Old Bordeaux and Burgundy

[Claudius2]

Folks
Went to an auction yesterday and had several old wines - both Burgs and Bordeaux, from 1970 onward.
Some (e.g., 1977) were admittedly from poor vintages though whenever I try old wines, it tends to confirm my view that wine should be drunk when it first approaches its drinking window, and not when it is 40-50 years old.
Agreed, there are a few exceptions, and I have had several old wines that were great. But that really is an exception.
Maybe it is like an old woman, with the bone structure still showing but otherwise there are faded charms to see only.

I have tried uploading photos but the JPG files are too large, alas.'
My normative scale goes as follows:

Outstanding+ (absolute best)
Outstanding
Excellent
Very good
Good (with occasional +/-)
Okay or fair
Not recommended (NR)
Truly awful/Do not put in mouth (DNPIM)


Puligny Montracher Referts 1er Cru 2011 Bachelet Monnot.
A youngish WB to start. Light gold, with pear, green apple, honey, mineral and toast on the nose, similar flavours.
Light to medium bodied. Good+, but not a big deal, showing the lesser vintage.

Echezeaux GC 1970 Mugneret Gibourg
Rusty red, some tannin, rather dull.
Nose was also rusty/metallic, some red fruit and firm acid.
Touch of aged red fruit on palate, a metallic twang (reminds me of holding electric guitar stings in my mouth when cutting them) and rough acid.
It is okay, but probably much better 20-30 years ago.

Pommard Epenots 1er Cru 1976 Domaine Parent
Mature red/orange colour, clearer than the Echezeaux. A few tannins floating around.
Nose showed red berry fruit, some sweetness and tar.
Good+ and the best of the older Burgs.

Corton Bressandes GC 1976 Dom Voarick
Brick red, not much of anything on the nose.
Soft, low acid palate but it is flat and metallic again.
Really no flavour to describe at all other than a bit of tar and funk.
NR, far too old.

Aloxe Corton Vercots 1er Cru 1993 Tollot Beaut
Much younger wine here with light red/crimson colour, though some murkiness.
Red fruit, tobacco and earth on the nose and palate.
Quite light and still seems to be too old.
Good but no better.

Echezeaux GC 1983 Pierre Yves Masson
Light orange/brown, rather murky and dull looking.
Similar palate, with muted red fruit.
NR

Savigny Les Beaune Cuvee Arthur Girard Hospices de Beaune 2009 Pierre Andre
Okay, a bit of a ring in here.
Nice crimson red, red and black fruits, some barnyard and earth.
Quite nice, lacks a bit of depth and body.
Very good and reinforces why they are nice young.

Also had the same of the 2010, which was a little less dense and more red than black fruit.
Cranberry flavour a little tart for me. Good+

Pontet Canet Pauillac 1970
Brick red colour. A few tannins remain in the glass.
Nose of leather, balsamic vinegar and stinky barnyard.
Soft red and black fruit with little tannin or acid.
Too old and NR. Approaching DNPIM.

Ch Brane Cantenac Margaux, 1977
Orange/brown rim. Not exactly clear - rather turbid.
Acidic, thin nose and palate. Stinky.
Watery and too old. NR, almost DNPIM. A $3 supermarket wine would taste much better.

Ch Cos Déstournel St Estephe 1977
Another tired old 77 but at least this was clean, showing a soft, earthy palate.
Fruit tart, aged, soft.
Okay. The mineral water is starting to look better.

Ch Mouton Rothschild Pauillac 1976
Brick red, fruit tastes of cranberry, raspberry and old wood.
Best of the old Bordeaux (albeit with little competition). Though lacks structure, body and interest. At least I got a few whiffs of fruit.
Good, no better.

Ch Lafite Pauillac 1979
The emperor wears no clothes, maybe never did.
Brick red/orange, with faded earthy and leathery red fruit.
Light palate tasting more like decayed wood and coarse acid than fruit.
NR.

Ch Montrose St Estephe 2001
Another ring in, with nice crimson red colour, touch of ageing at the rim.
Quite soft nose, with black and red fruit, some leather and earth.
Yet it left little impression. Lighter than expected though I think my palate was wasted by smelly old wines.
A bit tart and acidic.
Good+ and no better.

Ribera Del Duero 2012 Montasterio, Valladolid.
Not sure why this was in the tasting, but it was dark red, with earthy red fruits, some balsamic and VA character.
Palate was soft, sweet and red fruity, yet there is obvious VA in the wine that flattens the freshness of the palate.
It is okay to good, depending on your tolerance of VA.

