Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

I remember soon after I joined this forum in 2001 hwsrn posted his notes on the 2000 vintage, which included one of the most ridiculous notes of all time, and I quote:"it's a no brainer, it's the wine of the vintage. This is not just a wine to die for, it is a wine to kill for"; or words to that effect. The wine of course was Cheval Blanc. Tonight we had the junior version, Le Petit Cheval. Now look I know second wines can be different from their bigger siblings, Carruades being a case in point, but this was a major let down, and it wasn't flawed technically. It has little bouquet and is quite astringent. You really need to swirl your Riedel vigorously to extract faint notes of plums and tobacco. On the palate it it is hollow, angular and short, devoid of any opulence, elegance, complexity or finesse. It's as dull as ditchwater. After two hours in the decanter it starts to get tired. This is so different from the 2001 Grand Vin, a truly thrilling wine. it would be churlish to extrapolate this experience across the vintage and particularly to the left bank. But it remains the case that I have yet to drink an interesting 2000 apart from VCC, which was painfully young but v good and Figeac, which neighbours Cheval Blanc and hwsrn downgraded to 83 points I heard without bothering to confirm. My guess is that a lot of 2000s are pretty shut down right now but underlying elegance and finesse can be detected at an early stage as with for example some of the 2001 right banks. I don't see that with the 2000s so am happy to remain underweight the vintage.

Interesting... and likely to be considered heretical in some circles.

I can say this, 2000L seems to be developing much faster than 1996L by and large, with the caveat that I haven't tasted many of the top wines of late. Wine people who know more than I worry about the huge crop in 2000 and it's potential to render relatively dilute wines. Selection and such were apparently critical.

I had another 2000 Cantemerle yesterday that is very pleasant but continuing to dry up with a borderline watery midpalate that it didn't show as recently 2007 (though it was never a blockbuster). But the 2000 Chauvin tried next to it still has a ways to go.

Hmm. I recall some dudes washed down some ham and eggs with a 96 Petit Cheval at 2012 BWE and didn't have any complaints. And I've had some nice 2000 RB's in the small to medium category. WADR it's tough to rule out bad bottle, dumb phase, or simple operator error.

I have been pleased with the 2000 Bordeaux I have tried so far: Brane Cantenac, Giscours, Palmer, Figeac, Baron de Brane (second wine of Brane Cantenac), Pontet Canet, Malescot St. Exupéry and Gloria. All met my expectations.

Chris Bublitz

Granted, there are no second wines on this list, but my list of outstanding 2000s I have tried include:
Pavie (better even than 1998, my wine of the vintage?)
Pavie Decesse
Lynch Bages (third best since 89)
Lagrange (awesome QPR, incredible sweetness)
Pontet Canet
Charmail
Pichon Lalande (life is good)
d'Issan
Corbin
Leoville Barton (awesome)
Leoville Langoa (awesome sweetness)
Smith Haut Lafitte (greatest SHL ever, the good side of modern wine making)
Gruaud Larose (best since 86)
Duhart Milon (wow! Wow! Lafite-like)
Pape Clement (wow! Wow! Wow! Incredible oak, incredible depth, vied for wine of the year)
du Tertre (BWE co-wine of the year)
Pichon Baron (BWE co-wine of the year. Greatest Baron ever?)
Giscours (best Giscours ever, and that's saying a lot)
Grand Puy Lacoste (didn't suck as much as most GPLs have since 1996)
Montrose (closed tighter than a Republican's heart when I tried it, but the stuffing of an immense Montrose obviously there)

Great lists, guys.

It reminds me I had the 2000 du Tertre recently (really excellent and in early maturity), the 2000 d'Issan in 2008 (primary and very impressive), the 2000 Giscours in 2008 (primary, not quite as good as the d'Issan, but still serious), the 2000 Charmail recently (fantastic QPR for $13, but I don't think it has many years of top drinking left), the 2000 Lagrange in 2011 (needs time still, but probably not as good as the 96 version), I really liked the 2000 Figeac and Monbousquet in 2006, the 2000 Sociando was excellent last year from half-bottle (no excessive greenness in my bottles, and it will improve for a good while still),

Lighter-wines (for such a heralded vintage):
-2000 GPL (seemed muted and light when tasted in 2008, could improve though I won't hold my breath)
-2000 d'Armailhac
-2000 Cantemerle
-2000 Pontet Canet (very good, but well behind the 1996 at the Tesseron vertical)

Roc de Cambes was very good as well, although I liked the Charmail more.

