Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

Thought we'd get back now to some heavy, philosophical topics.

With all of the vintages of the century since the 2000, I've been receiving the impression somehow lately that there are now only two types of vintages in Bordeaux: the vintage of the century type, and the somehow defective type. Bearing in mind that the vintage of the century type is almost by definition extraordinary, and all other vintages are seen as defective in some way because they're imperfect (assuming for this purpose, and feel free to have at it, that some of these VoCs have been "perfect"), I began to wonder, is there such a think as a typical Bordeaux vintage? A normal Bordeaux vintage. One producing wines that are neither freaks nor cripples (sorry about that last term but it came to mind since I'm ready a biography of John Lennon and he was apparently obsessed with the disabled and used such disparaging terms to descibe them [as frankly most of us did in the day]).

Again bearing in mind too that we drink wines and not vintages, is it even possible to say what is the most normal, classic or traditional vintage of memory? If not, or even if so, feel free to give examples of specific wines that exemplify this normal, traditional, or classic form.

Thank you.

Don't know if you saw that picture Yoko released today of John Lennon's bloody eyeglasses he was wearing at the time of his assassination. Very sad.

Sadly the "normal" Bordeaux vintages are rare these days because of Parkerization and money.

2006 is a pretty damned normal vintage, I find, at least relatively speaking.

Yes, the 06 Domaine de Chevalier almost struck me as "normal" in the flavor/structure profile. It did seem pretty large-bodied/plenty of stuffing though. Maybe that's not a bad sign.

2006 Lagrange, Haut Bailly, d'Issan, d'Armailhac...

Mmmmmm.

Has anyone ever tried the 06 Prieure Lichine?

Not much experience with 2006 Bordeaux - I think the only one I bought is Haut Bailly. Did buy a few 2006 red Burgundy - a good "normal" red Burgundy vintage. Hard to say what a "normal" Bordeaux vintage might be. How about 1985?

Chris Bublitz

Well, yeah, Chris there used to be lots of normal vintages like 1985. Since Parker completely took over by about the mid to late 90s, however, they are pretty much gone forever. Of course, you guys here on BWE think RMP has been "good" for Bordeaux wine consumers. <rolls eyes>

Just changed my vote after reading David's post. First Magdelaine, now Figeac.

The evens have it. . . 02, 04, 06

I would agree with that statement, finner, as I sip on a solid 2004 d'Aighuile.

1985.

I probably drank some 85s because I was drinking Bdx in the late 80s; but they were so normal I don't remember them!

If for this decade we're going for the even numbers, gotta add 08. Hey, it might have a bit of a green streak in it, but that would have been normal at one time.

stefan wrote:1985.

Balanced, elegant and most never shut down. Good call stefan.

I think I'll throw in with 2001 for the moment. Unfortunately I do not have, and have not drunk, too many wines from that vintage, but all the RBs have been super-solid without being flashy, and even the few lefties I've had seemed to fill in a bit on the second go.

I agree with Chris and stefan on 1985

I would add 1978 and 1988 to that list

But 1989 is probably the best ever normal vintage in the last 50 years

If the question is as originally put, the most "normal" vintage (not vintage of century or defective) since 2000, I'll go with finner's '02, '04, '06.

Prior to that, I'll see Stefan's '85 and Ian's '78, '88 and '89 and raise them '81 and '83. Lots of normal vintages in the '80s.

I also think 1985. Although 1988 may be more classic. A touch more austere.

And I don't think people take into consideration the huge changes in climate for Bordeaux since the 80's.
It is not all Parker. Although that may have some influence on producers to harvest super ripe fruit, you still need the weather to get super ripeness.

The question is the most normal vintage. There's not cut-off. Had I personal experience with '85 I might have said that too, but I haven't.

What's the most normal vintage of the 1990s?

1999? Maybe 1999 LB, too?

It's pretty sad when we have to go back nearly thirty years to find a "normal" Bordeaux vintage. Talk about a metaphor of all that ails Bordeaux today.

Sigh... I guess WE'RE the dinosaurs.

An intriguing question, but I need to state the counter-proposition: Is there a "normal" Bordeaux vintage? What makes Bordeaux somewhat interesting on this point, say compared to a place like Napa, is that there is so much variation in vintages and weather patterns. I was thinking about this question since yesterday, and could not come up with an answer.

OrlandoRobert wrote:An intriguing question, but I need to state the counter-proposition: Is there a "normal" Bordeaux vintage? What makes Bordeaux somewhat interesting on this point, say compared to a place like Napa, is that there is so much variation in vintages and weather patterns. I was thinking about this question since yesterday, and could not come up with an answer.

This must be the first time you were at a loss for words since coming aboard.

Let me see if I can help you then.

Assume three conditions or states: 1) No. 2) Lights off. 3) Lights on. Which Bordeaux vintage strikes you as lights off? You can name more than one.

Lol, you got me on that one!

Ok, I will fall in goose-step:

2004 (Montrose) for the 2000s

1994 (Leoville Barton) for the 1990s

1986 (Gruard Larose, Talbot, Meyney) for the 1980s.

Before that, I was too young to drink!

