Meanwhile, the 2005 Haut Bergey is drinking well

[Houndsong]

Gunned this down last night. Bottle 3/12 and it was very approachable and unclenched. Similar to bottle 2/12, but not 1/12, which was dry, light, tight and atypical of my early experiences with the mostly gooey and sweet 05s. Perhaps this wine had shut down earlier than most. At least for now it's open and very enjoyable, very classic, with lots of brine, ash, embers and a good helping of dry, dark fruits. Good structure too but very drinkable now. Certainly well done in the vintage and refreshingly not a blockbuster, over the top, or anything like that. Prompted by the recent note on the 05 DdC.

[JimHow]

A case sits in my cellar. When will this wine be at its peak to drink Hound?

[Houndsong]

I'm inclined to say start drinking now. Not that this is a destined to fade fruit bomb at all but this is giving good meso-post-primary enjoyment right now.

[salilb]

I'm shocked. I had a bottle of the 01 a couple of weeks ago, found it enjoyable but thought it had too much fruit and structure yet, and needed to be left alone a while longer. Can't imagine checking into any of the 05s now.

[but do have an 83 LMHB standing up for dinner tomorrow night...]

[JimHow]

Omg '83 LMHB... Interested in reading your notes salilb. I had that wine ten years ago, it was an absolute beauty.

[Houndsong]

If I'm not mistaken, we talked about the 01 Haut Bergey a couple of months ago. See this http://www.bordeauxwineenthusiasts.com/ ... gey#p22244 and within link. It was ultimately hard and sharp, and there's nothing to do but wait and hope. The 05 is altogether different.

[DavidG]

Re: those gooey and sweet '05s - the early line on these was that they'd be fiercely tannic, perhaps with not enough fruit to go the distance, and likely to require a loooong time in the cellar. At least that was the impression I got from the critics' barrel tastings and early in-the-bottle reports. SteveH, an old-time BWE, cautioned against them (not that I listened) for this reason. Are they turning out so different from early impressions or is it an issue with specific wines?

[Bacchus]

May be a specific wine thing, David. I've had some 05s that were quite approachable (Issan, Giscours), but I've also had some so tannic they were undrinkable (eg. Lafon Rochet). I found the 05 Haut Bergey I had some 8 months ago to be tighter than the one Hound just drank, but that was 8 or so months ago!

[JimHow]

I've said from the beginning and I'll say it still: 2005 is an weird vintage.

[DavidG]

You may be right on the money Jim, based on what you, Bacchus and Hound have reported. Then again, 6 years out may also be a weird time to assess them

[robertgoulet]

I enjoyed the HB '05 but I think for the money the Larrivet '05 peaked my interest a bit more.

[Bacchus]

I think 6 years is just not enough time to really evaluate the vintage. But I gotta admit, I'm loving those 05 Margaux -- so hedonistic. But we have to stop calling them gooey or syrupy. I used to drink a lot of Cali Cabs and Aussie Shiraz. Now that stuff is syrupy, esp. the aussie shiraz. From that perspective, 05 Bdx is nowhere near gooey or syrupy. For what it's worth, Gilman, not a name normally associated with the gooey approach to wine making, says 05 is the best vintage of the decade; better than 00, 09 and 10! (interestingly, he didn't mention 02).

[JonB]

I've almost worked through a case of the 2005 Ampelia (Cotes de Castillon). My first bottle (2008) was ripe and thick.....now, either my palate has evolved or this has thinned out slightly, gained complexity, and the fruit is a nice range of red and black fruits, and a good balance of acidity. The tannins never stood out.

[Houndsong]

The only 05 I've found truly hard and tannic (and not initially gooey) was the Grand Corbin Despagne, oddly enough a right banker. Even a couple of St. Estephes I had (petit crus) were ripe, sweet and this smothered whatever fierce northern medoc tannins we were promised.

I think Mr. P's concern about the tannins is misplaced.

[Ramon_NYC]

The only time that I’ve had Bordeaux 2005 was in 2008 when I’ve had quite a good number of producers from across the board during 2 separate tastings and both these tastings painted the tannin picture completely for me, as well as for most/all the participants in the dinner that I was with.

