Seeking nominations for the 2011 BWE Wine of the Year....

Tom In DC · Post by **Tom In DC** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:22 am

We can be (w.e.) a contentious lot.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:07 am

The best young/recent Bordeaux (if that's part of the criteria, the BD has always been fairly broad in what the criteria may be) I've had is the... 2005 Grand Puy Lacoste.

It's young, it's awesome and it was $65 as futures (now at $90+)...

I must say, I am surprised Comte Flaneur likes the 2004 SHL (still available as low as the mid-$50's) that much, as I the few times I had this chateau, I found it pretty modern with lots of toasty oak...

If we're going 1998 for RB, I would put the 1998 Grand Mayne up there, which still will improve with more cellar time...

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:14 am

1998 Grand Mayne is an awesome wine.

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:20 am

must say, I am surprised Comte Flaneur likes the 2004 SHL (still available as low as the mid-$50's) that much, as I the few times I had this chateau, I found it pretty modern with lots of toasty oak...

Ahhhhhhhhh, nothing of the such here, in fact the complete opposite....on the other hand the '05..........

'04 complete mineral, one a day plus iron, expresso, and truffle. It's a sick wine

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:26 am

robertgoulet wrote:
must say, I am surprised Comte Flaneur likes the 2004 SHL (still available as low as the mid-$50's) that much, as I the few times I had this chateau, I found it pretty modern with lots of toasty oak...

Ahhhhhhhhh, nothing of the such here, in fact the complete opposite....on the other hand the '05..........

'04 complete mineral, one a day plus iron, expresso, and truffle. It's a sick wine

Sounds great, I need to try a bottle (and indeed, I own one, so I'll add it to the queue once back in Colorado)...

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:31 am

Comte
Better get your facts correct before you take this argument any further.

Firstly, you clearly totally misunderstood the comment I made about being rich, famous et al.
Not sure you bothered reading the total thread as it was a discourse between Jim H, a few other board members and myself.
My argument was based on a recent article in the Economist magazine (which I quoted) relating to the division of weath in western countries (not just the US).
The point being that there is a growing division between the top decile and the rest.
Incidentally, this is an argument your own President has picked up lately.

My argument in favour of 2008 St Emilions is not as simple as you suggest as they get my vote for many reasons.
As I have also noted several times, I am liking right bank wines more as I get older.

In relation to the 96 PL, I have had the wine 12 times.
The case is now gone. The last bottle was as indicated out of condiiton and my actual review of the wine earlierr this year accepted that.
Strange since it had been in air cond storage since the whole case arrived on indent.
However it was the last bottle of the case thus a disappointment with no replacement at the time.
Yet it was never a great wine to me and not a wine I would consider for the award.

By the way, I do not live in Australia.
I live in Singapore.

Let me explain a few terms to you as you clearly do not understand.

Firstly, if "Yank" is offensive, how come US sports terms call themselves Yankees?
Sounds like a pretty silly argument.
Several of my best friends are Poms are have never found it offensive.
Neither do Australians find being called kangaroos, Aussies, diggers or whatever to be offensive.
And the last point is that in several countries the term "spoof" is a gutter word for sperm.
Putting that aside, it is a negative and judgemental term that you have used numerous times.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:32 am

Ah ha, Blanquito bites on the mention of '05! And he picks a real good one. While the '05 Lascombes is a fabulous wine, and worthy of serious consideration for WOTY, I could certainly support the GPL too. I tried one out of my case (yeah, a whole case) a year or so ago just to see how it's doing. It's going to be a real beauty, no doubt about it. A worthy contender to be sure. And certainly worth the price of admission since, in the context of the vintage, not horribly priced.

That said, RobertGoulet has been so passionate about the 04 SHL, I'm buying a case even if the BD doesn't go with it. Either that or I'm heading over to Shoppers Drug Mart for a bottle of multi-vitamins.

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:56 pm

Comte
Worse luck this is the second time I have posted the same notes.

