Aging Red Bdx

[Bacchus]

In a new on-line column, Matt Kramer, writer for the Wine Spectator, maintains that red Bdx no longer needs to be aged the way it once did. Most will reach their peak, or get most of the way there, in about 5 yrs, maybe 10 in some cases. Comparing today's Bdx with that of 20 yrs ago Kramer writes: "Can they age as long? Yes, I think they can. But that's not the issue. Rather, the key question is: Do they need to? I think not. Only a very small handful of even the best wines truly require more than five years aging—10 years tops—in a cool space." If Kramer is right, Jim, you should be able to buy some 2010s after all. Here's the link for those interested in the article:
http://www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show/id/47848

[DavidG]

Kramer misses the point for those of us that love well-aged Bordeaux.

Yes today's Bordeaux are approachable and enjoyable at a younger age. But they do not taste, at 10 years of age, anything like the wines of yore tasted at age 20 or older. They don't have that sweet aged complexity that 20 year old Bordeaux develops. If that's what you like in Bordeaux, you're not gonna get it from today's wines at age 10. There is some debate as to whether you will get it at age 20. I think you will, and I use the '82s as my evidence.

We can discuss whether the differences between the '00s or '09s and the '82s are greater or more significant than the differences between the '82s and the '61s, but how today's wines will develop in 20 years remains speculation.

[OrlandoRobert]

We can discuss whether the differences between the '00s or '09s and the '82s are greater or more significant than the differences between the '82s and the '61s, but how today's wines will develop in 20 years remains speculation.

No mention of 1990?

Seems to be "of the same breed" but is one of "today's wines" that is just over 20. A 1990 Figeac I had last year was SPECTACULAR. Eyeing some Lynch Bages right now for pick-up (even though fairly priced by today's standards, tough to plop down over 2 bills when you first bought it for $40!).

So how are your '90s showing, BWE'ers?

The '82s I have had over the past year have been profoundly earth-driven over fruit. Lovely tertiary characteristics Some animale!.

[DavidG]

Great point Robert. The '90s are starting to show that great aged stuff (tertiary, earthy, animale, but still the fruit is there!) that I love, so there's yet another solid piece of evidence that modern viticulture and winemaking techniques, while producing wines that are more accessible in their youth, have not destroyed their ability to age like "real Bordeaux."

[Comte Flaneur]

Excuse the British vernacular but he is talking bollocks. In many cases fine wine is at its most inaccessible after 5-10 years. This particularly applies to fine Bordeaux and fine Burgundy.

[AlexR]

Bacchus, thanks for starting this thread.

Bodeaux (red Bordeaux) *has* changed over the years.

It is certainly more alcoholic and, among the expensive wines, there's more new oak.

The question is, what was the cut-off point between old and new?
I'd venture to say that there is no clear one.

Also, château owners have taken different paths.
The Pavie of 2013 may not be the Pavie of the 60s, 70s,or 80s.
But then neither is the Léoville Barton...

It is entirely possible that many of the great wines are more approachable in their (relative) youth than they used to be.

The big question is - and it's too early to answer - will they also age well?

Best regards,
Alex R.

[Bacchus]

I was on the same wave length as the gracious Comte when I started this thread. Bdx is traditionally pretty awkward from 5 - 10 yrs of age. However, while we might have difficulty discovering whether modern Bdx can improve over 20 yrs, we should be able to test something of Kramer's assertions about 5-10 year old modern Bdx. We won't really be able to tell how good 2002-2007 may or may not eventually get, but does anyone think they're at or near their best? Just how accessible are they? You would have thought he'd have put that part of his assertion to the test. Just thinking back on our postings here (without checking anything), it seems like it's a mixed bag at best; some drinking well, some not. I can't imagine, for example, that the 05s are so near their peak that the benefit of letting them go longer will be slight or negligible, which seems to be Kramer's point, if I've read him correctly. It leads me to wonder what he's really trying to say? Is it that he's trying to put his finger on the difference between what he calls traditional and modern Bdx, but hasn't quite been able to do it? Are the categories of "modern" and "traditional" over massaged? We all seem to sense something has changed, and it does seem difficult to put one's finger exactly on the difference and what its implications might be.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

I agree with David. Drinkable does not necessarily also mean optimal for a particular palate, or that a bottle has reached an evolutionary dead end.

