Bacchus wrote:Thanks Pomilion. Sounds like a great time -- great approach to tasting by the way. Interesting that you prefer lots of '09s to '10s. 08 was the last year I bought PLL; '09 is nuts, '10 nuttier. Looks like Haut Bergey is on a roll; nice '09 and now a nice '10 too.
I guess I do slightly prefer 2009 (and 2005) overall to 2010 at this point, although the 2010s are a little harder to get a handle on (because of higher levels of tannin and acidity) than the 09s (and the 05s, though many have shut down hard, were pretty open for a while after release, particularly the right bankers). But that's splitting hairs -- 2010 is overall the third best bordeaux vintage in the past twenty years, and may prove even better 10 or 20 years from now.
Haut Bergey is terrific for the price in both '09 and '10. Just had the '09 a few weeks ago and it was terrific. As I mention in my post above, in 2010 there are quite a few wines in the $35 to $50 range that represent incredible value for their price. I'll be trying all of them again when they actually arrive.
DavidG wrote:Jon, this discussion made me reassess the size of our cellar and our consumption rate. We're at about steady state the past 2 years, but we need to be slowly reducing the number of bottles in there.
David - It takes self discipline to make this change, particularly when you get accustomed to the thrill of the hunt. I tend to do well for awhile, then splurge. Not that wine buying/collecting can't be a hobby, but I'd rather control it rather than it controlling me!
DavidG wrote:Jon, this discussion made me reassess the size of our cellar and our consumption rate. We're at about steady state the past 2 years, but we need to be slowly reducing the number of bottles in there.
David - It takes self discipline to make this change, particularly when you get accustomed to the thrill of the hunt. I tend to do well for awhile, then splurge. Not that wine buying/collecting can't be a hobby, but I'd rather control it rather than it controlling me!
I gotta say, some really great notes and details, but Must admit to being overwhelmed. Perhaps reading to much on Berserker Board too. Gonna try to pick out from the postings a few that everyone seems to love. Lots of disagreements on the obviously polarizIng wines like Malescot and Canon La Gaf. I just put in an order for 2010 GPL in addition to the 09s I ordered yesterday. Tough to bet against this estate for price-quality rating.
He looks so fashionably 18th century with the scarf and all. I love the way he says "beautiful ... tannins" with emphasis on "tannins". I wonder how many times he's said that before.
I finally got to taste some 09's this weekend, mostly lower to mid range wines. There was a cheapy that was total prune juice yet loved by the neophyte tasters. One mid line bottle was raisiny. Another had Brett. I did like Cruzeau although the tobacco aromas took a long time to come out and Haut Bages Liberal was the best of the bunch. A 2005 from Margaux that I cannot remember the name of was a good warm up wine. Only my second 05 and this wine had the kind of aroma, balance and structure that I like.
I no longer buy new releases for a variety of reasons and the 2009 vintage did not thrill me across the board, albeit from this limited sample. A very ripe vintage. If I was still buying Bordeaux I would be looking to back fill on 96 Medoc’s and maybe 05’s. Laying down the 10’s is a long term endevour.
Claret wrote:If I was still buying Bordeaux I would be looking to back fill on 96 Medoc’s and maybe 05’s. Laying down the 10’s is a long term endevour.
Yep.
I selectively back-fill when the occasion presents itself. Yesterday I bought some 1989 Pichon Baron and 2003 Montrose for less than new release price for 09 or 10. Tough to pass that up.
stefan wrote:I thought that the wine stains the glass only when artificial coloring was added (this is a common practice at our local winery).
Mega-Purple! Like an Ozzie Shiraz! But I didn't think that would be added until much later, after the assemblage. These were components he was tasting, and they were very young and primary...
Sounds like everything in '10 (fruit, acid, tannin, extract, time required for aging) went to 11. Nigel Tufnel wines!
OrlandoRobert wrote:
I selectively back-fill when the occasion presents itself. Yesterday I bought some 1989 Pichon Baron and 2003 Montrose for less than new release price for 09 or 10. Tough to pass that up.
OK Robert, you need to come to Dallas for BWE '13 and we need to recreate the inaugural BWE taste off: 1989 Pichon Baron vs 1989 Lynch Bages.
OrlandoRobert wrote:
I selectively back-fill when the occasion presents itself. Yesterday I bought some 1989 Pichon Baron and 2003 Montrose for less than new release price for 09 or 10. Tough to pass that up.
