Was your first tasting blind? A wine with a reputation like Pavie is almost impossible to drink without some bias in any vintage, but I can’t imagine not having pre-conceived notions about the 2003 that will affect your tasting given that the 2003 has been savaged by many professional critics (and non-professional), but praised by the most important wine critic in modern history. My experience is that in blind tastings, nobody guesses correctly which wine is the Pavie (in single blind) or that a Pavie is in the lineup (double blind). I know we did a 2003 right bank tasting about 5 years ago and the Pavie was not correctly guessed by anyone (most of which had tasted the '03 Pavie non-blind several times since release). My recollection is that the wine was middle of the pack in a line-up that was middling overall.
No disrespect meant. Parker originated it as a dig. At this point AFWE is a handy shortcut and a moniker most with a classic palate would/should be proud of.
That’s very helpful thank you. I have to assume the wines you love start at 98 or 99 points since this good but not great wine got many 97s now down to 95.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Slenderness doesn’t mean no taste … fortunatly for most of the best red wines in the world.
Times are changing …
See for example today how Luis Gutierrez promotes Comando-G (grenache, Sierra de Gredos) or Las Beatas (Rioja, Telmo Rodriguez).
I tasted many primeurs in 2009 and i really preferred the wines from the left blank, generally less heavy and with a better integration of alcohol.
I wonder how Pavie 2009 (which highly promotes opulence, because many people like a certain facility) is today.
The 2003 Pavie was served blind to me (and 5 others) by a friend during a dinner around 3 years ago. I guessed it to be a youngish Napa wine. It did not taste or smell like Bdx to me. When it was revealed, I was not very surprised about my mistake.
You are correct Mike - it wasn’t blind the first time and that does impact on how we all judge wine. However the impact of the intense and overtly rich and obvious fruit remains clear in my memory from 2006. It has evolved into something more typical that held its own in a top field of Tuscans - perhaps a comparator that favoured the Pavie cf the previous dinner where it was amongst both Left and Right Bankers albeit from a hot vintage that has not aged consistently. For all that it was pretty good and certainly not the wine that HRH JR or RP colourfully described in such a polarising way.
The bolded portion is what people found so objectionable about Parker’s criticism of these wines. He slammed them as light, hollow, and lacking taste (the wines, not the people, though some of his his online posts made it seem both). In reality many of the wines he criticized as only loved by AFWEs were better balanced, with more acid and less over ripe, over-extracted character than the wines getting RP98+ scores.
As to 2009s, I tend to agree. While I can enjoy a 2009 right banker as a cocktail wine, most of what’s in the cellar is left bank.
The full context was an article on the big Grateful Palate styled Australian wines which Parker loves. He commented on how good they are and how it’s only the Anti Flavor Wine Elite that pretends not to like them.
Ironically under that original definition even Jeff Leve qualified as a member.
About the “polarising way”, I precisely wrote : “beaucoup de bruit pour rien” …
Sorry but who is HRH ?
My last 2003 was Margaux Bel Air Marquis d’Aligre 2003 (16,5/17 hence very good/excellent).
Obviously such a different wine world 
These heavily extracted wines are indeed controversial.
I’ve recently tasted to the top 50 wines of 2009 (all the top names but not Pavie, JM Quarin was present and he hates Pavie and they hate him) and there were quite a few misses on the right bank, too extracted, dry finishes, premature oxidation. Left bank in general was much better, fresher and will be more long-lived.
Another telling experiment/tasting was held back in 2016 in Switzerland. 66 Parker 100-point wines from Bordeaux (from 1982 onwards), all bought en Primeur and stored in the same cellar. Blind tasting and scores from 16 participants, all seasoned wine conaisseurs. The 2003 Pavie was not tasted but the results for Pavie or indeed Gerard Perse (Pavie & Bellevue Mondotte) were not good: as you can see below, they were voted the weakest wines of the whole tasting beside three corked bottles (with pretty low scores, 20 point scale).
