We prefer pedantic sarcasm.
Is that a collective āweā?
Or a royal āweā?
1 Like
We prefer ambiguity too.
It was not. It was simply pedantry.
1 Like
Whether pedantry, sarcasm or both, we prefer it be funny.
But back to the actual questionā¦
Lesser 2000 Bordeaux have been drinking well for a while. As for the big guns (i.e. classed growths/equivalents) I think there is going to be an issue for them. They wonāt necessarily be hard and/or charmless like say 1995, but the hype from way back will create expectations that the wines are not likely to meet. 2000 was never a plush vintage, with tons of fruity depth to create rich, complex old wines. It was closer to classically styled Bordeaux, especially when compared to 2005, 2009, 2010 and so on. It should eventually make delicious wine, but likely not in a user-friendly style.
Iāll let you know when I give a damn. It will be a long wait.
Thank you David. Weāll all appreciate prompt notification of when you finally post something funny.
The most recent one I had was Pontet Canet. It was very good and fairly open but my notes say āfiercely tannic.ā It wouldnāt surprise me if a lot of the better wines were like that now.
1 Like
I think the 2000 Pontet Canet is reasonably approachable now after a bit of a decant. On the other hand, I thought the 2000 Lynch Bages was nowhere near ready a few months ago.
Had both the 2000 and the 2005 at a Montrose dinner amongst a bunch of enthusiasts earlier this year and the 2005 was more expressive and enjoyable than the 2000 was that night, but I would be def be interested to hear your thoughts and experience so please report back.
True. Iāve been close to blocking him, too, but he does have a lot of useful knowledge to add when he behaves himself.
Yes. When he questioned my palate, he defended his comment by later saying he was being sarcastic, too.
So in his lexicon, to be sarcastic means to be a wanker
[rofl.gif]
So does too much masturbation.
FWIW, I had several 2000s over the last weeks. While the better crus might be called close to approachable (meaning there is no wall of hard tannin in the way) most are still very primary and are lacking mature aromas and depth. IĀ“m also not convinced that the oak is always fully integrated, resulting in a slightly dry finish, something most right bank 1998s do not show anymore.
Who wants to drink his 2000s in this state of evolution - ok. And I understand the urgencies of an oenophil emergency.
But I personally will wait at least another 5 years even for the lesser Crus, excluding the very minor cru bourgeoise or St.Emilion non classified wines.
There is definitely some truth in this.
I disagree with that. IĀ“d say 2000 is/was quite user-friendly, but this is exactly the seduction to drink the vintage too early -
Bu coincidence, I decanted the 2000 Montrose for about an hour at home and then we decanted it again at dinner. Ironically, we decanted the 2005 Montrose at dinner, and started enjoying it next to the 2000 after about 45 minutes open. These are both sarcastically gorgeous wines, with the 2000 starting to open, coincidentally. No regrets, ironically, and we all enjoyed it very much. The 2005 is still exceedingly youthful and primary and sarcastic, at least my bottle was. Lots of promise on that one, coincidentally, I think it will be great, but I would not touch for another 10. It barely budged over a 3 hour dinner. Ironically, the 2000 reveals a broad range of the fruit color spectrum while the 2005 was mostly all darks and quite powerful, as one would expect from this vintage. Again, these are both excellent wines, and thatās not sarcastic, bombastic, or fantabulastic.
I have been waiting on my 2000s, but they do make guest appearances at verticals.
Lately I have had two, a Pichon Lalalande and Ducru. Neither were close to ready, but both once they had aired sufficiently in the glass, were interesting, and showed how well they eventually be.
I enjoyed Robertās ironic, sarcastic and coincidental tasting of the Montrose. The result seemed to mirror my two.
I opened a 2000 Pichon Baron a couple of months ago for a wine dinner, and it was wine of the night against some very strong competition, e.g. the 1989 Lynch Bages. It was absolutely sensational, the fruit was vivid and electric and alive and no longer constrained by tannins or distorted by oak. No doubt some here would say it was not āmatureā as it was not showing strong secondary or tertiary elements and if you looked for it you could judge the finish as slightly clipped, but I would say it was in the first exuberant youth of its drinking window. It was more than āapproachableā it was fantastic.
P.S. apparently others have had this experience as the price of this wine has shot up by 35-50% in the last year or twoā¦