Much of what you say is simply wrong.
You have either entirely misunderstood or misquoted everyhting I said.
So I will take your points one at a time.

The issue of being rich, famous et al is a complete misunderstanding on your part.
You do not understand irony do you?
The note was part of a discussion with Jum H and a few others regarding a recent Economist magazine.
The Economist found that from 1974 to 2009, real incomes had risen slightly in the lower deciles, fallen significantly (like 20-30%) in the middle deciles, though the very top decile had increased several fold (all in real terms). The US was used as an example but a similar picture was found in other OECD countries, incluging Europe and Australia.
The point I made is that this is a social and economic problem, which you have completely misunderstood.

In relation to 2008 right bankers, I made several arguments in their favour:
Very good quality overall (better than the left bank)
Reasonable prices and value for money
Availability (I have never seen the point in older wines winning)
Consistent improvements to the quality of RB wines.
The Beausejour along with several oterhs (Figeac, Gazin) ticked a lot of boxes for me inlcuding QPR.
My other argument - again a point I have made several times - is that I am finding the St Emilion and Pomerol wines more to my taste as I age.
And the flavour profile is more conductive to Singaporean food.

On that note, I am Australian but live in Singapore.
Amazed you see "Yank" and "Pom" as insulting.
If Yank is so, then why do the NY Yankees give themselves that name?
Maybe they don;t think like you.
the term "Pom" (where my mother came from) is NOT considered insulting on its own.
It is only seen as an insult in Australia and the UK when other words like "whingeing" are applied to it.

Now, you clearly do not understnad this. The term "spoof" if used in several countires as a gutter word for semen.
That is the main reason I cringe when I see it in writing.

In relation to Pavie, I wonder if you have actually read the notes I have posted on the wine?
Does not seem so.
The last vintage I reviewed was the 2004.
I made the point that the fruit is excellent but that the wood is dominant (it was a few years ago) and maybe it will come around in 10 years.
Yet it wasn;t a pleasant drink at 5 years of age.
Further, I have regularly bought Pavie before the transformation and I have repeatedly said it did not in my opinion need fixing.
A lot of other estates have been changed for the better.

lastly, the 96 PL.
I bought a full case of this on indent and have now drunk all of them.
The one that was brett afffected was the last bottle.
A sad loss as there was no replacement.
I also am well aware that this can be random, but brett is also a batch problem too.
The other bottles were not overtly brett affected but at the same time, I have had better vintages of PL and would not consider it for such an award.
Yet I like PL and am a regular buyer of it.

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:13 pm

Tasted '05 lascombes twice, I am a big fan of margaux and this is a very good wine alas not great imo, in fact '04 Alter Ego(tasted half dozen + times) is better and for me another fantasic wine worthy of WOTY, regardless '04 SHL is better than both.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:35 pm

Patrick - on the SHL 04 I bought it very cheaply - around $35 IIRC - about a year and a half ago from the place in Pound Ridge and I was so impressed. Sure it was modern and quite oaky, but it was a judicious use of oak and it was not <<spoofulated>> at all. Just a brilliant wine and possibly the best 04 I have tried outside of Lafite. So I would not bear any grudges at all if this wine scooped the award.

Likewise I think the 98 Grand Mayne is an excellent suggestion - I have been folloiwng this estate since they started selling the 89 and 90 vintages quite cvheaply at Oddbins in the UK. As we have duscussed here before the 2005 is very good.

I would still plump for the 1996 PLL...everyone I know on this board bar one has been thrilled by it. Perhaps more importantly it consistently 'wins' shootouts with other lauded wines.

I took my case of 1995 PLL out of storage a few weeks ago. It is very good too. But it is not in the same league as the 1996.

