The finest vintage this decade is 2002 left bank.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:26 am

I realize the so-called "experts" would scoff at that statement.
I'm sure the Jeff Leves of the world would mock this (have you ever noticed that he and Johnny Kapon give basically the same scores to their wines as their mentor Bobby Parker?).
But the so-called "experts" are idiots.
The so-called experts are nothing but groupthink sheep.
This is the vintage Parker sort of missed because his wife didn't want him to fly post-9/11.
2003 is too hot and volatile.
2005 is just too weird.
The rest of the vintages are too weak.
Can't really speak to 2002R but if it is anything like the Bellevue I had a couple weeks ago, it is putrid.
I haven't tasted 2009 yet but I'm sure it is just another high alcohol Parkerized 2005 repeat.
Sipping on the 2002 Haut-Bailly that Art left behind in Maine a couple weeks ago.
Aromatic, classic styled, not over-oaked, not modernized, not Parkerized.
Surprise, surprise: 12.5% alcohol.
Crisp, crunchy and clean.
Color is clear, uncloudy, purple/ruby, fresh.
This wine is stunning... like the Leoville Poyferre, and Lagrange, and Mouton, and on and on....
Stunning.
I swear I'm not being my usual facetious self:
2002L is the best vintage this decade.
And when you factor in QPR-- Mouton and Lafite went for $100 a bottle-- it is a no-brainer.
I don't give a goddamn what anyone thinks.
The erobertparker.com sheep can believe whatever they want, this vintage is the real deal.

robert goulet · Post by **robert goulet** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:44 am

very interesting take, I assume you have tasted many '02L to make that determination.
I have to say I love '01 especially pessac leognan.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 11:39 am

Yes I have, Robert, I've especially enjoyed the Pauillac/St. Juliens like Lagrange, Leoville Poyferre, Pontet-Canet, etc. Lafite and mouton were my type of wines.

JonoB · Post by **JonoB** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:40 pm

02, looks built to be the modern day 78...

if you like herbs and vegetables, it will fill out beautifully.
Crunchy and complex.

If you don't stay away. I hold out hope for 02 and 04 to be very very nice in time.

02 D'Armailhac a year or so ago was very lovely.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:58 pm

2002 d'Armailhac is very nice. Branaire too.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:06 pm

I have very much liked the '02 left bank wines I have tasted. I don't think they are as good as the 2000s. In general, I think the right bank performed better in '01 than in '02. At this time, '03s require refrigeration, '04s are OK, and younger than that are too young for me to judge.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:16 pm

Yes, I believe 2000 is the greatest vintage ever in Bordeaux, but I count that in the previous decade.

It is all a matter of taste. If an erobertparker.com type likes high alcohol, heavy wood, over-extraction, ultra ripe, California-like, Parkerized internationally modern-styled Bordeaux, then 2005 (and, I'm guessing, 2009) is going to be for them....

The 2002 lefties are your classic 12.5% clarets....

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:02 pm

I thought the 02 Haut Bailly was incredibly suave. Much different than any other 02 I can think of. For a young wine it has very fine mouthfeel/texture and great balance.

SF Ed · Post by **SF Ed** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 6:13 pm

I hope you are right because I have a lot of them, including 1st growths as they were so "cheap" on release. Haven't tasted almost any as I know I will think they are all far too young right now.

SF Ed

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 6:17 pm

If you like 1988 Lynch Bages, Ed-- and I know you do-- I think you will like these 2002 Medocs.

greatbxfreak · Post by **greatbxfreak** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 6:36 pm

Jim,

You've been drinking again;-)

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 7:07 pm

Nope, greatbffreak, I just don't read erobertparker.com!
I'll take the 2002 Lagrange over the hot, yucky, alcoholic 2005 Lagrange any day of the week!

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 7:51 pm

I really liked the 2002 d'Armailhac a lot on release, but only bought a few alas. Great QPR.

When will these 2002L be drinkable?

rjsussex · Post by **rjsussex** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:20 pm

I joined this board partly because of its bullish take on 02 Medocs and I nominated Poyferre 02 for BWE wine of the year - but I have to sound a slight note of disagreement today: for one, I found Armaillhac too lean/green/dull and a recent bottle of St Pierre was dry and unbalanced. Side by side I preferred both Lagrange and Durfort 04s to their 02s. I can't afford the firsts. Poyferre for me may be the exception in making a better 02 than 04 (possibly also Tour Ht Brion).

