2005 Grand Pontet, 2003 Canon de Brem etc

[Claudius]

These two wines show the vintages well.

03 Canon de Brem
If you really like 03, I wonder if you like Bordeaux at all.
This wine if it was blind wold have been picked as probably from the Riverina in Australia or the Calif Central Valley.
It was very dark, quite thick, smelling of burnt or roasted fruit.
The flavour was prune like, sweet at times yewt also hard and dry - this shows heat stress (like some 01 barossa Valley shiraz that Parker really likes and I hate)
After a few sips, the palate is jaded. The wine is like drinking burnt wood and tar. The fruit is just awful - like it was left out in the sun opened for a week.

Now, if you have got the point so far you will probably have worked out that I hate 03 with the excpetion of the best estates. Lafite, Montrose, Cos, the Leovilles etc are very good and the Pontet Canet is as good as any. The average quality is a big problem.

05 Grand Pontet St Emilion
This wine is ripe, well balanced, firm yet smooth, and not a waste to drink now.
The tanins are there is number but were ripe, almost coffee/mocha like, adding texture and firmness.
Typical plummy, ripe red and black fruits with good mouthfeel.
Very nice.
Not a great Bordeaux and a bit simple but still a nice drink.

2004 La Fleur de Bouard lalande de Pomerol
This was a cooler style if you get the drift.
A touch more acid, a bit of tobacco leaf, more red fruited, but quite well balanced.
A wine that is better with food. A bit astringent on the end palate - it seemed a bit hard though not a good choice after the 03.....
Good rather than great.

[JimHow]

Thanks for the report Claudius. Parker rated the '05 Grand Pontet at 94 points, I bought a couple bottles at the height of the 2005 vintage goldrush for $45 each.

[Houndsong]

That's funny. I've liked quite a few 03s (PC, Potensac, Pipeau, Vrai Canon Bouche, Lilian Ladouys, the Lagrange, which everyone hates) and I liked the 1999 Leo B. I guess Alex's cudgel about vintage generalizations is in order. I did not like the Puygueraud, which had the banana esters plus the burnt, hard, and flat palate you describe. There were one or two others that left me cold as well.

[Blanquito]

2003 is all over the map, IMHO. But even "mid-tier" wines like Duhart Milon and Sociando Mallet made great wines. So, I agree that it's a minefield, but I a disagree that there weren't some outstanding lesser wines made, especially on the Left Bank, but also on the Right Bank (wines like Vieille Cure 2003, Pipeau 2003, and Marsau 2003 immediately come to mind).

What I think is a potentially big issue is how these wines will age. If some positive transformation occurs as the wines settled down and shed their abundant baby fat, many 2003s will be legends. But if they start to fall apart and show a lack of acidity and/or excessive acidification (allowed that year in Bordeaux, I think), Parker will have some serious egg of his face.

[AlexR]

Patrick,

>>>If you really like 03, I wonder if you like Bordeaux at all.

We'll have a talk about this, young man, over a glass of wine next summer .

Alex

[Houndsong]

Wow, I omitted the 03 SM. Marvelous Marvin to the PC's Sugar Ray.

[JimHow]

Sugar Ray fought his fight that night, Hound, Marvin was in an awkward stage.

[Ramon_NYC]

If some positive transformation occurs as the wines settled down and shed their abundant baby fat, many 2003s will be legends..

I hope you are right.

[Claudius]

Guys,
I have no doubt that there are many top wines from 03 and alluded to several - not sure the SM is that great but I have liked several wines.
Yet even the mid range wines are in my mind risky. Wines like D'armhaillac, Clerc Milon etc still show me that scorched fruit character.
The Canon de Brem is no great wine at the best of times though maybe I'm more sensitive to the vintage characters.
I think I like classical vintages such as 86 and 96 better than the very hot years including 89 and 03.

I am not confident that there will be MANY legends from this vintage. Okay, maybe Lafite, Latour and Montrose for example but I've tried maybe 60-80 wines from the vintage at tastings and at home and have most often been underwhelmed. The problem is not just the scorched characters. The wines have low acidity and a lack of tannic structure.

The absolute heat is not conducive to long lasting wines. I don;t see too many long lasting wines coming from the very hot regions around the world, as again, the wines lack the acid, tannins and other structural elements to last. With a few exceptions, the wines I've tried have seemed open and ready young - the last vintages that the wines of Bordeaux drank so well young was 89/90 yet those wines had a lot more structure, with ripe tannins, some acid (maybe lacking in some 89s in particular) and without the scorched characters.