Btw - back to SHL, the 2002 and 2006 are both excellent too, but the 2004 is probably the pick of the three.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:57 pm

Gotta disagree with RobertGoulet on the 05 Lascombes. I think it's fabulous. But I can see where it might not be your first choice, Mr. Goulet, if the 04 SHL and 04 Alter Ego are among your favourites. There's a certain quality those two share -- a ferrous element combined with a sort of hybrid tea-leaf/leather tone. I like them too, by the way (yup, I've had both), and wouldn't be the least bit disappointed if the BD picked the SHL. It's a classy wine, to be sure. But the 05 Lascombes kicks butt. It's certainly modern, but I see it as a contemporary take on Margaux rather than a post-modern, erasure of Margaux. Strength, depth, finesse, complexity, all in that gorgeous voluptuous body ... gotta stop!

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:16 pm

Okay, I am officially intrigued... Gotta try the 2004 SHL!

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:20 pm

Claudius2 wrote:Comte
Worse luck this is the second time I have posted the same notes.

Much of what you say is simply wrong.
You have either entirely misunderstood or misquoted everyhting I said.
So I will take your points one at a time.

The issue of being rich, famous et al is a complete misunderstanding on your part.
You do not understand irony do you?
The note was part of a discussion with Jum H and a few others regarding a recent Economist magazine.
The Economist found that from 1974 to 2009, real incomes had risen slightly in the lower deciles, fallen significantly (like 20-30%) in the middle deciles, though the very top decile had increased several fold (all in real terms). The US was used as an example but a similar picture was found in other OECD countries, incluging Europe and Australia.
The point I made is that this is a social and economic problem, which you have completely misunderstood.

In relation to 2008 right bankers, I made several arguments in their favour:
Very good quality overall (better than the left bank)
Reasonable prices and value for money
Availability (I have never seen the point in older wines winning)
Consistent improvements to the quality of RB wines.
The Beausejour along with several oterhs (Figeac, Gazin) ticked a lot of boxes for me inlcuding QPR.
My other argument - again a point I have made several times - is that I am finding the St Emilion and Pomerol wines more to my taste as I age.
And the flavour profile is more conductive to Singaporean food.

On that note, I am Australian but live in Singapore.
Amazed you see "Yank" and "Pom" as insulting.
If Yank is so, then why do the NY Yankees give themselves that name?
Maybe they don;t think like you.
the term "Pom" (where my mother came from) is NOT considered insulting on its own.
It is only seen as an insult in Australia and the UK when other words like "whingeing" are applied to it.

Now, you clearly do not understnad this. The term "spoof" if used in several countires as a gutter word for semen.
That is the main reason I cringe when I see it in writing.

In relation to Pavie, I wonder if you have actually read the notes I have posted on the wine?
Does not seem so.
The last vintage I reviewed was the 2004.
I made the point that the fruit is excellent but that the wood is dominant (it was a few years ago) and maybe it will come around in 10 years.
Yet it wasn;t a pleasant drink at 5 years of age.
Further, I have regularly bought Pavie before the transformation and I have repeatedly said it did not in my opinion need fixing.
A lot of other estates have been changed for the better.

lastly, the 96 PL.
I bought a full case of this on indent and have now drunk all of them.
The one that was brett afffected was the last bottle.
A sad loss as there was no replacement.
I also am well aware that this can be random, but brett is also a batch problem too.
The other bottles were not overtly brett affected but at the same time, I have had better vintages of PL and would not consider it for such an award.
Yet I like PL and am a regular buyer of it.

Mark

I did not misunderstand anything you said. Don’t try and weasel your way out of what you said. I understood exactly what you said.

You said, and I quote: “In the US, you may as well commit suicide if you are not rich famous and powerful.”

Are you really that ignorant?

Btw the economist article is nothing new...these data have been in the public domain for some time. Don’t try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.

In your last post/incoherent diatribe you clarified the fact that you are an Australian. From your earlier post I thought you might have become a naturalised Singaporean. Congratulations, you are well travelled...Singapore is a six hour flight out of Sydney. Have you been to Europe and America? More importantly if you have, did you learn anything? Or did you keep your blinkers on?