During the annual Bordeaux UGC tasting that made its way locally in 2008, I sampled, by my estimate, only about half of the wines that were poured by the producers or their representatives. The wines included the broad spectrum of classified stuff (except 1st Growths) and non-classified ones. I had 27 wines noted down and one of the common themes for me was tannin, plenty of tannin, harsh tannin, glutton for tannishment, sucking on wood, another “pit” stop, … etc.

Then in the fall, we had the vintage 2005 version of our yearly “taste the current vintage release” dinner that Matt/Arv/Paul would organize. We settled on bringing what we called mid-tier Bordeaux for this one, but then again had 13 good, if not spectacular, representative across the region. As I quote from notes by various participants, the Fleur Cardinale, Beausejour Duffau, Haut Bailly (a very good version, imho), Pontet Canet (a very good effort, imho), Leoville Poyferre, Grand Puy Lacoste, Chateau Clinet ( excellent effort and our WOTN), Chateau Kirwan and Chateau d’Issan were the primary offenders with their, “raspy tannin”, “a lot of tannin”, “wall of tannin”, “tight tannins”, “loose tannins”, “juicy tannin”, “classy tannin” and other similar comments.

Others that we had, including names that most of us needed to Google for, such as Haut Brisson (St. Emilion), Chateau Lucia (St. Emilion), Chateau Behere (Pauillac and quite a good one, too) were deemed either thin, sweet, too much coffee flavor, light. The Smith Haut Lafitte was somewhat universally noted with oaky, coffee, mocha, modern, vanilla, and which a few liked while others didn’t care for.

Again, I will admit that I’ve not had had any 2005s lately as I prefer some age in drinking my Bordeaux nowadays. However, given the tannic overload that those wines showed 3 years ago, I simply find it difficult to believe and to generalize that, at this point, the hugely tannic structure that the vintage is known for is a misplaced notion.

[Blanquito]

What Parker said (my italics added):

"BORDEAUX 2005 FROM BOTTLE(April 2008)
Tasting the 2005 red wines from the bottle, many of them three or four times, confirmed that this is the greatest vintage produced during my 30-year career. Some of my earlier reservations concerning the tannin levels in the northern Médocs were completely resolved by the tastings I conducted between March 22 and April 1, 2008. A great majority of the wines are far superior from bottle than they were from cask, confirming the quality of this remarkable vintage.

Perhaps the most amazing revelation in my tastings was how sweet the tannins have become. Combined with the wines’ concentration levels, remarkable precision as well as freshness, it augers well for wines that will last for an incredibly long time. Yet I believe many wines will be drinkable earlier than my barrel tastings suggested.
Believe it or not, most of the ratings that follow are on the conservative side, and I look forward to revisiting many of these 2005s in 5-10 years. I would not be surprised if they are even better then than the following laudatory comments suggest.

BORDEAUX 2005 FROM BARREL (April 2007)
Retasting all the 2005s a few months before they are bottled confirmed just about everything the pundits had declared last year. It is an extraordinary vintage and one that is different from anything I have tasted in the last twenty-eight years. As a general rule, the wines are very concentrated, extremely high in tannin, and backward, but the fresh acids combined with the massive concentration and higher than normal alcohols make for a distinctive vintage that will probably be one of the longest-lived I have ever tasted.
Some of the northern Médocs will have to be watched more carefully than the other areas as their tannins are elevated. Moreover, many northern Médocs do not possess the fat, opulence, or charm of the top 2003s, and increasingly I doubt they are as well-balanced and compelling as the finest 2000s. However, the very best St.-Juliens, Pauillacs, and St.-Estèphes are exceptional yet will require considerably more patience than their counterparts in 2003 and 2000. Expect these wines to last 30-50 years! With that caveat, there appears to be little doubt about the greatness in Margaux, Pessac-Léognan/Graves, Pomerol, and St.-Emilion. All four appellations have produced exquisite wines that possess exceptional longevity as well as remarkable fruit concentration, precision, and freshness.