OK Robert, you need to come to Dallas for BWE '13 and we need to recreate the inaugural BWE taste off: 1989 Pichon Baron vs 1989 Lynch Bages.
I bought both of these in 1992, straight out of law school. I distinctly remember the price for each: $40. I recall buying one of each, thinking I was nuts for spending that much money on wine, and going back a few days later and buying more and more. AT that time, I had just spent the most ever on a bottle of wine, the 1991 Caymus SS and also bought some 1990 La Louviere. And in a tasting, the Louviere killed the Caymus SS. I became a hooked Bdx man at that point. Not knowing much else, I proceeded to kill the PB and LB far too early, but by gosh, they were chewy good. I've had the pleasure to try each of them again several times over the past 8 years, with the '89 LB being my more recent fave. I just picked up the '89 PB for $160. The funny part of it is, with all the complaints about wines increasing in price (true), I actually am more able to afford the '89 PB today than I was in '92!
No matter what you think about Suckling, his airs or tasting abilities, he is a true BWE. His enthusiasm for Bdx is always front and center. He should post here!
While he and so many others are in love with 2010, there are some dissenting voices, as one would expect. One of the loudest, the bete noir of wine tasters, is John Gilman. In an exercise in serendipity, he just "tweeted" a couple of remarks re: the 2010 UGC event. Just to be provocative, here's the two most recent comments he made:
1. "Fascinating tasting of 2010 claret at UGC event yesterday- those having read the vintage hype- happy; those w/out preconceptions- appalled."
2. "Favorite comment: '2010s best tasting I've been to in years- I have now saved a fortune as there is not a single wine I want in my cellar!'"
Those are amusing comments. Despite the reportedly "unprecedented" levels of polyphenols, I have a hard time believing there has not been a - perhaps a few - similar vintage in Bordeaux, and not just in the past run of best vintages ever. Since when one looks back to the most heralded vintages - and I don't think some of them are considered controversial now - it's hard to see how out of 80 or 100 wines the man could condemn them all. Of course maybe comment #2 is merely saying what others here have already, i.e., not wanting to wait for these wines to mature.
Bacchus wrote:One of the loudest, the bete noir of wine tasters, is John Gilman. In an exercise in serendipity, he just "tweeted" a couple of remarks re: the 2010 UGC event. Just to be provocative, here's the two most recent comments he made:
1. "Fascinating tasting of 2010 claret at UGC event yesterday- those having read the vintage hype- happy; those w/out preconceptions- appalled."
2. "Favorite comment: '2010s best tasting I've been to in years- I have now saved a fortune as there is not a single wine I want in my cellar!'"
Gilman is a smart, entertaining, clever writer, but most of his notes (particularly about bordeaux) are calibrated primarily to attract attention to himself.
pomilion wrote:Gilman is a smart, entertaining, clever writer, but most of his notes (particularly about bordeaux) are calibrated primarily to attract attention to himself.
+1
He seems to revel in being a contrarian, and a provocative one at that. And his drinking windows are also waaay different from most other critics. I like 'em with age, but Gilman would likely lock me up for infanticide. God knows what he'd do with Jim. I still enjoy reading his commentary when I come across it.
Bacchus wrote:No matter what you think about Suckling, his airs or tasting abilities, he is a true BWE. His enthusiasm for Bdx is always front and center. He should post here!
While he and so many others are in love with 2010, there are some dissenting voices, as one would expect. One of the loudest, the bete noir of wine tasters, is John Gilman. In an exercise in serendipity, he just "tweeted" a couple of remarks re: the 2010 UGC event. Just to be provocative, here's the two most recent comments he made:
1. "Fascinating tasting of 2010 claret at UGC event yesterday- those having read the vintage hype- happy; those w/out preconceptions- appalled."
2. "Favorite comment: '2010s best tasting I've been to in years- I have now saved a fortune as there is not a single wine I want in my cellar!'"
My understanding of Gilman's preferences, if I have any, is that he likes acid and balance, abhors extract and "over"-ripeness. Most critics are saying the '10s are balanced more on the acids than the '09s, but they are off the charts on tannins and also have plenty of ripe fruit. I wonder how Gilman compares the two vintages.
