Comparing Bordeaux Vintages 2015 vs 2016

[Frederico]

Many professional wine critiques rate 2016's higher than their 2015 counterparts. CellarTracker users also put higher scores for the 2016's compared to the 2015's of the same Chateau's (of course there are a few exceptions)


Does that mean one is better than the other in general. If you're on a tight budget, would you wait for 2016 and skip 2015 for the same wine?

[jckba]

I have also been giving this a lot of thought to this question as well, and my conclusions at this stage without having tasted even one single 2016 is that there are major price differences btw the 2 vintages. The offering prices for just about every 2016 that I have looked at is at a premium to their 2015 counterparts and as a result, that was one of the major reasons why I chose to load up on the 2015’s as well as backfilling on more 2014’s. And I can’t wait until the UGC in January when I will get to taste a nice cross section of these 2016’s and then see what’s what.

[marcs]

I wouldn't trust Cellartracker ratings until the wines are in bottle and being sold widely in the U.S. Cellartracker ratings before the UGC tour of the U.S. for that vintage are particularly useless. All you have for 2016s right now is a couple of ratings done at mass tastings or chateau visits by the few U.S. critics/hobbyists who visit Bordeaux for en primeur. Concretely the ratings tend to be dominated by Jeff Leve who posts numerous notes for the same wine, thus having a huge influence on average ratings early on, and has fairly predictable ratings (95+ if it's big, fruity, and expensive). Panos Kakaviatos and a few others also post.

Cellartracker ratings will generally drop once the wine is in bottle and being tasted by lots of normal civilians. But they also become more reliable. An average rating of 93 points based on a few dozen ratings from bottle by ordinary consumers is more reliable than a rating of 95 based on Jeff Leve ratings alone. IMO the longer a wine has been out and the more people review it the more reliable the rating gets.

[William P]

I don't wish to be the cause of topic drift but you did mention "tight budget". I've tasted a few 2015s and see that it is superior to 2014s and 2016s may be better than both. Still I've found for the budget minded, there are many fine bottles in 2014 and the price is 25-40% lower. Also, the that the quality of many of the 2014s is not that far behind 2015. They are sound, delicious wines, just not built to last 50 years.

If you are not on a budget, go for quality and vintage, they will age longer. If you are on a budget, I'd researched 2014 and think about backfilling with that vintage. More bang for the buck there. There is no right answer especially if you are young. In my 30s, I would have bought the 2016s (I have no regrets in buying 1982s heavily). My outlook has since changed. I have few 2015, probably won't buy 2016 and I have purchased many 2014s. Either way, you win.

Bill

[DavidG]

From what I’ve heard there are plenty of excellent choices in both 2015 and 2016.

If you don’t have billions and can’t go long on both, there are lots of variables to consider:
- Cost and personal budget
- Style and personal preferences
- Quality and how you define it
- Reliability of the "data" on individual wines - subjective, potential for early bias as Marcus notes
- Reliability of vintage generalizations
- Availability of wines to you now vs. on release

If cost is a primary concern, I like William P's advice on 2014s.

Do you prefer the style as described for 2015 or 2016? Do you trust the generalizations? I’d go by specific wine rather than vintage. If you trust the palates around here, Giscours is better in 2015 than 2016, but Pichon Lalade is the bee's knees in 2016.

If you can get the wines you want on release, there is an advantage to waiting for more data. Prices don’t usually increase that much other than the rarities and 100-pointers. Or if the exchange rate bites you, but good luck timing that market. If you are after rarities, or the wines you tend to like just don’t show up on the local wine shop shelves, and the big internet retailers can’t ship to you, it may be necessary to decide based on limited data.

[Comte Flaneur]

The key difference between them is the heat.

Both had a lot of sunshine

But 2015 was something like 2C warmer on average

Hence higher alcohol in 2015

Both superb vintages imho

In general I prefer the 2016 from what I have tried

Pricing may reflect exchange rates to a significant degree

[felixp21]

I have been lucky enough to have had extensive tastings of both vintages.
Want a summary?
That is VERY easy:
If you are aged 45 or less, buy 2016.
If you are aged 46 or more, buy 2015.
Simple.

[felixp21]

From what I’ve heard there are plenty of excellent choices in both 2015 and 2016.

If you don’t have billions and can’t go long on both, there are lots of variables to consider:
- Cost and personal budget
- Style and personal preferences
- Quality and how you define it
- Reliability of the "data" on individual wines - subjective, potential for early bias as Marcus notes
- Reliability of vintage generalizations
- Availability of wines to you now vs. on release

If cost is a primary concern, I like William P's advice on 2014s.

Do you prefer the style as described for 2015 or 2016? Do you trust the generalizations? I’d go by specific wine rather than vintage. If you trust the palates around here, Giscours is better in 2015 than 2016, but Pichon Lalade is the bee's knees in 2016.


If you can get the wines you want on release, there is an advantage to waiting for more data. Prices don’t usually increase that much other than the rarities and 100-pointers. Or if the exchange rate bites you, but good luck timing that market. If you are after rarities, or the wines you tend to like just don’t show up on the local wine shop shelves, and the big internet retailers can’t ship to you, it may be necessary to decide based on limited data.

David, I have had the 2015 and 2016 Pichon Lalande side-by-side, a decent taste of each. There were five of us present, all preferred the 2015. In 30 years, maybe the 2016 will be the better wine, marginally, but certainly not right now. To be honest, none of us even thought it was a close contest. I know the critic's views, sure, but this is what we found on the day.

