2000 Bordeaux Horizontal: Part I

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:10 pm

My 10-year retrospective of Bordeaux 2000 begins.

I opened a flight of three wines to get things rolling. These wines showed well, and once decanted for a few hours, they are ready to drink unless you really prefer fully mature wines. I liked the style of these 2000s-- no excessive oak, no heaviness or creamy textures, not overly sweet or hot. In short, the style says, "Ah, balanced Bordeaux".

I had a Chauvin and Louviere 2000 five years ago, and both were quite firm. These millennial clarets have really opened up since 2005.

Louviere 2000 (Pessac-Leognan)
Biggest, richest wine of the three with the darkest color. Classy, expressive nose of plums, creosote and Graves-y tobacco. Round, plush and mouth-coating on the palate but without any heaviness. Nicely balanced between sweet dark fruit and good acidic grip, the tannins are now very svelte. This is in late adolescence, a bit chunky with some primary nuances to outgrow; it improved with over 4 hours of air. I enjoyed this a lot and think it will be even better in another 5 years, but totally drinkable now with some time in the decanter. 92 pts.

d'Armailhac 2000 (Pauillac)
Big, effusive bouquet of herbs, zesty notes and sour cherry. After the pleasing nose, the palate comes across as fairly light, fairly lean, fairly disappointing. There’s some good chewiness, but the fruit is underwhelming and it’s tart-lemony in the mouth. This seems surprisingly advanced for a classified growth in a year like 2000. Aeration helps and it gains some weight and sweetness, but it can’t hide that is not much more than a pleasant picnic-styled wine. Drink now. 88 pts.

Chauvin 2000 (St. Emilion)
Starts off with a dusty-musty nose that blows off, leaving the sexiest bouquet of the trio. It smells of sweet Asian spice, some subtle new oak and rich smoky zephyrs. The color says this wine has entered middle age, not pale or bricking, but the full darkness of youth is gone. I like this wine, it’s classy and elegant, yet spicy and rich. Still a bit tight, this needs 2 hours in the decanter or another 5 years in the cellar, but no reason to wait. 91 pts.

I also tried these wines earlier in the week:
La Croix de Casse 2000 (Pomerol)
This Pomerol is under the radar and can be inexpensive. It has a crazy and expressive bouquet of pure black currant liqueur, tons of whiskey barrel oak, and hints of VA. The palate is lush and fairly big with some prickly tannins still to sort out. I can handle its defects as the good outweighs the bad for me, but I could see some folks objecting to this wine. Open and drinking fine, with some upside. Too bad about the oak treatment, as this is otherwise flashy and interesting. If the oak integrates more, this will offer outstanding value. 90 pts. Drink or hold.

Fougas Maldoror 2000 (Cotes de Bourg)
Whoa, something’s wrong here. Huge green streak, especially on the nose. I am not green-phobic, but this is too much. I open another bottle to see if this one’s flawed. Nope, just as bad. The palate is better, with an inelegant chunky, meaty mid-palate, good sweetness and ample finish. My instincts say these liquefied veggies could morph into pleasant tobacco scents with age, a la Sociando Mallet. I had a bottle 2 years ago that showed much better without the big green. Today, drinkable for me, but still disappointing. If these bottles are representative, 83 pts. Hold and hope for the best.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:01 pm

The Louviere was great the first/only (I think) time I had it. Dense, with a long finish and not an off note.

In general so many 00s drank so well and easily right off the boat, I don't wonder that comparisons might suffer until they become truly mature. Maybe that's the GPL issue, as Chris suggests.

Ramon_NYC · Post by **Ramon_NYC** » Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:21 pm

Thanks for the notes. The only one I have from Part I is La Croix du Casse. I'm tempted to have pulled a couple from offsite and try myself.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:23 pm

Well done, Patrick. The Louviere sounds particularly good.

Chasse-Spleen · Post by **Chasse-Spleen** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:22 am

I had the '98 La Louviere at around 7 years of age and it was beautiful. I think it's really strange that d'Armailhac has been consistently weird in the 2000 vintage for most people. I don't have that much experience with it but I think d'Armailhac is a little hit or miss. Everyone knows I'm just babbling here but I wonder if a wine like Fougas Maldoror has much aging potential. I think it's a Cap de Faugeres type wine, great young and then the long downhill slide begins. Either way, I tip my hat to you, Patrick, great venture. BTW, have you tried the 2006 Lanessan? They have some at Astor (unfortunately around $27) and I was thinking of giving it a shot or at least looking around for a better price.
-Chasse

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:29 am

Chris, the wine of the milenium Lanessan from '09 is $17 at PJs right now in its recently reduced-priced 2009 futures offering....

Chasse-Spleen · Post by **Chasse-Spleen** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:48 am

Wow! Thanks Jim! That means I won't be excluded from '09. BTW, I've been reading the WS article on '09. It's really interesting in that although they trumpet the wines, there is still a bit of hedging of bets and disclaimers. My friend Paul the wine director who is French says that the Bordelais always say the latest vintage is the greatest and better than the last etc etc. Their marketing expertise is not surprising, they've been doing it for hundreds and hundreds of years.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:07 am

There are still some reasonably reasonable prices to be had from 2009 if you go through reasonable retailers like PJs, NH, etc., who aren't trying to gouge us.

Winona Chief · Post by **Winona Chief** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:23 am

The Louviere was also very nice in 1982 and 1998 - haven't had the 2000 but that sounds good as well.

I have generally had good luck with Lanessan, I try to buy it in good years whenever I can find it. Very good in 1996, 2000 and 2005.

I was not all that happy with the 2000 La Croix du Casse last time I tasted it. I think the 1998 is better than the 2000.

Chris Bublitz

jal · Post by **jal** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 2:50 am

Well, so much for my bottle of d'Armailhac being a one-off, your notes are similar to mine, light and lean.

I also like the Chauvin a lot. Got about 6-7 bottles or so left.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:08 am

Oh, Jacques, like happens so much in the subjective and subliminal world of wine tasting, Patrick was unduly influenced by a recent downgrade of the d'Armailhac by your report of a lone off-bottle and a recent "downgrade" to an arbitrary 88-point rating by a human being who puts his pants on the same way as you and I who can't tell the difference between a $100,000 Hardy Rodenstock fake and a $2.95 Boones Farm Blueberry Hill. I would be stunned if that rich and ripe Pauillac I had five years ago from that great 2000 vintage has by some miracle transformed into a "tart, picnic-styled" wine in the past five years. Patrick is yet another internet wine blog victim of groupthink. It has been a long-term problem over on the HWSRN/Squires site for years, it happens to the best of them. Let's put this wine up blind against some other top growths from 2000 now at the ten-year mark and see how it fares under less influenced circumstances....

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:58 am

Jim, let's not leave this to idle speculation! I hearby declare you must pop a 2000 d'Armailhac ASAP and report back.

Chasse-Spleen · Post by **Chasse-Spleen** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:30 am

But wait! Maybe d'Armailhac 2000 is just in a serious dumb phase and needs a few (like five) years more to start showing well? Maybe we shouldn't have a show-down right now as the wine has not displayed itself well in numerous instances...
Ah, well.. Wyatt Earp never complained...
-Chasse

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 7:54 am

I, too, would like a second expert opinion on the d'Armailhac

.

La Louvière is a lovely estate with good value wines. A great growth in everything but name...

Best regards,
Alex R.

jal · Post by **jal** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:20 am

You guys are funny.
Fine, Patrick was influenced by me and Parker, I was influenced by some unknown factors, Michael M. liked it a few months back. We're going to need more opinions, expert and unbiased. In the meantime can we all agree to at least call it "controversial"?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 11:55 am

I'm just being a wiseguy, of course, I'm sure Patrick came to the conclusion that the 2000 d'Armailhac sucks all on his own.

Then again, he says he doesn't like Leoville Las Cases, so I'm not sure what to think....
In all seriousness, I'm very surprised if the same '00 d'Armailhac that I liked so much back in '03 that I went and bought a case has transformed into picnic-level swill.
Maybe Chris has it right that it is in an awkward phase, but that would be inconsistent with my experiences with Bordeaux at the ten year mark in general and the 2000 vintage at the ten year mark in particular.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:09 pm

*ahem* Without data on barometric pressure, these notes are suspect.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:35 pm

An excerpt from Neil Martin's report on 2009 Sauternes in the April Wine Advocate:

"I tasted the Sauternes 2009s blind with the exception of Chateau d'Yquem and Chateau Climens. I should mention that the conditions for the tasting were perfect: a bright, sunny, tranquil Friday morning when the pressure was high. I also retasted many of the wines at subsequent private negociant tastings."

What the hell is going on here?

What is this new fad with citing the weather report with their notes?

Are they mad?

Is it more groupthink?

So, Neil Martin, if the skies were partly cloudy, the scores might be a point of two lower?

If it were less "tranquil" out, would the price of d'Yquem drop by a hundred bucks on the market?

So it was sunny and tranquil when you tasted most of them, was it sunny and tranquil at the subsequent negociant tastings?

Do wines show less well at night, when the sun is not shining?

These people are madmen....

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:54 pm

Jacques,

I did not mean to imply that you don't know your Clerc Milon from your Charmes Chambertin.
Sorry if I gave that impression!

I just found it hard to believe.

Agreed - several people including, apparently, HRH, have the same opinion.
There is thus ample indication that the wine leaves something to be desired!

