Demand for 2010 Bordeaux

[JCNorthway]

So do we think there is a market for 2010 Bordeaux in this country?

I saw an email this afternoon from Premier Cru for 2010 Bordeaux on pre-arrival. Scanning the list really quickly, my eyes landed on the Grand Puy Lacoste for $80. I'm thinking to myself "that sounds pretty reasonable in the context of 2010. I should look into that when I get home."

Flash forward about 5 hours. Thinking that sounded like a really good price for a guaranteed quality wine, I go to the Premier Cru website convinced that I will actually spring for a case of a 2010 Bordeaux, in spite of my age. I click on the selection and get back the dreaded "Out of Stock" message. So much for my fleeting thought of having a case from this vintage to drink 20 years from now.

Was the price that good? Or is demand that high? Or did they only offer a few cases? Not being in the futures market seriously since the 2000 vintage, I don't have much of a reference point for figuring that out.

[pomilion]

2010 GPL has been touted by some critics (including Neil Martin, among others) as one of the top 10 wines of the vintage, a vintage many critics are calling another vintage of the century (I tasted many of the wines last month at the UGC and it is indeed a great vintage; GPL wasn't there, unfortunately). I bought GPL on futures over a year and a half ago for $89, so yes, $80 was a great price (might be the best-reviewed '10 bordeaux under $100 at this point). Should be delivered by PC right around the time it's entering its optimal drinking window too!

[OrlandoRobert]

I decided to sit out. I'm not sure what to make of this vintage based on the various reports, and couple that with prices, and I want to try before I buy.

I saw that PC had Talbot for $39.99, and almost jumped on it, but the reference to "sweet upfront fruit" and that it "should be approachable when released" had me scratching my head. Not like the old Talbot.

[JimHow]

I saw that PC had Talbot for $39.99, and almost jumped on it, but the reference to "sweet upfront fruit" and that it "should be approachable when released" had me scratching my head. Not like the old Talbot.

Yeah, when I tried the 2008 Talbot last year I was stunned by the change in style. So much so that I decided not to buy the 2009. That note on the 2010 describes well what I experienced with the 2008.

[OrlandoRobert]

I saw that PC had Talbot for $39.99, and almost jumped on it, but the reference to "sweet upfront fruit" and that it "should be approachable when released" had me scratching my head. Not like the old Talbot.

Yeah, when I tried the 2008 Talbot last year I was stunned by the change in style. So much so that I decided not to buy the 2009. That note on the 2010 describes well what I experienced with the 2008.

VERY disappointing to hear, especially considering the wonderful experiences I had with the '82 and the '86 over the last few months.

Jim, did you buy any '10s?

[Bacchus]

For those interested, here's a link to a free, downloadable assessment of 2010 by the writers of the World of Fine Wine. It includes an assessment of the vintage, reviews of many wines from both banks, and a short essay on the vintage by the irrepressible John Gilman. It makes for an interesting read.

http://www.finewinemag.com/docs/2010_Bordeaux.pdf

[JimHow]

Haven't bought any Robert, I'll probably buy 50-100 bottles from the left bank when they hit the shelves.

[OrlandoRobert]

Thanks, Bacchus, just had my assistant print it in color for my read while at the airport!

Flipped to the Talbot out of curiosity. Bettane really liked it (scored at 18) but did say "slightly reduced" and "both modern and timeless".

[pomilion]

There are some ridiculous Gilman stunt scores in the WFW notes (e.g., Angelus 8/9, Bellevue Mondotte 9, Pavie 0-3...). When the issue was in galleys Gilman's scores were all included in the average score for each wine (e.g., dragging Pavie's overall score down to 13.5); the WFW editors made the quite unusual decision to exclude Gilman's more silly scores in computing the averages in the published version of the magazine. Gilman is an interesting, clever writer, but too often his notes/scores seem primarily intended to hype and call attention to himself as the Anti-Parker.