And I think 06 may be better than either 02 and 04 for left bank. But nor for QPR - though Jim is talking in absolutes not QPR?

Richard

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 9:55 pm

JonoB wrote:02, looks built to be the modern day 78...

if you like herbs and vegetables, it will fill out beautifully.
Crunchy and complex.

If you don't stay away. I hold out hope for 02 and 04 to be very very nice in time.

Jono, I think you've summarized it nicely, without the hype. Very much a stylistic thing. '02 and '04 are beautiful for their crisp crunchy herbal Bordeauxness. I was on wine probation when the '02s came out but have a bunch of '04s, and am looking forward to enjoying them as they age. Whoever compared them to '88s - I love those too - and hope the '02 and especially the '04 (since this is what I have in the cellar) will do the same. I also like the ripe years, '82, '90, '03 (selected wines). '00 is fantastic, as is '98 on the right bank, and I think the weirdness of '05 will morph into some great stuff with time.

Jim, I don't question your conviction, and I share your admiration for the virtues of '02 Bordeaux, even though I've sampled far fewer than you. But there are also some who just prefer the riper style, and will continue to prefer it whether Parker says so or not. I don't doubt that there are many that follow him just because he is who he is, but there are virtues in the vintages he has rated highly. Just because someone has a different palate preference than you does not necessarily make them an idiot or a <sheep.gif>. <pot stirring.gif>

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 12:51 am

Indeed, David, it is all subjective. Some of us enjoy traditional, balanced, classy claret that combines restraint, power and elegance, the centuries-old hallmark of the wines of the Gironde. Others prefer the unbalanced, highly alcoholic, California-like, manipulated, over-extracted, over-oaked, internationalized style preferred by He Who Shall Remain Nameless....

Ramon_NYC · Post by **Ramon_NYC** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 1:29 am

JimHow wrote:Indeed, David, it is all subjective. Some of us enjoy traditional, balanced, classy claret that combines restraint, power and elegance, the centuries-old hallmark of the wines of the Gironde. Others prefer the unbalanced, highly alcoholic, California-like, manipulated, over-extracted, over-oaked, internationalized style preferred by He Who Shall Remain Nameless....

I'm not questioning your subjectivity in your wine taste, that's what makes these wine forum differences interesting. But, just because they like what they like, they're "idiots"?

I happen to have liked some international-kind Bordeaux and, I may be wrong, but I believe that you have positive posting on on some of these before.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 1:44 am

Ok, maybe idiots is too strong a word.
How about "sheep"?
I think there are a lot of "nitwits" and "sycophants" on the Parker site, but that's just my subjective opinion.
I like some modern styled Bordeaux, like what Smith Haut Lafitte has been doing. Those hot alcoholic monsters like that 2005 Lagrange, though, are not my cup of tea. In either case, I prefer the classic style of vintages like 1988, 1996, 2002, etc., over those California wannabees.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 12:35 am

How about morons?

I hear you Jim; I would rate the 2002, with 2006, the second equal best left bank vintage of the decade, with the caveats that I have not tasted 2007, 2008 and 2009 lefties, and that one should be wary of vintage generalisations.

Lagrange, Leoville Barton LLC and Mouton are superb...in a classic rather than spoofulated sense.

But I dont think 2002 will be as good as the 1995s.

And 2005 stands head and shoulders above any other vintage so far this decade - last week I had a sensational Moulin De Rose 2005 - a $25 wine - You are just jealous of Blanquito for loading up on 05s - and so I am especially as I wrongly warned him he was paying over the odds.

Ramon_NYC · Post by **Ramon_NYC** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:08 am

I don't even think that the 2002 will be as good as the 1996, the 2000 and the 2005, either. But, I think the 2002 Lefts will be better than the 2004 and the 2006.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:41 am

I sure hope you're right, Ian! (Or are you joking?) I've really decided once and for all that Bordeaux from "great" vintages need 20 years or more to show well. Is even the lush 1990 vintage ready? Of course, the petit chateau are long since dead and gone from 1990 (whether drunk up or still in the cellar), but I'm talking about classified growths. Those 1980's wines we had in June were so good, the 1998s I had last week were a let-down given their present tannic state.

So, we'll raid my cellar in 2025 in a big way. I've no firsts, but lots of super seconds etc. from 2005.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:39 am

Another thing about 2005 and a major reason I went so long... It seemed like ALL the critics loved it. Parker, Tanzer, Suckling, Jancis, Bettane, Quarin, Decanter, etc.

