When did Bordeaux start being too rich - my reactions to the podcast let by Mark, Robert and Jeff

WINE TALK
1

I found the podcast on Bordeaux very interesting. I was esp. fascinated by the answer Mark gave on when Bordeaux started to become too big and modern. He said 2009 - I expected him to answer 1982. When I first started buying Bordeaux in the early 1980s, the 1982s were being trashed by lovers of classic Bordeaux (like Terry Robards of the NY Times and Finnigan who had a wine newsletter popular at the time). The 1982 tasted too good too young and thus would “not make old bones” - the saying of the day. In fact, one of the things that gave me confidence to buy 1982 futures at a young age was my father telling me that they said the same thing about the 1970 vintage, which by the mid-1980s was clearly considered a classic vintage.

Indeed, I can remember a tasting I went to years ago with some friends and Dean Gold (the tasting was at his restaurant called Dino’s). About half the people who came brought wines pre-1982 and about half wines from 1982 on. Clearly, the wines from 1982 on were very different in style from the wines prior to 1982. The wines from both camps were quite good but my favorite of the evening was a 1979 Palmer. Yet the wines from the 1980s have proved their mettle over time and are not considered the classics. Fascinating.

And, today some of the classic wines that fascinate me are California Cabernets from the 1970s and 1980s that also tasted too good young to age. Well, so far this year a 1974 Mondavi Cabernet (not even the reserve) is probably my red wine WOTY.

What truly fascinated me it that if I were asked the question Mark was asked I might well have given the same answer he did although I might have added 2003. But, something about the words in his answer made me go back and think about how many times I heard the same thing when i first started buying wines - my first purchases were in 1980 after I finished law school and was making money, although I did not buy much until my father sold his wine and liquor store in late 1981. Before that, I just got wine from Dad’s store.

I did not buy any 2003s, 2009s or 2010s. I did not like them when I tasted them and well, 2010 was such a great vintage in Burgundy that my purchases went there. I have never regretted this. I did buy a small amount of 2005s from the Medoc and Graves and have liked what I have had of these so far. But, now I have to wonder, am I right or will I look like a dinosaur eventually like the people who trashed the 1970s and 1982s did?

I think that while there likely are successes from these vintages, there will be more failures because of the combination hot vintages and Rolland consulting at the time. And, I tend to think that it is only recently that we think all vintages have to be great rather than the classic 2-4 vintages a decade. Is all that has changed now is that the bad vintages used to be the cold wet ones and now they are the overripe ones. Guess we will find out if we live long enough.

Also, I have to note that I have actually had some 2015s in the last few years that seem to settling down to more balance. In 2024, I was touring Bordeaux for a couple of days with Henri Challoux as my guide and driver. After we were at Leoville Poyferre I mentioned that the 2015 we had there was much better than I thought would be. He said that weather conditions in 2015 were very similar to those in 2009, but that wineries had learned after 2009 to better handle these conditions. He told me that Troplong Mondot had, by 2024, changed from being one of the latest harvester to one of the earliest. So, how much of issues with recent vintages has been weather and how much lack of experience handing the weather conditions. Look, I still like 2016s a lot and am not a fan of the 2018s I have had, but the more I learn sometimes, the less I know.

10 Likes
2

Good question - for me it depends on which Bordeaux. For the Left Bank in general, 2009, but there were wines like Lascombes and La Tour Carnet that were already looking for rich, heady flavours from 01 onwards, I think. On the Right Bank, probably 1995 in Saint Emilion? I don’t remember specific wines from 95 but I do recall a Monbousquet 96 that I found pretty unpleasant. I think the Garagistes produced and helped promote those sorts of flavours with the 200% new oak, etc, that so appealed to RMP and there were certainly plenty of rich 98s. Points meaning prizes pushed others in the same direction.