- 2009 Chateau Bellevue Mondotte, 16.40
- 2010 Chateau Beausejour Duffau Lagarosse, 16.38
- 2005 Chateau Lafleur, 16.37
- 2010 La Violette, 16.25
- 2005 Chateau Peby Faugeres, 16.23
- 2005 Chateau Eglise Clinet, 16.23
- 2010 Chateau Pavie, 16.20
- 2005 Chateau Pavie, 15.80
- 2009 Chateau Pavie, 15.50
- 2005 Chateau Bellevue Mondotte, 15.20
Andy,
Quarin wrote : Jean-marc quarin déclasse château pavie - Chroniques 2015 - Chroniques -
Excerpts :
2ème série : millésime 2003
Remarques : dans cette série, seul le nez d’Ausone brille. Les trois autres sont très proches. J’ai prolongé les dates de consommation d’Angélus et Cheval Blanc, mais j’ai rétréci la fourchette pour Pavie. Ce vin avait défrayé la chronique en primeur. Force est de constater que les dégustateurs comme moi qui s’étaient rangés du côté de Jancis Robinson avaient raison.
Ausone 2003 18 // 96
Logo sur le bouchon : un T renversé
Couleur sombre, vive et belle. Très beau nez, fin, subtil, frais, profond et minéral. Il domine tous les autres vins de la série. Superbe entrée en bouche caressante, puis le vin se développe aérien, juteux, sur un toucher subtil, avec du goût et une fraîcheur exemplaire. Délicat, soyeux, savoureux, il finit incrachable sur un grain fin et parfumé. Grande longueur. Grande bouteille. A boire et avant 2050.
Angélus 2003 17 // 94
Logo sur le bouchon : JL
Couleur sombre et intense, aux reflets noirs. Nez fruité de type mûr à l’opposé du vin précédent. Soyeux à l’attaque, le vin se développe caressant, juteux et très savoureux. Note un peu chaleureuse au milieu. Finale longue et incrachable faisant penser à la présence de cabernet franc. A boire et avant 2030.
Cheval Blanc 2003 16,5 // 92
Logo sur le bouchon : un T renversé
Couleur sombre. Intensité normale. Légère évolution. Nez fruité de type mûr. Touche de caramel. Entrée en bouche ample. Le vin se développe musclé, savoureux, frais au milieu, puissant, mais paradoxalement pour le cru sa tannicité est un peu granuleuse. Bonne longueur. 2015 – 2035.
Pavie 2003 15 // 87
Logo sur le bouchon : AL
Couleur sombre, intense et légèrement évoluée. Nez fruité de type mûr. Extrait. Bouche de suite extraite, évoluant rude et boisée. Il lui manque le goût et la grâce. L’évolution de ce vin est décevante. A boire et avant 2025.
5ème série : millésime 2009
Remarque : je m’attendais à plus de fond sur la bouche de ce millésime.
Ausone 2009 17 // 94
Logo sur le bouchon : non indiqué
Couleur sombre, intense et jeune. Nez fruité de type mûr. Vanillé. Bouche douce, parfumée, suave, avec du goût, du corps et des tannins fins. Longue persistance sur une touche légèrement goudronnée. Très agréable. 2016 – 2050.
Cheval Blanc 2009 17,5 // 95
Logo sur le bouchon : un T renversé
Couleur sombre, intense et jeune. Nez fruité de type frais et mûr. Truffé. Entrée en bouche caressante, puis le vin se développe parfumé, délicieux, soyeux, fondant, avec du goût et des tannins fins. Finale à la note de cassis. On aurait envie de le boire de suite. 2020 – 2040.
Pavie 2009 15 // 87
Logo sur le bouchon : un T renversé
Couleur intense, sombre et jeune. Nez simple de type oxydatif. Bouche corpulente, mais s’achevant en séchant ! Une mauvaise surprise. J’avais été enthousiasmé par ce vin (18,5 // 97) au château en avril 2012, mais les deux bouteilles ouvertes en provenance de la même caisse n’ont obtenu que 15,75 (89) puis 15 (87) pour cette dernière !
