Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post Reply
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Blanquito »

We recently discussed Parker's reaction to the 2005 vintage 10 years on, but Neal's take slipped beneath the radar a bit. I came across this quote and I thought I worth sharing/discussing. Interesting that he places 2005 above 2009, 2010 and 2000-- based on the composition of my cellar, I certainly hope he's right!

"Is 2005 better than 2000, 2009 or 2010?
That's a tough question. The previous week I was asked to list in order the best vintages between 2000 and 2011. I was not the only person that placed 2005 at the top, closely followed by 2009. Of course, it depends upon what you define as "Bordeaux", but if I were to take say the top 200 estates then I might actually place 2005 on par with 2009, with 2000 and 2010 tucked just behind. We still need to see how those 2009s mature in bottle, though there is nothing to suggest it isn't already one of the greatest vintages of the 21st century. What the 2005s possess is that structure and breeding, what the 2009s can boast is that flamboyance and intensity, the 2010s less consistent but achieving ethereal heights at the top...

Are they ready to drink?... The answer is "No" for a majority of 2005s, although this is probably the first time that I can see that drinking plateau approaching from the horizon. I would give these wines another five years in bottle and then you can start sending out invitations for your "First Growth 2005 Spectacular"... Personally, I like Bordeaux with age so I would afford them 20 years in bottle and work my way through a case over the next 30 or 40 years. Let's say between 2025 and 2060 will be their sweet spot.
."
User avatar
AKR
Posts: 5234
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:33 am
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by AKR »

It's was a wonderful decade when you think of it: 2000, 2005, 2009, 2010.

And then depending on your tastes -- 2003 for some Medocs and perhaps 2008 for some right banks, as bonus vintages.

That's not even including Sauternes who also had a superb decade! (Think about it - every other vintage between 2001 and 2011 was terrific!)

Sadly 2005 is probably the least represented among all the above (save 2008) in my holdings but I'm not going to get aggro'd about that.

2015 is already being harvested for some of the whites (I heard Carbonnieux is working on their white grape vineyards currently) so that's a good sign for the next year.
Last edited by AKR on Fri Aug 28, 2015 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6384
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Nicklasss »

Blanquito, talking about the red only, did you ever had any doubts that 2005 is the best vintage of the last 15 years?

But you have to accept that "best vintage" means the vintage with the highest homogeneity and highest average quality, all across the region, considering from the simplest négociant wines and smallest chateaux wines, to Crus Bourgeois wines and top Crus Classés wines.

So 2005 might not have produced a better Montrose than 2003, a better Pape Clément than 2000, a better Pontet Canet than 2009, a better Tour St-Bonnet than 2010, but still 2005 is the best generally speaking.

Nic
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by JimHow »

I think the question is more complicated. 2002L is the best vintage. 2003 northern Medoc produced some epic wines. 2009 was the "greatest vintage ever" if you like that style of wine, 2010 was the "greatest vintage ever" if you like that style. 2001 was excellent in Graves and, apparently, the right bank. So I thick it is simplistic to say "2005 is the greatest vintage of the millennium," etc. That is an insult to Bordeaux. Brdeaux is more complicated than that.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Blanquito »

JimHow wrote:I think the question is more complicated. 2002L is the best vintage. 2003 northern Medoc produced some epic wines. 2009 was the "greatest vintage ever" if you like that style of wine, 2010 was the "greatest vintage ever" if you like that style. 2001 was excellent in Graves and, apparently, the right bank. So I thick it is simplistic to say "2005 is the greatest vintage of the millennium," etc. That is an insult to Bordeaux. Brdeaux is more complicated than that.
I am rapidly coming around to this point of view, that it is all really just a matter of style preference. Jim, you love the 2002 style, and who can gainsay you for that? Personally, I love the style of the 80's, finding great thrills in the 82s, 83s, 85s, 86, 89s and 90s (and even many 88s, 81s), but I like the rustic tannins and high acids married to terrific depth of fruit and the lack of modern glossiness or new oak. I also like some pyrazines in my cabernet, finding the green notes refreshing (to a point... but that is the point, everyone's point is different). I also really like how these old school claret mature, developing a style of complexity that I find bewitching. I'm always evaluating modern vintages through this lens, and that is my stylistic "bias".

In the past, when Bordeaux had a much more consistent style than it does today (some might object to this generalization, and I am only referring to the top 100 chateau or so, but for my tastes I find this generalization manifestly true. Ironically, the style of each commune was more evident back then than today though, before a newer techniques became popular), before say the 1998 or 2000 vintages, it was easier to agree which vintages excelled, though even that was still a matter of style preference rather than some objective measure of "quality". But if you like the style of 80's Bordeaux, that puts you on the same page as anyone else who does, and we have a good basis for comparing notes.