2 Likes
3

Of course the whole notion of fashion is so fickle. What was deemed to be “modern” in 1998 tastes anachronistic today, for me at least. Magdelaine, which was the antithesis of those wines and which was positively old fashioned at the time, failing to garner the all important scores, now tastes like a forerunner of the crisper, fresher wines that are popular today. I’ve had very few “rich” 2016s, for example.

2 Likes
4

There is no right answer. All we can do is extrapolate from our experiences and make some reasonable prognostications. And even then we could be proven wrong. But for my palate, I think not.

I came into the wine scene a little later than you, the 1990s were just hitting the streets, but you could still easily find 89, 86 and 85. The 82s were highly acclaimed, but I would have had to go out of Orlando to find them, and back then, Florida did not allow out-of-state wine shipments to residents. So I had a lot of exposure to these vintages, but back then, not to vintages from the 1970s or 60s. That started happening a few years later when I discovered Berns and the “expense account”.

While I was certainly no expert, I could tell that 90 and 89 were more approachable than 88 or 86. I do not recall ever thinking any of these wines were out of balance, over-extracted, over-oaked or had high ABV. Now that said, I was just delving into this passion, granted I had been drinking for years with my father. I distinctly recall the first times that I had the 1990 Lynch Bages and the 1989 Pichon Baron. These were, to me back then, wines that made me realize there is another level of winemaking and another level of vintages. I still love these wines. And one could posit that the 89 Pichon is still getting better.

Fast forward to the later 1990s, and it was clear that Parker was starting to fall in love and push the cult Calis and the St Em garage wines. I tried some and thought these are too ripe, too large scale for what I wanted out of a wine. The Calis were also getting very expensive. It made enough of an impression that I actually cancelled my WA subscription in 1999, somewhere around that time.

By 2003, Bordeaux had clearly jumped the shark. I think the trending happened earlier, but with this overly-hot, extreme vintage, and what appeared to be the full Parkerization of wine and the rise of Rolland, some of these wines became caricatures of their former selves. We saw it in St Em, mostly, but it was hitting left bank estates as well, like Cos d’Estournel. It was truly manifest by 2005. I had taken a wine hiatus while competing in Ironman tris for a few years, but when I came back, I loaded up on 2005 futures without realizing how significant of a change had occurred. I have tried a lot of these 2005 St Ems at various stages, but by year 10 it was totally clear to me these were bad wines, overly-made. I got rid of most of my stash. From time to time I still have some - a buddy of mine seems to love 2005 Pavie - and my opinions have not changed. These wines have not improved and will not improve, generally speaking. The left bank still needs time to mature, by comparison. I need to go back to the video, but I think Jeff said the 2005 St Ems are not drinking well at this point.

Like you, I did not buy many 2009 or 2010s. To me this period was the height of the change in Bordeaux, even vaunted left bank estates were falling prey to the change. And the weather conditions were, well, “ripe”. It has been reported that 1982s averaged 12.5-13.4 percent ABV while the 2009s and 2010s are mostly in that 14.5% or more range. That is quite a difference. It shows. Had a 2009 Northern Medoc wine from St Estephe, Phelan Segur, the day after our Zoom discussion, out of curiosity. It carries the scale of the vintage. I enjoyed a glass but hard to go deeper with that degree of richness. I did not finish the bottle.

Things are clearly changing now. We have more successively warm vintages, but it appears that the Rollands of the world are less in vogue and winemakers seem to capture more freshness out of these wines. And yes these wines, even 2016, are ripe, but they are also quite fresh. At least the good ones are. Lots of 2019s fall into that category as well. I do not think these will taste like the 1980s some 20 to 30 years out, but I they are good-to-excellent wines. How they will taste in 30 years is a guess, but the really great wines, I think will be quite nice. That 2016 Lalande may actually need 20+ years to evolve.

I’ll add more, but headed to a meeting.

Great questions, Howard, especially since you came from that special era of the 1980s.

