The future of 2003 left bank

[marcs]

This was inspired by William P's post on the 2003 Pontet Canet, but turned out to be long enough that I thought it might deserve its own thread...would love the opinions of others with more experience than I.

*If* they will age well -- a big if -- the left bank 2003s seem like some of the better current "bargains" in Bordeaux for long-term ownership. Some of the top wines of the vintage (Pichon Baron, Leoville Barton) are available for under $100 a bottle, and I have seen the PC for $75. These are not low prices exactly, but if you look at both Cellartracker and professional critic notes it appears that these wines have a real chance of turning into something great and truly special, perhaps like the top 1990s. Wines that are already beginning to achieve a legendary reputation, such as hte Montrose and Cos d'Estournel, are still around for under $200. Sadly such prices are hard to find for really great wines these days.

I don't know what to think about the aging question. The bottom line for me is that I enjoy a lush rich style of Bordeaux, so long as it also has the structure and freshness I go to Bdx for. (I also enjoy leaner and more classical wines in their place, I don't think there is a contradiction). It's hard for me to believe that a producer like e.g. Leoville Barton will not age well even if they are rich in their youth. I think Bordeaux is just a very different place than Australia or California, so even if a great producer shows international flash and flair when young those secondary qualities are waiting there under the fruit. I recognize the shift in Bordeaux styles, but I have rarely had a Bdx left banker that truly could be mistaken for a typical Napa cab.

I haven't been in Bdx long enough (under a decade) to really observe how long-term aging works in my own cellar. But is it really true that youthful richness and vintage heat doom a wine to simplicity as it ages, even if the wine clearly has decent tannic structure? 1947 and 1990 would seem to say different...but of course 2003 was ferociously hotter and drier, in a way that must have stressed the vines. And perhaps tthe underlying tannins and structure will be revealed as crude as the fruit drops away. But it seems to me that it must be a plus that so many of these wines have been delicious even through what would normally be their shut down period of 5 to 8 years old.

[JimHow]

We had a dinner with Blanquito in NYC earlier this year featuring various 2003 left bankers. They were all excellent and will last many years.

[William P]

I am not so worried about longevity in the 2003, though a few may fall apart because of lack of balance. My concern was the roasted quality and as I remember the high oak content of many of the wines. I didn't know if I would enjoy the mature phase, so I channeled most of my money in 2002 Burgundy. I purchased maybe two cases of 2003 and this was a vintage that I bought several bottles (up to a case for the PC) of things I liked such as PC, Duhart, Malescot and a few others.

[JonB]

Here's an excerpt from IWC (Stephen Tanzer's publication):

Young 2003s from favored sites may indeed be low in acidity by historical standards, but not meaningfully lower than in past outstanding warm years. Relatively few 2003s made from thoroughly ripe fruit seemed seriously unbalanced or cooked in the early going, and many of them show surprising aromatic complexity and inner-mouth vibrancy. Although numerous less-successful 2003s from St. Emilion, Pomerol and the Southern Medoc will be best consumed early, before their drier tannins overwhelm their relatively meager fruit, I suspect that the stars of the Medoc will be long-lived thanks to their extraordinary density and huge, ripe tannins. Wines like Latour, Margaux, Montrose, Ausone and Leoville-Las Cases should develop in bottle for 25 to 30 years, or more. Other top 2003s-the other two Leovilles, the two Pichons, Haut-Brion, Cos d'Estournel and Calon-Segur, to name just a few-should evolve positively for at least two decades. But many, many 2003s will be best suited for drinking within the first 10 to 12 years of their lives. As this is a style of vintage virtually without precedent, I believe that the projections of peak drinkability offered by other publications should be taken with a grain of salt (and perhaps washed down with a glass of young 2003).

