Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

In general, what is the state of under $30 Bordeaux?
I realize there is the occasional gem to be found, but, in general, how does "less expensive" Bordeaux stack up against other regions?

If we are trying an apples-to-apples comparison using regions with similar grapes, Chinon kills Bordeaux in the under $30 category. Wineries like Baudry, Joguet, Guion, etc., turn out world class wines. Now that said, I buy a fair bit of Bordeaux in this price category. The problem I find is getting wines expressive of their terroir in this price. Lanessan may be the best out there. In the fun, albeit modern category, you have wines like La Vieille Cure, Mathilde, Reignac.

I think this is certainly an interesting question given the skyrocketing prices of classified growths.

Since I drink a lot of under $30 Bordeaux, I would respond as follows:
1. I tend to be a bit of an Aristotelian in that I put things in categories. Under $30 Bordeaux is one of those categories, and I tend to compare within the category rather than comparing to more expensive Bordeaux or classified growths. I do not expect as much from a less expensive wine. One of the things we tend to give up is quite a bit of complexity.
2. I like many under $30 Bordeaux, particularly in a good year, for their balance, lower alcohol than California, and some complexity. That said, I do not generally buy lower priced Bordeaux in not so good years (e.g., 2007) and I tend to be a bit more careful in average to good years (e.g., 2006, 2008, 2004). Thus, most of my purchases are in years such as 2009, 2005, and not sure about 2010 yet.
3. Of course, the under $30 wines are ready much earlier to drink and have much shorter life spans; hence, I think it is important to try and maintain a balanced cellar with generally higher priced wines.
4. Perhaps I can be accused of preferring less expensive Bordeaux that are more California like, but I don't experience the wines that way. Just as I don't generally compare less expensive Bordeaux to more expensive ones, I don;t generally compare Bordeaux to anything else. Again, it is my Aristotelian framework with its silos.

-Ken

Oh he'll yes it's worth it

I don't buy a lot in that price range; mostly the next one up. That said, I'm not at all opposed to finding a great sub-$30 wine. So let me ask, has anyone tried the 2005 Clos Puy Arnaud? And now that I think about it, maybe someone should put Alice Feiring onto it. I understand they're green, or organic, or natural or biodynamic, or all nude, or something like that!

There's a ton of worthy Bdx at 30 and under, much of which has kept well since I've purchased it. But then I tend to go hunting in vintage of centuries mostly and I can usually do really well in the $20 range even. In fact, I'd say there's more than one man (me) could purchase even though I'm always curious to try some of the 100 or so cru bourgeois that were listed in Hugh Johnson's old Encyclopedia of Wine as well as the notable also rans from the right bank.

I've also been very good or lucky picking out some older wines (88-89-90) on winebid and getting them for $30 or under, sometimes well under. It helps to have some idea though of what the chateau is capable of producing.

But that's me. For every one of me there's probably 10 other wine connoisseurs whom these wines don't thrill or excite and who wouldn't waste their time and money on them. I am in the enviable position I guess of not being thrilled or excited that much by wine. I'm just mildly curious and I don't do much jumping around or loud talking when I drink it. Maybe an eyebrow arch, something like that.

I voted yes. Depends on what you expect of them. You're not going to get an Haut Brion or Pontet Canet experience from a $30 wine, but they can be very good wines that give a good deal of pleasure - many of which are better than anything you can get from California for $30. That said, I'm more likely to go to the S. Rhone for $30 early drinkers.

I have limited experience with this. But in my experience, under $30 Bordeaux wines can be quite good. I would probably agree with the idea of focusing on better vintages for buying in this price range,

I bought two cases of 2005 at about $15 per. I've enjoyed most of both cases by now. And I would say I've enjoyed them more (consistently) than any $30-40 California Cabs I've had from recent vintages.

I am thinking that this is the direction I will go with the 2010s - partly for pricing reasons, but more for age reasons. I don't need many more wines that need 20-30 years to develop.

"In general, under $30 Bordeaux is nothing special.
vs.
There are many great deals to be found under $30 in Bordeaux."

