What drove the price to $100, Tony? If it sucked, I doubt it would double in price. I’m not a buyer at over $100, but it is now an eleven year old Bordeaux from a vintage that was overshadowed by 2000 and 2003, and then the massive hype of 2005. Check out Keith Levenberg’s note in CT. My palate aligns fairly well with his taste in Chinon and Bordeaux. Hmm, perhaps $100 isn’t all that bad, still below 2000, 03, 05, 09 and 10.
My 375ml bottles were $23 on futures.
I don’t think the 2004 LB sucks and I have no idea why it doubled in price. I bought the 2008 LB for around $50 and is was just as classic as the 2004. I hope your 2014 rewards you the same.
Keith Levenberg is a excellent writer but our opinions differ. Doesn’t make him wrong. 
I passed on 2008 LB and for the life of me cannot remember why. I certainly bought a few 08s. Benchmark has it for $59. Worth grabbing it?
Interesting discussion. I haven’t opened any of my '04’s yet. Wish I could find more '01’s at reasonable prices.
You and I are entitled to drink our wines whenever we want.
BUT you wrote that you don´t think the fruit will be able to keep up … and that it’s hard to believe the wine will offer much pleasure in 2035 …
… and here I disagree, and gave older vintages as example!
I’ve generally liked the 2004s that I’ve tried, particularly the Montrose. They reflect the cool vintage and have a more classical style, but they aren’t mean or underfruited either. The ones I’ve tried are drinking pretty well now, and seem like they are built to improve with further aging.
Another thing I find is that cool vintages like 02 and 04 can be good for your more ripe/modern style Bordeaux producers. 04 Lascombes and 04 Monbousquet were good (and cheap), whereas I think those producers can go overboard in the big and ripe vintages.
Count me as someone who’s drinking up my '04 LB’s. Once they get a little mint mixed in and the tannins soften seems like as good a time as any for the lighter vintages. '04 has always struck me as a very soft Barton as I’ve never experienced the bigger tannic structure that’s typical of the Chateaux. This gets into the early/late drinking argument of many bdx threads and I like it now (and over the next 10yrs)
-been drinking '04 Pichon Baron too…
I just love it when people call 2004 a lighter vintage. Maybe it is compared to the global warming monstrosities we are seeing now, but compared to the vintages pre-2000 it’s right there with the level of concentration and will probably age the way Bordeaux has been expected to age - effortlessly for a very long time.
There is a distinct lack of historical perspective around here.
By the way Josh, not really picking on you - the whole thread (and many others) shows a bias towards post-2000 knowledge of Bordeaux.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that you shouldn’t drink your '04s of any vintage. As you say, I think the L-B '04 has opened up a bit, and is drinking well, even if its best is yet to come. I think people are just skeptical that one should feel rushed in drinking them! The '94 is a perfect example. I was lucky to drink two bottles over the past 3 years and both times it was an absolute pleasure to drink (which one wouldn’t know at all from the reputation of the vintage). '04 was certainly miles ahead of '94, and I can’t see a reason to think well-made wines from this vintage won’t age as well as, if not better, than, say, the '83s or the '78s, both of which continue to drink beautifully from many good producers (given reasonable storage).
In terms of the usage of “classic”, I think wine writers sometimes use it to remind consumers that a vintage needn’t be '82 or '90 or '00 or '05 or '10 to age beautifully and provide the kind of pleasure that Bordeaux has offered consistently over time. '82 or '05 or '10 aren’t classic vintages – they’re aberrations that come along once in a while, and often make wonderful wines. But there are many other vintages that produce very good wines, which will age well for decades, and often provide good value (comparatively). Those vintages are “classic”, and hark back to the vintages of the 70s and 80s that many of us enjoy drinking so much today.
Indeed - I look at my cellar, and the quantity of 2001, 2002 and 2004 I have (not enough '04 by the way), and I am very happy.
I had a bottle of that Léoville-Barton 2004 last year and found it good, but not great. Not quite ready to drink, but also not as promising as other youngish Bordeaux. In any case I found it much better than the 2002 Léoville-Barton, which I thought was thin and leafy. For my personal taste, Léoville Barton is better from warmer vintages: 1995, 2000, 2003 for example.
Fascinating, as you and I share so many similarities on preferences. I love LB in both ripe and more classic years, but believe LB truly shines on the classic years. I recently enjoyed, but was a bit under-whelmed, by the 2000.
2004 reserve de la comtesse is another gem … Currently I am eyeballing some Alter Ego '04… Just can’t get that dusty leather out of my head
I loved the 2000 when I last drank it two years: it was young, but it had a lot of inherent power and persistence while staying incredibly easy-drinking. I don’t own a lot of Léoville-Barton myself, so I usually drink it at friends of mine. I do notice a few differences: one friend from whose cellar the 2000 and 2003 drank recently came buys en primeur and puts the OWCs directly into his really good cellar. Those bottles are impeccable. Another friend of mine served the 2002 and 2004 and both seemed a bit out of balance. He had bought the bottles from a store well after arrival. I would bet on storing differences making big differences in taste. Quite generally, I liked the 2004s drank in the last two years (Montrose, Calon Ségur (incredible), Cos (not my cup of tea), Léoville-Barton, Grand-Puy Lacoste, Troplong Mondot and others). But the same wines from 2001 (if I have had both) appealed more to me.
I agree 2004 Cos was a bit underwhelming
I agree with your claim above…the 2004 Cos Robert Alfert and I tasted was a bit underwhelming also
![[welldone.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/fc9709a841aa9379fd892a9cf0b535b05f473b86.gif "[welldone.gif]"){kind=small}
Maybe you’re right, Gerhard, but the vintages you mention were all before or immediately after Anthony Barton took the reins. That combined with the general trend of riper picking, better sorting and other winemaking advances (maybe this started in the late eighties and early nineties?) makes me wonder if comparison with earlier vintages is valid in this case.
Anthony Barton has maintained one of the most traditionalist regimes in Bordeaux.
He is not Michel Rolland.