TN: 2002 Château Léoville Poyferré (France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Julien)

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:21 am

2002 Château Léoville Poyferré - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Julien (11/18/2010)
Boy, I enjoy and respect the notes on cellartracker, but I'm going to just have to respectfully disagree with the trend towards 89-ish scores for this wine. I have had probably a dozen or more bottles of this wine in the past five years or so, and to me it is the epitome of classic claret-styled Bordeaux. I realize this is all subjective but, damn it, here is my subjective opinion: If you don't like this classic St. Julien, you don't like Bordeaux. To me, this wine has everything I'm looking for in a great Medoc: Cassis; cedar; black cherries; restraint; elegance and strength; balance; structure; alchohol in restraint. I have said several times before, and I will say it again: The 2002 left bank vintage is the best post-2000 vintage in Bordeaux (have not tasted 2009 or 2010). It is the last great non-Parkerized vintage. I have consistently rated this beauty over 90 points, and tonight it merited its highest score yet. Tremendous, extremely satisfying finish. Lots of sediment in the end... but then again, what else would you expect from a great left bank vintage. Is this the greatest Leoville Poyferre ever? Maybe. Drinking great now, and will drink even greater over the next 10-20 years. We've been talking about this wine a lot over on my website at http://www.bordeauxwineenthusiasts.com. (94 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker

Chasse-Spleen · Post by **Chasse-Spleen** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:28 am

I enjoyed this wine on release and I think it's a classic. But I can understand how some people might be a bit restrained in their praise. I think it's quite dry and has a scorched earth, austere kind of profile. People looking for lots of fruit and soft tannins will be totally disappointed.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:30 am

Yes, I agree, Chasse: Parker whores will be disappointed in this wine.

Chasse-Spleen · Post by **Chasse-Spleen** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:36 am

Disappointed was perhaps a little too strong a word. Unimpressed might be a little more like it.

BTW, Jim - what would you think of a 2005 Meyney for $26? HWSRN rates it 85-86, the kiss of death. I imagine you might be a bit more likely to try one.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:39 am

Why would I care what someone who can't tell the difference between a real Bordeaux and a Hardy Rodenstock fake would think?

I think the 2004 and 2005 Chasse Spleen can be had for even a lower price at PJs, I would probably try those two wines first.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:11 am

2002 is the best left bank vintage since 2000! Interesting point of view considering what most seem to think of '05. How would the 2002 Cos d'Estournel stand up to this assessment?

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:14 am

I've said it before: the most Napa-like Bordeaux vintages get the highest scores, generally, and from the rabble. At least the Napa-loving American rabble.

2005 Meyney 85-86? I don't recall any 2005 I saw scoring less than 87 points. What's the matter, is it not Napa enough?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:17 am

I've only the 2002 Cos once, Bacchus, I posted a note here a while back. It was so closed that, in the end, I concluded it may have been corked or in some other way damaged.

Others have rated the 2002 Cos highly though. In 2002, though, I think the sweet spot is Pauillac/St. Julien, especially St. Julien.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:21 am

Funny comment on the '05 Meyney, Hound.

After Chasse's post I went and checked the availability of Chasse Spleen on the PJ's site. $26 for the 2004, $31 for the 2005, and $22.97 for the 2003 Chasse Spleen.

Here is the note of He Who Shall Remain Nameless on the 2003 Chasse Spleen:

"Plum, black currant, and cherry fruit are present in this medium-bodied, soft, blatantly commercially-styled Moulis. - WA86"

The audacity of that guy....

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:30 am

Gosh, when I see those American prices I could just cry. In Canada, at least here in Newfoundland, you can expect to pay close to twice those prices for C-S.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:38 am

The 2002 sounds really nice, Jim.

I just scored a 1/2 bottle of the Leoville Poyferre 2004 for $23. Seems like a very nice deal for a wine whose price has skyrocketed in the last 5-7 years.

Bacchus, if you think US prices are good, BordeauxHarry (now ChateauneufHarry) used to regularly bring tears to our eyes with the insane deals he'd score in Belgium!

