I remember Parker saying (please refrain from the Parker vitriol) that when analyzed, the level of tannins in modern Bordeaux equal or exceeded most vintages from the past. Phenolic ripeness and more discerning selection accounted for ripe (sweet) tannins making them less apparent.
Which, in a nutshell, seems what the modernists were aiming to deliver. Where does Ausone (meaning not old, underachieving Ausone, but say, 2000 and beyond Ausone) stand on the spectrum? I ask because if the answer is anywhere on the modernist side, the reviewer concensus seems to be that it does not age at allâŠ
If true, no Parker vitriol. But if notâŠ
I think the discussion needs to be by commune, to at least simplify and direct the conversation.
Pomerol
St. Emilion
Pauillac
Margaux
St. Julien
St. Estephe
Graves
Haut Medoc
Some, just due to location, seem to make sterner expressions of their are, namely St. Julien, St. Estephe, and Graves. Haut-Medoc due to finances seems to lack the modern traits because they canât afford to do so with the prices their wines command.
My $.02
I really detest fully modern Bordeaux.
Recent vintages of wines like Lascombes, Smith Haut Lafitte, Pape Clement, Fleur Cardinale, Faugeres, Clos Lunelles, etc. were nauseating.
A few stalwarts of tradition at this point not mentioned:
Sociando Mallet
Lanessan
Sociando-Mallet: I love that traditional bell pepper profile.
Hi, Michael. What people like is what people like. There will always be people who like this, while others will like that. Thatâs the way it is, and will always be, Iâm sure. I, personally, would not claim that everything I like is âgoodâ in an objective sense; much less that what I dislike is âbadâ (within bounds of reason; damaged/flawed/infected wine excepted).
That said, at the risk of sounding conceited, since I am the one drinking from my glass, my opinion is all that counts as far as I am concerned. This is not to say that I take nobodyâs recommendation into consideration (after all, I do like reading many peopleâs notes in this website) when figuring out what to buy. I do, at times, buy wines/vintages Iâve not tried before on the strength of notes of people who seem to me of similar bent*, then try the wines out to assess them myself whether I should buy more or not.
*Case in point, if not for Douglas, it is possible that Iâd have never tried the wines of ItsasMendi. I brought some in from Spain upon his recommendation and notes, liked what I tried, and ordered more.
Best,
N
Noel: Tongue was firmly planted into cheek with all of my posts on this thread, not to be taken too seriously, but factually correct.
I might have a case of 2000 with your name on it, thenâŠ
1 Like
A post early in this thread sensibly wondered what the definition of modern and traditional was.
But what about the definition of âBordeauxâ?
The knee jerk reaction here seems to be Bordeaux = great growths.
However, thatâs just 5% of productionâŠ
Thatâs tantamount to assimilating vintage Port to âPortâ, or grand cru Burgundy to âBurgundyâ.
If that all thatâs available on your market, or what you can afford, or what you prefer, thatâs fair enough.
But, it is pretty important to point out that the big modern Bordeaux made to garner Parker points have very little in common with Bordeaux as a whole. They are atypical and changed style to make commercial headway. Some of them are also quite good. But the point here is to try to put things ito perspective
Best regards,
Alex R.
1 Like
Please refer to post #28. I still have two cases of the 2001âs that I have to decide what to do with.
I donât buy that. I drank a lot of Bordeaux in the 80s â a lot! â and I donât think cleanliness was a widespread issue for the classified growths or major cru bourgeois properties. Where producers underperformed, I think it was more often due to overcropping, not being selective enough in the final blend or picking too early to avoid weather risks. I wonder if Chatonnet isnât talking about minor properties. Iâm sure there were lots of dirty cellars and barrels in the vast world of stuggling, unknown Bordelais wineries.
By contrast, in the south of France, including the Rhone, and in Spain and Italy, I think the hygiene standards are a lot higher now than they were a generation ago.
I think whatâs also interesting is that spanning across 2009 and 2010, certain producers are claimed to have made drastically different wines. For example, didnât the '09 Cos get a lot of flack for being too modern and syrupy? Meanwhile the '10 came in a little more back to center? And how about Pontet Canet - supposedly two excellent wines in '09 and '10, but from reading notes, it seems like very different animals.
Out of curiosity - has anyone had the '09 and '10 Pontet Canet? Is the '10 truly going to be a more ageworthy wine than the '09?
I have had both vintages of Pontet Canet and prefer the 2009.
I had it en primeur the same day as 3 first growths, and found it on a par with them.
Alex R.
I love the modern style, but also like to keep stalwarts like Leoville and Gruaud in the mix as well. The one thing I canât forgive in a Bordeaux blend from anywhere is leanness or greenness. Also, recent experiences with some low- to mid- end 2000s decried as modern have proven to me at least that they age quite well.
1 Like
Two of my go-to wines are Sociando and Lanessan. Great, class, true . . . and affordable. I found the '05 Lascombes quite terrible.
The shift started with the 95/96 vintages and hit full stride with the '00âs. Wines like '96 Ducru and Cos have no resemblance to the wines made '82.
1 Like
Anyone have an idea where Lafon-Rochet should fall on the scale?
Itâs owned by the Tesserons, who also own Pontet Canet.
To me Bordeaux is classed growths only. Cannot be bothered drinking the other 95%. May be I am a snob but that is what I like to drink.