[Tom In DC]

Young 2003s from favored sites may indeed be low in acidity by historical standards, but not meaningfully lower than in past outstanding warm years. Relatively few 2003s made from thoroughly ripe fruit seemed seriously unbalanced or cooked in the early going, and many of them show surprising aromatic complexity and inner-mouth vibrancy. Although numerous less-successful 2003s from St. Emilion, Pomerol and the Southern Medoc will be best consumed early, before their drier tannins overwhelm their relatively meager fruit, I suspect that the stars of the Medoc will be long-lived thanks to their extraordinary density and huge, ripe tannins. Wines like Latour, Margaux, Montrose, Ausone and Leoville-Las Cases should develop in bottle for 25 to 30 years, or more. Other top 2003s-the other two Leovilles, the two Pichons, Haut-Brion, Cos d'Estournel and Calon-Segur, to name just a few-should evolve positively for at least two decades. But many, many 2003s will be best suited for drinking within the first 10 to 12 years of their lives. As this is a style of vintage virtually without precedent, I believe that the projections of peak drinkability offered by other publications should be taken with a grain of salt (and perhaps washed down with a glass of young 2003).

I love this!

[Blanquito]

Careful buying was key with 2003. Many were so ripe, hot, big, or roasted that even Parker raised redflags about many chateau. Ironically, his bias towards ripe wines was a lesser issue with the 2003s since ripeness was pretty much omnipresent, making him more reliable for my palate (within the context of the vintage).

Bottom-line, I am pretty confident about the development of the northern Medoc 2003s.

[Houndsong]

Tanzer has this sort of reasonable, credible vibe. And then he advises against reliance on drinking windows offered by other publications because of the unprecedented nature of the vintage immediately after offering his own. Other than that, the only bizarre thing about Tanzer is his continued use of the term "inner-mouth." Like Gen. Buck Turgidson, I'm still trying to understand that part.

[Ramon_NYC]

I sold off quite a few of my lower growth 2003's after an NYC dinner tasting involving a few of these wines. Sold wines included Sociando Mallet and Lagrange ... the tasting just enabled me to put those wines in another winegeek forum marketplace, and since there were eager buyers at my price, I can be wrong as taste is really subjective. I'm still keeping 2nd growth stuff like Barton, Baron, Montrose, Cos and a few others.

[Blanquito]

Lagrange stunk in 2003, but selling off your SM, Ramon? That is an epic claret in the making I think, especially for the $35-$40 it used to cost. What didn't you like about it? Do you like SM much in other vintages (we'll be popping the 1990 in a few weeks!) or was it something off with the 2003?

[JonoB]

SM for me works well in ht vintages, because it is so regally structured in it's youth.

I find that the 03s will age, but other than a handful I don't think they'll get much better in terms of their qualities, but simply age.

[marcs]

This posting was just an elaborate plot to let me feel good about having blown what (for me) is a lot of money at auction on a mixed case of 2003 Barton, Baron, and Cos. Thanks -- after reading this thread, I'm thinking I will be pretty happy about it 5-10 years from now.

[JimHow]

Marc, I recall really liking the 2003 Barton at that BWE dinner. I guarantee you will not be disappointed by those wines.

[marcs]

I find that the 03s will age, but other than a handful I don't think they'll get much better in terms of their qualities, but simply age.

This is a California characteristic that I don't like. I don't really understand why Cali wines don't seem to develop as many of the secondary characteristics as older Euro wines do -- is there any scientific understanding of this? Wine aging in particular seems to be a combination of mysticism and guesswork, at least among the critics and on the boards. Given how totally central these issues are to the modern vs. traditional style debate, I really wish people were on a firmer grounding with it.

Given that the tannic structure on some of the major 03s is clearly hiding some elements, it's hard to see how they won't change with time as the tannins soften or melt away. I suppose this does not guarantee secondary characteristics, though. Is there any tendency of wines from hotter years, like 1990, not to develop secondary and tertiary characteristics as they age? (I've never had a 1990).

[Ramon_NYC]

Lagrange stunk in 2003, but selling off your SM, Ramon? That is an epic claret in the making I think, especially for the $35-$40 it used to cost. What didn't you like about it? Do you like SM much in other vintages (we'll be popping the 1990 in a few weeks!) or was it something off with the 2003?

Patrick.

I like the 1982, 1983, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000 and 2001 Sociando. I’m glad that I have some of these stored away and am excited about the 1990 in our upcoming dinner.