I'm not sure it's fair to compare 2002 to 2005, they are very different stylistically and of course the 2002s were much better values.

Consider the 1980's-- I love Bordeaux from 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989 and 1990... so many great vintages... yet, some really stand out, especially 1982. It seems everyone loves 1982 these days, it pleases all palates.

mike reff · Post by **mike reff** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:38 am

Not to many retailers have much of the 2002's in stock. Zachys and JJ Buckley are the only ones that I have found, and for the 1st growths the price is still too high for me, $700 for Latour...(wow). Time to check the auction pages.

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:28 am

Guys
2002 was the last vintage I bought first growths in and have no intention of doing it again.
I think 2001 is at least as good on the left bank and heaps better on the right by the way.

I know that it is fashionable to bag 03 but there are some outstnading wines from this vintage (eg Cos, Montrose, Pontet Canet, Leovilles) but the average quality is pretty bad - I've tried some shockers.

04 and 06 will turn out well I believe.

Ramon_NYC · Post by **Ramon_NYC** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:41 pm

Claudius2 wrote:Guys
2002 was the last vintage I bought first growths in and have no intention of doing it again.
I think 2001 is at least as good on the left bank and heaps better on the right by the way.

I can’t say I disagree with you. I’ve generally liked the 2001 Left banks that I've tasted, at least on the classified ones.

Claudius2 wrote: I know that it is fashionable to bag 03 but there are some outstnading wines from this vintage (eg Cos, Montrose, Pontet Canet, Leovilles) but the average quality is pretty bad - I've tried some shockers.

I’m with you on these 2003s. I find that those in the lower end of the classification to be hit-or-miss (mostly miss, imho, and after some re-tasting, I sold off on most of the ones that I purchased on release). On the other hand, I’ve kept my seconds and super seconds, as the ones that I have had the opportunity to re-taste have not failed to impress me.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:11 pm

My experience is limited, but I have so far been more impressed with '02 left bank wines than the '01s.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:58 pm

I was on wine probation when the '01s and '02s were coming out so except for a few '01 Sauternes I was able to sneak past the headmistress, my experience there is very limited. I appreciate the style but prefer what I think the '05s will turn into, though it is early.

I did buy a few '03s, particularly Pontet Canet and Cos, but also a few Branaire, Calon Segur, Pichon Lalande and Pavie. We shall see, but I'm not thinking anyone will call this vintage of the decade.

'04 was the last year I bought any firsts as they were still obtainable as futures for $160-200. I think the vintage is similar to '02, at least based on the few I've had. Again, appreciate the style, but waiting on the '05s.

Like Patrick, I went long on '05s. I am betting they will be drinking extremely well in another 10 years when the tannins settle down and the wines start to integrate and show some complexity. If Jim thinks they are weird at age 5, how bad can they be? If they do turn out weird, well, they aren't worth any more than I paid for them (unlike every other prior vintage), but I'm pretty sure I could dump them and at least recoup my initial investment.

With prices just continuing to escalate, I am now on self-imposed wine probation for Bordeaux. Will the '09s be the best of the decade? Sounds like they've got a good shot, but it's a little soon to know, don't yout think?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:35 pm

I haven't had much if any 2001 right bank but 2001L has just not been my style, I just don't think it has much personality. I don't know how to describe it, other than maybe "light and soft" or "1999-like." I wonder if Graves may have done well in 2001, as I liked Pape Clement (early on, at Chicago '04, although not as much when I had it at a BWE convention in the past year or two), Smith Haut Lafitte, and Haut Bergey, although I would nonetheless say they were by no means standouts.

The 2003s are going to be fine, we had some nice 2003s at a dinner with Blanquito last year, they were developing nicely.

The 2004s and 2006s don't really excite me, although 2006 will probably end up being solid.

Notwithstanding what the so-called experts say, the 2005s have just not excited me. I've had a few 2005s at the five year mark but I had many just after they were released on the shelves. The 2005 Lascombes was profound, other than that I found them modern, tannic, way over-oaked, and, most disturbingly, very alcoholic. In other words, "Parkerized." That 2005 Lagrange I had a couple weeks ago tasted like something picked out of the California section at the local supermarket. The 2005 Cap de Faugeres I had a few weeks ago cracked up in pieces.

A couple 2007s I've had in recent weeks have been soft and pleasant, though not profound. I'll be drinking the 2007 Lagrange later this week.

