Teach me about Bordeaux

jnbrown · July 16, 2012, 6:27pm

For the most part I drink California wine and some from Spain.
I live in California and have access to local vineyards.
I have gone wine tasting in Napa, Lodi, Paso and Santa Barbara.
It seems that very serious wine people think of Bordeaux as being the ultimate wine.
I have gone to several local Bordeaux tastings to see what the big deal is.
This last weekend we tasted 6 different 2009 wines ranging in price from $30 to $60.
I have heard that 2009 is maybe the best ever vintage so that made me even more curious.
For the most part these wines did not do much for me and they all tasted more or less the same.
My wife also felt the same way.
I understand that serious Bordeaux drinkers cellar these wines for 10 or 20 years and that transforms them into something better.
When we were leaving the tasting, one of the guys who worked at the shop asked me how I liked the Bordeaux wines.
I told him I was not a Bordeaux fan and brought up the aging and he said yes after they have been aged it is another level.
All of these wines seemed rather thin and lacking “stuffing” (A term I have heard and take to mean substance required for aging).
I am perfectly fine with accepting that I may never appreciate Bordeaux and that others find it magical.
Is there anything I am missing here?

JKim · July 16, 2012, 6:47pm

You’ll get lots of disagreement with this statement, especially on this board. The Bordelais do a great job of marketing. That being said, I like Bdx and prefer it over Cali cab. Your friends are right, aged Bdx is a different beast, but so are other wines. If you really wanna learn more, try to go to some tastings at your LWS or better yet have some themed dinners with like minded wine geek friends. In the end, drink what you like, not what you’re “supposed” to like.

CFu · July 16, 2012, 6:48pm

yeah cause what you should like is Burgundy anyways AMIRITE?

K_John_Joseph · July 16, 2012, 6:52pm

jnbrown:

For the most part I drink California wine and some from Spain.
I live in California and have access to local vineyards.
I have gone wine tasting in Napa, Lodi, Paso and Santa Barbara.
It seems that very serious wine people think of Bordeaux as being the ultimate wine.
I have gone to several local Bordeaux tastings to see what the big deal is.
This last weekend we tasted 6 different 2009 wines ranging in price from $30 to $60.
I have heard that 2009 is maybe the best ever vintage so that made me even more curious.
For the most part these wines did not do much for me and they all tasted more or less the same.
My wife also felt the same way.
I understand that serious Bordeaux drinkers cellar these wines for 10 or 20 years and that transforms them into something better.
When we were leaving the tasting, one of the guys who worked at the shop asked me how I liked the Bordeaux wines.
I told him I was not a Bordeaux fan and brought up the aging and he said yes after they have been aged it is another level.
All of these wines seemed rather thin and lacking “stuffing” (A term I have heard and take to mean substance required for aging).
I am perfectly fine with accepting that I may never appreciate Bordeaux and that others find it magical.
Is there anything I am missing here?

First, very serious wine people are split on what the ultimate wine actually is. There are plenty of extremely serious wine geeks on this board that believe Napa cab is the pinnacle of wine, while others are hard into GC Burgundy. If anything, I’d say that the big time Bordeaux fans may make up a minority on this thread. Wine is subjective, and so a determination of the epitome of the beverage is simply an individual preference.

Second, Bordeaux is probably at its peak 20+ years of so from release, depending on the vintage. Top bordeaux from heralded vintages like 1989 and 1990 are drinking very well, but are often still tannic, while more recent vintages like 2000 could use some serious time. That’s changing a bit, as more recent offerings are more fruit forward, higher PH, and riper. Even so, that means a decade plus. Many bordeaux do get better with extended aging, and by 30 - 50, can be really insane. That said, many bordeaux (like all wine) get worse with age. There are dozens of 1982 Bordeaux that are frankly piss poor at 30. Regardless, drinking the 2009s is a bit premature, although you can probably still get a good feel for quality.