Voted for the latter, though the wording of the poll is a little flawed -- I would say the majority of bordeaux under $30 is certainly nothing special, but there are some great deals under $30. I agree with most of the other comments in the thread -- my wife and I probably go through 3 cases a year of sub-$30 bordeaux and 4 cases of sub-$30 southern rhone. Just in the past couple weeks we've had '05 Domaine de Courteillac and '09 Chateau Arnauton Cuvee Grand Sol, both $20 and quite enjoyable. I don't expect to have my socks knocked off by sub-$30 wines - I'm just looking for something solid and tasty, even if it's a bit rustic/simple. We generally only open an over-$30 bottle once a week or so, and I usually need a bordeaux fix more often than that! The biggest sub-$30 bordeaux purchase I've made in the past few years was 3 cases of '05 Epicurea de Chateau Martinat (Cotes de Bourg) -- don't know if anyone else has had it but sort of tastes like Roc de Cambes Jr. (which in turn tastes like Tertre Roteboeuf Jr., TR being one of my favorite bordeaux). Totally agree with the strategy of loading up on sub-$30 bottles in the great vintages and skipping the lesser vintages.

Hound wrote:

"For every one of me there's probably 10 other wine connoisseurs whom these wines don't thrill or excite and who wouldn't waste their time and money on them".

I'm with you. And I think the reason for that is a vicious circle that starts out with the fact that in America many people equate Bordeaux with the great growths (not even 5% of production). Therefore it's a tough sell for the other wines. People have been genetically programmed to compare a wine that's $ 25.99 with the name wines, whereas a far more apt comparison in that price range is a California Cabernet. But the problem is more deep-seated that that. This *is* a lot of dross, and the wine trade does not seem to want to get behind "minor" Bordeaux. Why not? I think they figure it's a hard sell and can't be bothered. The trade likes stuff that's presold thanks to points. Well, Parker et al review only a tiny proportion of modestly-priced wines in Bordeaux. And, certainly, the media will far more easily get excited about a discovery in the Rhone Valley or the Loire than they will of a very praiseworthy affordable Bordeaux, which is very frustrating.
The media/trade seem to think that Bordeaux is a well-beaten track, whereas it isn't at all if you look behind the name wines. They seem to think it's a closed book as per the article posted elsewhere.
How wrong they are!

Best regards,
Alex R.

I don't think it is particularly exciting. Don't get me wrong, there are gems, but the majority are going to be dull as dishwater. This is no different to any other region in the world... luckily my job involves tasting all this dishwater, so that you don't have to!!

Let me make one contrary statement: To his credit, Parker has a decent track-record of identifying very decent QPRs in the under $30 category. I think it is a myth that he only focuses on the classified wines or the hot garage properties.

In general, most Bordeaux under $30 does not excite me. It is generally no better or no worse than similarly priced wines from other regions.

Robert,

I have rarely ever seen the Wine Advocate.

What percentage of Bordeaux wines he reviews would you say were not classified wines or of a similar status?

Alex

The lack of quality in ïnexpensive Bordeaux is a big reason California, and other new world wine regions, took off. But part of this
quality gap had to do with the new world climates yielding ripe grapes, hence a plumper,fruitier style that most new
worlders preferred. If $30 and under claret is now a modern style, then a good "comparison"can be made with other wines
in that price category. I haven't tried inexpensive Bordeaux in many years due to this quality question and the lack
of availability locally. I'll try a few bottles if I can find them and see where they stand. Thanks for costing me more
money. I agree that there are likely hidden gems to be found, but I would like the category as a whole to be consistent. I love
the style the Bordeaux climate gives, even if riper today it is not usually overblown. Good topic to post. JM

Hmmm. You wrote "The lack of quality in inexpensive Bordeaux is a big reason California, and other new world wine regions, took off".

I have rarely heard of Bordeaux being pitted against Cali Cabs in the medium price range.
I have only once attended such a tasting. It was fascinating.

Not that it would necessarily *prove* anything, but why doesn't someone at the Wine Spectator get off their butt and do thi?

Did the rise of Cali Cabs coincide with a drop in imports of Bordeaux? I wonder... I think price rises and exchange rates are more the answer, but I'm willing to be proved wrong!

Alex R.

There is only one California Cab under $50 that I enjoy as much as Bordeaux in that price category: Ridge Estate Cab. The 2009 is fantastic. By the case, I paid $38 per.

OrlandoRobert wrote:There is only one California Cab under $50 that I enjoy as much as Bordeaux in that price category: Ridge Estate Cab. The 2009 is fantastic. By the case, I paid $38 per.

One of my favorite under-$50 CA cab blends for sure.