Hard to know about Mr. Gilman's motives, Pom. It is possible to be completely sincere, and yet deliver your message in such a way as to attract a lot of attention. Scoring the '09 Cos d'Estournal at 68 (or whatever it was he gave the wine) is certainly one way of attracting a lot of attention while saying you don't like the wine! Re: his first tweet, it has a "9 out of 10 dentists" feel to it. How would he know who does or does not have preconceptions about the vintage. Considering the hype surrounding it, how could anyone not have some sort of expectation. And I doubt very many people at a UGC event never heard a thing about the vintage before buying their tickets. I can hear them now: "Oh yes, I paid all this money to come to a wine tasting event for wines of a date and place that I never heard of before!" Too funny!
David, I've seen his ranking of the vintages of the past decade. If I remember correctly he ranks 05 first, followed by 08. 09 is further down the pack, and he's got 2010 near the end.
All I can say is it's a good thing we've moved off the page with Outlier's and Pomilion's notes from the UGC tasting. Their excellent reports and enthusiasm drove me to Wine Searcher to look at prices. And then Jim lifting the ban. Must... resist... A little dose of Gilman negativity is helping here, even though I usually disagree with him.
Bacchus wrote:I found his ranking, David. Forgot he had 2000 in the #2 spot, 08 in #3: 2005, 2000, 2008, 2009, 2001, 2006, 2002, 2004, 2010, 2007, 2003
I really hope he's right about 08, if for no other reason, they're affordable.
Not that controversial of a ranking, BTW. While I have not had 2010, I'd put 2005 and 2000 as 1 and 2, respectively. I have not had enough '09 to rank, but from what I've had, the 3rd or 4th spot looks right. I enjoy 08, 04 and 01 quite a bit. I'd only disagree with him on 03, but he's ranking Bdx as a whole, where I think there are some very strong left banks.
Last edited by OrlandoRobert on Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bacchus wrote:One of the loudest, the bete noir of wine tasters, is John Gilman. In an exercise in serendipity, he just "tweeted" a couple of remarks re: the 2010 UGC event. Just to be provocative, here's the two most recent comments he made:
1. "Fascinating tasting of 2010 claret at UGC event yesterday- those having read the vintage hype- happy; those w/out preconceptions- appalled."
2. "Favorite comment: '2010s best tasting I've been to in years- I have now saved a fortune as there is not a single wine I want in my cellar!'"
Gilman is a smart, entertaining, clever writer, but most of his notes (particularly about bordeaux) are calibrated primarily to attract attention to himself.
While I'm not a Gilman acolyte - I do pay attention to his Loire notes - one can say that exact same thing about Suckling. I cancelled my subscription to WS back in the 1990s particularly because of him. Not a fan of his notes, his style, his faux accents, aire and attire, and his scoring. His pretentiousness is exactly the last thing this industry needs more of.
When I tasted 2008s at UGC, almost all the wines had this mouth puckering acidity. Maybe that's the way they were showing at that particular night, but it may show Gilman's palate preference toward more acidicity....which is consistent with how he also ranks Burgundy vintages.
On a vintage to vintage comparison, I vastly prefer the lush, sensuous 2009, over the 2010. At their best, 2010 are ripe, rich, powerful tannic and acidic wines, with a freshness that should allow them to age for decades. On the other side of the coin, some wines are too extracted and show green flavors and dryness in the finish. Plus, many are more expensive than the wines in 2009. I bought a lot of 2009, especially Pomerol. I know that's not much of a surprise to people that know me. However, if I was still buying, I'd put my money on 2009, in most cases.
I was at the UGC tasting the 2010s, and had a blast, just like last year...Here are my overall impressions...
2009s are great in their own way, and so are 2010s...In my opinion, they earned their places rightfully. But I liked 09s slightly better than the 10s, but not by much...2009s are lush, sumptuous, and a little bit more concentrated (some of them) than the 2010s.
For Me-
I found 2010s to have a bit more acid than the 2009s...For Estephe I preferred 2010s, for Pauillac I prefered 09s; For St Julien 09 and 10 at the same level, for Margaux, I preferred 09 and for Pessac I preferred 10s. For right bank, I generally preferred 09s.
Here are my standouts:
Estephe - Lafon Rochet, it's buy for me given the price. Nice savory smoke, earth, grippy tannins
Pauillac - Pichon Baron, GPL, LB (Compared to 09, 10 LB was lower for me). Pichon Baron had the power and concentration. Long cellar potential. Lynch was great, but IMO, a notch below Baron...