I bought the 2003 Sociando Mallet at a terrific price during the 2003 futures campaign, tasted it at a 2003 release horizontal and liked it then. I tasted this about 6 months before our NYC tasting-dinner last summer and was starting to become unimpressed. During the NYC tasting, it was my 3rd place wine in the blind 2003 flight with the Pontet Canet and that good Duhart Milon (both PC and DM got high scores from me then, but the SM was substantially lower), I guessed this wine correctly during that blind tasting. It was simply too vegetal mixed in with some heat and that very ripe fruit … not my kinda thing. Like I said in my earlier post, I can be wrong and in the minority with this wine, especially given that I had multiple buyer responses when I advertised to sell.

I’m still hopeful of other 2003s … but am selective with the ones that I’m storing away.

[JimHow]

I predict Tanzer's take will prove most accurate.

[marcs]

Other than that, the only bizarre thing about Tanzer is his continued use of the term "inner-mouth." .

I especially like his frequent references to "inner mouth perfume". Does he snort it back out his nose or something?

[Blanquito]

Very interersting, Ramon. I wa pretty sure you liked Sociando in general. I recall saying at our 2003 blind flight "sell Sociando, buy Duhart 2003!", but mainly because I thought the Duhart was so good. FWIW, here's my note from that flight (which was in July of 2009!):

Sociando 2003
I was nearly positive this was the Sociando. Dark, brooding, and great chewy depth, the telltale green pepper notes give this away as the Sociando. The biggest wine of the flight, on this night at least. My 2nd favorite of the three. 92 pts

As I mature/age, I'm growing less tolerant of Bordeaux's penchant for showing "green" (probably because I drinking more high quality wines from other regions these days), and so if the 2003 Sociando doesn't shed that bell pepper trait with cellaring, I may regret my nearly 2 case purchase of this wine! I know some Bordeaux lovers who've given up on Sociando for its rustic, green profile. But that's what cellaring Bordeaux does, yes?; with sufficient age the green morphs into something else like tobacco as long as there's enough fruit to hold up to father time? I don't have enough experience cellaring wines to really be sure, especially with the Sociando which can take decades to mature.

That all said, I really like the 1996 Sociando and think the 1990 will be highly instructive of what this chateau does in really ripe vintages (and 20 years in the cellar under its belt).

[JonoB]

I am finding that most 03s are near or at their peak and will hold because of the tannin. They are not tertiary yet, but they are certainly getting into secondary. They for me lacking that hidden depth that wines such as the 61 Palmer, 78 LMHB or even 90 Duhart-Milon have which makes them gain more complexity rather than just developing over time, which all wines do at different paces and in different ways.

They will be lovely, but if we want a comparison to 90, 09 is probably closer to the mark. Those wines are already showing signs (the good ones) of those hidden depths.

[Nicklasss]

The 1991 and 1993 Chateau Lynch Bages I had 2-3 years ago, were still really good. Don't tell me that the 2003 Bordeaux won't last at least that long...

Nic

[JimHow]

I agree, Nic, the 2003 left bankers are going to improve for many years, perhaps decades.

[Claudius2]

Guys
I agree that the wines that did not show dead fruit (baked, cooked, raisiny etc) and harsh, dry, rasping tannins will defintely keep.
Yet it is a wine where caveat emptor holds.

I've been to a few trade tastings of these wines over the years and I've found that the wines I did not like initially have become worse rather than better.
The top wines will unquestionably last for decades though.

[JimHow]

I think what Nic is saying, and I agree with him, is that Bordeaux wines from such so-called "off" vintages like the Lynch '91 and '93 are still offering up enjoyment going on twenty years later. Not everything is going to be a '47 Cheval Blanc. Nic and I are true Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts (kidding), we don't care what the so-called experts think. To this day I still get excited when I drink a 1993 Bordeaux, some seventeen years later, from that supposedly "soft," "restaurant" vintage. I'll bet even Francois would be closer to our line of thinking. We'll be drinking and enjoying most 2003 left bankers 20-30 years from now, even longer in some cases....

People need to focus on how styles of wines or vintages my be "different" rather than "better." If you put a '93 Cos or Lynch or Mouton or Baron in front of me for dinner tonight, I'm going to drink it.... And I'm going to enjoy it, I have no doubt....

