Leoville Barton vertical tasting

[Nicklasss]

On the December 1st, our tasting group decided to do a vertical tasting of Château Léoville Barton. We did not included great vintages, but like always, it was a very informative, eye opening tasting, on a producer that is surely still producing classical 2nd growth.

1995: the favorite of most of the tasters that night. Nose was complex, seductive, classic. Aromas of ripe red fruits, old leather, tobacco, blackcurrants, spices and a little touch of green pepper. Very nice mouth, with classical complex fruit, tannic blackcurrant flavors, leather, long creamy fruit with great freshness. This was very "Saint-Julien" and in the right spot today. Luminous classical wine. Tn: 95. Drink now, as that bottle was bought in 1997 and from a perfect cellar.

2001: the most controversial bottle that night, some liked it a lot, some were more reserved. Nose was composed of black fruits, closed a bit, black currants, noble oak, sweet meat, with good austerity, freshness and correct length on red cherries. I thought it was missing some "womf", but nontheless an excellent vintage. Tn: 91.

2002: at 20 yo, very impressive. Nose of black fruits, sweet oak, vanilla, red rasberries, light touch of dry cola. Mouth was convincing, complex. Very black by it flavors of black fruits, black currants, coal and black plums. Austere but not too much, great tannic feeling in mouth, touch of mushrooms, with long sweet darkberries on the final. A very nice surprise! Tn: 93. A "Jimhow" kind of wine. I think MichaelP would liked it a lot too.

2004: the lighter wine that night, but charming to the core. Nose closed at first, come out with some sweet black fruits, bubble gum candy, light vegetals, something slightly musky or animal, and some dark cherries. Tougher vintage, but still good flavors of green pepper, black berries, dark red berries, light mushrooms, and a light horse brett. Ligther but still having some tannins, decent length on dark red fruits. Drink well. Tn: 90.

2007: a less complex wine, but still rewarding with it classical nose of black fruits, and minty vegetals. In mouth, light but well made decent strong black fruit flavors, light burned wood, light mint, shorter final with fruit. The only slightly deception. Tn: 89.

2008: A very nice complex Léoville Barton. Still having the " Léo Barton family link", with aromas of sweet black berries, black fruits and mint, add some humid muss for complexity, in a very élégance way. Mouth, like the nose, has classical flavor tones including black fruits, black berries and green tobacco, but again add some leave flavors and cherries. Very straight, long, and the only bottle that night finishing on fruits and very strong and long soil minerals. A intellectual joy to taste. Tn: 92.

2015: the baby, the most different from others, the promising. Strong nose of sweet black berries, concentrated, Graham honey cookies, cherries, cinnamon and cola. Concentrated mouth of ripe dark red fruits, cookies, black currants syrup, big ripe tannins, long and long. Wait 10 years. Tn: 91-92+.

The group was very unanimous in it voting, having easily the same rank, so from most liked, 1995-2002-2008-2015-2001-2004-2007.

It was a great tasting, to learn about Léoville Barton, and Saint Julien. It was clear that between the 1995 and 2008, the "Léoville Barton family link" is clearly there, complex mixture of sweet dark red and black fruits, with vegetals or forest touch. A very drinkable claret in those type of vintages, nothing flashy or overconcentrated, always preferring a classic style with complexity in nose and mouth.

That tasting had clearly demonstrated to me that Léoville Barton deserve it 2nd Growth status, showing all the seriousness and convincing complex style, while being a joy to drink, without flirty with any controversy.

[JimHow]

Oh man, I would have been in heaven. Now that is Bordeaux....

I am not surprised that the 1995 was a star, and that 2002 Barton.... Oh man.....

[ericindc]

I have to say, I've had the LB back to the 82 and I've just never been blown away by the wine. The '82 the other week was certain good, but not the best of the lot. I want to love it, but I guess I've never had the right bottle.