All the best,
Alex

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:57 pm

Home, home on the grange
Where the critics and vignerons play
And never is heard
A discouraging word
And the skies are not cloudy all day...

...or is that...
And the '09s sell out right away

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:01 pm

Duh, now I have figured out one of the great mysteries of Bordeaux in the past thirty years:

How did the young attorney Robert Parker know 1982 was great when all these experienced Brit experts didn't know it?

It was sunny when RMP was tasting the wines, and it was raining when the Brits tried them, of course!

Duh, this is so obvious, how could we have missed that.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:14 pm

Ah, Parker and the 82s...

This has come up before...

Parker was no more clairvoyant than anyone else.

What he DID do was this: attack the barrel tastings ASAP in a very methodical way and in an enthusiastic style at odds with British winewriting and publish the results before anyone else!

He changed the *speed* with which the pronoucements were made, and added an obviously passionate and no-holds-barred way of appraising wines at odds with the measured and gentelmanly manner of the old school.

Background: before Parker, there were no mammoth barrel tastings at the end of March.
Professionals (OK, let's include journalists here

came to Bordeaux from April to June and the notes were published at a much more leisurly pace.

I was working at a wine firm in Bordeaux when the 82s were sold en primeur, and I remember it well.
Parker did indeed stir up enthuiasm in America (his influence was by no means international then) and indeed changed things forever.
However, it would be rewriting history to say that he alone realized the greatness of the vintage. I'm aware that that's the myth, but it is not grounded in reality.

Further to the Parker phenomenon, the Union des Grands Crus decided to hold their hugely popular barrel tastings for the trade so that everyone discovers the wines at the same time, well aware that publishing comments *quickly* is ultra-important, following Parker's success.
Even if I persist in thinking that March is far too early...

Best regards,
Alex R.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:18 pm

However, it would be rewriting history to say that he alone realized the greatness of the vintage. I'm aware that that's the myth, but it is not grounded in reality.

I realize that, Alex, it's just that the legendary 1982 Robert Parker clairvoyance story fit well into the influence-of-barometric-pressure discussion in this thread.

jal · Post by **jal** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:26 pm

I am absolutely not in the slightest bit offended, Alex and Jim. This is always a friendly discussion and I meant it when I said you guys are funny, I was laughing when I read Jim's post.

I am serious, though, when I say that we need more expert opinions, I don't want to draw conclusions from two or three samples. I know my d'Armailhac (two or three different bottles) was blah. Now, is it bottle variation, taking into account Patrick may have had the same experience, or has the wine declined dramatically in the last few years?

jal · Post by **jal** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:27 pm

And before you ask, I don't really remember what the weather was like when I opened my bottles.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 2:13 pm

What wine goes best with a forecast of "cloudy with a chance of meatballs?"

I agree that RP had a good amount of company in proclaiming the greatness of '82 Bdx. But there were a few prominent critics of the day, particularly in the US and England I think, that roundly disparaged that vintage with criticism sounding similar in tone and substance to what we hear today (too ripe, too fruity, too low acid, too good too young to make old bones), and they were dead wrong. Things have been taken to greater extremes since then, of course. Parker just happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right format and the right audience when the '82s made their appearance.

I also agree that March is awfully early to get a real read on the wines, but it is what it is. The experienced tasters seem o know more or less what to expect even at that early stage, trusting that what they are tasting actually is the final blend, and that no major faux pas occurs in the wine's further upbringing. There are always some that turn out better or worse than expected, but if anything I'm surprised at how few do end up radically different than that early assessment.

The '00s, which was the point of Patrick's initial post, may be a good example. I have barely started to tip into some of my lesser '00s, as I think for a great vintage like that the wines are just starting to wake up and many are still in an awkward stage, so I can't speak from any great personal experience. But the ones I've had (Chauvin, Giscours, Prieure Lichine) seem to be "as expected" and RP's notes on a dozen or so of the top '00s ten years out seem to be pretty similar to the in-bottle assessments from 8 years ago.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 2:18 pm

David,

You wrote:

"There are always some that turn out better or worse than expected, but if anything I'm surprised at how few do end up radically different than that early assessment".

I won't disagree, but it sounds like the subject of a master's thesis!

Alex

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:01 pm

Now this is more like it! A fun, funny viniferous "controversy".

There is a fundamental contradiction here, I believe. We all (now) know that wine cannot be properly appreciated without sunny weather, expensive stems, well paired foods, and a dollop of groupthink (I'm sure I'm leaving something out).

But when is the weather most perfect-- on a picnic!

I'm am ready to fully stand by my d'Armailhac note. As Parker would say, I nailed that assessment.