Had the 2000 Chateau Olivier (Pessac-Leognan) about a month ago. Was in the prime drinking window IMO. Plenty of dark cherry in the core. Not overly complex, but a nice wine. 89 pts

Was the 2000 Lagrange at the ready, Jim?

It has been drinking great since Day One, finner, I don't think it ever closed down. Great stuff. We used to have a guy named Steve here on BWE who drank like 50 half bottles of the stuff in the first three years after release. Tremendous sweetness.

Too bad, Ian. I have not drunk a weak 2000.

Thanks for all your thoughts...I got a much more sympathetic response on this side of the pond but that did not surprise me and I don't begrudge anybody for their opinions...I still stick to my view, which was reinforced by my bad experience last night (yes even after 11 years I am still incredulous over that infamous and asinine tasting note...)..my instincts remain that this is an over-rated vintage on the right bank and very shut down on the left bank. I was discussing this today with a friend of mine known for his investment savvy who has tried quite a few lefty 2000s (mainly middling rather than top end), and he has found them to be 'hard', 'awkward' 'unyielding', 'unbalanced (even)', 'tightly wound' - to those adjectives I would add 'clumsy', 'heavy' and certainly lacking in grace and elegance. My preliminary thoughts are - over-rated on the right, shut down on the left, and generally over-priced wines lacking in enjoyment. I hope to be proved wrong in the coming years - I do have the odd case or two - from memory including Beychevlle (which I have quite hopes for) and Montrose (eventually), plus a few odds of Lynch, Palmer, Ducru, Leoville Barton, and one solitary bottle each of the FGs, including the...wait for it...legendary...drum roll...Cheval Blanc.

Which 2000s have you had that you thought were disappointments Ian?

As for the right bank, I think you can do as well or better (and for less moey) with the 1998 and 2001 vintages.

Chris Bublitz

I can heartily agree that 2000 is overrated and heartily disagree that it sucks. It was a vintage born amid if not necessarily of hype. In this sense 2005 and 2009 are also overrated. 2003 is overrated in part, overreviled in part and sort of averge and putrid in other parts. All the other vintages since 2000 and to 2009 are underrated, based on what I've tasted. I guess what I'm saying is while I've had few disappointments from 2000, I also have some very fine wines from the rest of the following nine years. So I guess what I'm saying is, who cares about this vintage stuff. After all, we are not a debating society, right?

Beychevelle 2000 and Rausan Gassies 2000 arent bad either - real badass wines.

Everything good is bad. Everything bad is good. The King is dead. Long live the King.

Serendipitously, John Gilman tweeted just a couple of days ago: "A couple more superb 2001 clarets has me starting to wonder if 2001 will not ultimately be proven the superior vintage to the hyped 2000s."

See, part of the problem for me is what we mean when we say "Bordeaux." For me, "Bordeaux" means the Medoc. That's just my arbitrary definition, I'm probably the only person in the world who feels that way. The right bank is great, but when I'm measuring the greatness of a vintage, I ask: "How did it perform in the Medoc?"

I have never been a big fan of the 2000's. They come off as sweet and ripe. I have only tasted some lower tier RB wines lately that are beginning to come around. They do pair well with Chinese food so they are useful to me.

Now I'm starting to feel sorry that I didn't buy any '01s...

...so I could trade them with you all for your '00s.

Yes. I know 2001 Pape Clement. 2001 Pape Clement is a friend of mine. 2001 Pape Clement, sir, is no 2000 Pape Clement.

Can we all agree (rather than debate) that the 1996 Medoc is its greatest vintage since the 80's?

Agreed.

Too sweet and ripe? Sounds like '82 and '90.

The 2000 Pichon Baron is an incredible wine, layered, complex, absolutely stunning. Profound, will age a long time, but light on its feet. Like a Chateau Margaux from Pauillac.
I will say Pontet Canet should have been better in that vintage.

JimHow wrote:I will say Pontet Canet should have been better in that vintage.

Agreed. The 96 P-C was/is much better than the 2000.

Never had the 2000 Pichon Baron, but everyone says that they hit it out of the park that year.

