TN: Comparative Bordeaux Tasting (2000/2005)

WINE TALK
21

Well, interesting read - but - sorry - cannot take the points seriously … 1st too many identical ratings for the two vintages (?), 2nd too often clearly subjective personal preferences that influenced the eventual results …
I know quite a lot of the wines, though often not from recent tastings, but either many bottles were not ok - or our palates differ enormously … or you simply rated the performance of the very moment - and no potential at all (I´m sure many of the wines are still quite closed)
[shrug.gif]

22

http://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1867074#p1867074
You’re not the first to disagree with the scores, nor is there any reason that everyone’s scores should be the same.

Besides, what fun is a tasting note if you can’t soapbox/editorialize a little?

23

Aren’t scores based on personal preferences? Even when a professional does it, they’re essentially telling you how much they liked the bottle. Parker has a New World palate, preferring big, bold wines like Cali Cult Cabs, which is why he’ll give a 99 to something other critics will give 93 or 94.

Also, it seems quite a few people score based on the performance at that very moment, not on potential - which is how I thought it’s supposed to be done. Nobody can truly give an exact rating for how anything will be in the future, which is why you often see critics reevaluate wines a decade or so after their initial rating.

24

Gerhard, I disagree with this strongly. I have talked about this before, and I will quote what I said then…

“I don’t like the wine, but for those who like that type, and putting myself in their shoes, I think…” This type of extrapolation is flawed, because analyzing wines accurately for your own palate is not easy, trying to do for somebody else’s is impossible.

Tell me, whose palate is he trying to extrapolate for: yours? Jeff Leve’s? Mike Dildine? They all have different likes and dislikes. How can you possibly critique a wine, when you are trying to satisfy a palate that is not yours?

I would far rather read a note from a critic whose logic is:

“I don’t like a wine, and will score it accordingly"rather than the one who says, " I don’t really like the wine, but it is well made in a certain style, and therefore will appeal to a number of people, and I should give it a decent score.”

Give me consistency. Let me know what a wine writer writer really thinks, and let me understand where he/she is coming from, and thus allow me to calibrate their notes to mine. Don’t give me someone who tries to be all things to all palates, and ends up being some mealy-mouthed spouter of nonsense, without a point of view, and any strongly held beliefs. Their methodology makes them useless, and their opinions worthless."

25

This is encouraging for me as I bought some good 2000s including PLL and LB, and no upscale 2005s! On the other hand I wonder if it’s just a difficult time to be tasting the 05s, while 00s are reaching their early good drinking period.

26

Mark, regarding the 05 Baron, in all likelihood, it’ll improve with time. It’s showing a bit too much of the vanilla/blueberry thing at the moment, and maybe it will integrate with time. I’m hypersensitive to jammy oak, and if I had to guess, when everything else unfurls, the integration will be much better. If I had any, I’d wait. But I’m just an internet forum poster, not a cop : )

Craig, no doubt it’s a tough time to be approaching 05. The 00s, on the other hand, are delicious already.

27

Mark,

I knew my posting would create disagreement, but …

… I believe that there are certain criteria in a wine that can be reviewed with kind of an objective access, just for instance quality and ripeness of fruit, of tannins, concentration and depth, complexity etc. – and I usually try to do this to my best ability. Sure everybody has his own palate … and nose … (as a tool) – and if one isn´t able to distinguish e.g. ripe tannins from astringent ones, or a long finish from a short one – well, then it won´t work at all …
… AND there are other criteria that depend more or less on personal preference and taste … certain varietes, regions, styles, smells or whatever …

Sure, one is entitled to do as one likes to do, and to write (and post) as he likes to … but regarding myself I try at least to be as fair as possible to a wine IF I post a public note – even if I don´t like a wine, but when I have to admit that it has a certain quality. You can read thru all my notes posted here and elsewhere regarding this … I hope you will admit that I at least usually tried it …

The problem can be: if one publishes a TN simply and totally based on his personal subjective opinion at a certain moment of tasting, the results might not only be differing from a lot of other experiences, but the impression might arouse that certain wines are simply bad – not worth the money at all.