8 Likes
5

What is interesting about 2016 is that it appears to have universal acclaim among all of the major critics and people like you, Howard and Mark, that really are classicists. Even Gilman seems to like it!!!

Another interesting point, even in the middle of that 2005 to 2010 run of modernism, clearly weather and vintages played a major role, as 2008 fell squarely in the middle and yet it is as classic as a vintage gets. At least left bank, although I really love some Pomerols and the 2008 Magdelaine. And we have 2014, another classic. I would posit that 2014 is the most classic vintage we have seen since 2008. I bought a lot of 2014.

1 Like
6

Can someone give a link to this podcast?

7

This is a good thread, I consider myself an old school BDX drinker but I’ve really enjoyed the 2000 Pichon Baron and PLL recently, both will hold up well and might even improve. However this past week I had the 82 PLL and while completely different from the 2000 was a true rock star. For what it’s worth, so far my WOTY is the 77 Phelps Eisele. I know nothing about BDX after 2005 but I don’t think I need too.

8
1 Like
9

I consider the 2009 vintage the watershed, based on en primeur tastings the previous 20 years. While individually, it seemed a friendly vintage, it was high in alcohol and gave a slightly sweet sensation. For me, the problems were most noticeable at the tasting of Haut Brion and La Mission. I remember returning to the car, shaking my head, angry at the new changes and the almost complete of obliteration of terroir. 2009 was remarkable as having record levels of alcohol and dry matter.

That being said, there were plenty of exceptions, particularly on the left bank. At the time, I would not have called it a change, vintage, but with hindsight, it combined with the problems of climate change with winemaking practices, and between them, it altered the paradigm of Bordeaux. Here again there are exceptions, with 2016 being a prime example. What I thought interesting is how quickly and meekly the critics accepted this and rewarded them with ever higher scores.

1982 was almost universally loved. Parker was one of many who declared the vintage extraordinary. The only one who really disliked it, was Robert Finnegan, and he lost a lot of credibility because of it. Terry Robards ( a close personal friend) initially felt at the 1981 offered better values, but after tasting in bottle, decided it was rather special. The English writers also liked it, but some pointed to the massive yields and thought that it would take away from the concentration of the wines.

I bought the wine heavily as futures, and only wish I had bought more. 44 years later, the majority seem to have plateaued and show few signs of dying. The first growth have decades ahead of them.

10

@Mark_Golodetz are you a fan of 2014 behind just VCC?

11

I remember the same was said of 2005 when it was released.

I think there are two major influences at play here: nature (weather) and nurture (what the estate owners do in the vineyard and winery).

Howard and I are of the same vintage. I too recall the controversy over the 1982s being too ripe, too good young, to make old bones.That debate was still raging 20 years later. I recall a large dinner in NYC circa 2003 where a half dozen 1982s presented blind convinced the doubters that these were the real deal.

The same debate recurred once or twice a decade. To me, the peak of excess was in 2003-2005. It was the combination of the nature and nurture pendulums reaching extremes at the same time.

The quest for ever greater ripeness, perfect uniform berries, and extraction has moderated since 2005, though not everywhere all at once. But the weather pendulum has swung even further from what was typical up through the end of the last century. With nature and nurture no longer playing the same tune, we have ended up with ripe years like 2009 and 2015, Classic years like 2014, and years with what appears to be the best of both worlds like 2016. Of course which of those is ideal depends on personal preference.

I’m not sure any of them will push the same buttons for me as the best wines from the decade of the 1980s. They just don’t make ‘em like they used to! (Old man yelling at clouds). But there should be plenty to love.

3 Likes
12

True. Though numerous Left Bank wines are still in that range. But that’s only one point.

In 82, there was almost no selection. Little second wines. A lack of hygiene. Grapes were picked in blocks, not rows or inter parcels. Vinification took place en masse. Grapes were roughly handled, breaking the skins causing oxidation, pump overs and punch downs were violent. You still had pesticides, weed killers, and harsh, chemical soil treatments.

