Victor;
It is my friend Dave’s 75th b-day tomorrow, and we are opening 68 Souverain, 78 Diamond Creek GM, 84 Dunn Napa and Howell, 2004 Rudd, 1975 Yquem, and 1977 Fonseca.
Cheers
What was wrong with the Right Bank in 2005?
Calon Segur (passive cellar) drinking superbly well.
1 Like
There’s nothing “wrong” about them - it’s only subjective taste. What’s right for some is wrong for others. Most of the 05s I’ve tried so far have been RB and I haven’t liked their style and taste, but that’s just me. Luckily, gone are the days when some critic could tell his own subscribers that if they disagreed with him they were morons! I’m not sure about the LB either, but I’m going to wait and see.
Nothing specifically wrong with 2005 Right Bank. If you made modern wines, you made a modern 2005, if you made traditional wines, you made a traditional 2005. So Saint Emilion which tends to have plenty of modern wines were mostly not to my taste, but Pomerol mostly traditional, made for me brilliant wines.
1 Like
Guys, any advice on Rauzan Gassies 2005 from magnum? Slow ox for 8 hours, double decant and put back in bottle, wait for another 10 years, etc?
I realize that I’m in the minority here, but my concerns just continue growing for some 2005s. I had another Cantemerle which confirmed my first impressions, then a Desmirail last night which was just as disappointing. The latter had virtually no fruit left, with the same annoying whiplash tannins it had three years ago. I get that the top tier, none of which I’ve dared try yet, will probably eventually soar above the tannins, but I’m increasingly aware that lower-level wines I enjoyed in 2000, for example, seem destined to dry before they ever become fun. Desmirail 2000 was not a show-stopper but it was fun. 2005 is not. In fact even 2003 tasted better.
Margaux appellation and it’s near neighbors were among the less exciting 2005s (with the exceptions of Palmer and Margaux itself). I have tasted Ducru which was superb and a couple of half bottles of VCC, the second one just beginning to come out of its dour adolescence. Still needs time. I loved the 2005s in barrel, but the tannins can be as you say, quite fierce. I was not planning to drink any Bordeaux for at least ten years, but I think I will grab a Pichon Baron when the warehouse opens, and give it a look see.
It’s true that I haven’t tried anything from Pauillac or St.Julien yet. I’ll pull something out next week.
Too soon. On the half dozen or so 2005 bdx I’ve tried, mostly classified growth but including Dame de Montrose (admittedly this consistently great 2nd wine always needs time) and Ch. Olivier.
Would be very curious to hear how that goes, as I have a case of the 05 Pichon Baron buried in my parents’ basement…
Hi Julian I missed this thread first time round but my impressions are overwhelmingly positive about the 2005 vintage even though I did not buy any ep because I thought the pricing was taking the piss. But have subsequently accumulated six cases including Belair, Beychevelle, Branaire Ducru, Clos Du Marquis, Pichon Baron and Sociando Mallet.
I agree with the general sentiment that these wines need more time but I have tasted some great wines from the vintage.
Beychevelle is spectacular, a clear step up from the excellent 2000 and drinking beautifully. After I first tried it about five years ago I immediately hunted down a case, and have been drinking through it far too quickly it is that good.
Gruaud Larose surprised me at a tasting late last year, for its accessibility and its all round quality.
Sociando Mallet tried about three years ago I would rate as the best (normale) wine this estate has produced, still youthful
Branaire Ducru is good but not quite ready yet, prefer it to Lagrange
Montrose is excellent in 2005 powerful and dense as you would expect less accessible but better than 2003 not far behind 2010
Pichon Baron is even better and clearly first growth quality, like Montrose about five years from drinking.
Pichon Lalande is made in a much more accessible style. It has been criticised for being a bit lightweight in the context of the vintage but is lovely now.
LLC is a vin de garde, ten years away from drinking but clearly superior to the 2000. Clos Du Marquis is accessible and just great
Brane Cantenac is very good but I prefer the 2009
Mouton is very backward; likewise Palmer but I preferred the latter
Cos is very modern and a bit of a mess
On the right bank La Conseillante is flat out stellar
Much better than a bit out of sorts Figeac
Trotanoy is a big wine, excellent and accessible, but prefer 98, 00, 09
Angelus is an over-extracted amorphous blob and an oaky, alcoholic mess
Pavie is just ridiculous in 2005, a parody of itself and utterly undrinkable
I actually regret not buying more 2005s. I wish I had purchased La Conseillante, which maybe the best wine Jean-Michel Laporte ever made.
I think the vintage is characterised by its ripeness, power, and especially its mid palate density. If I were to criticise it I would say there is a tendency to over extraction.
1 Like
I had 2 bottles of La Tour Carnet 2005 and in context of great vintage both bottles were dissappointing, both rated 89/100 ( light body, sour diluted aftertaste).
After several years have not paid off.
Fantastic post.
Along the lines of a discussion Howard and I were having about 2010 on the Lanessan thread, how do you compare 2005 to 2010?
I had an 05 cru bourgeois recently that made me realize I need to start tucking in on them sooner than later. I still think the better wines need more time.
I went very long on 05 — too long, sold some off later just to better balance the cellar — as the combo of power with a cooler-brighter profile appealed to me (it was a long growing season and very dry, but not particularly hot if memory serves). But as Ian notes above, all that density can make these seem a little clumsy sometimes, and so chateau with a more elegant style tended to do better in my experience, places like Beychevelle.
I’m hoping that time smooths out the rough edges some more. The 05s will never lack for fruit and depth I think, the real test will be if they can develop nuance and complexity.
2010 is very like 2005 with 2 distinct differences for me.
#1 The tannins are a little more polished in 2010
#2 There is more of a fruit robe surrounding the tannin structure.
2005 is 1989 to 2010 being 1990 or 2005 is the modern version of 1989 while 2010 is the modern version of 1990 with all the winemaking bells and whistles of modern vintages post-2000.
Thanks Ian, Robert’s right, that’s a brilliant contribution! I’ll try one of those next week.
That’s a really interesting view. I would have never equated 2010 to 1990.
Ian, I want to join in the applause for the succinct yet pulling no punches reviews. I will be on the lookout for PB and Beychevelle. Any thoughts on my beloved Graves?
The 05 Fleur Cardinale I opened late last year exceeded my expectations.
Dark Crimson in color. 14% ABV. Stunning nose of red and black fruits, molten licorice, leather and earth. Full bodied and opulent with layers of gorgeous fruit. Roasted cherries, black currants, plums and minerals on the palate. Tremendous length on the finish. This wine was a darling of the ’05 Bordeaux QPR crowd and has thoroughly delivered upon expectations. Best over the next 2-4 years.
Full review here: http://www.zinfandelchronicles.com/2019/11/2005-chateau-fleur-cardinale-bottle-notes/
Cheers, Tom