In short, this vintage has no shortage of legendary wine. Although the wines came out at absurdly high prices (especially the first growths), no one seems to be complaining except those who did not buy them. Sadly, most of the stock that was offered has been completely sold through the marketplace. The big châteaux with 10,000+ case productions are holding back some wines, but there is little available through the trade, and replacement costs are already 50-100% higher than the opening prices, which I find both incredulous and shocking. In any event, this is a fabulous vintage, and no one who purchased these wines will regret having done so as prices will continue to set new records for young Bordeaux. However, patience will be a virtue for nearly every wine in this perfect vintage for the world’s greatest wines of longevity and elegance.

BORDEAUX 2005 FROM BARREL (April 2006)
This may be the shortest introduction I have ever written to a Bordeaux vintage report. Virtually everybody has already described the nearly ideal weather conditions, and the fact that Bordeaux has produced something very special in 2005. At present, comparisons with other vintages are cheap talk designed to inflate prices, especially comparisons of 2005 to 1949, 1959, 1982, and 1990. One thing I am sure of after twenty-eight years of tasting Bordeaux wines every March is that 2005 cannot be compared to any previous vintage in my experience. Why? One can safely generalize that many 2005 red Bordeaux possess (1) the highest tannin levels ever measured, (2) the highest dry extracts and concentration ever measured, (3) the highest natural alcohol levels ever measured, and, an anomaly, (4) surprisingly fresh, lively acid levels and reasonably modest pH’s. What does all this mean, and how did it happen?

The short answer is that the growing season was extraordinarily dry. It was also warm, but unlike most summers, scorching heat waves never occurred. Consequently, the vineyards, if slightly stressed from the drought-like conditions, were never brutalized by torrid heat. There was some rain in August. About an inch fell in Pomerol, St.-Emilion, and Graves on August 17th, and there was a light rainfall in the Médoc on August 25th. September was not quite as perfect as the pundits claimed, but it was close to ideal, and, by Bordeaux standards, very dry. Some showers arrived on September 8th, and heavier rain moved through the region on the 25th. Following that date there was a window of extraordinary weather that lasted until October 12th. Even after that date, the weather remained balmy and reasonably dry. All of this meant no one was in a hurry to harvest. The cool nights and warm days preserved unprecedented levels of acidity in the finest wines of the vintage, which are characterized by massive richness and structure.
During my March tasting trip, there were days when I had the same excitement/jubilation that I remember experiencing when I tasted the 1982s in March, 1983. On several days tasting the northern Médocs, I was less enthusiastic and wondered if 2005 was even the equal of 2003 or 2000? Of course, this vintage is completely different in style from 1982, perhaps less so on the right bank, where so many incredibly sumptuous, ripe, intense, heady wines were produced. In the Médoc, 1982's weakness was the appellation of Margaux, which, ironically, is one of the greatest strengths of 2005. In fact, I have never tasted better Margauxs than the 2005s. Overall, 2005 is unquestionably a remarkable as well as consistent vintage. However, there are several sobering issues with some 2005s.

The incredibly high tannin levels, especially noticeable in the northern Médoc communes of St.-Julien, Pauillac, and St.-Estèphe, appear to be adequately balanced by massive concentration and fruit. That’s a good sign. But I remain convinced that the northern Médocs will shut down after bottling, and will require many years of cellaring until everything comes back into focus and harmony. While these wines will possess 30-50 years of longevity, they will not have the early appeal possessed by the 1982s and 1990s. Do not let anyone suggest that many of the renowned northern Médoc classified growths will be drinkable in the next decade, unless you are a masochist with an addiction for tannin. Moreover, I prefer numerous 2003 northern Médocs over their 2005 counterparts. And of course, let’s not forget the brilliance of 2000 in the northern Médoc, or for that matter, 1996. Elsewhere, the sweetness of the tannins counterbalanced by the fruit’s extraordinary opulence and richness will make the wines more accessible, and their evolution should follow a faster timetable than the northern Médocs. In short, for Margaux, Graves, Pomerol, and St.-Emilion, this is a singular vintage of compelling greatness. Moreover, most of these wines will also possess 25-30 years of longevity.