[Comte Flaneur]

Thanks for the great notes Nic

You are the second person in about three months to give the 1995 Leoville Barton rave reviews. I have a bottle standing up so will promote it up the batting order.

I was a little surprised that the 2001 and 2004 didn’t do better. They usually perform strongly in these settings. But not at all surprised by the 2002 and 2008 performing strongly.

[DavidG]

Leoville Barton isn’t a “blow me away” kind of wine, but it is such an honestly classic Bordeaux, so reliably excellent, and such a good value that a picture of its label belongs in the dictionary under “Bordeaux.”

[JoelD]

I agree with David and Eric. But the interesting thing to me is that I often prefer the slightly less acclaimed vintages. Helps that they are at cheaper prices. The 02 is great. I like the 96. Not a huge fan of the 2000 so far but maybe it's just not ready. 85 is very good, but also not a blow you away wine. At least not the bottles I've had. It's fairly priced though, and I purchase accordingly, which still isn't much.

[marcs]

I’m going to agree wholeheartedly with Eric that I’ve never really been blown away by Leoville Barton (with the possible exception of one bottle of 2004), and I’ll go further to say that I’ve been underwhelmed many times. I’m willing to call it and say LB is overrated.

From my perspective anyway. Bannable offense?

[marcs]

Leoville Barton isn’t a “blow me away” kind of wine, but it is such an honestly classic Bordeaux, so reliably excellent, and such a good value that a picture of its label belongs in the dictionary under “Bordeaux.”

It’s reliably…ok? Decent? Solid? And even then in some cases I’ve had mediocre bottles. At its current prices those adjectives don’t align with being a good value

LB is a classic example of something pitched as underrated so long it became overrated.

Come at me everybody!

[JimHow]

Leoville Barton is one of my three favorite Bordeaux estates because it does not "blow me away."
I consider its understatedness an asset, not a liability.

[DavidG]

Marcus, I see you’re in pot-stirring mode. I’m not going to argue with you. I’m not even going to disagree with you. Your impressions are your impressions. You’ve got a great palate and your preferences don’t have to match everyone else’s to be valid.

[marcs]

Pot stirring? Me? Never. It is actually true that I never say anything I don't believe.

Somewhat to my own surprise, I have reached a point with Leoville Barton perhaps similar to where Jim was at with GPL, although less vociferous.

I had a really bad bottle of 1999, followed by another really bad bottle of 1999, followed by a mediocre bottle of 2009. Then I read the critic John Gilman's review of the 1999 and 2009 which absolutely nailed my experience with both wines, showing it is not a fluke. Gilman by the way absolutely despises Leoville Barton after the mid 1990s -- thinks it sucks and eviscerated it almost every year when he visited Bordeaux.

Then it was like the scales fell from my eyes. I don't actually like this wine that much! Just because it's respected, doesn't mean I have to like it! I can just dislike it! Instead, I can drink wines I know I like! I don't know how much of it was Gilman's characteristically persuasive prose and his validation of my taste, and how much was just me getting tired of duty-drinking Leoville Barton, but that was it. Done with Leoville Barton. Problem is I have a fair amount of the stuff I now have to sell or trade.

Leoville Barton is also one of the few chateau I have done a long, multi-decade vertical tasting of in one sitting. I think those experiences are very telling. It was...meh. OK, but overall not that good to my taste. Lacking an extra gear. I have also done long verticals of Conseillante, Pichon Lalande, Leoville Poyferre, and Lagrange. In my judgement in those tastings Leoville Barton was absolutely not in the same league as PLL and Conseillante. Just not even close. It was maybe comparable to Leoville Poyferre, perhaps a notch below depending on your stylistic preferences, better than Lagrange, but not that much better. And at this point it's twice the price of Lagrange.

[marcs]

But Ian is never going to talk to me again after this thread. I'll show up in London and he'll tell me the wrong place to go, I'll end up at some pub in the middle of nowhere with a bag of wine and no one to drink it with. Maybe I should take it all back. Not worth it.