On this board, unlike other board members, you often make the crass mistake of presenting all your opinions as if they are fact. They are only your opinions which in the overall scheme of things count for very little.

And quite frankly in my experience there is nothing more tedious than an Australian with an inferiority complex, which you clearly have... or one with a chip on his shoulder...which you clearly have...or a chip on both shoulders most likely.

For your information Mark ‘spoof’ is only a derogatory term in Australia (btw I lived there for seven years). It is not in the US and the UK – the combined populations of which are 17 times that of Australia.

Yankee is not offensive I grant you, but yank often is, particularly in the context that you use it. Pommie is all too often an adjective for the noun bastard! Aussie is generally not offensive in my opinion, unless used as an adjective for the word ‘wanker’...or 'prick'...

In the 2008 Saint Emilions, thank you for finally articulating your view.

Merry Christmas, Mark.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:24 pm

Has ANY post-1994 vintage of SHL disappointed?

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:18 pm

ferrous element combined with a sort of hybrid tea-leaf/leather tone

bacchus your a good man. The leather is my friend!!!!love, though both wines have so much more than this

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:51 pm

JimHow wrote:Has ANY post-1994 vintage of SHL disappointed?

I didn't care much for the 2003 SHL, but that might not be fair given the vintage...

From July 2009: "I liked this wine but it seemed more typically 2003-esque than the blind 2003s flight, and that’s not a compliment. There as a strong caramel note in the bouquet and an herby perfume. On the palate it was more balanced, lush but not over the top. In general, not my style at least in such a hot growing season. 89 pts"

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:22 pm

Ya, I gotta agree with Blanquito about the '03 SHL; I don't care much for it either. For me it's too flaccid. The '04 is another beast, and the '05 different again! Weird that! I'll be happy to hear what you think of the 04 Blanquito.

I still agree with you RobertGoulet -- there is more to the SHL and Alter Ego than what I described. I only meant to find the point of intersection between the two -- to me they have enough in common that it doesn't surprise me that someone who likes the one also likes the other.

Gentlemen; better part of valour, and all that.

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:57 am

Comte
You sure as hell DID totally misunderstand what I said and you are the weasel.
Try quoting the whole article - in fact, there were several threads and again, you clearly do not understnad irony.
For your information, the Economist article I referred to was published last year and I when I quoted it it was in fact new information.
I was using it to argue the exact opposite of what you think - and if you can't get that thru your thick head, well more fool you.
In relation to 2008 St emilion you clearly did not bother to read everyhting I had said about these wines previously.
Rather, you just arrogantly argue that they should not win just because right bank wines have not won before.
I have consistnetly argued that there is a lot going for these wines.
However, I do think it is strange that while Burgundy (2005) has won, no right bank wine has.

You are now acepting the truth that you use gutter language to describe wines and you are quite wrong in saying "spoof" is such a word only in Australia, as the term came initially from Europe.

Don't why why you would care less where I have travelled or worked but since you rudely make the point, let you tell you a few facts.
Firstly, I started my career in NGOs and have worked all over the world in welfare.
I did that for several years before moving to business and academia.
I have seen more death and disease than I care to recall including having to try and recognise disfigured corpes.
Much of that work was done for free for various NGOs.

I have visited Europe 1-2 times a year for work and holidays every year for decades, and have visited the US several times - in fact met several BWE members in the east and west coast.

What is surprising is that you are trying to make this a perosnal diatribe.
I have not attacked your past, and quite frankly, have better things in life to do than dig up all your old posts and then twist and contort them.
And your comment about Australians is not just rude, it is plain ridiculous.
So you are fooling yourself that you are not only correct, but that you are stnading on some high moral ground.
You really should be ashamed of yourself.

I

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:19 am

I'm surprised Smith Haut Lafitte didn't perform well in 2003. How did the rest of Graves do in 2003? For some reason I think that terroir would do well in a hot year, no specific reason why.

Ramon_NYC · Post by **Ramon_NYC** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:41 am

Blanquito wrote: I didn't care much for the 2003 SHL, but that might not be fair given the vintage...