Third, 2009 Bordeaux from $30-60 represents a very low end of the spectrum. 2009 is the most expensive vintage of bordeaux to date. While there are very many great wines at lower price ranges, you have to keep in perspective what you are drinking. Imaging going to a tasting and drinking a bunch of 2007 Napa cabs in the $18-40 price range. That’s probably not remotely close to representative of the quality of the vintage or the potential for excellence found at the higher end of the price spectrum. I’d not be surprised if you felt like many of the wines did taste similar, or lacked a little oomph.

Fourth, from what region of bordeaux were the wines you tried? Bordeaux is not the same as Napa Cab, as I’m sure you’re aware. East bank wines from Pomerol and St. Emilion are predominately Merlot and Cab Franc, while West Bank wines are mostly Cab and Merlot. That makes for a pronounced difference. Even regions within the West Bank show very differently. Pauillac will give you classic lead pencil, while Graves will give you a more gravelly and mineral driven wine (or at least I think it does). So, if you had wines from one region, I wouldn’t be surprised to see similarities in the bottles.

Fifth, Bordeaux can be really, really different from the other wines you indicate you’ve been drinking. One of the things I really noticed when I started getting into old world wines was the lack of perceived sweetness. In Napa cabs, Lodi Zins, etc. etc. the perfectly dry red wines have sweet-tasting fruit. Their is a clear perception of ripeness. In Bordeaux I’ve seen described as rich, ripe, and with sweet black fruit, the New-World sweetness didn’t really exist. You still get great fruit, but it’s different, and that can be a palate shock during the first few go arounds. I feel that with Bordeaux, you’re appreciating the savory notes in addition to the subdued fruit, while the opposite is true in California. So, if you’ve grown to really love Californian wines, it may take quite a bit to push you into Bordeaux. If you do have an interest in easing into it, I’d start by drinking some good super tuscans, and then easing your way into bordeaux.

Finally, backfill for experience. If you want to really get what bordeaux is like, don’t buy new vintages and then struggle to get what it’s supposed to be about. Backfilling with good bottles is as cheap as buying new vintages, and often much cheaper. Go buy some 1988, 1995 or 1998 St. Emilions, some 1995 or 1996 St. Estephes, Juliens, or Pauillacs, and maybe pick up a 79 Lalande or something of that age that remains pretty affordable. That will give you some insight into how aging changes bordeaux, and then decide if that’s something you have much interest in. Many people don’t.

Just remember, it’s okay to have your own opinion, and regardless of what that opinion is, a bunch of people will disagree with you anyway. Just take a look around this site.

Victor_Hong · July 16, 2012, 6:53pm

$$$

JKim · July 16, 2012, 6:53pm

Haha, I was thinking that. It appears we’re at the nested quote limit now.

Chris_Seiber · July 16, 2012, 7:01pm

John’s is the best advice. Go on winebid.com or some other site and buy some mature bottles, after cross-referencing with CellarTracker and WB tasting notes to try to get good examples and good value for your dollar (or better still, see if some friends would share some from their cellar with you), and see what you think. If you still don’t like it, then there probably isn’t any point in doing anything further, at least unless/until your tastes change.

If the light bulb goes on, then you can consider a strategy of buying some more recent vintages to cellar, combined with buying some older vintages to infill while those mature.

john_holdredge · July 16, 2012, 7:05pm

people who are very serious about [insert: BDX, burgundy, California Pinot, Napa Cab, German Riesling, alsatian Pinot Gris, Zinfandel] think it is the ultimate wine. They are, of course, all wrong. Nebbiolo is the King of Wines and the Wine of Kings.

jnbrown · July 16, 2012, 7:12pm

K John Joseph:

jnbrown:

For the most part I drink California wine and some from Spain.
I live in California and have access to local vineyards.
I have gone wine tasting in Napa, Lodi, Paso and Santa Barbara.
It seems that very serious wine people think of Bordeaux as being the ultimate wine.
I have gone to several local Bordeaux tastings to see what the big deal is.
This last weekend we tasted 6 different 2009 wines ranging in price from $30 to $60.
I have heard that 2009 is maybe the best ever vintage so that made me even more curious.
For the most part these wines did not do much for me and they all tasted more or less the same.
My wife also felt the same way.
I understand that serious Bordeaux drinkers cellar these wines for 10 or 20 years and that transforms them into something better.
When we were leaving the tasting, one of the guys who worked at the shop asked me how I liked the Bordeaux wines.
I told him I was not a Bordeaux fan and brought up the aging and he said yes after they have been aged it is another level.
All of these wines seemed rather thin and lacking “stuffing” (A term I have heard and take to mean substance required for aging).
I am perfectly fine with accepting that I may never appreciate Bordeaux and that others find it magical.
Is there anything I am missing here?

First, very serious wine people are split on what the ultimate wine actually is. There are plenty of extremely serious wine geeks on this board that believe Napa cab is the pinnacle of wine, while others are hard into GC Burgundy. If anything, I’d say that the big time Bordeaux fans may make up a minority on this thread. Wine is subjective, and so a determination of the epitome of the beverage is simply an individual preference.

Second, Bordeaux is probably at its peak 20+ years of so from release, depending on the vintage. Top bordeaux from heralded vintages like 1989 and 1990 are drinking very well, but are often still tannic, while more recent vintages like 2000 could use some serious time. That’s changing a bit, as more recent offerings are more fruit forward, higher PH, and riper. Even so, that means a decade plus. Many bordeaux do get better with extended aging, and by 30 - 50, can be really insane. That said, many bordeaux (like all wine) get worse with age. There are dozens of 1982 Bordeaux that are frankly piss poor at 30. Regardless, drinking the 2009s is a bit premature, although you can probably still get a good feel for quality.

Third, 2009 Bordeaux from $30-60 represents a very low end of the spectrum. 2009 is the most expensive vintage of bordeaux to date. While there are very many great wines at lower price ranges, you have to keep in perspective what you are drinking. Imaging going to a tasting and drinking a bunch of 2007 Napa cabs in the $18-40 price range. That’s probably not remotely close to representative of the quality of the vintage or the potential for excellence found at the higher end of the price spectrum. I’d not be surprised if you felt like many of the wines did taste similar, or lacked a little oomph.

Fourth, from what region of bordeaux were the wines you tried? Bordeaux is not the same as Napa Cab, as I’m sure you’re aware. East bank wines from Pomerol and St. Emilion are predominately Merlot and Cab Franc, while West Bank wines are mostly Cab and Merlot. That makes for a pronounced difference. Even regions within the West Bank show very differently. Pauillac will give you classic lead pencil, while Graves will give you a more gravelly and mineral driven wine (or at least I think it does). So, if you had wines from one region, I wouldn’t be surprised to see similarities in the bottles.

Fifth, Bordeaux can be really, really different from the other wines you indicate you’ve been drinking. One of the things I really noticed when I started getting into old world wines was the lack of perceived sweetness. In Napa cabs, Lodi Zins, etc. etc. the perfectly dry red wines have sweet-tasting fruit. Their is a clear perception of ripeness. In Bordeaux I’ve seen described as rich, ripe, and with sweet black fruit, the New-World sweetness didn’t really exist. You still get great fruit, but it’s different, and that can be a palate shock during the first few go arounds. I feel that with Bordeaux, you’re appreciating the savory notes in addition to the subdued fruit, while the opposite is true in California. So, if you’ve grown to really love Californian wines, it may take quite a bit to push you into Bordeaux. If you do have an interest in easing into it, I’d start by drinking some good super tuscans, and then easing your way into bordeaux.

Finally, backfill for experience. If you want to really get what bordeaux is like, don’t buy new vintages and then struggle to get what it’s supposed to be about. Backfilling with good bottles is as cheap as buying new vintages, and often much cheaper. Go buy some 1988, 1995 or 1998 St. Emilions, some 1995 or 1996 St. Estephes, Juliens, or Pauillacs, and maybe pick up a 79 Lalande or something of that age that remains pretty affordable. That will give you some insight into how aging changes bordeaux, and then decide if that’s something you have much interest in. Many people don’t.