St Julien - Leoville Barton, Gruaud Larose, St. Pierre (For me the star of St Julien was Barton. Great nose, rich, concentrated, long cellar potential)
Margaux - Margaux was a disappointment for me compared to 09, but I still consider a knockdown vintage...Liked Lascombes and Malescot the best, followed by Giscours. Jim, I think you will like 2010 Giscours. Typical Margaux, closer to its 09 sibling. Segla was a disappointment compared to 09...
Pessac Blanc - DdC was the star for me, followed by SHL and Larrivet. Although Pape Clement was great, the price is way too high for justifying a buy...DdC was crisp, fresh laced with Melon
Pessac Rouge - SHL shined the best. Tobacco, sweet smoke, spice notes. Loved it...For the best PCR, I would go with Fieuzal...
Sauternes - Climens was best for me...Nice, crisp, fresh and acidic...Honey, peaches, sweet melon; followed by Suduiraut...
Right Bank - I liked 09 better than the 10. The standouts for me are Conseillante, Canon La Gaffeliere, Clos Fourtet and La Dominique...Liked Clinet also, but for the price, pass...
Here's a less positive view on the 2010s at the NYC UGC, from Greg Tatar:
-------------------- Didn't see anything else on this but I'm kind of curious about other people's takes on the event. Big, fast sip and spit event of course, but it gives an overview of the vintage.
For me it was less lush than 2009 and as a general impression the wines seemed to have some serious tannins in many cases. That's not a bad thing - they weren't harsh or rough. But many cases I was thinking that they were kind of thin in the midpalate and even a little watery, which shouldn't have been the case. What fruit there was tended to be nice, but some had almost no fruit.
Clearly they're young and you can't say what they'll turn into, but something like Picho Longueville, with a big green note and then tart and tannic finish - what is that going to turn into? Leoville Poyferre is another - seemed almost medium weight and light midpalate. I tried it a few times - went back several times just to be sure it wasn't only in relation to the other wines that I found it disappointing. Even got a big huge Reidel glass to taste with - the guy looked at me like I was nuts when I showed up with that one but I told him I didn't want the whole bottle dumped in, just wanted to taste the wine in the perfect glass for it. Alas, that damned big Reidel didn't make the wine taste better. The glass just didn't "perform"!
Leoville Barton was a little worse, kind of medicinal too.
Overall, I kind of liked the Pomerols, Gazin in particular, also Clinet. Nothing really stood out as stunningly good though, and the price points of the wines were way out of whack with what you get. Stuff like Beaumont is what they need more of - I'd drink that with no problem and it is about the right price.
------------------------
And this, also from Greg:
--------------------- So you're all right and Neal that is exactly why I'm not going to post scores and detailed notes. It makes no sense based on a quick tasting like this. I have no axe to grind here and don't want to slam what could turn out to be great wines just because I didn't get all hot and bothered by them on one particular day.
Based on what little knowledge I have regarding wine, I'm not sure that I'd bet on these for the long haul, but I'm most certainly willing to be shown that I"m entirely wrong.
As far as a wine that was loved by others, like the Leoville, that's a more interesting questions. It didn't actually suck, let's agree on that. But was it really something to get excited about? I wonder if the people who loved it were to taste it blind, what kind of reaction they'd have.
I did spend some time with a few friends/acquaintances later, and I'll let them reveal themselves if they choose to, but their reactions were more negative than mine. Of course, their reactions to the 2009s, which I preferred, were even more negative yet, so it's really in some cases a matter of different strokes for different folks. The handful of wines Alan and I chatted about were like mirror images, so I'm interested in seeing his take.
My take overall was again, not a bad vintage, and yes I know I'm not going to get Napa fruit, but I'd have liked to see more fruit or more weight in some of the wines because if I'm betting on tannins softening over time, I want something to be there when those tannins are ready. Will a wine take on weight? Some seem to, but I don't think they really do. And Cab/Merlot wines aren't those that typically do in my experience.
