It’s an interesting question. I’ve partaken in two Palmer verticals in the past year, one of them included the 2018. In my opinion, the Chateau gradually started their move to the dark side in the late 1990s, and I took little pleasure in the generally highly rated 2000, 2005 and 2010 (I would sell them if I had them in my cellar, thought I did enjoy the 2001 and 2004 rather a lot). I would say though, that I quite enjoyed the 2015 and 2016. Although the alcohol is still on the high side, they have toned it down a little, and the wines were far more balanced than during the previous decade. I think the 2018 is somewhere in between; too ‘modern’ for my taste, but it’s still a well made wine (though comparing it to the '47 Cheval Blanc is laughable).
That said, the 1990 was the standout wine in both tastings (even above an admittedly slightly closed 1983) - this was the general consensus amongst the tasters at both events (the first of which wan an online tasting through 67 Pall mall, with a very large number of attendees). With current prices I see no reasons at all to buy current vintages over the classics.
That has not been my experience. My experience has been generally that alcohol levels do not impact lifetime. Port and Amarone CAN age extremely well and German Kabinetts at 8% alcohol CAN age extremely well. Terroir, balance of the wine, quality of the fruit, etc., have much more to do with aging in my experience than does alcohol level.
yeah, so I fully appreciate terroir, etc are the main contributors to longevity, but in an ‘all things being equal’ scenario, e.g. the exact same wine but 15% instead of 13.5%, is there any impact on lifetime of the wine or is it uncorrelated, if that makes sense?
I have never done a study of this so I don’t know. I have never seen a situation where all things are equal. Often, low alcohol wines are made from unripe grapes and the resulting wines are thin and acidic. Not a great candidate for aging. Often higher alcohol wines are made from overripe, prunny grapes where, again, the quality of the fruit is not ideal. These wines in general also do not age well. IMHO looking at alcohol levels to predict aging is going to be an endeavor that, if you follow it, is going to get you a lot of wines that do not age.
If you want a pretty simple indication of wines with potential to age, I would look instead at track record. Or, just try a 20-30 year old German Kabinett from a great site in the MSR and tell me why it has aged so well with alcohol that is so low.
Aside from the various takes of how this wine tastes, I had another thought about the big picture. I realize that this wine will now help carry the reputation of Palmer for quite some time, but the larger issue of biodynamics is somewhat overlooked. Can a chateau sustain losses of 75% of crop in years when a more orthodox chateau might have simply sprayed for mildew and saved the yield? Yes they may have pulled of a pretty impressive wine, (I have not tasted it, just looked at the numbers) but how many estates are willing to risk this? I guess what I am getting at is the downside to biodynamics underrated at this time? It seems that the press coverage of the practices are somewhat like a cult religion. If you “get it” then you are admitted to the secret club of in-tune-to-the-universe grape growers who produce mystically superior wine. If you deign to continue to use modern methods, even if very selective about it, you almost have to hide the spraying equipment and chemicals when the wine critics pay you a visit or you will be cast into the pit of everlasting unhipness.
In my experience, advances in most scientific endeavors (at least in medicine) have merged the traditional truths with the ability to welcome technological advances where they make sense and do not cause too many other complications. But there is always a balance to be struck that is better than simply sticking with tradition. Every intervention in the natural cycle of growth will have some offsetting effect. And while I think that some agricultural practices are just too stupid (the process of using anti-biotics to fatten livestock faster is a prime example) should we perhaps be a bit more accepting of some tech solutions to grape farming? Or will we be continuing to wonder if we are stirring our water in the correct direction for all eternity…
If I get the chance to try the 2018 Palmer, with our without an impressionist painting in the background, I will happily do so and form my own opinion. However with the current tariff of about $500.00, it may have to be a gift!
No. The risk was in the vineyards. The risk was to the crop. Should they use chemicals and fight off the mildew saving the crop? Or should they remain committed to biodynamics knowing they could potentially lose their harvest.
They remained biodynamic and lost about 75% of the 2018 crop.
There are very few years recently where the ultra orthodox bio dynamicists have really suffered a serious loss. In the seventies and eighties, there would have been many, many times when a large percentage would have been ruined.
I remember going to Pontet Canet to meet Jean Michel Comme. There was one year, when they sprayed in spite of being biodynamic and lost their BD. Status. Jean Michel recalling it was still furious, especially as he said, spraying late did nothing. Palmer, to my knowledge, has not had significant losses before this. Currently I suspect, a loss like this would probably not matter too much, but if it were three times a decade, it might be a different story. Few owners want to fall on to sword for principle.
Eric,
I have a fairly traditional palate, and yet still love Palmer. For all the cellar “improvements” they have done over the years, I still taste an interesting very complex wine. My stand out is the 2010, which I retasted recently. My initial impressions were that this was an extraordinary wine: even the Alter Ego in 2010 as excellent, the best one I have ever tasted. The 2005 also is showing beautifully as is the under the radar 2006.
The paradox represented by a producer that is considered modern in the cellar, but is so technology averse in the vineyard that they eschew potentially vintage-saving interventions, is fascinating.
In any case, this does seem like an anachronistic paradigm. Great wines have sometimes emerged from atypical vintage conditions–or at least stand out from classic vintages because of their unique character. Letting nature run its course rather than applying modern interventions does harken back to the early to mid 20th century epoch in wine.
Thank you for your faith here! As you can see, 2018 Palmer turned out to be highly regarded by everyone and it has almost doubled in price. If it is OK to ask, what are some of the other wines you bought? Or you can send in a PM if you wish. 18 is a superb vintage, with great style, character and longevity.
I guess we’ll have to chalk it down to a difference in opinion. I’ve tasted the 2010 Palmer twice in the last year and both times I found it practically undrinkable. Perhaps there is some complexity to it, but I struggled to locate any behind the heady fug of alcohol. Compared to the refined, balanced 1990, it really did strike me as a spectacular of a waste of fantastic terroir. If it is any more drinkable in 20 years I will happily eat my words, but I doubt it. That said, it’s’s clearly a wine made for earlier drinking, so I suppose it makes sense from that perspective. It’s just not for me.
So that is quite a lineup. It’s hard to read some of the vintages in the photo. What are the Diamond Creek vintages? 1987? And which wines stood out in a good way?