[JonoB]

Jim, don't get me wrong... I am not doubting that these wines will not AGE for 20-30 years... All I am saying is that I think that they WILL NOT IMPROVE and simple DEVELOP. that is not the same as saying they won't AGE! the reason I think that is because none of the 03s that I've had have had that je ne sais quoi that makes me think... there is something hidden underneath that is waiting to come out and 91 and 93 have really good a acidity levels...03s don't. Which doesn't help with ageing. 91 Latour is superb. 93 Mouton is lovely, 93 Duhart-Milon is sry nice. They 03s will age but for ms I will get the same enjoyment from them today as I will in 20 years time.

Just my two cents.

[JimHow]

I understand what you are saying Jono. As with any vintage, some wines will develop more than others. I think the bigger names in 2003 will be interesting for decades to come, wines like Pontet Canet, Duhart Milon, Sociando Mallet, Cos d'Estournel, etc. Even though Lagrange '03 was not one of my favorites I would hardly consider it offensive in any way... Enjoyable, just not as much as the Pontet Canet or Sociando Mallet. I recall really liking the 2003 Leoville Barton. I also recall a discussion at our table along the lines that these wines were surprisingly not disjointed, awkward, etc. Time will tell....

[JimHow]

I also liked the 2003 Smith Haut Lafitte a lot, as well as the Lascombes and d'Issan. I enjoyed the '03 Vrai Canon Bouche, although I would agree we should drink that up pretty much before it reaches 10-12 years of age. I believe the high alcohol 2003 La Vielle Cure will likewise age surprisingly well, it was very fresh and youthful when I had it a few months back, a very solid 89-pointer. I did not like the 2003 Grand Puy Lacoste.

[Houndsong]

I'm a buyer of the 03 SM. Vive la Green Pepper! When the time comes, we'll talk price, gentlemen.

[marcs]

Personally I got the feeling that the 2003 Branaire Ducru (which was fantastic) would reveal new and interesting things once the tannins receded, and that it would develop with age. It is true that the plush fruit was so nice now that it would not necessarily be "better" in the future, just interestingly different. It's subjective whether you call that improvement. What I don't like are some Cali Cabs that just seem to become a lower volume version of themselves with age. I really like secondary and tertiary flavors.

I enjoyed the 2003 Grand Puy Lacoste for its exuberant fruit bomb qualities, but felt overall it lacked balance and was far from a great wine -- it some of the hot, disjointed quality that would be the bad side of a year like 2003.

Does anyone have a link to a posting on your 2003 tasting in NYC? Can't seem to find it.

[rjsussex]

I'm an 03 left-bank no-sayer. I bought a lot because of Parker, tasted in dismay, drank up the pretty dismal Potensac, Meyney etc, sold on (at very high prices to be fair!) the Pontet and the Poyferre and kept only the Barton and the Sociando. I think the Sociando is good but not for long keeping. I prefer the 04. I think the Barton is very good but not as good as the 01.

Richard

[DavidG]

Lots of issues mixed together here.

I agree with Marcs' opinion that riper, modern style Bordeaux with low acidity will still develop complexity. Past vintages have shown this. What matters most to me about aging is that the wine develops those secondary (or tertiary depending on your definitions) characteristics that create that wonderful complexity. This just doesn't happen to the same degree in California. I have no idea why, but I don't think that the "modern" Bordeaux will lose the ability to develop that complexity. Many said that would happen to some of the ripe, low acid '82s, and it didn't. Yes, there have been further changes since then, but my money is still on the magic happening in the bottle.

That complexity is what I care about and what I mean when I say I want a wine to age well. I care little about whether a wine will last 20 years vs 50 years. I'll be long gone. Just give me that sweet aged Bordeaux complexity while I'm still around to enjoy it.

I agree with William P that the worry in '03 is the roasted character, presumably from the torrid heat that year. Reports suggest that the effect varied from property to property, so there is a lot of irregularity in the vintage. This makes buying futures a little riskier, but I bought a few anyway: Cos, Pontet Canet, Calon Segur, Pichon Lalande, and Branaire on the left bank and Pavie on the right. Time will tell if I've chosen wisely. I don't think I'll have my answers for another 5-10 years.