TN: Duhart-Milon 2003

WINE TALK
1

I bought some of this recently, following my request for suggestions of bottles to cellar for my daughters’ birth year cases (such a great excuse to buy wine). I think it was Jürgen Steinke’s idea, in which case - well done and thanks!
Obviously I needed to try a bottle before deciding if it merited a place in the team…

I wasn’t sure what to expect, because I’m not a fan of 03 in general, but I was optimistic.
Perfect fill, perfect cork.
On opening, the nose was a little bretty and leathery, the attack was clean but simple, the finish reasonably long but no more. CB standard. I was a bit underwhelmed. The brambly fruit showed no signs of being dried or stewed, but it was very one-dimensional.

It took six hours to fully open up, revealing little by little classic Pauillac notes of cigar box cedar and cassis on the nose and a rich, soaring middle section of dark cherry, with a long, classic cassis finish. I would never have guessed this was an 03.
I’m not a massive scoring fan, but in my head the score began at 88 and rose steadily throughout the evening to 92.

For now, this is very enjoyable indeed and quite good value in the current context. It’ll be interesting to compare to other Pauillac 2003s.

For the future, on the one hand, the colour is starting to brick and the wine is only medium bodied, but on the other, the evolution makes me think that this has 5 and possibly 10 years left, maybe a lot more. For now it has certainly earned a place in the case, so thanks again Jürgen!

2

Sounds like an atypical but lovely 2003!

Thanks for the note, Julian.

3

Cheers Robert!

Yes, it’s the sort of wine you would like. I was thinking of the recent Duhart discussion while drinking it. It’s the first Duhart I’ve had in a long time - at first, I recognised the taste and the general feel of the wine, thinking - well, nothing new here, good but unexciting, just like it used to be, no better than Grand-Puy Ducasse. Then it improved dramatically and I thought - yes, fair enough, not the power of Baron or the finesse of Comtesse, but definitely upper middle table.

I was also curious because there’s been a spate of Duhart offered at auction recently at good prices. I dropped Duhart during the Chinese craze, but after that finished, the price rocketed anyway so I never went back. The 2010, which some went on about as being “the investment of the year” at a mind-boggling 94€ EP, is selling in Paris for around 55€, which is indeed as tempting as the EP price was not.

4

I’ve had a number of gorgeous left bank 2003s. Can’t say that about the right

5

Several 2003 Left Bank Bordeaux may not be “classic” but delicious and not that dissimilar to 1990. IMO. Duhart Milon is one of them. Very good wine indeed and Julians impression is spot on.

6

The 03 Duhart was sooo good on release and a great value. It seemed to shut down for a while, sounds like it had come back to life.

7

If you want a rock star '03, get the Montrose. Finishing my post dinner glass now and it’s a rock star! Exotic perfume on the nose with a smooth silky finish. No heat or ripeness. My WOTV vintage so far (20 wines drank, still waiting on the firsts). Stay away from the right bank, except for Pavie…and don’t go there unless you like a structured ripe Cali…

8

Pichon Baron
Montrose
Sociando Mallet
Calon Segur

All excellent

9

Lanessan is good too, albeit in a riper style of course.

I also liked the Pontet Canet on release, but not as much as the Duhart Milon.

10

Leoville Barton is excellent in 2003 as well. Branaire Ducru produced a very good 2003 as well.

I’ve heard the Cos d’Estournel is very good but haven’t tried any yet.

I think a lot of the stereotypes about 2003 are misguided. Except for the one about staying away from the right bank.

11

I’m not sold on the negative stereotypical 2003 as misguided. I’m not going to rant about the usual suspects in Pavie, Monbousquet and some others. At this point, they shouldn’t be suspects anymore. But, Cos, Montrose, Poyferre and P Baron are not what you would be impressed with if you’re looking for traditional Bordeaux.

12

I think there is a very notable difference between the modern glossiness of the 2003 Poyferre and Cos and the traditional, but ripe 2003 Montrose and Pichon Baron. IMHO.

13

Agreed, Montrose, the Pichon’s, Pontet Canet, and Leoville Barton might be atypical, but their dam fine wines. As are other left bank’s. I also had the '03 Lagrange tonight…still an oak monster…but the kids were happy with it, as my wife and I quietly sipped the Montrose…

14

I’ve one bottle of the 2003 Montrose left and will look forward to that traditional, ripe Bordeaux character that you noted. Liked it at release, but the last bottle drank with my local Bordeaux drinkers in Oct 2016 was not inspiring.

As for the 2003 P Baron, I’m really hoping that that lush, very sweet, and the slight coffee note that I got when I last tasted won’t be there when the rest of my bottles age.

15

Poyferre and Cos are basically always more modern-styled than Montrose and Baron, that’s not a 2003 thing at all.

Also, haven’t had the Cos but have tried the Poyferre – you can call it modern-styled if you want, it is lush compared to some other LB chateau. But it couldn’t be from anywhere else but Bordeaux. It is very far from California, quite structured (just emerging from its sleep in fact) and not hot or overripe.

I do agree that I’ve found chocolate/coffee notes in some 2003 left bankers that I like a lot (e.g. Leoville Barton) but they are well contained in what seem to me to be very well balanced and structured wines. It’s a vintage characteristic not a big screw-up, these are still very Bordeaux to my palate. If you want a more severely classical style then you can save some money by buying 2002 or 2004, that’s the great thing about vintages.

16

I think there are some ripe-but-traditional 2003s along with more modern renditions that do little for me…

That said, I’ve had the 03 Montrose only once and it was a long time ago (9-10 years)- it was served blind and it was so ripe and lush most of us thought it was something other than Bordeaux (I guessed a modern styled Cali Cab). It was really young and hence hard to judge, but I was left puzzled. Most everyone else loved it, though they were not Bordeaux aficionados

17

The 2003 Montrose that I had back in Sep or Oct 2016 was also served blind. Not pleasing to most, as far as I can remember, and they were mostly, perhaps all, Bordeaux afficianados.

18

Interesting. I had the '03 Calon Segur a few months back, and it was a bit of a mess with some unresolved alcohol and a good bit of heat.

I tend to agree with Ramon - of the 2003s I’ve had (all left bank), I’ve found the stereotype holds true.

19

Remember that in very ripe years such as 1982, 1990, 2003, 2009 the wines often show lots of so called baby fat. Usually this fat melts away and when the wines enter their drinking window 10 or 15 years later they are very different, the structure way more obvious. 1982 wines i.e. were bashed from some critics not being “typical” and “too ripe and accessible” and therefore they would certainly not last long. We all know today that the opposite is true. For some people 1990 is too ripe and flabby. In former times 1947 had the image of being way too ripe. But until 1990 or so the good 1947 wines were the most sought after Bordeaux together with 1961. In our times 2003 and 2009 have the image of being over the top. We see that history is revolving. I bet that in 20 years from now the younger Bordeaux aficionados will pay high prices for the best 2003 Paulliac, St. Julien and St. Estephe. And that even a few Right Bankers will do fine (those standing on loamy soil). The top 2009 Bordeaux will be legends some day.

20

Cheers all, thanks for chiming in!

Yet more proof, if it was needed, that 2003 is the most divisive Bordeaux vintage ever. Even now, fifteen years later, when the wines are no longer prospects but well into their prime, a bunch of well-respected palates can’t agree on what’s good and what’s not! Incredible - which is not a criticism. I can’t think of any other vintage which has the same effect - disagreements tend to even out and disappear when the wines are mature.

My attitude is best summed up by a French writer called Franck Dubourdieu, who declared in 2004 that 03 was “a poor vintage masquerading as a great one”.

I bought heavily, only to discover that around 10% of my cellar was undrinkable! I certainly think the negative “stereotype” is justified - in fact, I would say the opposite, that the “positive stereotype” at the time was not justified in the least.

I lost count of the RBs which were awful (did any of you “enjoy” Quinault l’Enclos, one of RMP’s “sleepers”?! One of the most revolting wines I’ve ever tried).
Even the LB was full of rubbish - the vast majority of Crus Bourgeois were horrible, the whole of Margaux and Moulis too. Even further north, Pauillac and St.Julien produced such “gems” as the appalling GPL, St.Pierre and Beychevelle. We were told that St.Estephe was “the place to go”…well yes, as long as you avoided Haut-Marbuzet…

I sold virtually all of mine before actually tasting the good ones, apart from Lafon-Rochet. Without the idea of providing a case of reds for my daughter, I would never have bothered to go back and buy some more: there are so many other vintages and other wines to choose from, without the same risk of disappointment.

But there are good wines and I’m enjoying trying them. Duhart was great, so I’m looking forward to trying Pichon Baron, Cos, Montrose, Léo-B and Léo-P in coming months.

Jürgen - hi and thanks again for the Duhart tip - I get your point about ripe years, but don’t you think that 03 is unlike all the others? There are certainly a dozen stars in 03, but probably no more, whereas the other years you mention had a much broader base of successful wines. The taste profile of 03 is atypical too, I think more so than other ripe years. But this is unsurprising given the weather. When I think back to that summer and the real fear we all had that 03 was the first of a new era…brrrrr…