Favorite 2005 Bordeaux?

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:46 am

I've tried maybe 20 different Bordeaux from 2005 (though none of the big guns).

I know this isn't everyone's favorite vintage (though I'm high on their potential). To be sure, 2005 is a modern vintage and as such, some chateau went too far for us conservative BWEers, but many estates got it just right and the petit chateau were frequently excellent.

My favorite 2005s to date are the Grand Mayne, Carbonnieux rouge and Vieille Cure.

For those who use WineBid, there are lots of 2005 Bordeaux at or below futures pricing even after the buyer's premium, including wines like Monbousquet ($55), Grand Corbin Despagne ($23), and Vieille Cure ($23).

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:40 am

blanquito,

Interesting, my favorite so far has been the Carbonnieux also. Tried it at the Bottle shock premier. Had it another time, didn't show as well. Would love to try it again. I found it rather addicting, other notables I've tasted '05 monbousquet, and SHL.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:14 am

The list of 2005 Bordeaux that can be had below futures prices is much longer than I bothered to put down.

Is that (1) a condemnation of the vintage, (2) a condemnation of the vintage's prices, or (3) the state of the economy? I think it's #2.

JonB · Post by **JonB** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:59 am

I've only tried a few of the PQRs, and a majority (I felt) needed cellar time. Of course there we're some like St. Colombe and Croix Roche that were delicious young and are long gone.

My favorite 2005 is Angelus.....what an amazing wine! I received a retailer offer for magnums of Angelus today that was very close to en primeur prices and. I was tempted, but restrained.

I think 05 Bordeaux suffered from high prices (especially later release price escalation), the economic collapse, too many speculators that tried to sell once wines were delivered, as well as wholesalers that dumped stock.

I went to Winex this past weekend and was surprised at how much 05 Bdx was still on their shelves, but all were at higher prices than initial release.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:08 am

Blanquito wrote:The list of 2005 Bordeaux that can be had below futures prices is much longer than I bothered to put down.

Is that (1) a condemnation of the vintage, (2) a condemnation of the vintage's prices, or (3) the state of the economy? I think it's #2.

I agree, it's a function primarily of the high prices asked, with the economy playing a less significant role. No disrespect intended to those who are downgrade the vintage as too ripe to age well, but I don't think that argument carries much water now and it will prove even less accurate as the wines start maturing in another 10 years.

William P · Post by **William P** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:51 pm

Blanq, I think it's a combination. First, highly inflated prices at release, next the economy is not exactly booming. Finally, people who bought before and tasted upon arrival discovered these wine are going to take a lot of time before they come around. They are big tannic monsters. They will come around, in oh, say 20 years. If you have time, I think this is a wonderful vintage. Just my humble opinion.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:11 pm

Lascombes '05 was outstanding.

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:06 pm

so far I have not beem impressed by '05. Still have not tasted enough of them though. Love '01 and alot of '04's.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:09 pm

Yeah, I'm not too sure about '05 either. At best, it is second to 2002L in this decade.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:41 am

The best two I have tried are two of my all time favourite estates; Figeac and Conseillante

Grand Mayne too (it carries its weight (14.5% ABV) surprisingly deftly)

Think the former two are out of my price range now but if I get lucky I might try grab some Pontet Canet

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:50 am

DavidG wrote:
Blanquito wrote:The list of 2005 Bordeaux that can be had below futures prices is much longer than I bothered to put down.

Is that (1) a condemnation of the vintage, (2) a condemnation of the vintage's prices, or (3) the state of the economy? I think it's #2.
I agree, it's a function primarily of the high prices asked, with the economy playing a less significant role. No disrespect intended to those who are downgrade the vintage as too ripe to age well, but I don't think that argument carries much water now and it will prove even less accurate as the wines start maturing in another 10 years.

If the prices go down a lot it might be a buying opportunity...this is the best young vintage I have ever tried, it has everything...fruit structure but it is also recognisably Bordeaux...it is a bit early but I would rate it well ahead of 2000 (says he generalising (and trying to provoke an argument))

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:04 am

Comte, I would agree that the 2005s had more fruit (and possibly more tannin) than the 2000s on release, at least for the 30-40 chateau I tried from each vintage. I guess that might be part of the "problem" with the 2005s-- they come across as more modern with higher alcohol... for the moment. But maybe that's a good thing in the long run? Which famous Frenchmen said that a Bordeaux ages on its fruit, Delmas?