I should note something about the Sauternes. I'm biased in favor of those wines just as a genetic predisposition I think. It's sweet, I'll probably like it. But this was not the big Sauternes vintage IMO. They needed a lot more acidity so as not to seem rather cloying. The one exception to that note would be de Fargues - the acidity was so pronounced that I asked the rep what the deal was. I re-tasted it many times to compare with the others. He said it was a deliberate choice they made to have slightly less sugar and slightly more acidity. Good choice IMO. The Rayne Vigneau was another interesting one - I asked him what the SB component was because it seemed really high. Turns out it was only 20%, but that minor amount gave it a huge hit of grapefruit pith and citrus that some of the Semillon based wines didn't have.
Once again, I was thinking that while they don't really favor SB, most producers should include a bit more of it. It makes for an interesting botrytized wine. Guiraud was thick and honeyed and heavy, and it contains even more SB than the Fargues and is usually one of my favorites but not this time.
Suduiraut was another that is usually quite good, and again it was certainly very good, but not one of their top vintages IMO. Had a slightly bitter grapefruit pith kind of backdrop that helped, but was again thick and honeyed w/out the line of acidity that helps give the best vintages that ethereal quality that makes them great.
I don't want to be a jerk about it though - I'm certainly glad that I got the chance to taste all the wines. Greatest vintage ever? I don't know. For recent vintages, I'm kind of biased in favor of the 2005s, both from Bordeaux and the Rhone. I think these 2010s are going to be easy to like in many cases, but the prices are out of line. I found myself thinking that a lot of the wines would be pretty good deals in the $20s or even $30s - they had a bit more structure and less sugar than some CA wines. But those weren't the general prices. It's OK to nit-pick when you're talking about a wine that's over $100, or even only over $50. That's a lot to pay for a wine that's "merely" good.
JonB wrote:When I tasted 2008s at UGC, almost all the wines had this mouth puckering acidity. Maybe that's the way they were showing at that particular night, but it may show Gilman's palate preference toward more acidicity....which is consistent with how he also ranks Burgundy vintages.
My experience exactly tasting the 08s at UGC -- high acidity, high tannins and in most cases under-fruited. Felt like a layer of my teeth had been stripped off by the end of the tasting.
As for your other questions, no we didn't go to the pre-tasting before the UGC this year. I was tempted, but the regular UGC itself is plenty of drinking, and they raised the price of the pre-event. Would have liked to have tasted some of the pre-tasting wines, but it didn't seem necessary or prudent... Still have my '87 convertible, still going strong after 25 years (it helps that she only has 70,000 miles...). Hope to see you at next year's UGC or some other event in the coming year!
All the comments from the UGC there are coming out completely different to the UK one's late last year which I went to to reconfirm or disprove my original assertions, and low and behold, I was correct in that nothing had changed, and I felt the wines had improved and hadn't seen too much wood.
I would countenance perhaps "bottle shock". In the UK we have the benefit of being able to gentle poodle down the Autoroute with the wines, rather than what must be quite savage for the wine "an aeroplane". Think, take-off, bashed about... flash frozen in -40degrees centigrade for 5 hours or more, and then flash thawed before being bashed around again on landing!!!
If I were a bottle of Bordeaux that shouldn't really be drunk yet, I know which I'd prefer and would probably be mightily pissed off with the latter example!
Disagree on several fronts Jono, but that's what makes this interesting.
Maybe we're not reading the same notes? Criticisms are not all about too much oak. They are about too much acid and tannin and question whether the fruit will hold up. It seems many still think it's a great vintage, just that the wines will take a lot of time to show well. We've picked a few of the more negative reports to highlight here. Also note that most of the negative reports from non-pros have been prefaced by disclaimers that they have little experience or confidence in predicting future performance of such young Bdx. Given the prices, it's no wonder people are taking a wait and see attitude.
"Bottle shock" is from bottling, not from transport. Transport can cause trouble with older wines with sediment, but I'm not a believer in "travel shock" for young wines. And airplane cargo holds don't go down to minus 40, they are heated. If they weren't, every single bottle would freeze and burst or pop its cork, and every single pet would die.
Tooch is a solid taster. I follow him on Loire and Northern Rhone.
The only note that surprised me was Canon La Gaff and Poujeaux.
Helpful to have these counter-points.
Interesting cellartracker notes -- I agree with most of his assessments. CLG was one of my top three wines of the tasting, and I also loved Gruaud Larose, Leoville Barton and Pichon Baron, as did he. Also agree with his thoughts on Troplong Mondot and Lynch Bages -- both were a mess. The only two wines I got a very different impression of are Clinet and DdC Rouge. I somehow missed Poujeaux.
:p