[DavidG]

OK, some of the palates around here. LOL.

[Nicklasss]

I did not had the 2016 Pichon Lalande, but i agree the 2015 is great.

Nic

[felixp21]

OK, some of the palates around here. LOL.

hehe, you raise a decent point here, David, given there were four Aussies and a Honkie present

[Antoine]

Having bought a boatload Bordeaux in the early 2000s and drinking much more Bourgogne than Bordeaux, I have stopped buying en primeur until I2015 when I succumbed to the hype ... so ignored the 2016 hype...

[KWP]

From what I have tasted, 2016 is a fresher version of 2015. It's balanced power, fruit and acid which isn't that easy in BDX with the climate. 2015 is very good too though. 2014 will end up like 2004, there will be some very good wines at fair prices due to future vintage hype.

[DavidG]

2016:2015 :: 2010:2009 ?

[Jeff Leve]

Having actually tasted about 600 wines from each vintage, in bottle and barrel for 15, and so far, just in barrel for 2016, stylistically, 2015 is sexier and softer, while 2016 is a little more fresh, bright and structured. But those variances are only part of the story.

In 2015, Margaux, Pessac Leognan, Pomerol and St. Emilion hit it out of the park! In fact, this is the best year ever for the wines from Margaux, from top to bottom and Pomerol is not far behind. But the Northern Medoc from about the midway point in Pauillac, through Saint Estephe and further north are only good not great.

In 2016, it is the opposite. Starting in the north, Saint Estephe produced the best wines ever made in that appellation. Pauillac and St. Julien are also hot spots. Margaux is moderate, Pessac Leognon and very good, and in the Right Bank, St. Emilion is best in the graves terroirs, and on the St. Emilion plateau, but the appellation is quite good in most terroirs. Pomerol is strong, with at least one chateau making perhaps the best wine in the history of their estate.

Dry white Bordeaux and Sauternes are very good in both vintages.

Because I took an even longer summer break than usual, I was quite slow with adding in bottle 2015 scores. But they will be on the site this week.

FWIW, you cannot compare 2014 with 2015 or 2016. 2014 is not close to the same level of quality or character. 2014 is best in the northern Medoc, St. Estephe and Pauillac. 15/16 are the wines to have in your cellar if you have the extra income.

[marcs]

From what I have tasted, 2016 is a fresher version of 2015. It's balanced power, fruit and acid which isn't that easy in BDX with the climate. 2015 is very good too though. 2014 will end up like 2004, there will be some very good wines at fair prices due to future vintage hype.

I would be very happy if 2014 ended up as an even better version of 2004. The 2004s are very good in a middleweight way, with a lot of character, finesse, and charm. What is also great about them is that they are peaking early -- good 2004s are drinking close to peak for me now and it's not even 15 years from vintage. For my purposes, buying now at my age, I would prefer to buy a 2004-like vintage to a 2010-like vintage.

I am a little concerned that 2014 may be more tannic than 2004 though and take longer to come around.

I can never quite tell when people talk about better and worse vintages if they are talking about size/aging ability (which I don't necessarily care that much about, all Bordeaux age fine for my purposes now that I have reached 50) or flesh/charm.

[greatbxfreak]

Jeff,

You're not entirely correct on 2015s in St.Estephe. Many critics wrote about dilution without actually being there during harvest. I was there.


Yes, there was some rain, but it run through vineyards very quickly and eastern wind dried up vines and soil in no time. Vines were pass their vegetation cyclus so remaining water did no harm.


I tried hard by I couldn't find any dilution in wines from St.Estephe in 2015. Cos, Montrose, Calon S, Phelan Segur and Meyney are simply stunning wines.

[Comte Flaneur]

This is my evolution of the best ever young wines I ever tasted in ascending order:

Chateau Margaux 1996, April 2001
Chateau Margaux 2010, May 2013 with Paul Pontallier
Chateau Lafleur 2015, February 2018

I worked in an energy company called EDF Trading, which is fully owned by EDF Group. In energy markets you need to track the weather forecast more than the economic data. I learned to track the weather forecast, which is hard for an economist, obsessed by ‘output gaps’, ‘Phillips Curves’ and the like.

But as a student of weather, Comte Flaneur’s crystal ball sees a very great vintage in Bordeaux in 2018. Whether (pun intended) it will exceed the 2016 Comte Flaneur vintage benchmark of excellence it is clearly too early to tell. The baseline is that 2018 will be ‘up there’ with the all time greats and with the new philosophy of tea bag brewing rather than lemon squeezer extraction it will be a vintage us old-timers will find hard to resist.

That, at least, is what I see in my crystal ball.

[marcs]

I've got to hold the line on 2016 being my last vintage.

But I hope that 2018 gets praised to the skies because it will ensure that 2014-2016 prices stay down.

[DavidG]

I've got to hold the line on 2016 being my last vintage.

But I hope that 2018 gets praised to the skies because it will ensure that 2014-2016 prices stay down.

Ding, ding, ding!
Same exact sentiments here.

[DavidG]

Having actually tasted about 600 wines from each vintage, in bottle and barrel for 15, and so far, just in barrel for 2016, stylistically, 2015 is sexier and softer, while 2016 is a little more fresh, bright and structured. But those variances are only part of the story.

I’ve been reading similar comparisons from several sources. I haven’t tasted the wines, but the above does sound in some ways like the comparison between 2009 and 2010. Though of course that’s just the Cliff's Notes version. I’m sure there are regional differences and a lot more to the story.