TN: An unimportant tasting of 2016 Bordeaux

[Craig_G]

I am deep into my middle age.

Stealing this

In Florida they call it Bronze Age.

[John_Morris]

I am deep into my middle age.

Stealing this

In Florida they call it Bronze Age.

And Alfert, that cyclist, is still in the Iron Age.

[Robert.A.Jr]

Stealing this

In Florida they call it Bronze Age.

And Alfert, that cyclist, is still in the Iron Age.

My last Ironman was 2008, but I still do drag knuckles. . . .

[Richard_T_r_i_m_p_i]

Ch. Poujeaux (Moulis en Medoc, cru bourgeois), $40: Nice nose with oak and black fruit, and a trace of red currant, as well. Both rich and tannic, with great fruit showing – more than most. Slight green hint suggested cabernet franc, but that’s only 5%; it’s 50% cabernet sauvignon. Very pleasing and a good value (as Bordeaux goes). 89 points (group’s 7th place)

Thanks for the TNs.

Poujeaux is an example of a Bordeaux that I just can’t handle any more. So much new oak. It’s clean and properly made and I can agree that more oak is typically required for Bordeaux than my normal daily fare. If it’s not the ripeness, it’s the wood. Maybe the 2016 has things dialed back a bit…but it’s not worth $40 to me to find out. I had a smattering of bottles from 2009, 2010 and 2012 and gave them away to friends. The curse of being “obvious oak” averse.

RT

[Kevin_Porter]

I only read about important tastings and not unimportant tastings. Did it at least use Callaway’s jailbreak technology? Callaway Golf | Official Site | Clubs, Golf Balls & Gear | Media I did not realize until recently that this was important in winetasting events.

I initially read this as “Callahan’s Jailbreak technology” and linked through expecting to see an un-read (or un-remembered) Coad masterpiece - very disappointing!

I guess “well into middle age” beats “the decades of decline” as a friend so cruelly put it. Great notes but I’m also actuarially (?) disqualified.

[John_Morris]

Ch. Poujeaux (Moulis en Medoc, cru bourgeois), $40: Nice nose with oak and black fruit, and a trace of red currant, as well. Both rich and tannic, with great fruit showing – more than most. Slight green hint suggested cabernet franc, but that’s only 5%; it’s 50% cabernet sauvignon. Very pleasing and a good value (as Bordeaux goes). 89 points (group’s 7th place)

Thanks for the TNs.

Poujeaux is an example of a Bordeaux that I just can’t handle any more. So much new oak. It’s clean and properly made and I can agree that more oak is typically required for Bordeaux than my normal daily fare. If it’s not the ripeness, it’s the wood. Maybe the 2016 has things dialed back a bit…but it’s not worth $40 to me to find out. I had a smattering of bottles from 2009, 2010 and 2012 and gave them away to friends. The curse of being “obvious oak” averse.

There was some oak on the nose of the Poujeaux, but I don’t find that objectionable in a young Bordeaux, even a cru bourgeois. The wine did seem to have firmed up a bit on retasting last night, and the tannins seemed a bit tougher.

By contrast, the Duhart and Lagrange had fleshed out and were more approachable, with the tannins less dominant in the mix than on day 1.

[Mark_Golodetz]

Great notes. Thanks.

Sounds like 2010. How would you rate these 2 vintages against each other.

I didn’t have enough 2010s to have a real basis for comparison. My own sense is that the fruit profile is a bit different in the '16s, and the acid may be a bit more conspicuous relative to the tannins. It’s striking to me how '16s have a signature fruit and structural profile – I might call it crispness or freshness for lack of better terms – all the way from the Gironde to the Rhone and the Tanaro, and maybe to central Tuscany.

I would be interested to hear what Mark G and others would say about '10 versus '16 in Bordeaux.

I liked many of the 2010 Medocs and Graves, and it is certainly a great vintage there. It is also a hefty vintage, with a lot of everything coming at you, and a long way from really classic Bordeaux vintages like 2014, 2008 and 2005. I did buy, but they tended to be wines known for being a little less opulent like Ducru and Beychevelle, and I also splurged on a couple of bottles of Latour.