Our Bordeaux tour through the 1980's last July was so instructive in this regard-- most of the wines were wonderful and complex, but there was something about the 1982 and 1989 we had (and the 86 Rausan Segla), they just had an extra dimension of fruit and depth. I haven't had enough 1982s to really say, but the ones I've have had are really special. Is that a time-warp look at the 2005 in 20 years?

Or are the 2005 going to fall apart or disappoint like so many 1990 Bordeaux seem to have? It hasn't gotten much buzz, but in Parker's recent re-ratings of the 1982 and 1990 vintages, many of the 1990s got significant downgrades with "drink-soon" windows while many 1982s were upgraded and their drinking wines extended considerably. The top 20 wines from each vintage are legends (95 pts or higher), but 1982 seems to be a deeper vintage.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:12 am

We'll find out but I don't think the best 1990s are anywhere near being at their peak...I am more worried about the 82s than the 90s...lot of reports that Mouton is in decline...as for the 2005s they should outlive most of us

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:13 am

I just looked at Parker's website.

Any guess which vintage has (by far) the highest number of red Bordeaux rated 95 points or higher?

What's second? Or third?

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:16 am

Number of Chateau scoring 95 pts or higher by vintage:
2005- 64
2000- 49
1982- 21
2003- 21
1990- 20
1989- 13
1996- 9
1986- 8

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:18 am

Of course, lots of the big pointers in 2005 and 2000 are garage operations from the Right Bank and didn't even exist in 1990, let alone 1982. Maybe it would be more instructive to look just at the Medoc.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:31 am

Then of course 2009 is the vintage of the billennium

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:35 am

The 2009 vintage has 42 red wines that rate at least 95 pts, based on the low end of Parker's scoring range.

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:45 pm

Is it me but is the extra fruit overrated when it come to bordeaux? I never drank bordeaux because of the fruit. That when I go to napa'.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:10 pm

Amen, Robert. I think I can still taste the residue of wood and alcohol in my mouth from that '05 Lagrange I had a couple months ago.

Ramon_NYC · Post by **Ramon_NYC** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:59 pm

During a horizontal tasting in NY of newly-released mid-level 2005s, our wine of the night was Ch. Clinet as it was the one that was drinking with just the slightest level of approachability than the rest of the wines. I have tried another bottle of this last year and my positive impression on this wine hasn’t changed.

Unlike others, I have no idea on how to judge how good wines will turn out over time, especially when they are tight Bordeaux that are very, very young. But in any case, with time in the glass and a lot of vigorous swirling, I was also very impressed with 2005 Ch. Pontet Canet. I thought then that this was easily the BEST Pontet Canet that I have drunk from this decade. I wish I had bought some of this when it was cheaper.

I had the 2005 Vieux Chateau Certan from the barrel and while that one was terribly closed and tight in the beginning, our host just kept egging me to keep swirling and to wait before taking my first sip, and I was also impressed, especially when we compared it to other bottles that he brought out (2000, 2001, 2004 which was very good, imho).

Btw, as far as the 2005 La Vieille Cure, I have a case of this in storage and have had sporadic bottles over the years and it was always like sipping hard nails and wood. In a couple of instances, I re-corked and had the remainder after a day or 2, and the wine either refused to budge or just got tighter and more closed.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:30 pm

Wow, the Vieille Cure shut down hard, Ramon!? I had two bottles but both were in 2008 shortly after release, and they were impressive. One could sense the structure there, but I'm surprised it has gone so deep under. Good to know...

For me, Bordeaux represents the quintessence of viniferous balance. Not fruit per se, but a wine needs fruit in equal measure to its acids and tannins to be balanced.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:23 pm

This thread needs a contrarian opinion.