So I did a quick review of the 03s I've got - and I hope they will stand the test of time (most in full cases):

Leoville Barton
Leoville Poyferre
Duhart Milon
Sociando Mallet
Montrose
Dufort Viviens
D'armhaillac
Branaire
Calon Segur
Pontet Canet
Du tertre
Ferriere
Langoa Barton
GPL
St Pierre
Haut Batailley
Cos D'estournel
Gruaud larose

So the soothsayers predicting legends, I hope you are right

[JimHow]

I predict 2003 is going to be JUST FINE, Claudius.
Everyone was panicking because they were "disjointed", "awkward", etc., etc., in recent years.
The 2003 Leoville Barton that Rob brought to Maine was a beauty. Very unique, but also very Bordeaux.
All those wines you have listed are going to turn out stunning. They just need time to continue to evolve.

[JimHow]

And the '03s we had at the Blanquito dinner in NYC this summer were outstanding as well.
i truly believe the left bank 2003s are going to be excellent to outstanding wines, and they are going to age surprisingly well.

[Blanquito]

It's debates likes these that make wine boards and wine appreciation fun.

Only time will answer the issue, really, but we can all weigh in based on experience, analysis, etc.

Overall, I agree with Jim, the classified Left Bank will by and large come together (with some notable exceptions like roasted wines), and IMHO, part of what will make these wines special will be uniqueness/distinctiveness a la 1947 (which I've never had, but I've read about). But maybe some people will always dislike the style?

[Ramon_NYC]

I agree that 2003's from some classified Left Banks may turn out well and these are those that may have done well with adapting to the condition. I like what I tasted on release especially those from some northern Medoc producers. Specifically Pontet Canet, Montrose, Cos d’Estournel, Pichon Baron, Leoville Barton and Poyferre. As the 2003 have generated polarized opinion, both with valid arguments, I’m keeping my fingers crossed that you and I are right.

In the south, I’ve been impressed with Pape Clement. It continues to drink well from release.

[Claudius]

Ramon,
I've tried the wqines you refer to and as noted above, they are very good for the vintage with some great wines.
Yet this is a vintage that need to be bought with care.

Can I also ask - when should the classed growths be consumed??
I have no idea as the style is atypical and everyone seems to have an entirely different opinion.
Please advise.
Normally I think of classed grwoths as 15-20 year wines, for example, I'm drinking some 86, 88, 90 and 94s now, and the 95s and 96s are on the radar soon.

[DavidG]

What do you mean by "classed growths" - all classed growths or just the 1st-5th growths? I think of 1st-5ths as wines that typically need 10 years to start showing well, with an ability to last 10-40 years beyond that. With lots of exceptions on both the beginning and ending parts of the scale.

[Houndsong]

Parker likes the 1947 something or other, and apparently that was a hot year.

[JimHow]

2003 will be light years better than 1947 because of the better science and technology.

[DavidG]

I think we'll need a time machine to really get an answer to that.

[Claudius]

David,
there was a story in the last Decanter (UK) that included different opinions re: 03; some in the industry loved them, others hated them and quesitoned their ageing. So the article and other polarised views is confusing.
I have ont opened the top wines recently, just a few cheaper versions, and I am finding them irregular, and the right bank and satellites seemed to struggle more than the Medoc.

[DavidG]

The "book" on '03 is just that: irregular and unpredictable, with some great wines and some stewed, over-ripe abominations. I don't pretend to have the answers - I haven't opened any of the '03s that I gambled on purchasing.

Of course, a lot has changed since then, but I wonder what '47 Cheval Blanc tasted like in '53...

[Tom In DC]

Don't know about '53, but Broadbent thought '47 Cheval Blanc was amazing in the late 50's...

[JimHow]

Yes but Broadbent can't tell the difference between real wine and fake wine, why should we ever rely on his opinion? In fact, shouldn't we run from his opinion?

[Claudius]

Jim,
I think you are being a bit hard.
Putting the billionaire's vinegar aside, he does have a good palate.

[JimHow]

Parker was fooled by Hardy Rodenstock as well, Claudius. I think they're all snake oil salesmen. In fact, I think this whole idea that there are "experts" in wine tasting is silliness.

[DavidG]

I don't fault critics for being fooled by fraudsters. I do fault them if they are promoting or selling wines without doing what I would consider due diligence, but I can separate that from their role as critic evaluating relatively recent releases.

As to there being "experts" - I think there is a wide range of consistency and ability to describe a wine in terms understandable to others. Many or most of us posting on this board are probably in the top 5-10% of the general population in terms of those abilities, if only because of practice. Which makes us all experts, I guess. BTW, I don't think that ability is always correlated with one's passion or enthusiasm or true enjoyment of wine. And there is so much good wine available these days that a self-confident consumer really has no need for outside expert opinions if the goal is simply to discover enjoyable wines for oneself. But wine nuts may embrace any number of other goals where experts with a lot of experience and knowledge can offer valuable information, whether it's tasting notes or other background information.

[Houndsong]

So is price-setting just a negative externality of "expert" evaluation of a wine's "intrinsic quality?"

[Claudius]

Sure, he was fooled.
But I blame Rodenstock for that, though recognise that Broadbent should have looked into the provenance more.
Yet it probably didn't occur to him that those revered olkd bottles were forgeries.