And then you can break the mold with 1989 Haut Brion. A wine with not a single imperfection. A truly perfect wine. I have had two wines that I think were better, but not in the sense of "perfect". 1989 Petrus and 1982 Mouton. Mind-bogglingly good. I'd cut off my right nut with a butter knife for a case of each. Not using it too much these days anyway.

If 1985 never closed down, I think that takes it out of the running for a normal vintage. Decent Bordeaux closes down. Period.

And as the BD has declared 2002 as the vintage of the century, I guess that precludes it from anything approaching normalcy here on BWE.

So, I'll go with 1988 as the most normal vintage I've experienced long term, add 1995 to the hopper as a vintage I expect to emerge soon, and I'll guess that 2004 and 2006 (and seriously, 2002) will qualify as recent "normal vintages".

Ciao,
Tom

Funny that 1982 Mouton comes up as a candidate for castration (even partial), as the 1986 has always outshone the '82 over at least a dozen times when I've had both.

But I completely agree that '89 Petrus has its own category.

I need to try some 02. Somehow I missed this vintage entirely except for Cos. Never looked back until I joined this crazy Board. So which should I try?

'04 left bank is love

Yes, I would agree that 1988, 1995, 2002, 2004, and 2006 are more "normal" vintages ("more normal" is an oxymoron I believe). Watch out for 2006, I think it is going to surprise us pleasantly.

The 1986 mouton is indeed superior to the 1982. I've had that '86 twice in my life and both times it has blown me away, one of my top ten wines. That one that Mr. vino brought to dinner at Sonoma '06 was unbelievable, probably the greatest finish I've ever experienced.

1-1988 avoided the high-highs and the low-lows. Last vintage I had any chance of guessing the commune in a blind tasting. Some high-highs in Sauternes

2-1985 Agree with others' comments

JimHow wrote:
The 1986 mouton is indeed superior to the 1982. I've had that '86 twice in my life and both times it has blown me away, one of my top ten wines. That one that Mr. vino brought to dinner at Sonoma '06 was unbelievable, probably the greatest finish I've ever experienced.

True Story: A fight with my wife caused me to miss an '86 Mouton after 2 bottles of the '82 Mouton. Serious. My best friend's 40th birthday party had an incredible line-up. The night before, '89 Petrus, '77 Weinert Malbec, '69 BV among others, followed the next day by Krug, Mouton, et al. The '82s were stellar, consumed sober, all in check, tremendous wines, then we moved to some others. By night's end, the after-party was to include the '86 Mouton. I was accused of hitting on and fawning over my friend's dutch South African 5'-10" blond hair green-eyed svelte super model sister in law. I deny, of course. Not convincingly. Twas not permitted to go to the after party, so I missed my '86 Mouton and the sister in law. Coulda been a wonderful pairing indeed. I never had a second shot.

Had I consummated, I would be sitting here declaring '86 the vintage of a lifetime. But alas, I'm now relegated to hanging out with hairy BobbyGoulet.

I was accused of hitting on and fawning over my friend's dutch South African 5'-10" blond hair green-eyed svelte super model sister in law. I deny, of course.

Lol.

I'm a big 1986 guy. We used to hear all that "is the fruit going to outlast the tannins" talk, now I don't think we hear it much anymore.

robert


ole bobbygoulet is a wonderful consolation gift!

Some people still bitch about '86s being too tannic, mediocre vintage, not enough fruit. Not me.

robertgoulet wrote:robert


ole bobbygoulet is a wonderful consolation gift!

Next weekend? My wife is out of town.

Edit: oops, the following weekend. We are down in Miami this upcoming Easter weekend. Sony tennis tourney baby!

I am i BWE newbie. I would have to sing the song of 04 (left bank). I have had few dissapoinments here from wines which were affordable when compared to 2000 and 2005.

Welcome Spike. '04 was definitely more affordable and less ripe than '00 or '05.

I think we have another Jerry alert.

I was pleased to see the use of the word "normal" in quotes for this discussion, since I thing the term is a bit problematic. Just a cursory review of the ways in which it is being used in this discussion suggests that we may not always be speaking the same language or using words in quite the same way. For example, what does it mean to suggest that vintages over the last 20-30 years are no longer "normal". Is there a new normal? Does "normal" mean average? or preferred? or usual? Is there such a thing as a "normal" vintage given the wide variation we generally observe from year-to-year. Generally I think the term "normal" is used as a statement of preference, and as such holds little meaning beyond a statement like: "I prefer wines that are lower in alcohol with grapes less ripe at harvest that are balanced."

I don't see preferences as being a problem with wines and wine consumption, but I think we go a bit too far when we define our preferences as the "normal", including an assumption or argument that our preferences define the good.

-Ken

Yes, as you've put it, Ken, "normal" can be a value-laden term. I would be at least as interested in the subjective normal as well as some sort of objective normal, or objective normals. For example, if we were to observe meterological data in Bordeaux over the past 50 years, undoubtedly we could identify what is normal in statistical terms, and see which vintages most closely corresponded to it. To me that may also be a proxy for the "normal" I had in mind at the outset. That might not be the last word of course because a meterologically (overall) normal vintage could well be compromised, in enological terms, by a deluge at harvest. So there could also be an enological normal, as measured by IPT levels, acidity, sugar, etc. From there we could say whether or not we like the normal(s), or like the abnormal(s), which is another thing altogether.