Critics like Parker hate this sort of view, based on his comments on ebob, arguing that genuine qualitative improvements have been made and that experienced, skilled tasters like himself could be the arbiter of these truths. But when the owner of Dufort Vivens makes a wine in a style that he likes (not out of some laziness or lack of financial commitment) and that Parker doesn't like, who besides Parker is to say he is wrong? Shoot, in the distant past, the preferred style in wine was soooo different than today, taste is the summation of so many things that have only little to do with absolute quality.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Blanquito »

None of what I wrote above is particularly profound in of itself, it's just that the degree to which I have come to see things this way has really changed.

And Nick, to your excellent question, I don't really know what I think about 2005 vs 2009 vs 2010. I am definitely favoring 2005 over 2000 and other vintages from 2000-2008, but I know many on this site are quite enamored with the 2009 and 2010 vintages. Parker FWIW definitely seems to prefer 2009 (and perhaps 2010) over 2005.

I haven't tasted enough 2010s to really say, but I am leaning towards 2005 over 2009, I just prefer the style and I think that these 2005s will develop better. I have enough in the cellar that it will be fun to put this question to the test repeatedly over the next 15-20 years!
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by DavidG »

2000, 2005, 2009, 2010: an embarrassment of riches! I wouldn't toss any of them out of the cellar! And as Arv says, there are some nice wines in 2003 and 2008 as well.

Timing-wise, my palate aligns with Neal Martin on the 2005s: they are getting there, but the best is yet to come from the top 100-200 wines. No harm in opening them now, but give them another 5 years to start strutting their stuff.

I like what Nic has written about the consistency of the quality of 2005, even though you can find examples of individual wines that hit higher peaks in other years. That said, quality is pretty high across the board for the top 100-200 wines in 2000 and 2009 as well. I can't comment on 2010 as I've had very few, and only some lesser wines.

Jim, your love of 2002 left bank wines is well-known. I see where you're coming from. Our last DC blind tasting opened my eyes to to that. My style preferences lean a little richer and riper. Thus my inclusion of 2009 among the best. Though I also love the structure of the 2005s and the freshness of the few 2010s I've tried. But your overarching point is spot on: Bordeaux is more complex than a simple, single vintage ranking. When it comes down to the glass in front of me, and ultimately that's what it's really all about, it's the individual wine, its style and execution, and my preferences that count more than a vintage generalization. Not that that makes it any less entertaining to engage in debate over which vintage of the century is best.

Patrick, I loved those '80s-decade Bordeaux. Will the wines of the new millennium be as good? I think so. Will they be the same? Probably in some ways, but not entirely. Like comparing friends from different parts of my life, knowing them is/was a great experience, but different. They changed. I changed. There will always be nostalgia, but it doesn't preclude enjoyment of the here and now.
User avatar
AKR
Posts: 5234
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:33 am
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by AKR »

Some of the discussion around wines of the 80's is academic at this point. I'm not really willing to go buy them at prevailing prices, and unknown storage/provenance. And I've had many of them already, consciously choosing to drink them while they were more likely to be in good form, rather than keep them around as good luck charms or something. Today the choice might present itself as a single 86 Meyney vs. a 09 AND 10 Lillian Ladouys. My preference is more of the latter.

Maybe the one older wine if I was feeling flush I'd be willing to pony up for would the 90 LLC, brilliant and perhaps a relative value compared to other vintages or quality comparable or other 90s. It's still my favorite vintage, but maybe over time the 2009's will grow into their likeness.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by DavidG »

You're right, Arv. I've got some late-80s wines that I've cellared since release, but I wouldn't be buying them now. Others have enjoyed great success buying older wines at auction but I'm not interested. That's why I described nostalgia for them. Time to move on and find more contemporary favorites.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Comte Flaneur »

I occasionally back fill with wines from the 1980s especially from Gruaud-Larose and Pichon Lalande two of the hottest estates in that decade.

I like most of the vintages between 2000 and 2010. I agree that 2005 probably set a new benchmark, but then 2010 raised the bar again in my opinion at least on the left bank.

The difference between NM and most of us is that he gets to taste a lot more, esp EP. He doesn't seem to have any strong axes to grind, but it seems his opinion is tentative.