I passed on the 73 La Tour Blanche Sauternes which smelled candied but dried out.

So at the auction itself I bought:
12 bottles of Beaune 1er Cru Hospices de Beaune 2009 Pierre Andre
6 bottles of Philippe Leclerc Gevry Chambertin 2009 Come Aux Moines 1er Cru.

I did bid on a few Bordeaux from 2000, 2005, 2008 and 2009 but gave up when traders gobbled them up.
I also just about choked at the prices achieved for poor Bordeaux vintages (I mean 60, 65, 68, 72, 74, 77, 80, 84 etc).
Why would you pay $500-600 for 1984 Margaux or Mouton?
I drank these in the 90's when they still had some fruit and they were worth $30 then. And less now.

At the previous auction I bought a 6 bottle case of 2007 Lagrange St Julien for $200 and it was miles better than any of these old wines (or even the Ribera).
My take is that most of the 2000-2008 vintages are now drinking well and I see no reason to hold any except 2005.
Better buy them than the older wines.
Not sure why the 2001 Montrose was rather ordinary but would need to try it when I don;t have a mouth full of stinky old wines.

[JimHow]

I agree. I think those old wines are almost always a disappointment, or just obviously past their prime.
There are exceptions of course. Looks like ‘89 Lynch is going to be lasting forever.
That ‘79 Gruaud that Tom brought to my house was just beautiful.
Overall, Bordeaux should be drunk earlier rather than later.
Too much disappointment among the old bottles, notwithstanding the occasional gem.
That auction tasting sounds like a disaster.
Can you imagine “winning” multiple bottle lots of that swill?

[AKR]

That's crazy. I can't even understand why an auction house would get involved with that stuff.

[DavidG]

Were those supposed to be the "highlights" to entice bidders? If so, that does sound like a bust of an auction.

I like old Bordeaux. Usually between 20-40 years old is the sweet spot for me, with most of the Bordeaux I open (other than ITNOS) in the 20-30 year range. Bottles from the 1970s are moving out of my zone. Sometimes even older bottles can be magical. But no question the odds of a ruined bottle due to an imperfect cork seal increase with increasing age. Even at 20 years you can get some duds. I'm willing to put up with the risk because in my sweet spot there are far more successes than failures. OTOH, I gave up on white Burgundy because of the 25-40% risk of getting a dud at 10 years. I hear the premox rate is going down in recent years but I'm too chicken and too old to start in again with them. Same issue with white Rhones. Loved them aged but ran into premox with a few of those as well, so I said goodbye to them.

[sdr]

Well, I too like old wine - but only Bordeaux (including Sauternes) and the occasional Champagne. But not dead or decaying wine, like the ‘77 Brane Cantenac you describe above. I do not believe “older is (always) better” with no limit. That would describe François, I believe.

Sauternes ages extremely well, better than the reds. The ‘59 Suduiraud for example is still very lively and Yquems from the sixties and seventies are in their prime.

Reds are trickier and vintages matter. For example, your chances of finding excellent Bordeaux from 1970 or 1975 are much better than from 1974 or 1977. Of course vineyard and winemaking skill matter a lot as well.

A friend of mine describing old wines summed it up perfectly: “the highs are higher but the lows are lower.“

What you get from the oldies you cannot get from younger wines are two things, complexity and texture. For example, compare a sound bottle of 1959 La Mission Haut-Brion to the excellent 1998 La Mission Haut-Brion.

Of course tastes differ and some will always prefer new releases or the vigor of youth to the patina of age. There are no wrong answers.

Stu

[JimHow]

Well, I too like old wine - but only Bordeaux (including Sauternes) and the occasional Champagne. But not dead or decaying wine, like the ‘77 Brane Cantenac you describe above. I do not believe “older is (always) better” with no limit. That would describe François, I believe.

Sauternes ages extremely well, better than the reds. The ‘59 Suduiraud for example is still very lively and Yquems from the sixties and seventies are in their prime.

Reds are trickier and vintages matter. For example, your chances of finding excellent Bordeaux from 1970 or 1975 are much better than from 1974 or 1977. Of course vineyard and winemaking skill matter a lot as well.

A friend of mine describing old wines summed it up perfectly: “the highs are higher but the lows are lower.“

What you get from the oldies you cannot get from younger wines are two things, complexity and texture. For example, compare a sound bottle of 1959 La Mission Haut-Brion to the excellent 1998 La Mission Haut-Brion.