Yes, fruit counts in Bordeaux. I don't drink it for up front fruit either, preferring Cali for that. But if the fruit isn't there when young, it wont be there when it ages. People have been angsting over too much fruit in Bordeaux since the '82s. Too New World. Too California. Not enough acid. Wont age. In fact, that's what prompted Tom in DC to bring a few cases of top '82 Bdx to the annual BWE convention in NYC a few years ago. That blind tasting pretty much put the lie to the "If it's that fruity young, it can't be any good old" point of view. So here we are again, with people angsting over the shift to a too modern style, too much ripe fruit, and not enough acid. Some say it started in '00. Some say it started in '05. I say it's the same old argument, and it will be proven wrong again... in another 10-20 years.

IMO, there isn't much point in drinking Bdx at all under 10-15 years of age. Might as well go to California for that. So picking a favorite '05 based on how they are drinking now is WAY premature. One major exception: early drinking lesser chateaux can be a real bargain compared to similar quality Cali cabs if you are looking for something to drink without having to age it. Then it becomes a style preference with respect to the balance of fruit/acid/tannin/alcohol. Give me the fruit - you can keep your salad dressing wines. I'd happily trade my '02s (if I had any) for your '05s, but I wont be drinking them for another 10 years.

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:48 pm

I'm a little worried that 2005 could turn out to be a modern-day 1986. I've been in this game less than a decade, but one consistent theme has been reading / listening to people whine about their 86s...15 years, still not open, 20 years, hard as nails, 25 years, I think I may have detected some wine behind the tannin! Maybe I'm exaggerating since I mostly tend to hear about it when there's a problem, but I can't remember even once that I read someone rhapsodizing about how pleasurable or moving some 1986 was (other vintages with lower initial scores, like 83, 85, or 88 have wines that give that kind of experience).

2005 is fruitier but seems just as tannic, and I'm worried about the tone in which people describe them. They seem to be giving little pleasure when young, and I tend to feel that you get a peek at the character of wines when young. 2000 Bdx shut down hard but were singing for a while, a lot of midrange ones were fun even during the awkward phase.

But I haven't really tasted that extensively in either vintage, and didn't taste any major 05s right after release, so I'm just going on the TNs of others. Who knows. I did pick up 2 bottles of 2005 conseillante (a splurge...but I tend to feel Conseillante is so accessible and gentle that it couldn't be ruined, the tannin would just add crunch) and a couple of bottles of Beausejour Becot and Branaire Ducru since I got what seemed to be deals based on the reviews. I've been putting my scant resources into backfilling on the top left bank 2003s instead, as they do seem to be giving pleasure even now, with a lot of tannin still to shed.

dstgolf · Post by **dstgolf** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:36 pm

I'm in camp David. A nice ring to it!

Bordeaux is the most talked about wine on the planet. Why? It's simply the best!

What do you need to make this stuff great? Fruit,tannin and acid. Sounds pretty simple. In 86 there was discussion about too much tannin and not enough fruit. Would the wines come around? Answer for the most part a resounding yes. In 1990 the talk was too much ripe fruit and would it last. 82 is right in the middle. All three unbelievable vintages that I'd take any day of the week.

What do we have in 2005? Great ripe fruit,high ripe tannins and good acidity. What can go wrong with time? As David said good Bordeaux needs 10-15 years and great Bordeaux sings for decades beyond. Just relax 2005 will be great. 2003 is a question mark and 2000 is starting to prove its early praise. Just be patient!

Jay Winton · Post by **Jay Winton** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:58 pm

05 La Lagune has outstanding potential, IMO. Based on the bottle I drank after my futures case arrived a couple of years ago. Think I posted a TN.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:01 pm

I personally have loved the 1986 left bankers every time, in some cases-- LLC, Pichon Lalande, Mouton, Lafite, Margaux, Cos, Lynch, others-- even more than 1982.

I can't say '86 Gruaud Larose is as great as the '82, but it is a very close second.

I think the 1986s are generally 12.5% alcohol range. I think 2005 is more like 13.5 - 15%.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:10 pm

And I'm no expert but I also don't believe most 1982s have anything close to the alcohol levels of 2005.

If I'm wrong I stand corrected, and I didn't drink any 1982s young, but I would be surprised if there are anything close to the same numbers of 13.5% to 15% alcohol wines in 1982 as there are in 2005.