From what I have tried I much prefer the 2010s to the rounder 2009s. But then of course the 2015s will knock everything else into a cocked hat.
User avatar
AKR
Posts: 5234
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:33 am
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by AKR »

oh hello - what are you hearing about these 15's?
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Lookin' good

http://www.accuweather.com/en/fr/bordea ... r=9/1/2015

Scroll back for previous months. A slightly warmer than normal summer but hardly a repeat of 2003, and a mild-warm sunny September in prospect.

Imagine: the years that BWE visited Bordeaux may have been blessed with greatness. Mind you it is a bit too early to make judgements on 2015. The fat lady hasn't started singing yet.
User avatar
robertgoulet
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 12:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by robertgoulet »

Isn't '15 extremely hot ?
User avatar
Tom In DC
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:10 pm
Location: Colorado Foothills
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Tom In DC »

As was 2005, Bobby G.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Comte Flaneur »

No Robert, not like 2003.

Only for short bursts

Alex might want to chime in here...
User avatar
Antoine
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 2:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Antoine »

Good to hear as I have a lot of 2005 (although at mid range price level). I stayed away from 2009 and 2010 because of alcohol and price although when one sees Burg prices nowadays.... Ref 2003, I followed the crowd (Pontet canet, Montrose, Lafon Rochet, Branaire and Giscours) and ref 2002, I must confess I really love Cos d'estournel (I have not touched any Haut Brion as it is assumed it always needs a minimum of 20 years++). All this makes me optimistic as I usually like what Neal likes...
User avatar
greatbxfreak
Posts: 909
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:09 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by greatbxfreak »

My two cents:

I've bought a lot of 2005, less 2010, very few 2009 and none 2003.

My take on vintages:

2003 - hot and liqourice on the palate, dry tannin, I seriously doubt this vintage will keep more than 15 years. Few estates have hovever made excellent wines.

2005 - great, great vintage if not fantastic. It's everything you can ask, is stunning all over Bordeaux. Tertre Roteboeuf 2005 tasted in May this year was extraordinary fantastic, Montrose 2005 and Lafleur 2005 tasted during primeur this year was outta this World. I'm going to taste Palmer 2005, Ch. Margaux 2005, La Mission 2005 and Haut Brion 2005 during my harvest 2015 trip to Bordeaux soon.

2009 - great vintage too with a bit of warm alcohol touch reminding of Napa Valley wines, but it seemed recently that this alcohol flavor was starting to be Integrated in wines.

2010 - as 2005, but tannin here is more fat, more concentrated and riper. This is vintage to keep for 50+ years for top wines.

Great afternoon/evening at Børsen in Copenhagen on Wednesday the 2nd October with 2014 Bordeaux vintage retasted from app. 40 properties. Quality of 2014 is great, some wines have improved since April, but not single one got worse that in April. The acidity of these wines is still remarkable - secures long life.
Other vintages tasted too, with 2006 vintage showing well and ready to be consumed. 2012s are soft and charming and already very drinkable. 2011s are going to surprise many, very good vintage.
2014 whites are stunning with fantastic D.d.Chevalier and excellent Larrivet Haut Brion.


Some comments on ongoing development of 2015 vintage which if excellent weather continues for 3-4 weeks from now, may rival 2005 or 2009 vintage. Harvest at Right Bank is expected to start around 15th September, one week or 10 days later at Left Bank, and harvest of all varietes can be over in the end of first week or second one in October.
Last edited by greatbxfreak on Sun Sep 06, 2015 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Great Information Izak.

I think the revelation of our tour in May was the quality of the 2012s even on the left bank. We had less exposure to the 2011s but I am getting warm vibes about this vintage. Which wines stood out for you in 2011? And which 14s stood out?
Last edited by Comte Flaneur on Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Blanquito »

I've been surprised by the generally positive vibes about the 2011s from many critics (at least on specific chateau I look out for)...

Just snagged 2 bottles of the 2005 Beychevelle for $75/each, not cheap in general but a good price for this wine in this vintage.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Comte Flaneur »

You won't regret it Patrick, fab price. Pop one in the name of science and you will go back for a case, trust me, this Is great juice,
User avatar
greatbxfreak
Posts: 909
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:09 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by greatbxfreak »

Comte Flaneur,

2012 is clearly better than 2013 imho.

2014 - Beychevelle, Branaire Ducru, L.Barton, L. Poyferre, D.d.Chevalier, P.Baron, Talbot.....Very improved - Clinet, Lascombes ....

2011 - P.Baron, L.Poyferre, S.H.Lafitte, d*Armailhac, du Tertre, Les Carmes Haut Brion.....
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by stefan »

>>
2012 is clearly better than 2013 imho.
>>

Our experience in Bordeaux suggests to me that 2013 is the worst vintage since at least 1991 and maybe since 1984.