From July 2009: "I liked this wine but it seemed more typically 2003-esque than the blind 2003s flight, and that’s not a compliment. There as a strong caramel note in the bouquet and an herby perfume. On the palate it was more balanced, lush but not over the top. In general, not my style at least in such a hot growing season. 89 pts"

Not only is the 2003 SHL sucky, the 2001 is as spoofulated (I'm going to take my chance here and use that controversial "s" word) as they come.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:42 am

I loved the 2001 SHL, bought and drank acase from PJs for like $29 per bottle or some such thing.

Chasse-Spleen · Post by **Chasse-Spleen** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:01 am

Perhaps the 2002 SHL could be wine of the year? Until I try the '05 Chasse-Spleen before the year is out...

-Chasse

Ramon_NYC · Post by **Ramon_NYC** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:34 am

Chasse-Spleen wrote:Perhaps the 2002 SHL could be wine of the year? Until I try the '05 Chasse-Spleen before the year is out...

-Chasse

Excellent choice Chris. That 2002 SHL is my SHL of the first half of this decade. Our lobbying will probably get us nowhere, but I'm with you on this.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:09 am

I must say, this thread has been my favorite in a long while (however doubtful that Ian and Mark would agree)...

Upon reflection, if "recentness" matters, the 2005 GPL is truly my WOTY... It has all that we love about GPL year in and year out, and then there's an extra dimension in this vintage that gives it an arresting richness and depth. Fantastic juice.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:28 am

Has anyone had the 2008 Smith Haut Lafitte?

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:47 am

2001 SHL Spoof???? What????

that is one amazing wine, tasted this a few years back...and I'm still haunted by the notes of gravel, minerality, smoke and earth.

salilb · Post by **salilb** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:35 am

Ramon_NYC wrote:Not only is the 2003 SHL sucky, the 2001 is as spoofulated (I'm going to take my chance here and use that controversial "s" word) as they come.

Wow. When would you say SHL went to the dark side? I recollect really liking their 98, haven't had anything more recent but would be a shame if those great wines have been replaced by spoofed up/modern juice.

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:15 am

'08 SHL $62 locally here in Bore'lando fl.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:37 pm

That's about what it is here in New England, Robert, I may just try a bottle.

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:52 pm

sounds good, im thinking of picking up the '06

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:54 pm

I've never heard anyone accuse the 01 of being spoofified before. The 05, that's another matter. From CT:

"Tasted by Keith Levenberg on 12/2/2008 & rated 68 points: 2005 Bordeaux Test Drive (North Square): S.H.L., R.I.P. It's hard to overstate my disappointment here. Going back to the 1998 vintage, Smith Haut Lafitte has always been one of the only modern-styled Bordeaux I actually liked. More than liked, actually. The '98, '00, '01, and '02 were all delicious, black-fruited and scorched in a way that underscored the natural scorched-earth characteristics of Graves terroir. Yes, they were soup, but they were Graves soup! Not so here. It opens with a strange gamey aroma that's attractive but not at all the S.H.L. I know; the fruit isn't the usual sinister blackness but reddish and intensely -- undrinkably -- sweet. More like a sweetened cup of coffee than a glass of wine, this tasting note is just a long-winded way of saying that what we have here is a total piece of crap and I find the critical accolades it's gotten not just disagreeable but incomprehensible."

Ah Canada; thy taxes I adore. Up here the 08 is $97!!!!

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:01 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qetx33xIKVI

SHL '08 review

i think im going to pick up an 06 and 08 SHL

Nicklasss · Post by **Nicklasss** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:03 pm

Just to shake the pot a bit, I don't totally agree that Chateau Smith Haut Laffite should be the BWE Wine of the year. To me, even if SHL is a good-very good-excellent wine (the last one I had was the 2006 SHL and it was excellent), I kind of put that wine with other ''oak power, marshmallow, vanilla, cake, sweet ripe fruit'' new style of Bordeaux. A kind of ''candy wine''. But at the same time, i understand that wine lover might like it, young, it is like a ''young red Sauternes''...