Angélus 2009 16,75 // 93
Logo sur le bouchon : un T renversé
Couleur sombre, intense et jeune. Nez fruité et mûr à la note goudron. Bouche aromatique, grasse, évoluant austère, un brin extraite, mais longue. Je l’avais goûté plus hédoniste et sans aspérité deux mois auparavant.
Yes, thanks for the notes. I’ve seen that too. But more importantly, 15 wine drinker agreed with him (and it was a blind tasting). So Pavie’s are not everyone’s cup of wine. You have to be a Napa lover to enjoy these wines.
Pavie and Angélus are not Ausone or Cheval-Blanc …
Napa or super-toscan, heavier, often more demonstrative, but not the same elegance.
Often observed during the Grand Jury Européen sessions (François Mauss could confirm it).
Yeah, that might be true in general. But just as Pavie is not your average Bordeaux in terms of elegance and construction there are Napa wines which are the epitome of elegance and terroir-drivenness (most recently the young Harlans or Danas fit in that category).
Here the comment on the Pavie’s in the above mentioned 66x 100 Parker Points tasting:
The wines of Gerard Perse (Pavie, Bellevue Mondotte) were simply terrible, except may be the 2000 Pavie. They were oxidative, over-extracted and with drying tannins. This goes beyond personal taste and was unequivocally confirmed by the 16 tasters in the room. The 4 worst scoring wines in this blind tasting were ALL from the Perse stable - no more questions your honor. To me this is a late vindication of Jancis Robinson who called “the emperor has no clothes” first on this misguided producer.
I’ve recently had a similar experience in the 2009 horizontal where some right bank wines were already oxidated and/or showed extremly dry tannins. This is just the period back then. Luckily, as it seems, this period of overripeness and over-extraction is over. Still, I would never buy a Pavie from a rather hot and ripe Bordeaux year. In cooler vintages that might be
Pavie is built as an impressive, expansive, yummy wine …
Some critics and some people are found of that style, specially “en primeur” (note that I can be concerned, as my best scores (blind), en primeur, turned out to be for Pavie 2004, Bellevue-Mondotte 2004 and Monbousquet 2004 - and also Angélus 2004 and Pape-Clément 2004, which should not surprise you).
This issue is also a good clue to understand the polemic about Reignac.
I can see that these wines are quite great en Primeur. It’s due to the same reason young Napa Valley Cabs usually win every blind tasting against young Bordeauxs. Bolder, more fruit forward, more extraction, expansive and yummy.
It’s then a question about the ageing potential of these wines. As seen above with Pavie, it doesn’t seem to be that great. Same is true for a lot of Napa Cabs (especially compared to the ageability of your good Bordeaux).
It’s no wonder then, that the most Bordeaux like, terroir-driven Napa (or Californian) wines like Dominus, Ridge Monte Bello or Shafer Hillside are usually not very approachable when young but will crush the competition at the age of 20 or 30.
The famous “jugement de Paris” was in 1976 …
Parker started with 1982.
Opus One, Dominus, Ridge Montebello, Stag’s Leap Cask 23, Shafer Hillside Select, Joseph Phelps Insignia, Philip Togni … wines I’d like to taste more often.
That said, I never tasted wines like Colgin, Screaming Eagle or Harlan … (neither young nor old).
Awesome - I have a new badge of honer: AFWE!
I’ve only had two encounters with Pavie - 2000, and 2006. My only note is from 2017 for the 2000. It reads, “Good modern style Bordeaux,” and I attributed it a 92/100. I recall it being 1) very dark and 2) somewhat overripe. Pleasant enough, but not quite my cup of tea.
I have none in my cellar, so I suppose I was not a fan of this Parkerized Bordeaux. Cheval Blanc, on the other hand, I have a full stock. AFWE indeed! LOL.
In the case of Screaming Eagle, in my opinion, you’re not missing anything. Colgin & Harlan are at least distinctive for me; while SE, for me, is just like any other big Napa cab.
For me, the problem with divisive wines like Pavie is not their perceived quality, which is clearly subjective, but their price. Taking EP prices, Pavie 03 would have set you back 126€, three times more than less polemical wines like Barton or Poyferré. If you turned out to like it, fine, if not, that’s a lot of money to have wasted.