There are some 82s so good they make your head spin. Yet how many great wines were there, 20-25?

Think about it by appellation, Margaux, Pessac Leognan, St. Emilion and St. Estephe have little to show from the vintage. I doubt the Cotes, and Haut Medoc were widely successful.

My guess is, and I wrote it on my site, that the conditions were so perfect with 82 that if we had those conditions today, it would be historic.

FWIW, because you mentioned 2009, I think it’s a stunning vintage. It’s not for you, I get that. But I’d drink them any day with pleasure.

2 Likes
13

That is right on. For me…the golden 10 years for Bordeaux is from 1981 to 1990 and thanks to Mr. Parker.

For me the worse period was from 1991, 1992 and 1993; and come a so, so year 1994. From 1995 the price for Big 8 jumped 50% hence I switched to Burgundy - thanks to Mr. Meadows.

14

Everywhere produced good wines in 1982. I knew zilch about Bordeaux at the time. I’d just arrived in Les Landes in 1984 aged 24 and was faced with dozens of bottles sitting on shelves. So I just delved into the whole lot - it was wonderful! I discovered wines like Citran and Sociando, along with Larose-Trintaudon and Camensac (same owner back then), Haut-Marbuzet (pre-oak fetish!), etc etc. I have fond memories of many St.Emilions too. It was the sheer breadth of success that made it such a great - and accessible - vintage.

But you’re right about great wines - Margaux especially, although many developed much better than expected (Issan for example). Overall 1982 vs 2016 in Margaux is a foothill vs Everest.

A lot of 1982s were underrated at release - even by RMP, who wrote as much later about Pichon Baron. Of course estates like Lagrange and Leoville Poyferré were nowhere near today’s level and even Barton or Montrose pale in comparison but they were all very enjoyable.

And the stars…well Gruaud…gosh I wish I’d bought five cases when it cost 100…francs…!

1 Like
15

I have some 77 Eisele, will have to try some soon.

16

I think a significant turning point was the 1995 vintage.

The previous four vintages had been for various reasons not highly successful, and enough time had passed to understand how crafting wines to the Parker palate - resulting in wines of higher alcohol and higher concentration (and in fair deference to Jeff’s point, wines made after more intensive vineyard practices including a better sorting away of lesser fruit).

Plus enough time to understand the appeals of, as Alfert points out, wines which tasted and impressed like 1989 and 1990 versus say 1988 and 1986 (not to say those last two vintages don’t have value they are just clearly different each in its own way compared to 1989 and 1990).

The trend kept ramping up to 2010 time period. I haven’t had enough of the more modern vintages to know what has happened since then - though I enjoy reading what you all say about those vintages!

1 Like
17

In the US, that 1982 Gruaud on futures was $126 dollars - a case!!!

1 Like
18

One thing I have not explored (as I own no 2009s or 2010s) is how much of this issue in these vintages is the weather and how much is Rolland, etc.

Has anyone done a tasting of wines from these vintages from more classical producers in an effort to filter out winemaking and more “fairly” assess the vintage. If so, what have you found.

19

Well, sir, that’s the $$69,000 question. Kind of reminiscent of that old commercial:

“How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Rolland center of a Tootsie Pop?”

And of course, the tagline is:

“The world may never know”

3 Likes
20

One of the most exciting things going on right now at least on this board is the return of Bordeaux to being wine rather than an investment vehicle. I can remember 10 years or more ago where the primary topic of too many Bordeaux threads was if they bought futures how much would they appreciate in value where they could be flipped for profit. People would criticize Parker if his final score for a wine was 2 points or something lower than his initial barrel score as those two points would reduce the value of their investments.

I love the way the three of you (and others like Julian, David, Panos, etc.), whatever your disagreements on the merits of different wines, love Bordeaux for the taste of it, not profit potential.

6 Likes