[JoelD]

Personally, I like Jim's point. About the understatedness being the draw. I don't fully go over to that side, but I get it and agree with the premise. I'm somewhere in the middle thus far. Although I do find the "best" vintages to be overrated. I have actually had better experience with Leoville Poyferre, now that I think about it. There's just a little more oomph of flavors. Maybe we're too simple to understand the subtleties, Marcus

[Nicklasss]

For me, it is ok and understand that we can't like every wine, or some producers, etc...

But it is life, and what is liked by one, is less liked by some other,. For me, it is Pichon Lalande that is kinda not convincing for the status or the price. Do i think that of every bottle of PLL? No.

One thing is sure in my case: when we did that Léo Barton tasting, the wine is excellent, understateness, complex, and drinkable, that i could probably drink it non stop for 2-3 days in a row, and this is a strong statement for any wine.

And after all those years tasting wine, i really don't need to be blow away by a wine. I had so many "supposely blow away" wines in life, that were only correct or dull or concentrated and modern...

[Claudius2]

I agree with David and Eric. But the interesting thing to me is that I often prefer the slightly less acclaimed vintages. Helps that they are at cheaper prices. The 02 is great. I like the 96. Not a huge fan of the 2000 so far but maybe it's just not ready. 85 is very good, but also not a blow you away wine. At least not the bottles I've had. It's fairly priced though, and I purchase accordingly, which still isn't much.

Joel
I did a Barton vertical a few years back and the 1985 was clearly the favourite of the group, and mine too. The 82 may have been out of condition though might be in decline. The 1990 was also very good and the 2000 I thought was developing very slowly and not ready. The 93 and 94 for the vintages were both very solid.

Overall I agree that LB is not a flashy, dramatic but I don’t really have an issue with that. Maybe it is a bit more old fashioned than some other St Juliens?

Cheers
Mark

[marcs]

I guess Dave is right that rhetorically at least I was pot-stirring a bit here. But to get more serious -- I don't need wines to be "flashy" or "dramatic", especially not in the modern sense spoofulated-to-stand-out-at-a-tasting sense, which I can't stand. I think if you follow my TNs here you see that. I very much appreciate subtlety and complexity. But I do need wines to have an extra dimension to them, even if that dimension is about subtlety.

I do think I like wines that have a certain lift, sparkle, or aerial component to them, however that shows itself. I think the issue I have with LB is that to my palate it has a heavy, earthy undertow, frankly almost muddy at times. You can read that as stereotypically Bordeaux in some respects I guess, but to me it tends to render the wines kind of blah and dull. Earthbound. There's a big difference between being understated and actually being dull.

That's both a very metaphorical description and a huge generalization, but it's been my experience in a lot of cases. The major exception I can think of is one bottle of the 2004, but since I've had a lot of bottles of LB in my life that's not enough.

[DavidG]

LOL nothing wrong with pot-stirring, especially about something you believe in. I actually agree with you Marcs that PLL and Conseillante are a notch above Leoville Barton. We part ways on Poyferre - you’ve opened some outstanding ones for me but my preference is for Barton. That earthy undertow is what draws me in, but the sensation lifts me up, doesn’t drag me under.

Barton may be my favorite Leoville. I know I’m supposed to like LLC even more. It’s a more “serious” and bigger wine. And I’ve had a few outstanding bottles that reached higher heights than Barton. But only a few. Most seem too f’in young.

[JCNorthway]

On the subject of Leovilles, has anyone opened a 1995 LLC recently? I'd be interested in any recent experience since my only one was over 5 years ago, and it did not seem nearly ready at the time.

[JoelD]

On the subject of Leovilles, has anyone opened a 1995 LLC recently? I'd be interested in any recent experience since my only one was over 5 years ago, and it did not seem nearly ready at the time.

Haven't had the 95 or 96 yet. But I just cracked the 1985 tonight. Will report back, but despite some seepage it seems great and is going to need a bit of air.