It is no easy task to give readers a point of reference for this vintage. To reiterate, I have never tasted so many extraordinarily rich, concentrated, massive wines so high in tannin and extract, yet with such precision, definition, and freshness. It is clearly a singular vintage that should evolve into one of the great vintages of Bordeaux. However, it seems premature and risky to conclude so soon that the finest wines of 2005 are superior to the best of 2003, especially the northern Médocs, or the best wines of 2000, 1998 (for Pomerol and St.-Emilion), 1990, or the most profound 1989s and 1982s. Only time will prove the true quality of 2005, but it is beginning life as an extraordinary as well as remarkably consistent vintage. If there is any year even remotely similar, it is 2000 because of the overall consistency, the high number of superb offerings, and the fact that there are so many good minor wines. My instincts suggest the greatest 2005s of Pomerol, St.-Emilion, Graves, and Margaux are marginally superior to 2000, yet I remain cautious about the northern Médocs, which should turn out beautifully, but require enormous patience and be very long lived."

[Houndsong]

Vindicated by the Man Himself. I swear by Almighty God I did not know of Mr. P's conversion. As you know I set out only to state one humble man's insignificant and incredibly humble opinion of the current merits of one humble wine. As you know I am the last person to court controversy. I was only prompted to

generalize that, at this point, the hugely tannic structure that the vintage is known for is a misplaced notion

due to the credulous remarks and outdated experiences of others (yes plural) respecting this wine and the vintage as a whole expressed above.

I will now recede into the humble background.

I remain your Humble Servant,

Yours, etc.,

The Accidental Expert

[Ramon_NYC]

Vindicated by the Man Himself. I swear by Almighty God I did not know of Mr. P's conversion. As you know I set out only to state one humble man's insignificant and incredibly humble opinion of the current merits of one humble wine

Not sure that there’s a vindication here. After all, everybody here claims to be the anti-whatever-collection-of acronyms-we-call-him-nowadays and now HE is the vindicator?

As I said earlier, I’ve not had any 2005 since release and my impression then is that it would take more than a mere 3 years time for the searing tannin then to subside, if ever.

Anyway, just to get a bigger picture, here’s where others who also tasted the same wines in the bottle had to say:

Jancis (UGC tasting in Milan):
The one word that kept cropping up in my tasting notes was ‘succulent’. These wines, made from beautifully ripe grapes, have the most lovely juicy fruit yet also great freshness - a vital factor if a wine is to be appetising - but no shortage of tannins to keep them going for a long life. The great distinguishing mark of the 2005s is that in the best, not all, wines the tannins are wonderfully ripe so that instead of these young wines tasting tough and astringent, they envelope the palate in velvety fruit until only on the finish does the taster notice really rather a lot of tannin buried under there.

Wineanorak (UGC in London)
Overall impressions? 2005 is a remarkable vintage in Bordeaux, across the board. All the appellations have produced generously proportioned, concentrated, tannic wines that look set for long development in bottle. These are not wines that you want to drink now (although I’d imagine that more commercial wines made in a lighter style will be beginning to show their best). I was repeatedly amazed by the density of fruit, usually backed up by firm tannin and good acidity, and not infrequently a fair whack of new oak. It will take a while for many of these wines to begin to harmonize. Some may be so tannic and extracted that they won’t ever achieve real balance, although it’s hard to be sure at this early stage.
I’d also say this is quite an awkward stage to be tasting these wines, because they are so tight and tannic. It’s as if they are currently bunched together in style. In time, I’d expect them to diverge more and …”

Then there’s this blog by a Dr Vino who blind-tasted 2005s with Parker himself in 2009 where he (Parker) said “He said he hadn’t tasted these wines since 2007”. So, where did this quote by blanquito come form then?

And just for the heck of it, let’s turn to the penultimate Bordeaux experts these days, The Chinese Bordeaux Guide. Here’s the url to the blog that talks a lot of about all kinds of tannin:

http://www.chinesebordeauxguide.com/ind ... ries&id=34

[Blanquito]

Parker tasted and reported extensively on 2005 Bordeaux 3 times, twice in barrel, once in bottle, which was his custom with new vintages of Bordeaux for many years. The quotes came directly from Parker's website, his official summaries of the vintage. I followed the reviews closely, lemming that I am and given my stupid-big purchase of 2005 futures...