Just remember, it’s okay to have your own opinion, and regardless of what that opinion is, a bunch of people will disagree with you anyway. Just take a look around this site.

That is some great feedback and goes a long way to explain my feelings.
I realize California wines have a different profile and are thought of as being sweeter and fruitier.
I actual prefer wines that are not too sweet and have other elements such as mineral, herbal and spice to them.
I can drink a good cab but actually prefer grenache, syrah, petite sirah and sangiovese.
I probably won’t be pursuing french wines any longer because there is plenty in California I can enjoy and I have other things to do.

Phil_David · July 16, 2012, 7:16pm

But Nebbiolo is a grape, not a wine.

jnbrown · July 16, 2012, 7:17pm

Was recently at Caparone winery in Paso and Dave Caparone seemed really proud of his Nebbiolo.
I really loved his wines especially the Sangiovese. I don’t know anything about Nebbiolo and while it was good it was quite different and seems an acquired taste.
Well and you can’t beat the price $14 for any of his wines and 20% case discount.

Robert.Fleming · July 16, 2012, 7:22pm

I’m certain he meant Parker’s favorite, Valtellina.

Rick_Gregory · July 16, 2012, 7:23pm

K JOhn nailed it, especially with the advice to get some older wines, try them and see if you like Bordeaux with age. If you do, here’s another thought - don’t collect new release Bordeaux to age. Buy it with 10+ years on it. One nice thing about Bordeaux vs some other regions is that there’s a lot of it and it’s not all that hard to find some in the secondary market. You do have to watch provenance, but a) you can deal with places that have good track records like Hart Davis Hart, Rare Wine, etc and b) the more heavily traded wines and thus the ones that might have more provenance risk are the name wines… but there are a ton of nice wines aside from those.

john_holdredge · July 16, 2012, 10:07pm

You jokers need to get a life! Yes, Barolo is the King of Wines and the Wine of Kings…my bad. Carry on…

Chris_Seiber · July 16, 2012, 10:18pm

What is Barbaresco, then, the Queen of Wines?

K_John_Joseph · July 16, 2012, 10:20pm

The less athletic, less attractive, less fit, and less intelligent twin brother. He still gets play, but mostly because he hangs around his hot shot brother.

Chris_Seiber · July 16, 2012, 10:27pm

Damn, I love Barbaresco, but that’s probably a discussion for a different thread.

Marc_Frontario · July 16, 2012, 11:48pm

Too young the '09…but once u get a good margaux or pessac leognan under your skin…look out… I luv these appellations.

GregT · July 17, 2012, 2:51am

Teach me about Bordeaux

Easy.

Each year, critics go to taste the wines that are in barrels and they predict which wines are going to be the best in history and which are merely going to be great and for the suckers, which are going to be “classic” (heh heh heh).

You wait until the critics give their scores.

If you’re an American, you wait for Bob because who the hell cares about anyone else.

Then you try to buy the highest-rated wines as fast as you can. You buy them as futures of course - you won’t see them for a few years, so deal with a reputable outfit or you’ll lose your money and won’t get anything.

Then you wait until the wines arrive. You discuss what you’ve bought and how good it’s going to be and once it comes you discuss how you probably would have given it an extra 3 points it’s so good, or you say you would have rated it a point or two lower. That sets you apart as an independent.

I think that’s pretty much it.

It’s the “standard” and you can tell because just look at how many people love it.

In truth, some is pretty good. But there’s a lot of wine in the world and sometimes you don’t want a Cab/Merlot/Cab Franc based wine. You might want Riesling. So enjoy what you enjoy. Cheers.

G_D_y_e_r · July 17, 2012, 3:23am

Then we’re talking about Chiavennasca. Though I saw more palm trees (one) than Nebbiolo vines (zero) in Chiavenna proper. Sondrio is where the real alpine Nebbiolo action is . . . .