Is 2000 the greatest Bordeaux vintage ever?

[JimHow]

In Maine this past weekend we uncorked some 2000s at the nine year mark that I personally thought were showing extremely well.

It has been occuring to me that I am rarely disappointed when I drink a 2000. They seem to offer more enjoyment in general than the excellent 2005s.

They seem to have great ripeness and richness, combined with balance and backbone.

Sipping on a 2000 Rod de Cambes tonight that is fresh and fruity, seems like it has a lot of life left in it.

The 2000 vintage may be the greatest Bordeaux vintage ever.

[stefan]

No.

stefan

[William P]

Well what happened to 95, 03 or 05 or what about 08? My distain for the Bordeaux hype machine aside, I do like the 2000s and I have yet to regret my investment in the vintage. Yes it is a ripe year, but the ripeness does not seem to compromise the acidity or balance. It has fruit but not that bloated feeling. I can't say how great a vintage it will finally be ordained, but I feel it may eventually rival the 1982 vintage, which is, to date, my favorite.

[JonB]

2009 is the greatest. The greatest is always the one being sold, but with 2007 clearly having challenges, and RP, despite his enthusiasm, giving vintage ratings for 2008 that are just slighly above his average, that only leaves 2009.

[Houndsong]

Jon I also would vote for 2009 if I was certain RP had my back. Something tells me though that his 2008 ratings were his Valentine to Bordeaux.

On 05 vs. 00, I thought the 00s have been consistent from arrival, in the style Jim describes. To me the 05s were incredibly sweet and turbid on arrvival, although on the second go for me they are drying out some. Still to me they seem much fatter than 00 was. My sample is small, but I think there has been style creep, even from 00 to 05.

[JimHow]

Finishing up this 2000 Roc de Cambes.... VERY impressive, by the way.

But then again, 2000 is the greatest vintage ever.

[stefan]

2000 is the greatest vintage of this millennium.

stefan

[JimHow]

Yes but the wines produced in this millenium are the best wines produced in the past ten centuries.

2000 was in the last millenium, though.

[Comte Flaneur]

1995 was probably the last great Bordeaux vintage...before wines like Ch. Lafite became full-bodied

[JimHow]

We had a '96 Lafite at Maine '09 last weekend that was a 100+ wine.

[Michael Malinoski]

Jim, I was pretty impressed with each of the 2000s we drank in Maine. My favorite by far was the Pape Clement, with the Smith Haut Lafitte and the Branaire Ducru down a notch from there, but still quite good. I was sorry I missed the Pichon Baron--I imagine that was in the upper echelon. Each was in 375 ml, though, so that could have contributed to how approachable those wines seemed. Still, I've found a number of '00s to be drinking reasonably well recently.

-Michael

[JimHow]

I would concur with those sentiments, Michael. The Baron has been consistently rich and delicious, from its infancy through now its adolescence. It is a forty year wine, at minimum.

[Winesense]

I think 2005 is the better vintage. More balanced and more powerfull than 2000, but also a lot more difficult to understand.
2005 will take longer to evolve and hold up longer than 2000.
2000 is just starting to reveal itself, it will get better for sure. I think 2000 was breakthrough in the sense that thanks to the money that went into Bordeaux for years modern technology and skill was widely available. This added up withe great weather conditions and century hype. Thus we see a wide range of excellent wines. Enjoy!

On the other hand 2005 was displaying once in a lifetime perfect conditions, we should talk about it in ten years from now.

[Jay Winton]

all of you are wrong...2009 is the VOC. Kidding aside, the 2000 Baron is really good but the 95 Andy brought was no slouch either.

[greatbxfreak]

Looks like 2009 has all the potential to exceed 2000 and 2005. In 3-4 weeks we'll know better.

On my website http://www.greatbordeauxwines.com, I update news about 2009 constantly based on calls to several chateau owners.

[Claudius]

Sorry to be cynical but this vintage of the century/decade or ever stuff is silly.
Maybe I'm a bit weird but I try to find someting in all the vintage swith the excpetion of the obviously bad ones.

I've just been reading a few Burg sites that say 2009 is even better than 2005.
If that's the case, I'm giving it a miss as the last thing I need is anohter vintage that I need to store for decades.

I've even had 1984s like Margaux that were delicious.

The 05s to me a more a worry as I wonder if I'll live long enough to enjoy them when mature.

For current consumption, the 88s are now showing well, the 86s are coming into their won (slowly and will last), the 82s are wonderful, the 85s need drinking, the 89s and 90s are lovely (well most of them), and the mid 90s wines are actually now starting to drink well after a long slumber.

[Houndsong]

I was just a casual enophile (if that is not an oxymoron) for much of my adult life but I would agree with the sentiment that there have been many opportunities since I've been paying more careful attention to obtain more decent wines than I actually care to have. Maybe back in the day when we had to walk barefoot in the snow 10 miles to the schoolhouse there was only one good vintage in 10, but it does seem that there is little need to jump at any offer unless you are a speculator.

[DavidG]

For current consumption, the 88s are now showing well, the 86s are coming into their won (slowly and will last), the 82s are wonderful, the 85s need drinking, the 89s and 90s are lovely (well most of them), and the mid 90s wines are actually now starting to drink well after a long slumber.

Sounds about right to me

back in the day when we had to walk barefoot in the snow 10 miles to the schoolhouse

Amazing how it used to be uphill both ways...

I'll admit to being as guilty as anyone of chasing the "best" vintages, but I still sampled and bought stuff from most of the "lesser" ones if not the "horrible" ones. I've enjoyed a great deal of delicious wines from the likes of '83, '88, etc. Now that I've got a little more perspective and a fairly full cellar, I'm feeling a lot less excited by the hype for the latest vintage of the century.

