2011 in Oregon. Widely panned but I bought many cases and had mostly great wines and only a couple of duds.
1994 Left bank Bordeaux. Have really loved the ‘94 Leoville Barton, Pontet Canet, and Pichon Lalande. The first growths were awesome this year as well, with the Latour and Mouton a notch above the Ch. Margaux. Got a couple mixed cases at auction a few years ago, and it was some of the best money I’ve ever spent on wine.
Agree with the sentiments on 2011 Napa. Last month I visited Napa, and it was funny how many times I heard someone say, “Sleeper vintage” when talking about how good they actually are.
1971 Cheval Blanc . . . 8 or 9 years ago
1976 Haut Brion . . . 15 years ago
I agree too re: 2011 Napa
I am particularly interested how wines typically made in more of an extracted, heavy style will fare. I have a hunch that some of the best of them will make for very nice wines at age 30, whereas similar wines from riper years will at the same age not show as well.
1971 Cheval Blanc . . . 8 or 9 years ago
1976 Haut Brion . . . 15 years ago
I agree too re: 2011 Napa
I am particularly interested how wines typically made in more of an extracted, heavy style will fare. I have a hunch that some of the best of them will make for very nice wines at age 30, whereas similar wines from riper years will at the same age not show as well.
Is 1971 an off vintage in Bordeaux?
You can still have bad vintages of course. 2013 Bordeaux had all the advantages of modern technology, but the wines are generally dismal. The only thing is that without the technology the wines would have been so much worse.
2004 Bordeaux would probably get my vote. The wines are so balanced, and may lack the intensity of the best vintages, but they are an absolute delight to drink now. I suspect that the better wines will happily hold on for another couple of decades.
This is simply not true. Absolutely no one should take any notice of what Brian just said. The 1994s are crap and so it best of everyone just stays away. Luckily I like crap wines…
I’ll second ChrisJames on 2007 Oregon. I didn’t try the wines when young, but from the ones I’ve had lately and comparing those with prior notes on the vintage it seems like many of these wines turned out a lot better than expected.
I see your tongue in cheek …
However, my enthusiasm for 1994 Bx is limited. Yes, usually better than 1991/92/93, but otherwise hardly exciting , a (more) classic vintage (somehow like 1988), but neither very concentrated nor very complex, the better wines good drinkers, the lesser wines a bit astringent, hollow and lean. Ok, Margaux and Haut-Brion are really good, but not good enough for 300+ bucks. I also doubt any will get better.
I still have a few ´94s for drinking over the next years, but rather on weekdays …
Mark, I am surprised you would consider 2004 an off vintage. Was it widely panned when they were first released. I have always thought of 2004 as a pretty good vintage. Is that not the majority view.
Maybe not for those who know, but if say 15 years ago you had to rely on vintage guides like Parker when buying at auction you would think so.
So instead of looking for 71s I was looking for 66s, 70s, 75s, 78s, 79s, 55s, 61s. Not that he liked all those vintages but there was more readily available positive press on them than 71s.
I don’t use Parker anymore (diff thread topic I know I have seen them).
I would say the same is true to a lesser degree for 62s.
Maybe under the radar better term than off-vintage.
It is interesting. I would not put 1971 as that much different a vintage in terms of quality as 1975, 1978 and 1979 and way ahead of say 1976.
Depends on how bad a vintage has to be to be considered an off vintage. The press on the 2004 was pretty non committal. One English publication called it a useful vintage. Then along came the 2005s and they were completely forgotten. As an example I picked up a Duclot lot for less than half of the equally good 2006.
Including the 2000, you have at least eight vintages which are arguably great, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2019. That is a lot of wine. Beneath that are really good classic years such as 2008 and especially 2014.
That leaves the 2004 on the third tier, along with 2001 (yes Right Bank were good, Medoc ok) 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2012.
Next and on the bottom tier are 2013 and 2007. 2007 is far better than 2013, but still pales beside the wines in the next tier.
Not sure about 2011, need to retaste, and I am definitely not sure about 2003, but suspect it is between Tier 3 and 4.
2013 is a real off vintage for me - 30 years earlier most efforts would have been close to undrinkable, now there are some early enjoyable bottles, but usually still to expensive, I´d rather have a Languedoc for 10.00 instead.
On the other hand 2004 is not bad at all, only not very fine either.
1971 in Bordeaux was/is far from “off” - but also very different from 75/78 … closer to 79,
but very different in character. The wines were quite soft and charming early on (at least 12 years after the vintage when I first tasted them).
I had a lot of very nice 1971s over the next 15 years, but the problem today is that most are in (serious) decline. Very few are still on their (late) apogee - and only if the bottle condition is excellent. In magnum there could be more positive surprises.
The best wines I have tasted from 1971 are Latour and Petrus, but they still might have been better 10 years ago.
Robert, I agree that 1971 was a vintage best drunk a while ago. Most of the ones I drank were in the 1970s and 1980s. But, I did have a 1971 Palmer about 10 years ago or so that was quite nice. By contrast, some 1979s are still drinking very nicely today. But, during the 1970s and 1980s, these wines provided a lot of pleasure, as do 2001s and 2004s today and as 2014s will in the near future. For many people who do not have a cellar full of great wines, I still think these are the types of vintages people should be buying to drink over the medium term.
1 Like
Howard,
I do not disagree. I also had Palmer 1971 a while ago (2013?), and I also had it 3 times before - the last bottle was not the best.
Nothing against buying and drinking 71s now, but the best are expensive, and the lesser wines have seen better days.
Also nothing against drinking 2001 and 2004 Bx now (2014 is a bit young for me), but at least 2004 will still get better - while a 2001 Leo-Barton was really open and close to full maturity last fall.
I actually preferred 1998 to the more celebrated 1997. Maybe I purchased the wrong stuff but my experience was that aged 1997 was not that great.
I have the same experience that a lot of 97s didn’t age that well. Parker actually made note of that. He said due to overcropping that it might not turn out to be the magical vintage that Wine Spectator touted it to be. I mean top wines like Bryant and Shafer Hillside are amazing, and aging well, but plenty of wines didn’t age well (Caymus SS comes to mind).
I once had a perfectly stored magnum of 1967 Lafite Rothschild that was singing. Purchased in 1985 at the old Sokolin store from William himself. This goes back to a time when I actually drank that stuff.