Have you drunk any 2003 left bank wines recently? They have developed much better than critics predicted. That they are generally good at age 12 is a plus for me.
User avatar
robertgoulet
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 12:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by robertgoulet »

Bought 3 bottles of '05 Peby faugeres special cuvee as a flip or trade bait since Parker rescored it at 100 points...procured them for $69 each....I guess this should be in the deals thread
User avatar
AKR
Posts: 5234
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:33 am
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by AKR »

save deals thread for things others can take action on
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by stefan »

Our good experience recently with 2003 left bank wines encouraged me to open 2003 Pichon Lalande to drink with grilled flat iron steak, creamed corn off the cob, and rosemary scones. It is showing beautifully! The flavors of red licorice and black berries are primary, but the tannins are soft and the finish is long. While there is no hurry to drink this, it is very good now.

Izak, this wine is not mentioned on your site AFAICT. Have you drunk it, and if so, when?
User avatar
Claret
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:16 pm
Location: Reno, NV
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Claret »

I really like the 03 PLL a few years ago.
Glenn
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Blanquito »

Pichon Lalande, such an amazing estate. Except for whiffs in 1990 and perhaps 2005, nearly everything I've had from them (11-12 different vintages through the years) is right in my Bordeaux sweet spot. I own a 2003, but have yet to try it.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Comte Flaneur »

I have had a reasonable amount if exposure to 2003 recently and I am happy to be 'underweight' the vintage. The only ones I have been impressed with are from St-Estephe: Montrose, the best non first growth, Cos and Lafon Rochet.

In my opinion a lot of the 2003s of the super-seconds are well below par in the context of what these estates are capable of producing: for example Leoville-Barton, Leoville-Lascases, Ducru Beaucaillou and...Pichon Lalande. None of these will improve.

The day before we set off for France in May we went to a Pichon-Lalande vertical, and I will post those notes in a separate thread so perhaps we can get a discussion going on Pichon Lalande. Apart from the second wines, the 2003 was the least impressive wine on show.

Having said that the 2009 wasn't much better. Patrick I think Parker under-estimated the 2005. The real dud was the 2009, not the 2005. The 2009 is not a modern day 1990 (which is a bit lean but drinks nicely now) but more like a new world wine.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Blanquito »

Comte Flaneur wrote:The 2009 is not a modern day 1990 (which is a bit lean but drinks nicely now) but more like a new world wine.
Haven't had the 09 P-L (and I'm not on the lookout for it), but many (but definitely not all) of the 09s I've tried so far drink a little too new world for me. I haven't written the 09s off by any means, I just plan to wait for them to settle down and shed some baby fat. Hopefully they develop like the 82s, as Parker promises.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Blanquito »

Looking forward to the P. Lalande vertical notes, Ian!
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Patrick, I definitely wouldn't write off 2009, even if the wines definitely err on the round and exuberant side. While I have been more impressed by the 2010s generally speaking, 2009 is right up there.

In fact I was recently reviewing all the wines I drank in H12015 and 2009s occupied four of the top 11 spots: Haut-Bailly, L'Evangile, Smith Haut Lafitte and Ducru Beaucaillou...
User avatar
AKR
Posts: 5234
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:33 am
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by AKR »

To me the whole glories of 2003 are the St Estephe's, and a few surrounding areas which might also have clay soils.

Comte Flaneur wrote:I have had a reasonable amount if exposure to 2003 recently and I am happy to be 'underweight' the vintage. The only ones I have been impressed with are from St-Estephe: Montrose, the best non first growth, Cos and Lafon Rochet.

In my opinion a lot of the 2003s of the super-seconds are well below par in the context of what these estates are capable of producing: for example Leoville-Barton, Leoville-Lascases, Ducru Beaucaillou and...Pichon Lalande. None of these will improve.

The day before we set off for France in May we went to a Pichon-Lalande vertical, and I will post those notes in a separate thread so perhaps we can get a discussion going on Pichon Lalande. Apart from the second wines, the 2003 was the least impressive wine on show.

Having said that the 2009 wasn't much better. Patrick I think Parker under-estimated the 2005. The real dud was the 2009, not the 2005. The 2009 is not a modern day 1990 (which is a bit lean but drinks nicely now) but more like a new world wine.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by DavidG »

I'm also relatively light on 2003s, but Cos and Calon are among them. So are Pichon Lalande and Pontet Canet. I think Cos was quite controversial among the critics in 2003.
User avatar
RDD
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Neal Martin on 2005 Bordeaux

Post by RDD »

Pavie Macquin made a great 2003. It is on clay limestone soil.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests