IMO, if there is good material, oak will eventually integrate.
Great notes Howard. My two top wines were 2005 and 2010. I much preferred the 2010 to the 2009. Also 2003 is much better than you suggest. Alfred said take the 2003 to a blind tasting and you are sure no one will guess the wine - a safe bet. I was surprised on his drinking window on this as I think it will improve for decades.
The 2000 seemed a little thin compared to the other great vintages and he was a little disappointed with it having thought it was his best at the time, the 04 certainly had more structure but I think the 2000 had better fruit and will improve for a decade or two.
Alfred said all the things I would expect of a Burgundy producer which gave him top points from me. Interesting also that he did not do Bio for one vintage and sprayed, was it the 07?, to save the vintage.
Cheers Mike
In my experience, sometimes, not always. But that’s hardly a reason to use it.
I agree but the generous use oak makes a wine more flattering during EP and Bob’s rating is what sells the wine.
My notes from the Auckland tasting and dinner
2000 Pontet Canet
Deep bright ruby with a hint of development at the rim. Aromas of earth, minerals, cassis, cigars, violets, marmite, toast and tar. The palate is still tight and tannic, a little drying when first poured. Very ripe black fruit, cassis, cedar, cherry and plums. The fruit is showing a little sweetness. It is still very primary with little secondary development. As it develops in the glass the texture builds and more floral complexities emerge and the tannins recede a little. Another backward 2000 that requires an additional 5 to 10 years. 93+
2001 Pontet-Canet
This looks lighter, it’s bright with the merest hint of brown. Lovely floral bouquet, you could sniff this for hours, earth, cider, dust, red berry, spice, tobacco and cherry. Great palate, fully integrated, very elegant, balanced and velvety textured. Flavours of earth cedar, currents, flowers and ripe berry fruit. Drinking really well now just at the beginning of its plateau. 91
2002 Pontet-Canet
From the dinner 2 days later. The room was a bit dark so it was hard to judge the colour but it seemed to be a dense dark ruby. Nice floral aromas along with blackberries, cassis, herbs, it seems youthful. There is less fruit weight on the palate, its a little simple and very tannic, it feels a little pushed and extracted. Could be going through a rough patch? 87
2003 Pontet-Canet
The darkest of the first 4 wines, very dense ruby. Lifted floral aromas along with notes of cassis, cedar, plums and dark cherry. Not a trace of any heat or over-ripeness from the vintage. The palate is very ripe and intense with black doris plums, cassis, traces of violets and soft earth. The tannins may show the vintage on the finish, slightly angular clamping down a little. This wine also opened and showed more integration as it sat in the glass. 91
2004 Pontet-Canet
Dense ruby right to the rim. It’s a bit reticent on the nose, ripe fruit cassis, sandal wood, cider but it’s really rather closed. Good palate, rich, concentrated and intense fruit, very youthful. Cassis, cedar, bit of barn, stones and blackberry. The most classical of all the wines, a little secondary development, showing a little more acid. Still very youthful, tannins still evident, needs another 5 years. 92+
2005 Pontet-Canet
Bright intense ruby, dark towards the centre. Great legs sliding down the glass. Very floral and intense, lovely ripe fruit. The aromas are very precise, fresh earth, cassis, violets, berries, with the oak playing a supporting role. Very complex palate already, spice, sandal wood, tar, meat, stones, currents and flowers. Richly textured and very concentrated, opulent and long. The balance could tempt you to drink this wine now and you would not be disappointed……but that would be a mistake!! 97
2007 Pontet-Canet
The darkest wine thus far, intense glossy ruby. Very fresh and clean on the nose, slight citrus character along with currents, dark cherry and plums. This is a bit new worldish on the palate, full and soft and juicy and lush with just enough acidity to keep it together. Those tannins must be there somewhere, very floral with notes of strawberry also. This seems open and ready to go? Don’t know if it has any long term aspirations but it’s very drinkable now in a not very complex way. 91
Tried again with the dinner 2 days later, this bottle is showing more structure and balance back to being more classical and is better for it. 92
2009 Pontet-Canet
Bright purple colour, black toward the middle. Elegant, rich, and super ripe with aromas of cider, toast, tar, cassis, currents, spice, cherries and plums. Super rich and ripe on the palate, not a hard edge to be found anywhere, with great intensity and weight of fruit and perfect balance. Lush, fresh, opulent and silky textured. There is lots of complexity here that mirrors the bouquet with additional notes of tar, grilled meats and blackberries, and at the same time its soooooo youthful. This is so drinkable, I’m going back for seconds!! 99
2010 Pontet-Canet
This looks lighter and a little thinner that the 2009. With fresh aromas of saline, red berries, chocolate and spice, marmalade and cassis. The palate is powerful and intense and seems a lot more structured than the 2009 with really lovely ripe fruit, violets, tar and some charred meat. It’s fresh and so concentrated and very tight for now but very precise. The tannins are surprisingly supple. This is a huge wine built for the long haul. A great elegant wine with lots of inner power and potential. 96+
Great notes Wayne, nice to have another perspective.