By the way Jim, I think it is the opposite for AOC Pessac-Léognan : because the Graves (pebbles) layers are deep there (deeper than other AOC in Bordeaux), water flow easily to the bottom so vines are protected from too much dilution in medium wet or very wet years. But when it is exceptionnally hot like in 2003, it is the opposite and the vines have more problems. And it is exactly the opposite in St-Estephe with more clay in the soil, in very hot years, more water is retained in clay so vines suffer less and give better results, like 2003 in that AOC.

Nic

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:13 pm

You know, when I look back over the year, not of my tasting notes, but just the memories of my wine drinking experiences, the wine that really stood out for me was the 05 d'Issan, followed closely by the 06. To pick up on a metaphor beloved of RobertGoulet in his expose of the 04 SHL, these d'Issan are sex in a bottle. I could list all the flavours and elements TN style and it just wouldn't capture the power these wines have, at least for me. I love the GPL too. But for me it's a more intellectual wine, i.e., it causes me to ponder the elements of the wine, how they come together, how they feel in the mouth, etc. In some way the d'Issan caused me (allowed me) to transcend that little exercise and enter a higher plane of sensuality. If I hadn't already bought the last 1/2 case in the system (they were 06s) I'd go buy some more. And for some bloody reason the government decided not to import the 08. However, I saw it on the list of 09s. Given that 09 is such a plush vintage, the mind boggles at the possibilities. And if any wine were to tempt me to break (bend) the ban on 2010 . . .

(it's never that pricey either)

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:24 pm

Well, after viewing that video I guess I'm going to have to pony up with my $97 for a bottle of the 08 SHL. If the world's best sommelier has declared it the greatest SHL, it's gotta be worth at least a try.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:31 pm

Gosh, Nic, if you think SHL is a candy wine (along with Levenberg evidently) you should try a bottle of Kilikanoon!

I'll tell you what's interesting here. How is it that some people perceive SHL (or any wine really) to be so sweet as to be undrinkable, while others perceive it as old leather and mineral? It's not just that these descriptions are so different, it's that they bring such entirely different images to my mind. When I read Levenberg, and now Nics, description of SHL willy wonka comes to mind. When I read RobertGoulet's remarks, my mind moves to images more at home in a Ralph Lauren ad. Now how does one reconcile that juxtaposition?

Think I'm going to try and get my hands on a 96 cos d'estournel.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:48 pm

I suggest we all buy a bottle of 2008 SHL and review it before the end of the year.

And I disagree with Nic's assessment of the modern SHL. It is only modem in the sense that quality has risen to unparalleled levels, it is a classy, profound wine, and, yes, representative of Graves. It has become one of my favorite Bordeauxs in the past five years. The 2000 SHL is of first growth quality. Haven't had the '05 yet, I have one lonely bottle from that vintage in my cellar.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:57 pm

Of recent SHLs, I've got the '00, '04 and '05. Didn't bite on '01, '02 or '03, and haven't tasted the '05 recently, so my only real experience is with the '00 and '04. The '00 is the better wine, yet I voted for the '04 (as my "alternate" to '96 Pichon Lalande, my first choice but one that appears to be a dark horse at this time) because it seemed more "BWE-ish" - a less costly wine from an underdog year that really produced a lot of nice wines.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:59 pm

Bacchus wrote:You know, when I look back over the year, not of my tasting notes, but just the memories of my wine drinking experiences, the wine that really stood out for me was the 05 d'Issan, followed closely by the 06. To pick up on a metaphor beloved of RobertGoulet in his expose of the 04 SHL, these d'Issan are sex in a bottle. I could list all the flavours and elements TN style and it just wouldn't capture the power these wines have, at least for me. I love the GPL too. But for me it's a more intellectual wine, i.e., it causes me to ponder the elements of the wine, how they come together, how they feel in the mouth, etc. In some way the d'Issan caused me (allowed me) to transcend that little exercise and enter a higher plane of sensuality.