I don't understand pitting one wine region against another, whether it be Bdx vs. Cali cabs, or as is common on some other boards, Bdx vs Burgundy. In my experience they don't taste the same. If you drink Burgundy drink it because you like it, not because you perceive it to be a better value than Bdx. How sad is that attitude, I want to drink Bdx, but I'm going to drink Burgundy because I think it is cheaper, even though I don't like it as much! (Of course, whether it is better value or not is another whole question). My attitude (my suggestion) is to drink what you like and don't justifying it in terms of the cost of other wines from other regions. If Bdx is expensive, well there's also expensive Burgundy (really expensive Burgundy actually), expensive Cali cabs, and even expensive Aussie shiraz. If you have a budget that you must work within and that limits what you can buy, buy the best tasting wines you can on that budget (according to your own palate of course), region be damned. I drink Bdx these days not because I think it's a better, or worse, deal than 2 buck chuck, but because I like it and I feel like exploring it. Now if I could only like 2 buck chuck, I could remodel the kitchen!

AlexR wrote:Robert,

I have rarely ever seen the Wine Advocate.

What percentage of Bordeaux wines he reviews would you say were not classified wines or of a similar status?

Alex

Hi Alex,

Not Robert, and not stated as percentages, but here are his review counts of red Bordeaux (rated 85 or above) for the last few years:

Only from Barrel (so far)

2011 - 369
2010 - 388

From Bottle

2009 - 500+ (The search function only returns 500 wines at a time)
2008 - 453
2007 - 324
2006 - 392
2005 - 500+

As I said, these are not the percentages you requested, but to get to these numbers of reviews, I think everyone would concede that he must go past "the usual suspects."

Ciao,
Tom

I did not vote yet, but I would ask the opposite question : if you plan to drink it, is Bordeaux over 100 $ worth buying?

Nic

Tom In DC wrote:

AlexR wrote:Robert,

I have rarely ever seen the Wine Advocate.

What percentage of Bordeaux wines he reviews would you say were not classified wines or of a similar status?

Alex

Hi Alex,

Not Robert, and not stated as percentages, but here are his review counts of red Bordeaux (rated 85 or above) for the last few years:

.......

As I said, these are not the percentages you requested, but to get to these numbers of reviews, I think everyone would concede that he must go past "the usual suspects."

Ciao,
Tom

I'm pretty down on Parker these days, but to be fair The Wine Advocate certainly does publish a large number (many hundreds) of notes a year on "value" wines from many regions including bordeaux. I guess Parker feels we need a consolation prize for all the wines we can no longer afford because he's hyped the hell out of them.

AlexR wrote:Robert,

I have rarely ever seen the Wine Advocate.

What percentage of Bordeaux wines he reviews would you say were not classified wines or of a similar status?

Alex

Sorry Alex, I do not have these figures either. I actually stopped subscribing to TWA around 1999. Two of the main retailers I frequent in my area publish his notes and ratings anyway. One of these retailers carries many BDX in the under $30 category.

I'm sure that there are hundreds or perhaps even thousands of inexpensive non-classed Bordeaux that don't make it to the US. But the stores I frequent do have a selection of them. I can't speak to their sales volume. They don't get discussed a lot here because I think, as Jim said, they're not as exciting as the wines we do tend to talk about.

I'd say "in general" they are not worth buying, but certainly some are in great vintages. In general I find Washington, Cotes du Rhone, Burgundy, and Chianti to have more compelling value wines, but I do buy and try some from Bordeaux values too.

JonB wrote:I'd say "in general" they are not worth buying.

I'd agree. It might be true of the classed growths to some extent (and at various price points), if not "in general," given the number of "underachievers" and the perceived qpr.

It's also true that a number of us have pretty extensive cellars full of interesting wines, many of the purchased for less than $30, even if not in constant dollar terms. I have a feeling that the price increase of quite a few of the better-reputed wines has outstripped the general level of inflation since 1970, 1980, 1990 or 2000. It's unfortunate but the rules of the game have changed.

So an "interesting" or "exciting" Calon Segur, rating 90 Parker Points, might cost what, $70 (in a non-hyped vintage)? An uninteresting, unexciting Joanin Becot, also rating 90 Parker Points, might cost $20. What's up with that?

There was a time not long ago when wines like Duhart, Lagrange, even Leoville Poyferre, and others, could be had for $25, and we could conclude that nothing even close could be found at that price level in California, Italy, etc. Now, as we sip on the likes of d'Escurac, Marjosse, and Fourcas, not so much....

Funny I should mention Calon, as it was purchased last year by an insurance company: http://www.wine-searcher.com/m/2012/07/ ... nt-estephe. Be interesting to see if it gets the treatment now.

Note the article also mentions Lascombes, Petit Village, Pichon Baron, Suiduraut (sp) and de Rayne Vigneau. I thought also Lagrange in St. Julien was owned by big Japanese company, and there's some Margaux property owned by a hedge fund or pension plan. I'm sure there's more corporate ownership.