[OrlandoRobert]

I do not know enough about these writers to comment much, but on first blush, Bettane seems generous and modern. Gilman's reviews on the seemingly more classic Bordeaux are impressive reads. I have not tried to see if my Bordeaux palate calibrates to his, but I like what I am reading. My palate does seems to agree with his assessments on Chinon and Bojo. I hane not agreed with him on Pavie, and I have enjoyed many prior vintages. But I will say, I chuckled when I read his review on the 2010 Bellevue Mondotte. I recall sharing a bottle of the 2003 with a close friend over the course of the night. It was nearly undrinkable to me, but we kept going back for more, hoping the candy would blow off or the alcohol perhaps knock us out of our misery. Parker scored that wine a 98+ and twice a 100 in his Hedonist Gazette. What Gilman says about the 2010 resembles what I had in the 2003. He scored it a 9? while Bettane scored it a 19.

[pomilion]

Bettane certainly appreciates more modern-styled wines. I don't have a problem with Gilman's taste running more old-school -- it's the way he obviously massively exaggerates his low scores for wines he doesn't like, in a way that clearly seems calculated to draw attention to himself. It's too bad, because he's a fine, witty, interesting, talented writer -- I just find his silly stunt scoring and notes quite grating. Jancis (or Neil Martin), for example, might knock several points off a wine she thinks is over-the-top modern, but she won't score it 0-3 as Gilman did '10 Pavie. Gilman resorts to silly sensationalism to try to be noticed, which seems completely out of character with what, on a deeper level, he's trying to do -- be a counterweight to the Parkers and Sucklings of the world by exercising responsibility, restraint, moderation and balance, at which he often fails miserably.

[OrlandoRobert]

So how should Gilman score Bellevue Mondotte or Pavie? He hated them both. Considers them undrinkable.

Using the 2003 Bellevue Mondotte as an example, which I thought was terrible, should the score be "NR" for not rated and just let the note read for itself. I'd be good with that.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

Never fear gentleman, I "jumped" on the '10 Talbot based on the totality of pro reviews, including some who found it more restrained, if not necessarily "classic" or old-school, and the UGC data. We'll all be able to see for ourselves (though now you have me worrying whether my PC layaway plan will have the wine delivered when it "past it" in Cellartracker parlance).

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

Just skimming this overwrought and bloated report, I conclude that 2010 was one of the worst vintages in years for many wine critics, and for the wine criticism business overall. While there are many well-considered tasting notes, there are at least as many awful and philosphically unsound examples; it is an extremely heterogenous vintage in that respect.

Thus my riff on Gilman, though I note he is also on his hands and knees in praise of Cantemerle, which I also purchased in small quantity.

Seriously, the whole notion of declaring vintage generalizations says much more about the critics and the business of criticism than it does about wine. It seems very clear that whatever style you prefer you can find it in spades in 2010 (unless of course you strickly demand 2002, cool, crcunchy fruit), or at least in enough quantity to buy in sufficient wines for the cellar. That, it seems to me, is the hallmark of a great vintage: something for everyone. If you have a ripping example of an estate or estates you "adore" what care you if the rest of it is lousy or the famous estate over there produced a wine you hate? Probably the worst that can be said of 2010 is that it is pretty much universally costly.

AlohaArt
MCWC (Master Crtitic of Wine Criticism)

[pomilion]

So how should Gilman score Bellevue Mondotte or Pavie? He hated them both. Considers them undrinkable.

Using the 2003 Bellevue Mondotte as an example, which I thought was terrible, should the score be "NR" for not rated and just let the note read for itself. I'd be good with that.