This is really nicely put, Bacchus. It is how I feel about my dearly departed '96 PLL, which is why I'm still plumping for it.

Ramon_NYC · Post by **Ramon_NYC** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:40 pm

salilb wrote:
Ramon_NYC wrote:Not only is the 2003 SHL sucky, the 2001 is as spoofulated (I'm going to take my chance here and use that controversial "s" word) as they come.
Wow. When would you say SHL went to the dark side? I recollect really liking their 98, haven't had anything more recent but would be a shame if those great wines have been replaced by spoofed up/modern juice.

SHL appears to have not gone completely to the “dark side”, whatever that really means. However, among the Graves producers that I’ve had, SHL is easily the one that appeared to have successfully adapted to the international style (not necessarily the "dark side" imo). Since the Cathiards took over in the early 90s, they seem to be content on straddling between the modern style and the traditional Graves character. I’ve not had any after 2005, but the 2005, as I recall is as modern as they can be in that region.

I’ve liked some of their wines and not as impressed with others. Here are my impressions of recent ones , from looking up posted TNs here.

1995 Ch. Smith Haut Lafitte, Pessac-Leognan (tasted Feb2011)
Even with plenty of wood, cigar, dried leaves, and some vanilla, the bouquet on this wine is, at best, primary. The first sip, and succeeding ones, were very tannic. It remained tight throughout the dinner, and (thanks to) only the fatty dry-aged rib eye helped me make something out of this wine at this point. The last pour, which was way past cheese, coffee and dessert courses, showed me a glimpse of an impressive classic Graves structure (I don’t recall the last time I mentioned the words “classic” and “SHL”in the same sentence), and good pure black fruit that’s nicely provided with a firm tannic backbone. That last pour enabled me to give a rating of B+ for now but with, imho and especially if it retains that somewhat of a throwback style that I sensed, a strong potential to go up a notch with time.

1996 Ch. Smith Haut Lafitte, Pessac Leognan (tasted Mar2011)
P-n-P’d but should have decanted for an hour or so prior to dinner. Plenty of Graves smell association with the cigar, herb and wood components. Opened up sufficiently, revealing the wine to be leaning more on the modern side with creamy, chocolate notes, a good level of sweet ripe blue/black fruit and sweet tannin. Good but plenty of other better Bdx 1996 out there. B

2000 SHL:
Last had back in 2007/2008: Shut down hard, but I remember it back on release when I first had it and it was more to my idea of a good Graves wine.

2001 SHL
I can’t locate my most recent notes, but I remember that the last time I had about 2-3 years ago, I couldn’t get past the pervasive oak. I have a few offsite and now I don’t care much for them and am willing to trade my bottles that were purchased at release, but not bought at $29 as claimed here (I don’t recall this wine ever having been sold at such price).

2002 Chateau Smith-Haut-Lafitte, Pessac-Leognan (tasted Nov2009)
Not a hyped vintage, but Left Bank 2002s continue to remain near-and-dear to me. Leafy with slight vanilla notes; but, austere and backward with lively acidity. A classic Bordeaux and a well made wine. Chris brought this bottle and I secretly hoped that he brought his guitar with him as well, as a few kick-ass licks with John's harmonica, might have gotten us free dinners at Tribeca Grill. A-

2003 Smith Haut Lafitte, Pessac-Leognan (tasted Jul 2009)
I got more alcohol notes than any of the wines in the tasting; vanilla and tobacco notes; ripe; medium bodied. B

2004 SHL
Last tasted during a 2004 Bordeaux horizontal at release. I can’t locate my notes right now, but seemed to be impressed by it for me to purchase and store a few bottles, all in magnums.

2005 SHL
As far as I can recall this is another oaky, modern, creamy effort. It wasn’t my style and didn’t buy any.