JimHow wrote:Which 2000s have you had that you thought were disappointments Ian?

Jim apart from Petit Cheval Conseillante on the right bank, several of the Margaux wines on the left bank including Chateau Margaux itself which was so 'undemure' next to other vintages even the great 96. Pichon Baron I found to be similarly exuberant in its extreme youth which I found really disconcerting and so different from the 96s, my benchmark. I should imagine they have shut down hard now. There were several others too that left me unmoved.

Yesterday I tried Lynch Bages 2009 - what a beauty. Probably a match for the 1989. Then pontet Canet 2009 . Even better. Incredible. My money is on this vintage being the vintage of the millennia.

JimHow wrote:Yes. I know 2001 Pape Clement. 2001 Pape Clement is a friend of mine. 2001 Pape Clement, sir, is no 2000 Pape Clement.

I thought 2001 Pape Clement (like anything I've tasted from the estate from 2000 onwards) was a spoofed, oaked up atrocity that bore no resemblance to the great wines Pape Clement once produced before turning to the dark side.

The '88 is absolutely glorious now, and I'm looking forward to breaking into one of my bottles of the '90 as well soon. But a friend opened the '01 for me recently and I couldn't bring myself to take more than a few sips.

Tom In DC wrote:Too sweet and ripe? Sounds like '82 and '90.

Tom, IMO 82 and 89 are ripe but not sweet. It is the sweetness of fruit in my albeit limited sampling of 2000's that I find troubling.

No doubt the 2000s are sweet, especially in the sweet spot of St. Julien. But I think there is a strong backbone to the wines on the left bank that will allow them to age for a long time and develop many layers of complexity for many years to come. If I'm not mistaken the alcohol levels in 2000 are well under control as well. I remember standing in the vineyards of Petrus and Cheval Blanc on September 15th that year, the sun was beating down as it had been for several weeks and would for several weeks more, but they had just the right amount of precipitation, cool nights, etc. I've never heard anyone question how the weather could have been more perfect. I think they had a torrential downpour like around September 24, but other than that it was six weeks of blue skies, but not scorching heat like 2003 or 1990. There is nothing roasted or raisiny about those 2000s.

We had our 2000 tasting a couple years later in NYC and the almost universal conclusion of the 50 BWEers in the room was that this was a profound vintage.

salilb wrote:

JimHow wrote:Yes. I know 2001 Pape Clement. 2001 Pape Clement is a friend of mine. 2001 Pape Clement, sir, is no 2000 Pape Clement.

I thought 2001 Pape Clement (like anything I've tasted from the estate from 2000 onwards) was a spoofed, oaked up atrocity that bore no resemblance to the great wines Pape Clement once produced before turning to the dark side.

The '88 is absolutely glorious now, and I'm looking forward to breaking into one of my bottles of the '90 as well soon. But a friend opened the '01 for me recently and I couldn't bring myself to take more than a few sips.

Salib - I came to exactly the same view on exactly the same wine, which I posted on this board in 2005, although I didn't express my opinion quite as forcefully. Nonetheless a bitter slanging much ensued. I don't think I have ever had so much fun since on a wine board.

Comte Flaneur wrote:

salilb wrote:

JimHow wrote:Yes. I know 2001 Pape Clement. 2001 Pape Clement is a friend of mine. 2001 Pape Clement, sir, is no 2000 Pape Clement.

I thought 2001 Pape Clement (like anything I've tasted from the estate from 2000 onwards) was a spoofed, oaked up atrocity that bore no resemblance to the great wines Pape Clement once produced before turning to the dark side.

The '88 is absolutely glorious now, and I'm looking forward to breaking into one of my bottles of the '90 as well soon. But a friend opened the '01 for me recently and I couldn't bring myself to take more than a few sips.

Salib - I came to exactly the same view on exactly the same wine, which I posted on this board in 2005, although I didn't express my opinion quite as forcefully. Nonetheless a bitter slanging much ensued. I don't think I have ever had so much fun since on a wine board.

I remember that, Ian! It devolved into one of the more entertaining threads in the annals of BWE history where you went toe-to-toe with Pomerolover on what really is a Parkerized wine, if such a thing exists. If memory serves, some french dude got banned during that thread for threatening Pomerolover!