Robert -- first, I've had '03 Bellevue Mondotte a few times, and it's not undrinkable. A few sips with the right cheese are quite enjoyable, actually. Whether I'd want to drink half a bottle with a meal is another question - my taste is more modern than yours, I sense, so that actually might be enjoyable. But the wine isn't undrinkable - if you put it in a blind tasting of top Napa cabs it would probably win (if the tasters were modern Napa cab lovers). Which means it may not have the greatest bordeaux typicity, and may not be for everyone, but that doesn't make it a wretched, undrinkable wine. It's just a very rich, dense, ripe, decadent wine that's an extreme example of modern, Parkerized bordeaux winemaking. So I understand why those with more traditional palates - including you and Gilman - wouldn't like it or want to drink it (but c'mon, it may just take a few decades to come around - Parker once compared it, I believe, to '47 Cheval Blanc!). My point about Gilman is that, based on his bordeaux reviews, I believe he is massively exaggerating his own views/scores for wines he doesn't prefer in order to draw attention to himself. 0-3 for 2010 Pavie -- really? For comparison, Neil Martin scored the wine 93-96, noting a "touch of overripeness." 2010 Angelus, which Gilman scored 8-9 pts, received 92 points from Neil Martin and 17.5 from Jancis... It's stunt scoring by Gilman, pure and simple. And yes, if he can't bring himself to score Pavie and Angelus seriously, he should use "NR" rather than handing out silly, disingenuous, unprofessional scores. He does, after all, claim to be a "professional" wine critic, not just some amateur taking pot-shots at wines he doesn't like.

[Bacchus]

Gilman is an odd duff, that is for sure. He gave the 09 cos d'estournel a 67, while everyone else fawned over it. Is 67 a stunt score? On the other hand, in the WFW article he gives the 2010 vintage a 17+, which puts him right up there with everyone else. Hard to know what he's up to sometimes. Although, if someone were to open both an 09 cos and a 2010 cos, we might get a clearer picture. I think we should give that assignment to RobertGoulet.

[JonB]

I haven't purchased any more 2010. I was tempted by PC prices, as they were under what anybody else had for many wines, but their thin supply of below-retail pricing seems to have been sold out in the last couple of days. Looking at Wine Spectator's top 50 wines of the vintage, almost all were at record pricing levels, and only two under $100 (Monbousquet and something else). While if I had an empty cellar I might have purchased some, that is not the case, and I'll continue dabbling away at other regions and older vintages, but lots of Bordeaux in the cellar, especially the "cheap" 2005s.

[Blanquito]

The 2005 GPL is the real deal. I dunno about the 09 or 10 GPLs (which sound terrific, admittedly), but if 2005s are available for less than 2009/10, that would seem a reasonable buying approach.

[Blanquito]

Never fear gentleman, I "jumped" on the '10 Talbot based on the totality of pro reviews, including some who found it more restrained, if not necessarily "classic" or old-school, and the UGC data. We'll all be able to see for ourselves (though now you have me worrying whether my PC layaway plan will have the wine delivered when it "past it" in Cellartracker parlance).

I got a 3-pack of the 2010 Talbot too. $40 seemed reasonable.

"PC layaway plan"... genius.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

The "stunt" scores speak to me as much of PR as they do the rigorlessness of the scoring systems. Yes P-man scores on 50-100, but basically it's a 16 point scale from 85-100.

Likewise the 20 point scales seem to start around 14 as the minimum score.

So yeah, a three is shocking, although there's no reason it should be.

[pomilion]

The 2005 GPL is the real deal. I dunno about the 09 or 10 GPLs (which sound terrific, admittedly), but if 2005s are available for less than 2009/10, that would seem a reasonable buying approach.

Totally agree about '05 GPL -- fantastic wine, have had it a few times. Bought some for around $90 a few years ago, seems to have crept up to around $100 now in the States. Other than the incredible PC deal referenced above, the '10 seems to be currently going for $90-100. 2010 is supposed to be as good or better than the '05, and based on my tasting of the '09 at last year's UGC it's around the same level too. (Haven't tasted '10 GPL though I've bought a bunch.) For reference, Neil Martin gave the '05 97 pts, the '09 95 pts and the '10 97 points. Neil has called recent vintages of GPL an "unbeatable value" and I would tend to agree... Did a search on ebob for Neil's scoring of all '05, '09 and '10 Pauillacs (i.e., including Latour, Mouton, Lafite, Pontet Canet, etc.), and GPL holds down 3 of the top 13 spots (all Pauillacs across all three vintages). GPL and Pontet Canet have been my go-to high-end Pauillacs, purchase-wise, for the past 5-6 years. Unfortunately PC has escalated into the pricing stratosphere, but GPL remains (in context) priced very reasonably.