Of course tastes differ and some will always prefer new releases or the vigor of youth to the patina of age. There are no wrong answers.

Stu

I think that's the best summary of old versus new I've ever read. Bravo.

[AKR]

I really don't understand most Rhone whites. They crack up so fast.

Even the ones I do like - mostly Viognier based - tend to be on the cloying side.

[felixp21]

Claudius, that comes close to post of the year, on any forum!!!
Bravo!!!
I cannot for the life of me understand why so many wine-lovers insist on drinking their bottles at a time when most people would consider them a decade past their best. I'll never forget some loonie over on the WB forum who admonished people for opening village level Burgundy at "only" 10 years of age, and at the same time declaring that any GC Burgundy needs three decades before you even think about tasting it.
Yes, quite a deal of Bordeaux, and some Burgundy, can age and improve for decades, but for every bottle of those wines opened, five dead and buried wines are tipped down the sink.
Of course, there are somewhat unusual vintages like 2005 in both Bordeaux and Burgundy and 86 in Bordeaux that are requiring what seems to be an endless time to become even approachable, but let's be honest, 90% of vintages are drinkable, and very enjoyable, within their first decade.

For me there is no rule of thumb about ageing wines. If it tastes good, drink the bloody stuff!!!

[JimHow]

Amen my brother Felix!
If it feels good, do it!

[JCNorthway]

Claudius, do I understand from your post that these were wines being offered at auction. If so, I agree with JimHow that it was not very good "advertising" for the auction. I've tasted very few wines from the 1970s, but I'm not surprised that many of these were over the hill. My guess is that only the top tier of Bordeaux are still enjoyable, and likely only a small handful of Burgundies from that era would still be enjoyable.

OTOH, we just saw a post about a tasting of Bordeaux wines that are 100 years old. So go figure.

[jal]

Most 1978 and 1979 GCC wines properly stored should be drinking very well. I enjoyed 1978 and 1979 Palmer much more than 1998 and 1999.
I imagine the wines went for very little at the auction, Claudius is right in saying some of the wines presented were from very poor vintages.
I find it very hard to draw any conclusions about drinking window from having a poor 1976 or 1977 forty years later.
I never had 1979 Lafite but 1978 was tremendous a few years back.
Obviously, if you enjoy drinking them young, go ahead, who am I to disagree? I just think a 1978 or 1983 well kept bottle would taste better than a 1996 or 1998 of the same pedigree. But at this and (any) age, provenance is everything

[DavidG]

I cannot for the life of me understand why so many wine-lovers insist on drinking their bottles at a time when most people would consider them a decade past their best.

It's really quite simple. That's when the majority of them taste best to us. For properly selected and stored wines, the dud ratio is really much lower than the 80% you suggest. More like less than 10% in my experience. Of course the ones I love may be OTH to you. Nothing wrong with that, everyone has different preferences.

For me there is no rule of thumb about ageing wines. If it tastes good, drink the bloody stuff!!!

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

[stefan]

My experience is similar to David's. Much more often I find a 15 year old Bordeaux has unresolved tannins and less complexity than I like than a 30+ year old one is past its prime. As Jacques says, 1978 and 1979 Bordeaux from upper tier estates are excellent right now. I drank 1976 Ducru-Beaucaillou twice in the past year. One bottle was excellent and the other quite good. Of course I do not keep lower level wines or Grand Cru Classe wines for 30 years except for the purpose of experimenting.

[DavidG]

I’m not furthering my position with this, but can’t help posting this quote from famed winemaker Andre Tchelistcheff:

Appreciating old wine is like making love to a very old lady.
It is possible. It can even be enjoyable.
But it requires a bit of imagination.

[Nicklasss]

Hi Claudius.

After reading your impressions on these wines, I can just imagine this is a trap for new riches not knowing too much about wines, and they will buy these bottles between a medium to high price, thinking they're getting something great. Or people looking for their birthyear wines for fun. I tried a few times buying 1974 red Bordeaux (my birthyear) at auction, but some people are paying way too high prices for these wines, so I never got any!

Very bad sample you got there.

Nic

[JimHow]

As Tom and Gail can attest, that 1958 Lynch Bages I bought for $300 for my 60th birthday was bad... Very bad.
Although, I must say, that 1958 Haut Brion Timmy brought to his birthday dinner was very good.