The great irony is that 1982 may have been the vintage that made Parker, but those wines would be "stern" compared to these crazy, alcoholic, "Parkerized" fruit bombs from 2005.

It is like the Republican Party... Nixon and even Reagan would be considered "liberals" compared to these nut jobs like Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, etc., etc.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:13 pm

1982 = Ronald Reagan

2005 = Newt Gingrich

Ramon_NYC · Post by **Ramon_NYC** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:19 pm

I've tasted a lot, accross the board, of the 2005. I failed to mention the UGC pre-release tasting held in NYC that prompted me to purchase the few 2005s that I did. My 2005s are in my offsite, so I won't have factual reads on their label's alcohol content, but during all of my tastings, and based on comments by othe tasters, alcohol was never evident nor obstrusive, nor was a factor.
I've had the 1986 on-and-off over the years, and during the massive 1986 NYC tasting a couple of years ago. Good stuff .... but not near the 2005-is-Great material.

PS (added): Just looked at the only 1986 that I currently have in my home wine cooler, and (sh#t!), it's a Right Bank. It reads: ALC 12% to 13.9%.
I also have a couple of 2005s. Branaire Ducru reads 13% and DDC says 13%. Where are these allegations of 15% coming from?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:00 am

Just a crazy, random, reckless guess, Ramon, that the wines of 2005 might possibly be higher in alcohol generally than those from 23 years earlier....

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:03 am

My guess is certainly not based on any discernable trends in wine-making that we've seen in the past two decades.... <rolls eyes>

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:07 am

DavidG wrote:IMO, there isn't much point in drinking Bdx at all under 10-15 years of age. Might as well go to California for that. So picking a favorite '05 based on how they are drinking now is WAY premature.

True that. Except I might add 5-10 years of aging first!

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:24 am

Jim, I am sure you are correct that 2005 is higher alcohol on average than 1982 or 1990, even in the Medoc. That said, almost all of the 14.5-15.5% alcohols in 2005 are confined to the Right Bank.

Drew Stroback started an iconoclastic thread on ebob back in 2006 where he raised these concerns. The powers-that-be (ie HWSRNM) eventually chimed in, claiming that in the Medoc at least, alcohol levels were on moderately higher in 2005 than big, ripe vintages from the 1980's. Maybe 0.5% higher, something like that, I can't recall exactly.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:25 am

True that. Except I might add 5-10 years of aging first!

The people of an insignificant little wine producing country called "France"-- and I-- are just going to have to generally disagree with you on that statement, Patrick, I (we) think there is a lot of enjoyment to be had from wines that the high-alcohol, go-go-go, Parker-point driven, crash-and-burn, package-those-sub-prime-mortgage Americans would consider to be "young", a la the 1999 Margaux we had when Art and Kathy came over to my house this September-- simply breathtaking-- or the afore-discussed 1999 Palmer, which seems to have offered up quite a lot of enjoyment in its so-called "youth" to BWEers far and wide....

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:37 am

Drew Stroback -- never heard of him.

If the 2005s are only "moderately" higher in alcohol than the 1982s, I'll trade you Carl Crawford and Adrien Gonzalez in my fantasy league....

Sorry, Patrick, I'm just a country lawyer from Maine, but I'm just never going to believe the Bordeaux wines of, say, pre-1985 are anything close in alcohol to the wines of, say, post 1997.

And what is "half a percent," anyway?

If the ball had bounced an inch higher Bill Buckner might have fielded it...

If Gore had gotten 600 more votes in south Florida....

Shoulda, coulda....

Etc., etc....

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:47 am

The powers-that-be (ie HWSRNM) eventually chimed in,

Oh, I see, the direct cause of this whole mess offered up his analysis.

That makes me feel better, then....

Ramon_NYC · Post by **Ramon_NYC** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:48 am

Those old production wines surely didn't bother with the measly "half a percent". Instead, they went 13.9%.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:53 am

I agree... Pre-internationalized Bordeaux was all about 14% wines....

Ramon_NYC · Post by **Ramon_NYC** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:00 am

Or, they could have just guessed that on a whim.