[Bacchus]

According to something I read somewhere (sorry about the lack of precision), the real deal of 09 might be the Haut Batailley. According to what I read (I think Decanter, but not entirely sure) it is supposed to be just a hair short of the GPL in 09. Anyone try it? I don't normally buy it, but if it's as close to GPL as they say, I might have to give it a try. Normally it's a lot less money than GPL.

[pomilion]

According to something I read somewhere (sorry about the lack of precision), the real deal of 09 might be the Haut Batailley. According to what I read (I think Decanter, but not entirely sure) it is supposed to be just a hair short of the GPL in 09. Anyone try it? I don't normally buy it, but if it's as close to GPL as they say, I might have to give it a try. Normally it's a lot less money than GPL.

Assume you mean '09 Baitailley, which was very favorably reviewed -- NM was pretty effusive (94 pts, "redolent of its neighbor Grand Puy Lacoste"; Parker gave it 94 pts as well). I haven't had it either, has anyone here tried it?

[Bacchus]

No, pomillion, I meant Haut Batailley, another Borie property.

[robertgoulet]

I tasted the '10 GPL....it's a buy for sure as is their entire stable...same with canon la gaff...'10 the entire stable is deep

[Bacchus]

Just checked, Decanter it is. In a blind tasting of 09s, GPL and Haut-Batailley were both rated at 18.75 or 95+. There's a decimal because it's the average of the three reviewers scores. Fortunately individual scores are supplied, but as you can imagine, all 3 gave high scores. Not bad for three tasting blind! As they write, Haut-Batailley is normally undistinguished. But in 09, it's apparently a 95+. Given its price, that recommendation has got to be worth the price of a bottle and a taste. Who knows, maybe there are some affordable fantastic wines in the 09 vintage.

[OrlandoRobert]

Any thoughts on the 2010 La Tour Carnet?

[pomilion]

Sounds definitely worth trying (Haut Batailley). Here are some other reviews of both Haut Batailley and Batailley:

http://www.farrvintners.com/wine.php?wine=25954

http://www.farrvintners.com/wine.php?wine=25849

[pomilion]

I tasted the '10 GPL....it's a buy for sure as is their entire stable...same with canon la gaff...'10 the entire stable is deep

'10 CLG was one of my top three wines at this year's UGC.

[pomilion]

Any thoughts on the 2010 La Tour Carnet?

Tried it twice at the UGC last month -- it was one of the top 'value' wines of the day. Also liked Haut Bergey, Latour-Martillac, La Pointe, Lafon Rochet and de Fieuzal on that end of the price spectrum.

[Bacchus]

That''s quite a range of scores for the Haut Batailley listed on the Farr page. The panel for this particular tasting at Decanter included Stephen Brook (he gave it a 19), Alun Griffiths MW (19), and Steven Spurrier (18.5). Several things strike me. The Decanter team tasted blind, and apart from one another. The lowest score on the Farr page was assigned by the One Without a Name, and I'll bet he wasn't tasting blind. Interestingly, the highest score on the Farr page was assigned by Neal Martin, a range of 92-94, which is pretty close to what the Decanter group scored it. The second highest score on the Farr page, a 93, was assigned by Tim Atkins, another Brit (although that score is echoed by the Suckers 90-93)! If nothing else, it would seem that the 09 Haut-Batailley appeals to the English! Still, for the price, I think I'll give it a go. Batailley, unfortunately, isn't available here.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

Haut now, just a minute! I see that wine-searcher amateur links to a Decanter review of the 09 @ 17.5. Maybe that was the barrrel sample and hasn't been updated? And we (and the three blind guys) are extolling the 09 and not the 10, correct?