[DavidG]

Fortunately, we’re holding up better than the average bottle of Bordeaux.

[Claudius2]

Folks
These wines were all offered for sale.
Much to my horror, some of the stinky old wines like Brane Cantenac were actually purchased. I know one of the auctioneers quite well and he said that they were disappointed overall and most lots were passed in.
Yet they probably did not know what to expect and I’m sure some buyers assumed that it must be good if it’s old French wine . Oh well.
I also have to admit I like Burgs at around 10 yrs or maybe 12-15 for the GCs and mid level Medocs at the same. I do not always see eye to eye with RP but on the matter of old wine, I tend to agree. As an example I bought a case of 75 LLC in the early 90s and it was the best 75 I tried along with LMHB. Some 1ers were rather disappointing. All tannin and not enough fruit. Yet I kept half the case till age 30 and I saw a wine with structure and not the beguiling fruit of a decade earlier.
These days I keep a close eye on the cellar inventory to make sure that they don’t die on me.

Having said that I do like old white Burgundy and still drinking some 20 yr old Remoissenets with great pleasure. Go figure.

[Antoine]

Given my best wine in 2018 was Haut Brion 1961 (and I am a burgphile and had some splendid ones),,, I cannot fully agree with this

[dstgolf]

There is nothing more magical than a well stored beautifully aged Bordeaux and must say that I have little experience with aged anything else that has struck a note. Over the years we've enjoyed many fabulous 59's, 61's, and a few from the 40's. The 48 Rausan Segla and the 45 Leoville Las Cases were amazingly youthful. 58 and 53 Haut Brion exceptional and not sure if they were better years before but these were both superb memories. Depending on your taste profile a necro-oenophile like Francois gained great pleasure from the 28 Haut Brion that others around the table( Ed,Alex etc ) also seemed to enjoy but I found NO pleasure in the soya/mushroom/forest floor notes. Not vinegar/oxidized etc but far into the tertiary range umami field that I don't gain anything but a big question mark as to how anyone can enjoy this stuff or would want to experience this but to each his own. But that is the bottom line with wine enjoyment is that taste is so personal that who am I to judge. We all have different palates and to each his own. There is usually a commonality with great wines but when it comes to age, brett, corkiness, and oxidation everyone has different tolerance levels or levels of enjoyment. Personally I like wines with some age but when the fruit completely leaves the bottle I lose interest. I don't mind youthful wines with tannins but they must be aired out to round up the tannins but I prefer wines(Bordeaux) in that 15-20 yr range where they have a good mix. People talk about 2009/2005 being ready to go but I beg to differ that the wines that we expect to age well are still a long ways from their peak drinking window and have no fear of falling off the map in the near future. The 2000s that I have left are still on the short side of prime time not saying that I haven't thoroughly enjoyed the 9 out of 12 cases that I've gone through just that most still could have used a little more time but were still very good when we drank them and no regrets

[Claudius2]

Antoine/dstgolf
Actually, neither of you are disagreeing with me.
I have had 100 year old wines (Latour for example) that were still very nice. But I am sure that I would have preferred them at 40-50.
As for the 61 HB, my only comment is big deal. I had a 66 last time I was back in Australia and while others were swooning over it, I thought I would have drunk it 20 years ago.
No, I am not being cynical or sarcastic. Some wines DO last for 50 or so years but I cannot accept that the same wine NEEDS 50 odd years before it is at its peak.
Similarly, I have had lots of old Hunter Valley wines including a few 50-60 yr examples, and they often attract big prices at auction.
The writers assert that "this is a 50 year/100 year wine..." and I am sorry, I will wait half that at most.
In reality, there are very few wines that demand more than twenty years in the bottle and at my age, I am not buying them anymore.

My point is that all wine has a drinking window. Some are of course much longer than others, but cést la vie.
The oldest wine I have in storage is 1995, and I am thinking it is best to pull it out and drink soon.
I have a few late 90's single vineyard Rhones and even they are on my "drink soon" list as the most recent examples were not as good as they were 5 years ago.
Same with the last of the 2001 and 2002 GC Burgs (Clos Vougeot, Bonnes Mares) in storage. They are slated for consumption over the next year. 1ers were all guzzled earlier.