Chasse-Spleen · Post by **Chasse-Spleen** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:51 am

I will pop a 2005 Chasse-Spleen sometime soon. I would gladly try the 2003, but I'm not a big fan of PJs or the vintage, so I will resist. I agree that 2004 C-S is more attractive than Meyney at that price, but still I'm curious. What ever happened to Meyney? BTW, I drank another Phelan Segur 2006 the other night, and it was a little more closed, but still a good wine for the price, $24.
-Chasse

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:54 am

Well done, Patrick. I think I'm going to break down and buy a case of 2008 Leoville Poyferre from PJs for $;5 per bottle, it is pretty hard to imagine it coming out for much less than that on release. The 2006 Leoville Poyferre was generally over $60+.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:59 am

I'm just not sure why the animus by some towards PJs, Chris, I've had nothing but great success with them, I've brought many a PJs-sourced wine to BWE events over the years, which have always shown well.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:24 am

I'm a big fan of PJ's, too. My only issue with them, as I've mentioned, is the high temps I've experienced in their retail space in the heat of summer (a beef I have with many wine outfits). Otherwise, a class operation with great prices and a broad, interesting, ecletic selection...

I tried the 2005 Meyney-- not bad at all. But I doubt it will make us forget the Meyney's of the 1980's (I've been buying bottles of the '86, '88, and '89 Meyney on auction for $30-$40, fantastic mature claret for the price in all three vintages).

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:26 pm

I was wondering, JimHow, if you've tried other vintages of LP? I ask because a quick survey of reviews of various vintages on Cellartracker indicates that an awful lot of people are disappointed with it. And no one seems genuinely enthusiastic.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:33 pm

Indeed, Bacchus, it is a matter of style preference. The 2002 Poyferre is not a Parkerized, internationalized, fruit bomb. It is an austere, classic, Oxford/Cambridge-styled claret... the way they USED to make 'em, before He Who Shall Remain Nameless started brainwashing people into believing what they preferred with his grotesque American 90-point rating system. Like Chris said above, it is not a style that appeals to everyone, especially in this unfortunate age of over-extraction, high alcohol, and excessive oak. I've also enjoyed the 1996 and 1982 Leoville Poyferre. Many here are fond of the '90.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:48 pm

Well, JimHow, I'm glad your wording doesn't give your opinion of Mr. P*rker away

It does seem that there is something of a (small) movement away from the "big" wines -- Napa Cabs and Aussie Shiraz, to name but two prime examples -- back to a more traditional form. I know a number of people who have been happy drinking Napa and Aussie wines for five or six years but who are now abandoning them for something more traditional, be it Bordeaux, Burgundy or perhaps Italian. That's kinda what's happened to me. After a lot of Aussie Shiraz, I decided I wanted something that didn't overpower my taste buds (and food) every time I took a sip. Unfortunately, I won't be able to try these earlier vintages of LP. Our government store only has 03s, 04s, 05s and 06s.

William P · Post by **William P** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:54 pm

As Jim knows, I too loved these 2002. Went through a case of LP, Branaire, and few others. Unfortunately, I went through them too fast. BUT they were enjoyable. Still have LP, Las Cases, and Pichon Lalande. Another unfortunate event was the "discount window" passed very quickly and I was unable to reload.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:04 pm

I rib Ro***rt Pa***r here a lot, Bacchus, it is usually in good fun. One of the best things about BWE is that the people here generally are capable of challenging conventional wisdom. As Bill mentioned above, we have spent a good amount of time here discussing the merits of 2002L. There is a time and place for the big alcoholic fruit bombs, but those austere, classically-styled northern Medocs are what bring me to a higher state of consciousness....

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:54 pm

I haven't touched my 2002s since release! I was planning on waiting at least 2-5 more years before cracking the softer ones. You guys like 'em young.

alchemeus · Post by **alchemeus** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:20 pm

I just finished up my 1996 Leovile Poyferre. Really enjoyed them. Glad they continue the tradition of good wines.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:44 pm

JimHow wrote: ...He Who Shall Remain Nameless started brainwashing people into believing what they preferred with his grotesque American 90-point rating system.

So long as we're in a ribbing state of mind: Arguing this point with Jim (an experience lawyer and former politician) is like drinking '02 Poyferre...

...fruitless.

Seriously, I like both styles. I seem to alternate between several-week-long streaks of preferring the austere old-fashioned style and then the ripe modern style.

alchemeus · Post by **alchemeus** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:45 am

JimHow wrote:Indeed, Bacchus, it is a matter of style preference. The 2002 Poyferre is not a Parkerized, internationalized, fruit bomb. It is an austere, classic, Oxford/Cambridge-styled claret... the way they USED to make 'em, before He Who Shall Remain Nameless started brainwashing people into believing what they preferred with his grotesque American 90-point rating system. Like Chris said above, it is not a style that appeals to everyone, especially in this unfortunate age of over-extraction, high alcohol, and excessive oak. I've also enjoyed the 1996 and 1982 Leoville Poyferre. Many here are fond of the '90.