It could be bottle variation, temporary insanity, the high elevation in Colorado, but I doubt it. Here's why: I bought the wine on release in perfect condition and stored at 55 degrees. I read a highly influential critic who practices law and loves whoopee pies who claimed the wine made him horny, baby!, and who doesn't want a liquid aphrodisiac, sex in a bottle? I am a fan of d'Armailhac in general with the '89, 96, 99, and 02 all vinages I've thoroughly enjoyed and I like that their prices are fair. They are infused with the spirit of the good Baron. I own more of the 2000. They have a name only wine geeks can spell and pronounce.

So what went wrong? I can't recall what this wine used to be like, but I have to assume it has faded some... (continued below)

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:33 pm

Patrick, I think you have rated higher that 2002 d'Armailhac that you bought off the floor of that heat chamber of a store up in Spanish Harlem.

Better vintage. Better source. Lower score? I think not....

I just got my Advocate 189 with its Bordeaux 2000 updates. Hardy's pal downgraded 2000 Figeac from 93 to 85... And we're supposed to believe anything else he has to say?

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:43 pm

... the 2000 d'Armailhac didn't seem cooked, tainted, out of sorts, closed, tight or awkward... it was just... thin, light for what I was expecting. It did have fine aromatics, but it didn't make me horny. It did fill out some with air, but it was still a 100-lb weakly next to the Louviere. But come on, 88 pts is a respectable score!

Maybe calling it a picnic-styled wine was too strong, perhaps I should have said a luncheon styled claret. Something a pinot lover could handle.

Ladies and gentlemen, don't hold back, this wine is ready to go and we need more triangulation... start your 2000 d'Armailhacs and chim in!

I have a half bottle of it in my freezer which I will thaw this evening and re-taste.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:46 pm

Jim, you're correct. I was a big fan of the 2002 d'Armailhac when I tasted it (pre-heated by PJ) back in 2005. Maybe I need to try it again or the 1999, perhaps d'Armailhac these days shows best young?

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:31 pm

You have sullied picnic-styled wines the world over.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:12 pm

Lest you guys forgot:

Comte Flaneur "Another vote for La Louviere if the 1998 is anything to go by - beating Cantermerle in extra time. D'Armhailhac to flop badly and get knocked out early amid English tabloid recriminations."

I also picked Holland to beat Brazil today. I'm on a roll

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:14 pm

The problem with picnic wines is that the open air may affect the speed with which the nose blows off. So in addition to temperature, pressure, humidity, dew point, sunlight, UV index, sunspot activity, and correction for true magnetic North, when enjoying a wine in the open air you also have to account for windage.

I have never purchased an Armailhac. I'm not sure if this thread has increased or decreased the likelihood of my doing so.

Nicklasss · Post by **Nicklasss** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:19 pm

I understand Blanquito comments on the 00 d'Armailhac as I feel a bit the same with a 00 Sociando-Mallet I tasted recently...

Talking about controversy, if I understand well, Blanquito/Jal/Mr. P are not impressed with the 00 d'Armailhac recently, while JimHow say that the 00 d'Armailhac is a more than excellent (let say rated 91-92) Pauillac. To understand that equation, how Mr. Suckling rated the 00 d'Armailhac lately? I'm pretty sure he is on JimHow side... if so, I understand everything.

Nic

jal · Post by **jal** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:20 pm

Ian and David, LOL!!

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:45 pm

I knew I had left something out, David.

Really, it's a miracle that any wines ever show well.

I now see that all those hacks on eBob were correct all along-- if you don't like a wine, or heaven forbid, rate it lower than the Big Cheese... well, it must be an off-bottle, poor conditions, fascist tendencies, bottle shock, a jejune taster, or most likely, all of the above.

Ramon_NYC · Post by **Ramon_NYC** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 7:11 pm

Comte Flaneur wrote: I also picked Holland to beat Brazil today. I'm on a roll

So did I … and that pick catapulted me from the middle of the bunch in the office pool to somewhere near the top.

Now, it’s up to Ghana to get me on top and a guaranteed share of the pool prizes. Then, there’s only one way for me to celebrate - with my wine pick, the great 2000 d’Armailhac .

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 7:20 pm

there’s only one way for me to celebrate - with my wine pick, the great 2000 d’Armailhac .

Sorry, Ramon. Your luck's about to run out...

Ramon_NYC · Post by **Ramon_NYC** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 7:34 pm

Blanquito wrote:
there’s only one way for me to celebrate - with my wine pick, the great 2000 d’Armailhac .
Sorry, Ramon. You're luck's about to run out...

Well, given your somewhat indifferent TN on my La Croix du Casse, it's probably easier for me to source a bottle of the d'Armailhac today, as I see that Ghana scored just before halftime (not counting chickens before they're hatched ... just prepping up for the possibilities of an unexpected Ghana win).

Btw, now, we MOST DEFINITELY have to have the 2000 d'Armailhace vs the 2000 La Louviere in ANY of the next offlines.