I suspect one need only go to cellartracker and view the notes for some 05s ( or 00s, 02s, 03s, 08s etc.) to find "the answer." I bet approximately one-third of the notes will say the wine is "too young", one-third will say "too old" and one-third will say "just right." Or words to that effect.

[OrlandoRobert]

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it. . . ."

—Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964).

Was Justice Stewart opining on when pornography is obscene or when Bordeaux is modern?


We heard the same debate with 1982. And then 1990. And then 2000.

We know something is happening. We cannot put our fingers on exactly what as it is a moving target. Some of it is weather. Some of it is extended hangtime. Some of it is over-manipulation. Some of it is lavish use of new oak. Some of it is Critics. Some get it right; some get it very wrong. Some get it right in robust years; then kill it in weaker years where the trappings show too much.

I fell of out touch with Bordeaux and wine collecting from 1999-2004 for a multitude of life reasons (partnership, new child, athletics). When I came back home, the 2003 vintage was being released to as much criticism as acclaim. I bought quite a bit. My beloved Pontet Canet, Cos, Leoville, were quite yummy, but tasted differently. Some of the 98-100 pointers, like Bellevue Mondotte, were undrinkable. I bought deeply in '05. Some of the left banks I bought seemed to go back to a more normalized structure, while the right banks were lavish (some still quite good, others over the top).

My uneducated point of view is that wine-making techniques have improved the quality of modest years, though some wine makers still push too far what nature gives, and then there is failure (for ex., 2004 Ch. Fleur Cardinale). My view is that these modern wine-making techniques in quality years are too much (2005 Cos for example). That is where the best wine-making technique is to do as little as possible to allow nature to express its full glory. This is a total layperson's take.

[JimHow]

What's your take on the 2003 Pontet Canet OrlandoRobert?

[DavidG]

Not OR, but my take on '03 Pontet Canet is that it's a great wine, and at 10 years of age, nowhere near what it will eventually become.

[OrlandoRobert]

I wish I had something intelligent to say about the '03 PC, but I ended up buying LP, Cos, Pavie, St.Pierre and a host of other smaller estates and St. Ems. instead. I have not tasted the '03 PC since shortly after release. These were seductive wines early on, but I must say, my St. Pierre has far exceeded the maturation curve I otherwise suspected - as in, damn fast. Haut Brion, I have one that I put a chastity belt on, is drinking beautifully, BTW. I've consumed most of my '03 St. Ems., they were maturing that fast as well.

I actually prefer '04. I agree with MarcF a/k/a Robert Goulet, that it's a very good vintage. I bought LP, PC, Pavie, Cos, Montrose and some others that I just cannot recall. Lovely, classic vintage for the left bank. Not too thrilled about some of my St. Ems.

[dstgolf]

OR,

Have you tried the 04 Montrose. This wine usually needs a lot of time. Have a case sleeping in the cellar.

danny

[OrlandoRobert]

OR,

Have you tried the 04 Montrose. This wine usually needs a lot of time. Have a case sleeping in the cellar.

danny

Loved it. Wish I had a case. I bought 3. With a case, pop one and you have 10 to spare (1 bottle is my advice fee . . . )

[JimHow]

I have drunk about 15 bottles of 2003 Pontet Canet, it is one of my favorite wines of the past ten years. I have a case each of the 1996, 2003, 2004, and 2006 Pontet Canet. We'll do a Pontet Canet vertical in 20 years... or beyond, in the Great Tasting Room in the Sky.

[OrlandoRobert]

I have drunk about 15 bottles of 2003 Pontet Canet, it is one of my favorite wines of the past ten years. I have a case each of the 1996, 2003, 2004, and 2006 Pontet Canet. We'll do a Pontet Canet vertical in 20 years... or beyond, in the Great Tasting Room in the Sky.

Baller!

I'm just a poor little country lawyer from the sticks of mid-Florida . . . .

[Bacchus]

Speaking of the devil -- here's a PC vertical for the past decade:
http://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/vie ... =1&t=77935

[Bacchus]

More on Pontet Canet! The latter half of this video features Alfred Tesseron speaking about his 2010:
http://www.jamessuckling.com/2010-borde ... three.html