OMG! Is that continuing in Bordeaux?

I'd have that that died out by now.

Here locally there are several establishments making wine that are opposite that. Black Anckle and Sugar Loaf Mountain specifically. Many older ones are coming around but may take a few more years.

It's not about a specific taste, it's all about what YOU can deliver from your vineyard(s).

Sure, Black Ankle Syrah based wines aren't like Cote-Rotie nor the worse facsimilies trying to pan themselves off as duplicates from California, but their (expensive) rip-off of style as such is pretty damn good. And the meritage from Sugar Loaf Mountain (Circe) is available at a local store for like $18. And it is FINE!

When I first started posting here there were like 9 wineries in MD. Now close or over 30. Many making some good wines, depending, and I buy those when I can, many less than $15 and better than 90% of the same price from around the world. Several wineries make a Seyval/Vidal/Chardonnay mix wine or a Seyval/Chardonnay....often around $11, and perfectly fine.

But that is my personal taste. YMMV.

Of course, if you want to spend $50+ on a bottle of wine, feel free. Me, I just don't get that.

Chasse-Spleen · Post by **Chasse-Spleen** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:23 am

I've had '96 Leoville Poyferre a number of times and mostly it was an absolute brute of a wine with major stuffing, tannins, etc. Super potential, but a serious, vin de garde. Is it starting to mellow out?
-Chasse

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:02 pm

First time I had the 96 it was pretty grapey, that was around 2003 maybe. Had it again in 07 and it seemed pretty dry and stern, and just coming out after 4-6 hours of air.

rjsussex · Post by **rjsussex** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:01 pm

Well, I'm rather boyishly proud that I nominated Poyferre 02 as BWE wine of the year not long after I joined - and that it won.

Agree with the BD's note/update - my last bottle was just lovely and I'm glad to have 18 or so left. As a unrepentant fan of 04 you'll expect me to add that the LP 04 is a fine wine as well - and that both outclassed the 03 (which I sold on for a good profit because of points awarded by a certain gentleman discussed earlier in this thread).

Best
Richard

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:18 pm

DavidG is our resident smarmy stalker, it is my goal in life to be half as great a human being as he is.

You were indeed right on with the 2002 Leoville Poyferre, Richard, I wonder if we will ever see another vintage like 2002, what with the ongoing (radical?) changes in winemaking techniques.

I guess some of us just have very different perceptions of these wines, my many experiences with the 1996 Leoville Poyferre have been nothing close to that described by Chris above. Rather than closed and brutish, I have consistently found it rich, aromatic, with profoundly ripe fruit.

Ironically, I think my drinking windows for these wines start out a lot earlier and closer to those recommended by He Who Shall Remain Nameless, whose predicted drinking windows often begin just four or five years after the vintage, even for the big classified growths. I think a lot of the Parker apologists like David like to drink their wines far at the back end of the drinking windows suggested by their man.

SF Ed · Post by **SF Ed** » Sun Nov 21, 2010 3:36 pm

I find that my palate has changed over the years and the drinking windows accordingly. When I got serious about wine in the late '90s, I loved where the 1990s and 1988s were. I still do, and both seem to be early stage of maturity wines for me. When I drink 2000s, they seem far too young. I have a good amount of 2002s (nothing better than no Parker ratings en primeur) and haven't touched a single bottle and likely won't for at least another 5 years. They will just be too primary for me. Especially with Bordeaux, I like the complexity of the secondary, mature flavors far more than the fruit core. I live in Northern California - I've got more than enough wine with great primary fruit all around me.

SF Ed

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sun Nov 21, 2010 7:25 pm

Hey, that's a great strategy SF Ed. I'll buy bordeaux for the future, and Cali Cabs for immediate gratification -- and maybe some of the better Aussie shiraz too.

rjsussex · Post by **rjsussex** » Sun Nov 21, 2010 8:58 pm

My palate has gone the other way (to SF Ed's): I'm in my fifties and I drink my classed growth claret younger than I did. In my late twenties I heard someone in the wine trade say that the French drink classed-growth claret too young, the English too old, and the Americans just right.
Best
Richard