[Claudius]

David,
the other issue I face is called age.
I'm in my 50's and have a few health problems that may seriously limit life expectancy (no, not wine related).

The 05s are very powerful wines and I can't see them being properly ready at the super second/first level for 20-30 years.
So unless I can guarantee being alive in my 70s or 80s, I'm probably going to leave the wines for the rels to squabble over.

The other point is that I don't mind medium bodied claret style wines (I mean the more traditional British concept of Bordeaux) that go well with food and offer balance and length over power and density.

In my life, one of the changes I've noted is that while the overall quaility has improved a lot, not just in Bordeaux of course, though Bordeaux is often rather extracted these days. There seems to be an effort to make bigger and darker wines despite vintage conditions.

[DavidG]

All good observations, Claudius. Bigger does seem to be the target at many estates. Age has become a factor in my buying decisions too. But I'll raise a glass (of '96 Monbousquet tonight) to the thought of both of us beating the odds on the longevity deal.

[JimHow]

Sipping on a 2000 Charmail tonight. There is nothing in the experience that is dissuading me from my opinion that 2000 is the greatest vintage in Bordeaux ever.

[Claudius]

Interestingly, I do have a soft spot for 2000 as I was there during the vintage - I can recall the smiles on the faces as the fruit came in - it looked perfect.
I have not opened many of the 00s that I've got as I want to open them with more age. And I still have lots of older vintages to get thru.

Yet I was also in Europe in 03 - stinkingly hot - I was in Italy not France, and the hot weather was putting frowns on the vignerons. The fruit was often shrivelled up and obviously stressed from the relentless heat.

[JimHow]

I remember standing in the spectacular midday sun at Petrus and Cheval Blanc on September 15, 2000.
The weather that month was basically perfection. Even the one big one-day rainstorm a few days later was welcomed.

[Claudius]

Jim
You beat me by a week or two.
I was staying at Cordellian bages.
By end Sept, the weather was still pleasant and dry, the grapes were perfect.
They tasted nice as fruit!

Having said that, I don't know if 05 is better and who can say for decades, though the tannins in 05s can be a worry.

[JimHow]

The reason why I asked the question in the title to this thread, Claudius, is that, in my personal experience at least, it seems like the 2000s have been delicious right out of the gate and, based upon some experiences with a half dozen or so estates in the past few months now nine years later, they seem to me a) as delicious as ever and b) destined for long lives.

I see the potential in the 2005s. And there is no one who is a bigger tannin pig than I am. but in the end we need to be able to enjoy these wines, not just theorize about what they might be.

[Ramon_NYC]

in my personal experience at least, it seems like the 2000s have been delicious right out of the gate and, based upon some experiences with a half dozen or so estates in the past few months now nine years later, they seem to me a) as delicious as ever and b) destined for long lives.

I don't have the broad Bdx expereiences as most on this board have, but I concur with JIm, as my personal experience mirror those exact points.

[JCNorthway]

It's been interesting to follow this discussion since I invested significantly (for me) in the 2000 vintage. And I bought only a single case in 2005 because my goal is to open my last bottle right before they take me to the funeral home.

However, unlike folks who have commented here, I have yet to open a single bottle of my 2000s. This discussion is certainly tempting me to change that by opening a bottle to sample sometime in the coming weeks.

Jon

[Ramon_NYC]

I only want to add that most of the 2000s that I've opened are non-classified, or near/at the bottom of the growth classification scheme. Imho, that makes the vintage to be more successful to me - that even the so-called low-end wines are performing well.

[Blanquito]

How's the Charmail 2000 drinking, Jim? I've had two bottles of it over the years and it have never come close to the 93pts Parker put on it, though it always seemed muted.

By the by, Charmail 2000 was $13 a futures, for the history buffs.

[Claudius]

Jim,
I agree.
And for that reason, some 05s are a worry.

[JimHow]

I've been consistently impressed by the 2000 Charmail, Patrick. The bottle I uncorked the other night seemed a bit funky when I first opened it but it bloomed beautifully through dinner.

[AlexR]

There are no great wines, only great bottles.

The oracle has spoken (with a statement that is hardly original, I will allow )))))))))))).

Alex RY.

[Nicklasss]

With my limited experience, I would say that on the Left Bank, wines are like the 1996, but with just a touch more fruits. For the Right Bank, I have a very very limited experience, so no position.

Something is sure, in 2000 the ripeness of the grape was perfect for my taste. I preferred the 2000 in their early years than the 2005. 2005 is a riper year to my taste and while quite good, the acids are not expressing themselve as in the 2000, and the 2005 have slightly more jammy red berry fruits, when my taste prefer ripe dark berry fruits.

I'm the kind of guy that prefer the ''classic + just a little more'' type of Bordeaux. Basically, I like 1988, 1996, 2000 and 2001. As I buy wines to drink, not to resell, I like wine that would be ready and enjoyable 10-20 years after the vintage. For me, 2005 is a 30 years+ kind of vintage, means that you have to wait a longer time to get the same taste as I like.

Nic

[aimeedogdogdog]

"There are no great wines, only great bottles."
Great bottles are great but preference is above all.

'61 might hit it bigger but '59 is my preference.
'82 is greater than '83 but my preference is on '83.
'05 might have more in everything but 2000 is just perfect for me.

I can see others have '05 (or other vintages) as the greatest for them. And I happily agree with them.

Thank you everyone you have a different preference that I could taste different great wines from you in BWE tasting events.

Werner