[Bacchus]

Yup, we're talking about the 2009 H-B. I've got the mag right in front of me, Art; Nov 2012 issue. It reviews, in its own words, Medoc crus classes 2009. That 17.5 score must be a barrel sample since it dates from 2010: http://www.decanter.com/wine/reviews/ch ... lac/575051

[pomilion]

That''s quite a range of scores for the Haut Batailley listed on the Farr page....Interestingly, the highest score on the Farr page was assigned by Neal Martin, a range of 92-94

I've become quite a fan of Neil's reviews -- the biggest reason I still subscribe to TWA.

[JonB]

So did anybody answer the original question

"So do we think there is a market for 2010 Bordeaux in this country?"

Did the BD's lifting of the edict result in pent up demand flooding the vaults of PC with orders?

My guess....demand in the US for 2010 is less than 2009, is less than 2005. Retailers committed to less futures, and experienced fairly slow consumer purchasing up until a pulse showed as the in-bottle reviews started to come out. It isn't like 2005, when there appeared to be multiple tranches as retailers re-stocked their commitments and prices went up due to demand. This is a pretty flat market, and the initial retailer pricing has generally not changed; some wines are being sold-out, though, because of the low commitments from retailers.

Maybe the investors are being priced out of the market? Maybe the wines are all going to China, and also in storage in Bordeax?

[robertgoulet]

'10 haut batailley(silky, exotic in a way, chocolate, lead, 60% new oak) is a buy so is Lacoste borie(graphite, spice box, tobacco)...enjoyed both


Robert...everyone thought '10 la tour carnet was the qpr of the night, though I wasn't sold on that declaration, I did enjoy it. I may buy if the price is right

[Blanquito]

I like Tour Carnet, but it is usually pretty modern stylistically.

[OrlandoRobert]

"So do we think there is a market for 2010 Bordeaux in this country?"


My guess....demand in the US for 2010 is less than 2009, is less than 2005. Retailers committed to less futures, and experienced fairly slow consumer purchasing up until a pulse showed as the in-bottle reviews started to come out. It isn't like 2005, when there appeared to be multiple tranches as retailers re-stocked their commitments and prices went up due to demand. This is a pretty flat market, and the initial retailer pricing has generally not changed; some wines are being sold-out, though, because of the low commitments from retailers.

Fair question.

An example only of one, but my local retailer (B21) that has historically gone deep on Bdx futures, including 2009, bailed on 2010. I bought heavy futures in 2005. There were no market-based reasons for me to by 2009 futures. I only bought a few, and as they hit the market, I have picked up more here and there. I cannot imagine that the pricing on 2010s goes up even more than their futures prices, unless Uncle Bob goes crazy on scores when he publishes at the end of the month.

[OrlandoRobert]

For those interested, here's a link to a free, downloadable assessment of 2010 by the writers of the World of Fine Wine. It includes an assessment of the vintage, reviews of many wines from both banks, and a short essay on the vintage by the irrepressible John Gilman. It makes for an interesting read.

http://www.finewinemag.com/docs/2010_Bordeaux.pdf

Well, I finally made it through this article. Widely divergent thoughts, which leaves me more confused about this vintage. Regardless of what you think of Gilman, give him credit for calling it as he sees it: "If 2010 is a great Bordeaux vintage, then I have learned nothing in the 30 years I have been drinking these wines." Gilman basically says that 2010 is NOT a great vintage, and is characterized by too many misses. He acknowledges some estate made phenomenal wines, however. Throughout this read, all I saw were references to high tannin, high alcohol high acidity. Gilman even postulates that alcohol on the '10s could be 1/2-1 full point higher than the '09s. Wow.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

To reiterate, a "great vintage" is just marketing jingoism. And a debating point for these self-important wine critics.

A great wine is one you like a lot, regardless of the date on the label.