From everything I’ve heard, i think that the bottles of 2000s at the different venues gave a similar experience (ie no significantly flawed bottles). It’s just that peoples interpretation of that experience was different. For myself, I won’t open another of my 2000s for several years.
Does everyone think the 2009/2010 style is a good direction for PC to go? Or is it largely dictated by vineyard and vintage conditions? (In this context, it will be interesting taste the 2011).
Hi Howard, unlike you I did not really see a similarity between 2009 and 2010, so am pushed to see a “style”. To me the vintage conditions made the difference, possibly more so starting 04 when a move toward bio and a preference for less oak was made.
Well then, perhaps they should add some Mega-purple too, and maybe some Syrah. 
I opened an '04 this past weekend. It was showing very young. I probably won’t open another bottle for at least 3 to 5 years.
Thanks Howard and Wayne for the notes.
The lessons of the tasting for me were:
- Vintage rules. Fruit expression, structure, tannins and minerality were very different from one year to the next.
- The wines that I liked best (2004, 2005 and 2010) had magnificent mineral focus and length. This means that these wines had excellent balance and integration. But then, each of these 3 wines were different.
Alfred was quite a refreshing figure. It’s hard not to like the guy.
Thanks for the notes. The only two Pontet Canets from the 00s that I had recently were the 2000 and the 2001. Actually, I preferred the 2000. Our bottle was still very backward, had lots of tension and hidden power, was great to drink already, but still with lots of potential. I very much liked the 2001 as well, it was much lighter in style than the 2000, but had the same expressiveness. I certainly wouldn’t write the 2000 off. Taking today’s prices, I think the 2001 is much better value though, it’s half the price of the 2000 in Germany (still, the 2001 has doubled in price since I bought it and that’s not even four years ago - crazy).
Where as Haut Brion, Latour, and Margaux were advertised for sale in America as early as the 1780s Pontet Canet was available by 1806. You could buy the 1800 vintage in Norfolk, VA.
Really thought it was a great experience to get to try so many wines over the 11 year period. To me it seems the wine making style has been very consistent with little tweaks every year that have improved the overall balance and expression of the wines, building year on year. Vintage conditions were clearly expressed in each individual wine and imho this accounts for the major differences in each year’s wines. To me the 2009, apart from it overtly fruity nature, puppy fat, was very similar to the 2005 and once this wine starts to lose that character and continues to fine down, the similarities will become more apparent, with the 2009 being just bigger, richer and riper………although it was clearly hard to see the underlying structure in this wine because of the weight of fruit.
If there was an odd man out that may have been the 2010. Mr. Rolland was consulting in 2009 and 2010 but I don’t know if that is the difference or if 2010 is just an extreme vintage. We did we see an interesting photo of the team in the vineyard discussing picking dates I think, and no one look happy………it would have been very interesting to have been a fly on that wall!!
If Tesseron has said “no” to micro-oxygenation and is averse to high levels of new oak, there doesn’t seem to be much left for Michel Rolland to advise on, other than picking dates.
Andrew, which was the surprising thing Tesseron said at the tasting: that he only brought MR in from 2009 to advise him on pick dates …
Wayne, it would be interesting to see if the 2009 is on the same trajectory to 2005. They seemed on the night quite different wines, but I only have this one data point …
Yes it will be Howard…I have 2000, 2005, and 2009, we will have to get getether in about 5 years and see how they are shaping up ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
No 2010…I think I will be well dead by the time that wine comes around !!
Truth be told, I can’t wait to see what Tesseron and Rolland do with PC in 2013 … A “challenging” vintage, potential introduction of amphorae, and a promise for even more biodynamic practices? If it’s priced aggressively enough, I’d buy just out of curiosity, and then drink it alongside the 2010 … several years from now …
Wayne, sounds good. I also have several vintages, but (sadly) not the 2005. I have the 2010 (and the '11 and '12 coming on EP).
Terry, yes that’s an intriguing question. Tesseron talked enthusiastically about his amphorae, but I wasn’t clear what he hoped to get out of using them (less oak in the wine?).
Cheers, Howard