One point I make about old wines is that the anecdote "the good ones are great..." is hyperbole.
Most wines over 30 years of age that I have drunk (and I do a lot of tastings) are too old.
Yes, there are always exceptions but there is a high probability that the wine will be too old for enjoyment. Sorry, not into necrophilia...
But I am not wasting my money on a low probability wine.
I will not buy any wine older than 2000 anymore. And no, I am not paying thousands of dollars for an aged Latour (or whatever) just for the experience of drinking old wine.
I almost bought some 96 Bordeaux at the last auction for quite good prices, but the morte consumed earlier put me off.

By the way, I have quite a lot of 09's and 10's (actually probably more than I can drink...) and I have little doubt that they will age, with some exceptions, in a similar vein to 1982 or 1989/1990.
Arguably the same for the 2015 and 2016 vintages.
But the last few 98/99 Bordeaux I have to finish off are to my palate fully mature and won't last much longer.

Interestingly, I keep white wine much longer than just about anyone else in balmy Singapore.
I have numerous white Burgs that are over a decade old (and a few back to the late 90's) which have aged better than most of the reds from the same vintages.
And good Aussie chardonnay and riesling is nice after 10 years. But I drank all the 2008's (with much pleasure) in the last year of two.

[AKR]

There is some angry guy on another chat board who just bought 3 x 82 Mouton's at current prices, and opened them for Thanksgiving.

All were toast, and he's looking for recourse from HDH.

Maybe he should have read Claudius warning first.

[marcs]

Claudius makes a bunch of different claims above:

--sometimes he says that most wines over 50 years old are too old and would have been better drunk earlier. I don't think this is too controversial.

--sometimes he says that most wines over 30 years old are too old. This is more controversial -- it would mean that everything 1989 and older is in decline/shot now.

--sometimes he says that "very few wines demand more than twenty years in the bottle" -- I presume "in the bottle" would mean about 22 years from vintage date. This would mean that nothing say 1996 or older should be held any longer

--then sometimes (e.g. first post) he says "the vintages 2000-2008 are now drinking well and I see no reason to hold any except 2005". This one I completely disagree with. 2000, 2003, 2008 and even some 2002s and 2004s all clearly to my palate have tannins to shed.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for the general point that there are way too many wine necrophiliacs out there, and that older wines all too often could/should have been drunk younger. I've had lots of experiences like Claudius describes. But the point at which wines appear to drop off seems to me to be closer to 30 years than the 10-15 year point where Claudius sometimes seems to put it. For me, big wines from 1996 are drinking optimally with both tertiary complexity and remaining fruit, but big wines from 2000 and younger are not. I also think some of the Parker-era vintages are more tannic, being more extracted.

An important proviso is that storage is HUGE with older vintages, one might say all-important. I've had too many experiences of bottles of the same wine from the same year tasting either totally shot or very good depending on storage. Whenever I pick up bottles of the same wine from multiple secondary market sources this seems to happen. (E.g. it has happened to me with 1996 Sociando Mallet, 1995 Mondavi Reserve, etc.).

This is an issue that I am thinking about a lot lately as I pretty much started collecting with the 2000 vintage, and I am wondering when to open up higher-class 2000s. For my palate, when I go to tastings, 20-25 years from vintage date seems to be around the optimum period for drinking big modern Bordeaux from powerful years, with the window easily extending out to 30 years for e.g. second growth wines from good years. More "classic" years like 2004 the window is more like 15-20 years from vintage date, extending to 25. It seems like you can still lose out by opening bottles from "big" vintages 10-20 years from vintage date.

[DavidG]

My experience matches Marcs. A lot depends on storage and a lot depends on personal preference. For the better classed growth Bordeaux I like to drink, well stored bottles are usually hitting their sweet spot at 20-30 years. Some will stay on that plateau for another 10-20 years. Some even longer, but the cork failure rate starts reducing the odds of success in even well stored bottles.

[robert goulet]

Those 70's aren't ready yet....give um 10 more years!!

[JimHow]

The 1979 Gruaud Larose that Tom and Gail brought to my house (with the $25 sticker still on it) was one of my wines of the year.

[marcs]

I think I prefer things on the youthful end and I *still* find the 20 to 25 or 30 year mark optimum, even with that prejudice.

I remember the Pichon Lalande vertical I went to in early 2018, where all the vintages had been perfectly stored and supplied direct from the chateau. The 1996 was at the absolute optimum for drinking for me, but the 1970s vintages were very good (clearly perfectly stored) and had a fascinating complexity, still very alive. But for me I preferred the fruit remaining in the 1996.