TN: 2002 Leoville Barton

WINE TALK
1

I opened this bottle on a whim inspired by John Liotta’s rec on the “other board”. I have been drinking Barton’s for 25 years and rarely pop a cork before their 12th birthday. Even then it is usually way too early.
This wine is a pleasant surprise. Rich, balanced and no severe tannins despite an exceptionally tannic vintage. The tell tale Barton licorice/cassis, nice fruit and finish.
I usually don’t follow Liotta’s TN’s maybe I should. Good rec John. Nice wine for the $39.00 I paid.
flirtysmile flirtysmile flirtysmile [thumbs-up.gif]

2

Thanks for the note on this.
I grabbed some too for about the same price. I’ve only got a few and have been planning to wait til 2012 to open the first.
It seems a little odd that this wine in particular from a tannic vintage would be showing well already.

3

Leo B’s are sometimes vintage stars in off vintages. In great vintages they are monsters. This is no light weight like the 99. It is a solid wine with probably 10 years left in the tank, but showed well on pop and pour and better with 2 hours of airtime.
You could hold off if you only have a few or enjoy one now for that price who cares?

4

Good note and I agree 110% with your TN.

I had the wine in the Netherlands in March and was pretty surprised…given I haven’t been a fan of this vintage at all.

5

Very useful note Jack, thanks. I have several bottles of this buried somewhere for the explicit purpose of not touching them for a while. But maybe the next time I run across them when digging through my cellar, I’ll grab one and give it a whirl.

6

+1

But I am happy to hear it. FWIW - I grabbed a couple at $40 and a couple more at $37.

7

Thanx for the note, Jack. I haven’t opened any of my 02s, but shall now. I’m not sure you were knocking the 99 (ok, you were), but I’ve always found it very good or better, and it was accessible from the get-go. Try saying that about the 2000 which I don’t know if I’m ever going to like.

8

It (the 99) wasn’t a bad wine… it was just diluted like all of the vintage. Nice flavors, but watery and no real complexity.
It was far superior to the 91, 92, and 93 that were all pretty bad.

9

The 97 is lovely now, the 99 too young for me. The 02 is a lovely wine inthat vintage’s context, and surely pleasurable now, but I won’t crack any of mine fo r 8-10 years. Thanks for that data point.

10

The '99 is only dilute if you insist that all Bordeaux be like '82, '00, '05 etc. If you have a broader appreciation for Bordeaux then it is a lovely wine that works very well at the table. At 10 years it is barely coming into its own, with many more years to go. The '02 is much too young for my tastes, and is a sturdier vintage than '99, but no less of an expression of classic Bordeaux from a house that has not made any dramatic stylistic shifts.

11

Thank you for telling me what I insist upon. I have been drinking LB’s for 30 years. The 99 is far too thin compared to any vintage other than 1991 and 1993. You enjoy it, that is fine and your perogative. I don’t. The fact that I don’t share your palate should not give you license to belittle mine.

12

Belittle? Mr. Bulkin you take the internet much too seriously. I am stating my preference and opinion which differs from yours. Next time have a drink before you get offended.

13

Agreed. Count me a fan of the '99.

14
  • 2 [thumbs-up.gif]
15

“…only dilute if you insist that all Bordeaux be like '82, '00, '05 etc. If you have a broader appreciation for Bordeaux then it is a lovely wine that works very well at the table.”

I can’t imagine how anyone might take offense to that. [bye.gif]