Last night I did a smallish tasting of five 2010 left bank wines, being three from Pessac Leognan and one each from St Julien and Pauillac.
Before writing about the individual wines, I'd like to explain the format.
The tasting was at a local French restaurant, and the wines were decanted two hours before we started.
The temperature of the wines was fine when they were initially tasted, though they did get rather warm over the next 3-4 hours.
There were two bottles of each thus 10 bottles sipped down by ten tasters.
The tasters were from the UK, South Africa, Netherlands, China, Singapore and Australia (me, that is). All were tasting regulars.
Sorry the photo is a bit wobbly. Wines were:
Domaine de Chevalier
Smith Haut Lafitte
Haut Bailly
Leoville Barton
Pontent Canet.
I am quite surprised. The wines were all properly stored (en primeur puchases which arrived nine years ago, stored in professional wine storage).
The wines were all very dark coloured with pinky/purple rims, looking like a few years old, and whilst I don't use the term "glossy", a few tasters mentioned it.
All the wines were low in acid and with the possible exception of Pontet Canet, they were low in tannins.
Terms used universally were that the wines were "soft", "open", "accessible", "gentle" and "simple".
I'll elaborate on this as the wines were not what I expected nor hoped for.
That is not to say that they were bad - not at all - it is just that they did not taste like classic Bordeaux to not just me but the majority of tasters.
The group was overall disappointed by the sameness of these wines, and their lack of structure.
Now I have had a few 2010's when 5 years old and they were clearly more tannic than these wines.
I can't follow how well reputed Bordeaux is so soft and easy at this age.
It is NOT storage or handling that was the issue here.
The back vintage Leoville Barton tasting of wines from 1982 to 2000 came from the same source and they were very good.
So what can I make of this?
I am rarely lost for words when it comes to wine from anywhere, but I am rather bewildered.
The wines offered virtually no bouquet the entire evening, thought LB was a bit of an exception. I'll explain below.
The three Pessac wines may as well have been poured together into one decanter and glass as we really struggled to see any site variations.
I drank them with a charcuterie platter, quite a lot of sour dough bread and slow cooked beef cheeks, followed by a cheese platter.
I thought they went well with the food though food didn't give me a different aromatic or flavour profile.
So let me outline the wines:
Domaine de Chevalier.
Medium bodied, gentle nose showing smoky dark fruit, a touch of savoury/tobacco characters. A touch of milk chocolate and mocha.
A very soft wine which was in last place overall.
it simply offered no complexity, had a loose structure and is what the English would probably call a luncheon claret. Commercial style.
I have a full case in storage (plus 2009) and I hope it gets better.
CT (Cellartracker) av score is 92.7 and I wonder if we are drinking the same wine.
Smith Haut Lafitte
Very similar to the Chevalier, a touch more dusty, cedary oak.
Nose and palate gave dark fruit, some cassis and blueberry, and a relatively short finish.
It had a bit more structure than the Chevalier, was quite nice and I'd be happy to drink it anytime.
But not a wine that impressed me. Second last to the group.
CT av score is 93.8. Whatever.
Haut Bailly
More earthy, mocha character than the two above. Seems a bit tighter with some violets, dark and blue friut.
With time some savoury characters emerged but still a gentle wine.
A touch more tannin though still low acid to the ripe and round fruit.
Slightly longer finish though it ain't no Haut Brion or La Mission.
CT av of 94.2. Sure...
Before I mention the Medocs, they were to my palate a step up and showed some individuality rather than the rather monolithic Pessac wines.
Leoville Barton
The nose of this wine was distinct with some balsamic vinegar, leather, pencil lead, ink, hung game and savoury characters and dark fruit.
Whilst the wine does show the vintage, it also shows the style of the estate.
The palate was fruity and rich, the tannins were moderate and it has a touch more acid than the wines above.
It was the slowest to emerge in the glass but also the most distinct.
I liked it but it wasn't as structured as as complex as I hoped.
CT av of 94.0. Yeah...
Pontet Canet.
Very reticent at first, it opened overtime to reveal deeper, more classical Bordeaux fruit.
Some described it as "polished", "deep" and "spicy".
The fruit was clearly more impressive to my palate, showing the Pauillac Appellation as well as the vintage.
Tannins and acid are soft, though there is a bit of grip to the wine. The tannins are very fine and almost chocolaty - like some Australian reds I have to say. In fact,
With time, some earthy, gamey characters emerged, and a touch of spice and truffle.
Now this is nothing like the Pontet Canets I have drunk from earlier years.
At the same age, the 2000, 2001, 2002 and even 2003 were more tannic and other than the 2003, more acidic.
Having said that, it was to my palate the best wine, and it was also the group's pick.
CT av is 95.1 whatever that actually means.
Overall PC was the winner, followed by LB and Haut Bailly, virtually everyone putting the Dom de Chevalier last.
Now I drank 2010 Haut Bergey and Cos Labory St Estephe in the last few months, plus a few Cru Bourgeois of no great repute.
The Haut Bergey was very similar to the three Pessac wines above, and when I last drank it, I thought it was the producer - quite open style, ripe fruit, some mocha and nutty oak. Lowish acid and tannins. Seriously, the Haut Bergey tasted better to me and it was only decanted for half an hour after being pulled out of a wine fridge. On that basis, I would not rate 2010 as a top vintage in the Graves/Pessac region - though clearly some stars are likely to be found. The fruit lacks grip, the palate shows soft and ripe tannins and they all had some chocolate/mocha characters which I have to say reminded me of the Barossa Valley. If you said it was Turkey Flat I would arguably have believed you.
The two Medocs were to most palates a step up, and Pontet Canet was a deeper, denser and more structured effort BUT the soft, ripe characters of the vintage are still manifest, and whilst both were very pleasant, they were not captivating, complex wines. There is no intellectual or ethereal aspects to them and that I say with a sense of dismay.
I would love to do the same tasting in say, ten years time, but the typical reaction of the group is that the Pessac wines in particular will NOT make old bones. I would certainly hold the LB and particularly the PC for some time, though I have to say that I feel nervous about the future of the Pessac wines.
One last point.
Later in the night, I poured the leftovers out of the two bottles of each wine, wondering if I could see variations in the two same wines. No chance. They were the same. further, none of the wines had shed any tannins at all. I literally shook the last few drops out.
cheers
Mark
