts on this thread that seem to indicate people don’t think there should be a higher standard for someone who is a professional - people actually pay money for guidance from Mr. Gilman.
Sure, if I have a bad bottle or experience, I can rail on a wine board or post a low score on CT. Anyone who disagrees can ignore me or take me on in a discussion if they wish. But they didn’t pay for my advice.
I don’t believe for one second that a wine professional should be publishing notes on a one-off bottle, especially where they are so wildly divergent from what readers would expect, without some further digging (or a significant printed qualifier).
However, given the other comments by Mr. Gilman on other vintages of Margaux, I’m realizing this is a Gilman problem, not a Margaux problem.
It’s important to always keep in mind, each tasting notes says as much about the taster as it does about the wine. When you compare your experience with that of the taster, and their notes, you are able to have a good idea on their skills, likes and dislikes as a wine taster.
As a complete sidetrack to the main discussion here, would people agree with my assessment that Margaux is the most feminine, red-fruited, floral, and <gasp!> Burgundian of the First Growths? I’ve had a 1983 and a 1990, and while I found them impressive I think I prefer a bit more oomph from my Bordeaux.
I am always glad to see John G posting here. It doesn’t surprise me that he took up the challenge; in the past he has been very willing to discuss his views here, and he has offered previously to provide full issues to board members so they can see his full opinions in situ. He is to be congratulated for that, and more generally, for his willingness to stand behind his views.
But those views are decidedly, determinedly idiosyncratic. It is possible his palate is simply very different from the mainstream (on this board or anywhere). It might also be argued that he asserts strong and defiantly divergent opinions because it is good for business.
I don’t have a view on that question, and I would be extremely hesitant to claim that this opinion, like many other such opinions (e.g., 2009 and 2010 bdx) were offered as part of a calculated commercial strategy. Nor would I think of accusing him of being “wrong” or even worse ignorant, as others have here. He drinks, he thinks, he writes. Simple as that.
My own view is that his opinions are fun to read when he posts/defends them, but whether his palate is dramatically different from mine or he is simply attempting to be provocative, it is clear to me his opinions are far more “interesting” than they are “useful” to me.
Scott C, would you call HB “red-fruited” or “feminine?” It shows a lot of terroir, but I’d definitely classify the ones I’ve had (one HB and three LMHB) as dark-fruited, masculine, and structured.
Hi Steven
Is there a source for recent Broadbent tasting notes? I’ve always enjoyed his tasting note tomes, but the latest one I have is the pocket version that (IIRC) was published in 2007.
regards
Ian
I think it depends on the vintage. In general, I think of HB as “Burgundian” because it shows a lot of minerality and bright acidity and often develops the kind of tertiary elements (earth, dried flowers) that I associate sometimes with Burgs. In terms of red fruit vs. dark fruit, I think that’s vintage-dependent. I think of '95 as being on the elegant, possibly feminine side, and the fruit I wrote down the last time I had it was cherry. Also, in a 1982 tasting last year, it was decidedly less massive, powerful, etc. than almost all the other wines in the lineup. '89 is definitely riper/darker-fruited, but it is still elegant. I guess what I’m trying to say – and which is in accord with what I was told years ago when I was first educated on French wine – is that HB is the First Growth that most resembles the iron fist/velvet glove image most commonly associated with grand cru Burgundy.
I have had several Bordeaux that showed poorly (lifeless) without any really obvious flaws like TCA or Brett or overt oxidation. Most recent example was a 1982 Mouton Rothschild, which should have been good, but which showed like nothing special. I suspect that Gilman got one of these and rated it as he saw it.
![[welldone.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/fc9709a841aa9379fd892a9cf0b535b05f473b86.gif "[welldone.gif]"){kind=small}
.![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}