I'm pretty sure that it was Lascombes was sold to a pension plan or something of that ilk in 2011/2012. It was certainly for sale in April 2011.

Lagrange has been owned by suntory since about 1980. That was a property that became a lot more-interesting and not stupidly priced after the takeover. So probably an exception to the rule. Suntory's top wine Tomi in old age is a dead-ringer for Lagrange in a bad vintage, but costs about 5 times as much even in Japan.

Funny that a mixed case of Bdx just got delivered to my office as I read the new posts here. Picked up some 2001 Lanessan for $19.99 and more 2009 La Vielle Cure at $25 and 2009 Sociando at $45. So two under $30 and a case price average of sub-$30. Quite the score!

I had forgotten about ordering more of the '09 LVC, but when my local guy had it on sale for $25, it was a no-brainer.

I've had plenty of delish Bordeaux under $30

À good example is that little 2010 Bordeaux, Château Vallon des Brumes, I had over the last two nights. Good ruby color, clean aromas of red berries, dark berries, light earth and a touch of oak and tobacco. in mouth, genuine elegance for such an unexpensive wine. good attack that is fruity, with dark cherries, dark curants, fresh, with good concentration! cant complaint on the decent long final on blackcurrants, light plums and good tannins. very good wine, that I would like to propose blind to any wine lover. TN: 86. all that for just over 13$...

If you dont like Bordeaux wines under 30$, so you dont like cars under 200 000$, house under 1 million $, eat only tenderloin, caviar and foie gras,... So I guess that last statement is not making sense, as not having interest in Bordeaux under 30$, If you're a REAL Bordeaux lover.

nic

So many crazy good Bordeaux under $30

I remember '01 Johanna champs de mars....f'ing lights out Bordeaux for$20

Nic said it best:

"If you dont like Bordeaux wines under 30$, so you dont like cars under 200 000$, house under 1 million $, eat only tenderloin, caviar and foie gras,..."

Alex

I don't understand the analogy. I love my Toyota Corolla. I love my house too, and it's not worth a million dollars. Bordeaux under $30, though, in general, is even more boring than a 1993 Batailly.

Surely the question should be: "have you had a $30 or less bottle of Bordeaux that was super for the money?"

The question as it is doesn't lead you to the necessary conclusions.
Are we talking about the local wine shop collection?
Or are we talking about the whole of Bordeaux.

The great growths = less than 5%
the good lesser wines that are worth the money bumps that up to perhaps 7-10% of production.
And remember Bordeaux alone produces more wine than Australia.

So the rest (like in any region); the 90% won't be up to much cop!

That's a terrible analogy and one that suggests reverse snobbery. There is a much closer relationship between price and quality for cars and houses than for wines.

JimHow wrote: Bordeaux under $30, though, in general, is even more boring than a 1993 Batailly.

I'm too new here to know whether you are being sarcastic, but if not, wow. Perhaps we should start a thread, "Name your Best Sub-$30 Bdx Recommendation". Lots of good stuff out there in this price bracket.

Yes there is a history behind that '93 Batailly comment Orlando.

In seriousness, though, the question seeks to determine whether "lesser" Bordeaux properties are worth the effort to obtain. Take the $30 figure out of the equation. We all know that the classified growths, in general, are among the world's best, worthy of our obsession. There are certain Bordeauxs out there like Lanessan that are great values at $20. But are most lesser Bordeaux any more interesting, appealing, higher quality, unique, etc., etc., than the "lesser" wines of, say, Italy, Burgundy, Rhone, California, Spain, Chile, etc.? Myself, in general, the answer is no. As I mentioned above, there was a time in the not too distant past when $25 wines like Lagrange, Leoville Poyferre, and duhart Milon were far superior to anything in the price range from just about any other region in the world. Today I don't think we can any longer say that. I don't think the d'Escuracs of Bordeaux are any "wow, I gotta get that over some similarly priced wine from Spain or Italy" type of wines.

Jim's latest post is spot on in my view. There is a lot of choices today, and I am afraid that most consumer preferences are not tilted toward inexpensive claret, at least on this side of the pond. The other countries Jim mentions are a big part of the story-many choices for the consumer. But I am
referring to the U.S. customer. It is likely inexpensive Bordeaux sells well in Europe, but I am not sure about the choices the customers have over
there. It probably varies per country. And what is lesser quality to BWEers might be good stuff to the common man in Suisse, no offense intended. JM