The precarious balance of the Left Bank was not as easily dealt with on the Right Bank, with Merlots not ripening before the alcohol levels reached record levels. I had a real problem with the alcohol, even with a chateau like Canon run by the old warhorse and lover of tradition, Kolassa. The VCC and Figeac both with higher amounts of Cabernet were fine, and Petrus and Lafleur were brilliant. But here, I would be tasting before buying.

[John_Morris]

How would you compare '16 to '14, Mark? These '16s reminded me a bit of '14s that my group tasted a year ago, though there was no overlap in the individual wines and there were more Right Bank wines in that tasting, so my basis for comparison is imperfect.

[Mark_Golodetz]

Not surprised your group found them similar. Both have incredible drive, and I loved the 2014s. But the 2016, with its greater ripeness (while never close to overripe) is more complete, and when they hit maturity, I would expect to see more nuance and complexity.

[John_Morris]

That was my hunch. Thanks.

[Alan_Rath]

has anyone had the 2016 GPL?

FWIW, tasted at UGC in January:

https://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2664500#p2664500

[Neal.Mollen]

has anyone had the 2016 GPL?

FWIW, tasted at UGC in January:

https://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2664500#p2664500

Thank you sir!

[Mike_Grammer]

very nice, John. Only one crossover wine from the 45 I tasted at the UGC in January:

"2016 Chateau Branaire-Ducru

61% CS, 27% merlot, 9% PV and 3% CF. 35 year vines. Meaty and smoked meat whiffs here. On the palate, tremendous presence—still hiding plenty, but gobs of acidity, blackcurrant and chickoree. Almost juicy. Will be another one to reward patience and should show a lot over the course of an evening. #9, very intriguing stuff."

[James_Billy]

Great notes. Thanks.

Sounds like 2010. How would you rate these 2 vintages against each other.

I didn’t have enough 2010s to have a real basis for comparison. My own sense is that the fruit profile is a bit different in the '16s, and the acid may be a bit more conspicuous relative to the tannins. It’s striking to me how '16s have a signature fruit and structural profile – I might call it crispness or freshness for lack of better terms – all the way from the Gironde to the Rhone and the Tanaro, and maybe to central Tuscany.

I would be interested to hear what Mark G and others would say about '10 versus '16 in Bordeaux.

I liked many of the 2010 Medocs and Graves, and it is certainly a great vintage there. It is also a hefty vintage, with a lot of everything coming at you, and a long way from really classic Bordeaux vintages like 2014, 2008 and 2005. I did buy, but they tended to be wines known for being a little less opulent like Ducru and Beychevelle, and I also splurged on a couple of bottles of Latour.

The precarious balance of the Left Bank was not as easily dealt with on the Right Bank, with Merlots not ripening before the alcohol levels reached record levels. I had a real problem with the alcohol, even with a chateau like Canon run by the old warhorse and lover of tradition, Kolassa. The VCC and Figeac both with higher amounts of Cabernet were fine, and Petrus and Lafleur were brilliant. But here, I would be tasting before buying.

Mark,

I’m surprised you put 2005 in the same category as 2008 and 2014 and say 2010 is bigger. I thought the consensus was that 2005 was the biggest of all - lots of extract, lots of acid and lots of tannin and 2010 somewhere in the middle, probably closer to 2005 than the other two.

[Mark_Golodetz]

James,
I put them in the same category, not because I believe the quality is the similar, as clearly they are not, but because all three are classic vintages, as is 2016.

Also for most chateaux, I believe 2010 was more tannic than 2005.

[Pat_Martin]

2005 has very good brightness to go with all that ripeness.

[Pat_Martin]

All ~$55, the 2016 Branaire was one of top 2-3 QPRs of the UGC, in my estimation.

[Greg_K]

The way some of you are writing about 2016 makes me think of actually buying some new Bordeaux for the first time since 2006…

[Charlie_Carnes]

The way some of you are writing about 2016 makes me think of actually buying some new Bordeaux for the first time since 2006…

Me too…

[Charlie_Carnes]

• The wines shared the fresh quality I’ve consistently found in ’16 reds across France and Northern Italy (Burgundy, Beaujolais the Northern and Southern Rhone, Piedmont and Tuscany): bright fruit (fully ripe but definitely not overripe), concentration, with ample tannins and acidity. I’m loving this vintage!

This is well said. I haven’t tasted from everywhere, but many '16s in France are as you describe.