Chasse-Spleen · Post by **Chasse-Spleen** » Mon Nov 22, 2010 7:04 am

I have to elaborate. My impressions of the 1996 Leoville Poyferre mainly stem from a private tasting that I attended in Copenhagen around 2005 as I recall. It was double blind, and by sheer coincidence, one of the other attendees also brought 1996 Leoville Poyferre! We didn't even know which wine was our own, and it was extremely confusing due to the fact that there were two identical bottles, probably both sourced from the same lot. Under the circumstances, the wines showed extremely dry, tannic and hugely structured. Some of the other wines we drank that night included Scrio, the super Tuscan Syrah, and Sauzet Puligney-Montrachet Les Perrieres 2002, which blew away a Sauzet Puligney-Montrachet 2002 that I also brought. I can't remember the other wines. I've never been a huge fan of double blind tasting. I think I tasted the '96 LP another time after that but I'm not sure. It is definitely a tremendous wine, possibly close to first growth quality.

-Chasse

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:18 pm

Just picked up a copy of the November issue of Decanter. In a review of the 2007 vintage in which they compare it to other vintages, 2002 was described as a "minor vintage but better balanced than '07." I guess, JimHow, you would take issue with Decanter.

That said, they provide a list -- hopefully useful -- of the best of the '07s for those who might care to try the vintage. Interestingly, of the first growths only Mouton and Latour receive 4-star ratings (none get a 5-star rating)! Lafite, the darling of first growths these days, only gets a 3-star rating. Right up with Mouton, interestingly enough, is Ch. Haut-Bages Liberal, normally a pretty affordable wine. And since Pontet-Canet is of interest to so many on this list, I can report that it too gets a 4-star rating.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:51 pm

Ah well if Decanter says it is so, then it MUST be true.... <rolls eyes>

alchemeus · Post by **alchemeus** » Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:44 pm

JimHow wrote:Ah well if Decanter says it is so, then it MUST be true.... <rolls eyes>

Well, in all honesty Jim, if one can equate a palate to anothers then that can be a general guide. Trouble is, I can't. I mean, I love good fruity wines and I love great complex wines and I love earthy wines and I love...

It's just silly to rate them. Or to compare between regions. Or to compare between varieties.

Wine is what it is and you like it or you don't, or you like it but don't want to pay the price (1st Growth Bordeaux anymore), or whatever. I scored some Margaux and some Lafite and some Haut-Brion at around $100 per with taxes. Will NEVER happen again. And honestly, I don't care.

Kinda like a Rolex watch, it's a time keeper (and jewelry for some). Is it any better at keeping time or looking good than another?

Sometimes the name outweighs the worth. Hard for some folk to swallow that.

"It's worth it as long as people pay the price." That is the most inane argument I have ever heard. Too much money, too little sense.

Reminds me of folk in the 1970's paying $3 for 'Pet Rocks'!

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:04 am

I agree with everything you say there Alch.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:34 am

I agree with the Decanter take on the '02 Bdx. And with most of Alch's comments, except I don't think it's silly to rate or compare wines. That's part of what makes it fun and interesting. But bottom line, it's what you like. The '02 Bdx are OK for me but not nearly as special as they are to others like Jim. It's particularly gratifying when a wine or group of wines really rings your chimes but remains under the radar because the critics don't go nuts for it. '88 and '04 were the two vintages where that happened for me.

robert goulet · Post by **robert goulet** » Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:34 am

Had the '99 L poy with the '01 Smith Haut laffite some years back.

SHL absolutely wiped the floor with the Poyferre. '01 SHL was text book Graves but amped up. As Nigel would say, "this goes to eleven!"

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:06 pm

Which 2002s have you tasted David?

As for Decanter, Alch and Bacchus, I haven't read them in a number of years but it seems to me they were becoming the European equivalent of Wine Spectator (and now Wine Advocate, based on the escapades of Mark Squires and Jay Miller in Australia, Portugal, and other romantic locales), mixing business with pleasure, reviewing wines that advertize with them, etc., etc., etc. Why should I believe anything Michael Broadbent writes, he seems to have been even more duped by Hardy than even He Who Shall Remain Nameless.

2002 is putrid on the right bank. I love those Pauillacs and St. Juliens I have had, though. Come to think of it, Margaux and Pessac Leognan have been delicious too, I've loved Palmer, Smith Haut Lafitte, d'Issan, Haut Brion, Pape Clement.... Not so sure about St. Estephe.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:16 pm

David, are you drinking your 2004s already?

I've gotten so conditioned to wait 10 years at a minimum for Bordeaux (and even longer for historic vintages), I haven't even thought about starting on my 2004s (at least for the more serious chateau in my cellar).