[JimHow]

How’d the 85 do, Joel? Did it hold out through dinner or did it crack up after a while?

[Blanquito]

I’m going to agree wholeheartedly with Eric that I’ve never really been blown away by Leoville Barton (with the possible exception of one bottle of 2004), and I’ll go further to say that I’ve been underwhelmed many times. I’m willing to call it and say LB is overrated.

Sacrilege, you Philistine! A banning is too light a sentence -- for you, I prescribe a penance of drinking an entire bottle of young Leoville Barton every day for a month!

That taken care of, I admit agreeing with your point... for LB vintages 1989 and older. For my money, the 1990 is terrific and so are (at least) the 95, 96, 00, 02, 08 and 09 (and I really, really liked the 2019 tasted last year in Bordeaux). And I seem to recall a certain BWEer based in our nation's capital who brought a rather flashy, fun, dare I say sexy, 2003 Leoville Barton one Saturday night at Charlie Palmer.

[Comte Flaneur]

Even though Marc is embellishing things for dramatic effect and Gilman feels he has to make a fool of himself to attract attention, I certainly agree that older bottles of Leoville Barton can be variable.

The 1985 mag we had last week was great fun and my fellow diners were drooling over it. But the reality was it had lost a bit of grip and the Demi Mag of 1985 Montrose was a better bottle.

And 1982 Leoville Barton can be dull, especially relative to the opposition in that vintage, which reminds me we had a wonderful bottle of 1982 La Lagune this week, back to its best…I feel I have to drink these up.

The 1989 and 1990 vintages of LB can be variable too, but at their best they are magnificent.

But when you think how good Leoville Barton is in vintages like 1995, 1996, 1999 (you had two duff bottles Marc), 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010 etc - it is clearly a very reliable and strong second. Prices are catching up to the intrinsic quality now, however, which is why GPL is now the top 1855 QPR.

[stefan]

In my experience, in the last 40 yars Leoville Barton has been the most consistently good of the St Julien second growths. Actually, I have not had a single bottle that I thought underperformed significantly. LLC has great highs, but all too frequently underperforms. Ducru is my favorite, but for years many bottles suffered from taint similar to TCA and in other years lacked that ethereal bouquet that I look for in Ducru. Some Poyferre's are almost spoofullated and at least one vintage contains burnt Brett.

[JimHow]

1982 Leoville Barton was great when it was younger but then it dropped off.
I'll never forget that bottle of 2000 Leoville Barton I had in a little village on the the Baja peninsula, I had an amazing Mexican fish dish with the sun setting over the Pacific, a $50 bottle that SteveH had sourced for me. This was in spring of 2004, it was magnificent.

[Blanquito]

In my experience, in the last 40 yars Leoville Barton has been the most consistently good of the St Julien second growths. Actually, I have not had a single bottle that I thought underperformed significantly. LLC has great highs, but all too frequently underperforms. Ducru is my favorite, but for years many bottles suffered from taint similar to TCA and in other years lacked that ethereal bouquet that I look for in Ducru. Some Poyferre's are almost spoofullated and at least one vintage contains burnt Brett.

Well said. And even more so, over the period 1990-present, I cannot think of a St Julien I prefer more, though Ducru might be a contender if it offered better value.

What about Beychevelle 2005-present? It’s critics’ scores skyrocketed over that stretch, which is always grounds for suspicion.

[Nicklasss]

I read somewhere that the 2014 Léoville Barton is quite something. Even better than the BWE W Stefan J Wine of the year, the 2016 Grand-Puy Lacoste.

Well, can't add anything.

[Claudius2]

Guys
The 1982 is likely to be in decline. I last tried it a few years ago and it was okay but disappointing.

I did however drink a full case of this wine in the mud to late 90s and it was quite delicious with lots of fruit and considerable mocha character. I don’t think I’ve ever had a LB that was richer and tastier. It was not at all a waste to drink young.