One notable thing about 2005, from my standpoint-- virtually ever critic loved it, American, British, French, they all went pretty ga-ga, despite a very wide range in palate preferences (Parker, Suckling, Tanzer, Jancis, Quarin, Neal Martin, Gilman, Bettane, Decanter, that Review de Vins thing from France, etc.). Even the 2000 vintage didn't get such universal praise.

I tasted a bunch of 2005s on release back in 2008 and 2009 (though not as many as Ramon_NYC), and overall I'd agree that they tended toward the structured. Many were tannic, even some petite Righties were rough or ungiving, like Vieille Cure, Pipeau, Beaulieu Comtes de Tastes, and Fonbel. Relatively approachable wines, however, making allowances for their extreme youth, were Carbonnieux rouge (lovely and Burgundian), Lanessan (very nice), Cantemerle (BWE of the Year), Tour St Bonnet (solid QPR), Les Grands Marechaux (solid QPR), Bienfaisance (Californian), Siran (woody and rough, but open), Caronne Ste. Gemme (solid), Joanin Becot (syrupy), Puygueraud (sexy), Faizeau Vieilles Vignes (inky and punching way above its weight), and an awesome half bottle of GPL (primary, but thrilling).

Overall, I remain quite high on 2005, but I plan to give them a lot of time to come around...

[DavidG]

Evolution from high potentially excessive tannins to sweet tannins that are integrating is a positive and does not suggest gooey, syrupy or lack of structure in any way, at least not to me. Nothing in Parker's in-the-bottle notes suggests that to me. Have I been misunderstanding "sweet tannins" all these years? Loss of harsh bitterness was my take on the description, not loss of structure. It's very interesting to see what people are actually tasting as they open these. I bought broadly but shallowly in '05 so I'm hesitant to start popping corks only 6 years out. Looking forward to more notes and discussion as these wines develop.

[Houndsong]

I only posted a note on one bottle. When no one would believe what I was subjectively tasting (which was a habit of some former regulars here) I decided to run with it as farce. I'm not in the habit of misrepresenting my opinions here or anywhere. The Parker comment came down as if a gift from Heaven. What did y'all expect me to do with it? If only the Lotto worked like that - but then again I'm not an asset manager.

Ramon, I have no doubt from your posts that the wines you drank were very, very, harshly tannic. Why would I? You said so yourself.

[Bacchus]

I believe you, Hound. My experience so far with the tannin levels of 05 is that they are at variable stages of development. For example, and as I've already written, I found the 05 Lafon Rochet to be so tannic it couldn't be drunk. The Camensac wasn't as bad, but tough enough and clearly needs time. I also had trouble with the 05 SHL at first, but found it opened up on the 2nd and 3rd days after popping the cork. For me, DomdChev is in about the same spot as the SHL, as was the Haut Bergey I had last spring. The wines of Margaux, on the other hand, seem more approachable; at least to me. I find almost all the ones I've tried to fall somewhere between lush and hedonistic. Highly recommended if you're on a date!

[Ramon_NYC]

Hound,
I believe your tasting notes. I just don't understand how all those tannic monsters that I tasted can soften up in 3 years time. Perhaps, I just don't have enough personal experience on how that can happen. On the other hand, while Parker may have “misplaced” his initial assessment, any personal experience that I have in addition to other stuff that I get to read, or hear, says otherwise.

I did lie about not being able to sample any 2005 since release, but was able to do so last year (Lascombes in May 2010) and in 2009 (La Vieille Cure). These are TNs that I posted here. One thing I can’t lie about were my perception that these particular wines were very tannic.

2005 Ch. Lascombes, Margaux
Ren bought a 6-pack at a good price from a local store and wanted to try out a bottle. Poured and left in the decanter for about 1-hour prior to drinking. Very nice complex bouquet with tree bark, tobacco, somebody said fresh fish, I said ripe bananas. Very tannic, layers of blueberries, muscular and tightly structured, but appears to be well-rounded and balanced. Good length and tasty at the finish. I took the last pour from the decanter at the 3-hour mark and the wine was completely shut down. I’m impressed with this 2005 from Margaux. A-

2005 Ch. La Vieille Cure, Fronsac
Poured into a decanter 2 hours before dinner. Even after 4+ hours, this wine is like sucking on a bark of tree. Nothing, completely shut. The last one I had, about 6 months ago, which I poured and left in the decanter for 6+ hours, was much slighlty more open. Closed phase?