In the case of this tasting I have simply the feeling that A. (I think Adrian is his name) preferred the 2000s to the 2005s due to higher age, while the 05s were kind of misunderstood (regarding their future developement) because most are closed now and are simply too young.
I also believe that most 2000s are not really mature – they will show a much better balance between fruit and acidity in several more years (be still more delicious …) - all very general said of course …

In September I participated in a tasting where eight 2005 Bordeaux (incl. 3 of this thread) among others were served – they were really very hard to taste and no great enjoyment … and I do hesitate to give any definite points after this experience, but IF I did they would be definitely higher than here … (based on my experience with these wines and other vintages).

So these TNs don´t have any value for me – except the confirmation that the better 2000s and most 2005s should simply be left sleeping for a while.

28

nice notes adrian. glad you posted your subjective stance on the wines. it’s good to see that the 2000s are more accessible. i had thought their structure would keep them shuttered for a while longer.

29

Very nice notes. I’m assuming this was to support an auction they have scheduled?

30

Great, no value to you. The notes have value to some people and the notes have no value to others. Now we can move along since we all agree

31

Every note I post is exactly based on my “personal subjective opinion at a certain moment of tasting”. I comment on what I taste, and evaluate and score it based on what I am tasting right then and there. I may prognosticate on where the wine will go, but my score is not reflective of future potential except in that rare moment when it is clear to me that a (+) is worthwhile. For example, if what I am tasting then is a 90 that day, I will not rate it a 94 because I think it may reach that level on maturity. That’s pie in the sky.

I think Adrian does that too. I like reading his posts and find them quite informative. Like you, I concluded that the better '05s are still not showing their stuff. While that may be axiomatic for a 10 year old Bdx in a quality vintage, it’s still of interest to read. I think you ultimately conclude that as well.

32

Gerhard,

I think there is no agreement for most if not all your “objective” criteria.

Ripeness for instance varies enormously, and the grapes for the far most part are picked far riper than before. One of the most common things you hear from a winemaker is that he is now able to pick grapes at “ideal physiological” ripeness". It’s amazing how many of these wines have far higher potential alcohol than before. I don’t think it makes for better wines. Many are going back to slightly less “physiologically” ripe grapes.

Concentration: Most tasters can discern a more or less concentrated wine. Where they may disagree is what is the right degree of concentration. Yields can be too low leading to over concentrated wines. yields can be too high resulting in dilute wines. But unfortunately there is a little general agreement as to what constitutes too much, too little or perfect.

Complexity: A major can of worms. Just look at Pavie as an example- simple to some, amazingly complex to others.

Depth: I can’t think of a more subjective word in winespeak.


etc etc.

For the most part, I was puzzled by the notes, as I have said consistently that 2005 is the greatest young Bordeaux vintage I have ever tasted. Now I plan to go back and taste at least one wine, because my reaction was so diametrically opposed to Adrian’s, and I will report. But even if I agree with my original note and disagree with his, in no way does it invalidate his notes for those who share his palate.

33

Gerhard
Inasmuch as we can make criteria very objective the perception is highly subjective.

This wine which the winemaker considers to be made beautifully with utmost loving care and had extra ripe fruits, low acid and lot of oak and tastes awful to me. But lovers of that style will certainly …

34

I now agree with Ch@rlie F|_|

35

A thought on objective criteria: those would be g/L of residual sugar, g/L of titratable acidity, concentration of tannins, abv, etc. In other words, things that I could have been able to measure when I was in college wearing a white lab coat and safety goggles with a few simple (I wrote “basic” originally and laughed at the pun) chemical reagents and pieces of glassware at my disposal. Everything else is how a wine is perceived on the nose and palate, which must be, by its nature, subjective.

Mark, if you do sample some 05s, please do report back. I’m curious to see your take on it. I’m pretty cognizant that my notes don’t exactly jive with the consensus.

Arv, indeed, this was one of the lead-up events to the big Bordeaux auction Friday and today. Prices were, overall, surprisingly strong.

36

I did open it tonight. Decanted at 5:00 PM. Completely closed. More than two hours later in the decanter, it was still pretty closed, however there were some signs it was beginning to open. No green at all, quite a lot of oak. Dark fruit, reasonably fresh. Very tannic. Still of course way too young. Not enjoyable, very dumb, and it does need fifteen plus years.

37

85 points?

38

Mark, which wine was it? Sorry if I missed that somewhere.

39



40

Thanks.