The 2002 left bankers have been young 1988s: True to Bordeaux, reserved, balanced, 12.5% alcohol, nice integration of wood and fruit, standouts for me have been Lafite, Mouton (yum), Duhart, d'Armailhac, Pontet-Canet, Branaire, Haut Bailly, Lagrange, Smith Haut Lafitte (yum), Leoville Barton, Leoville Poyferre, d'Issan, Haut Brion, Pape Clement, Sociando Mallet, and numerous others. PappaDoc says the Lynch is nice in 2002, although I don't recall having it. And I think Comte liked LLC.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:46 pm

What's always amused or interested (ok amused is more like it) me is the whole concept of Bordeauxness and the old-world, new -world, traditional, modern distinctions/debate. Some people profess to prefer Bordeaux to Napa, for example, and I guess they go for the restraint, the austerity etc. Is it incontrovertible though that the most heralded Bordeaux vintages (at least as trumpeted by Jim's idiots and sheep) are the most Californian? If that's the case, why not just drink Napa cabs and skip Bordeaux altogether?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:52 pm

That 2002 Haut Bailly you left at my house, Art, may have been my own personal "wine of the year" so far to date.
Sure, I've rated some wines higher, etc., but when you factor in price, and surprise factor, etc., it just really knocked me over. I expected it be good, I did not expect it to be that good.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:52 pm

The 2002 LLC is sensational...and I would rate it the best 02 I have tried (shading Mouton) and a better wine than the 1990 LLC, which I had a few of this year...at $999 a case that may prove to be a spectucular bargain. Leoville Barton and Lagrange are very strong too.

I tried the '01 LLC with Chris - it was totally and utterly shut down, and will probably remain so for many years...despite that I invested quite heavily in this cinderella vintage (after '00) especially on the right bank...the righties are already challenging 98 and 00 for equal rights and I suspect some of the 01 lefties could be dark horses in time...2001 seems to be the vintage we talk about least and know least about.

JonoB · Post by **JonoB** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:23 am

02 LLC is great...
I do worry about a change in style and homogeneity across regions these days.
Whilst everyone in bordeaux is praying for good 2010 and some of the reports do sound promising, (I'm sure Alex will know more about this than my readings) but James Suckling tweeted that things are looking uber-good.

I replied 'hype-machine rolling into action?' and got a snide reply saying 'would you rather drink bad wine?' I have just replied saying... In a measured tone... Firstly I like difference, it is what makes wine fun whether across region or across vintage or across terroir, secondly hype leads to stupid prices which I don't like... And finally good grapes do not always make great wine, there is plenty more to go until the wines even see a bottle, and just looking at the grapes doesn't make for accurate readings. Even once in bottle, who knows how the wines will age!

I would put money on the fact that because of these beliefs and not being a 'sheep' and looking at these things rationally, I drink more eclectically and enjoy 'better?' wines than Mr. Suckling... Based on the fact that he is famous in the wine world I would have hoped he would be more measured. The more I think about it, more I think he is simply a mini-HWSNBN...

mike reff · Post by **mike reff** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:01 am

just picked up the 02 LaGrange for $42.99, not a bad score for a vintage panned by critics.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:10 pm

Well done Mike, well done.
I liked my eight or nine bottles of 2002 Lagrange so much I drank every one of them.
Of course, that was several years back, when they were very young. It may have closed down by now.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:41 pm

You drank all of them already, Jim? Almost all of my '02s are in storage.

JonoB · Post by **JonoB** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:03 pm

I'm holding out for 02 to put on some weight like 04 seems to be doing... At which point they will be very much like the 78s and everyone will start to swoon over them...

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:18 pm

Unfortunately I think I suffer from several mental illnesses and disabilities, including but not limited to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, some sort of attention deficit disorder, and some level of autism. When I taste a wine like 2002 Lagrange I just can't stop myself.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:25 pm

All BWEers are aware of your disabilities, Jim, but you can help yourself by buying multiple cases of such wines.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:17 pm

2002 might be a nice sub-theme at the BWE Convention, especially if it entices Jim to attend where we can administer some group therapy for his wine neuroses. Perhaps a line-up with many of Jim's favorites will make it impossible for him to miss it! How about all the 2002 Lagrange you can drink, Jimbo?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:03 pm

Mmmmmm now you're tempting me, blanquito.....

"Jim How's Favorite Wines"