[Houndsong]

I am vindicated in my belief that Mr. P's concern about the tannins is/was misplaced. It's indisputable. His earlier reservations are completely resolved - he's said so himself.

Now, whether 2005 is indeed a fiercely tannic vintage, I shan't generalize, nor did I in the first place. I have little basis for generalization and am not interested in doing so - in general. My comments were limited expressly to the wines I've personally drunk. By happenstance a different set of 15 wines or so could have yielded 12 tannic beasts and 3 smooth operators. However I simply could not resist juxtaposing your "generalize" reference, Ramon, with Parker's change of mind - of which I was completely unaware. It was just so funny at the time. And yes, he's just one critic, and sometimes we like to disparage him, etc., but even as he ebbs into the twilight as he says, and some say, he appears - and correct me if I'm wrong, I know nothing about it really - to retain some influence - perhaps more than all the other critics combined, I don't know - on pricing, public opinion, winemaking, and so on.

As everyone here must know by now, because I've said it repeatedly over the course of about 10 years now, I know nothing about wine. I really mean that. Or to be perhaps more precise, I comprehend nothing about wine. But I'm also of the opinion that there's nothing to comprehend or understand. I've never reasoned with a bottle of wine. It just goes in one end and out the other, and usually it makes me feel good in between.

[JonB]

While being a spectator at a wine tasting isn't my idea of excitement, I've watched about half this long video of a recent 2009 Bordeaux tasting in Hong Kong featuring RP. It is a great primer on wine enthusiasm and Bordeaux.

http://www.winefuture.hk/

RP makes two category distinctions between great vintages (aw....if the world were only that simple); a) tannic and foreboding and take a long time to come around, and; b)those that are open and always drink well. He includes in the later 1982, 1990, 2009. In the former he lists 1986 and several others before adding 2000, and then sort of hems and haws and says 2005 might be in that class as well.

I can only say I've had several 2005s (such as Ampelia) that are full of this baby fat characteristic and that are drinking well now, but the ones I've tried have been from lesser appellations.

[Blanquito]

The one bottle I had of 2005 Vieille Cure was really, shockingly tannic given how early drinking it usually is.

I think, based on my limited tastings, that 2005 is overall both tannic and deeply fruited. That 2005 GPL had way more concentration then I've ever experienced from this chateau (which frequently seems medium bodied to me, even in heralded vintages like 1995 and 1996). I can see how variable this split-personality might show in the early going as some bottles are shut down, while others are remain open before the long sleep. Maybe bottling dates are a key variable when tasting these so soon after release?

[Blanquito]

We need a VLT of the 2005 Haut Bergey.

[JimHow]

Not a bad idea!

[Houndsong]

But I just told you what it's like! Don't you believe me?

How about a different 05, one that's not so politically charged, and one that hasn't been tainted with my recent opinion?

Pick a bellweather wine. I probably haven't got it but will try to source one if at a reasonable price. The problem is, I imagine, anything with name recco has probably doubled or trebled in price by now.

I've actually been eyeing the Carbonnieux off and on at K&L for $35. It's not exactly Leoville Poyferre as far as bellweathers goes though.

[Ramon_NYC]

But I just told you what it's like! Don't you believe me?

Tough audience here, eh.

VLT sounds good. This thread got me antsy about tasting a 2005. How about making this a little broader. I don't have a Haut Bergey, but have a 2005 Talbot on hand.

[Blanquito]

I'll pop a Carbonnieux rouge 2005 from 375 ml (and maybe a Haut Bergey since I have so many!).

[DavidG]

I believe you too, Hound. I'm fascinated by the real live boots-on-the-ground reports of what these wines are tasting like now. Patrick is right that results from a few bottles can't be generalized to a whole vintage. I'm hoping the wines in my cellar are blessed with sweet tannins, not cursed with syrupy gooeyness, but I'm waiting a few more years to find out first hand.