Neil Martin posted his 10 year assessment of the 2006's today. I skimmed and have posted just the first few paragraphs of his write-ups. I think this snippet is compliant with fair use doctrine, but if not, feel free to delete. He rescored a LOT of wines. I have no idea how they really changed. It's a vintage I don't have much tasting experience with, and that's not likely to change. It does seem like he was a little more positive on the sweet wines. In general its been a safe bet to only buy odd numbered vintages in the last couple of decades for that category. Perhaps newer, younger enthusiasts will find some interesting things though, and we'll start to see some TN's on the board.
Implausibly, I renewed my WA online subscription. I quite like Luis Guttirez for Spain, and Squires for Port. I'm not sure yet about the others (Larner in particular, and I don't care about Australia etc.) Of course it's very impactful for Bordeaux, but time will tell if Neil has the same sway as RP does/did. I cannot tell if Jeb lines up with my tastes for the Rhone, but at least he is covering a huge beat, and all kinds of southern French properties, which are vaguely interesting any way. It's harder to keep up with reading it since they publish a lot in the online format.
I would note that they are making more efforts at verticals, and retrospective horizontals, which are editorial content that is more useful for those with existing/large/aged cellars, than a neophyte just getting started. But clearly that must have been in response to some user feedback, or focus group testing etc. I don't think it was whimsical to report on all kinds of stuff that has (largely) left the marketplace and become unobtanium.
============
France, Bordeaux: 2006 - Ten Years On
May 31, 2016
Apart from its numerical significance entering double-figures, ten years is an opportune moment to revisit a Bordeaux vintage. At this age of its evolution, the winemaking imprint begins to be usurped by terroir. Primary fruit has to "budge along the bench" and make way for the wider array of secondary aromas and flavors. Wines get on board Anne Noble's good old "wine wheel", as if a whole new, hitherto disguised personality appears in the wine. This nexus between primary and secondary can be a sweet spot for those that prefer their Bordeaux younger, but so infant that the wines are barely out of diapers. For this writer, ten years is when Bordeaux starts to become interesting and when it should assert its authority over other wine regions in terms of longevity.
Of course, this timescale depends upon the quality of the growing season. On one hand, you have your 2013s that lack the substance and fruit concentration to last a great deal of time, 2009s laden with ample fruit, ripeness and density to render them deceptively approachable yet will age over many years, then your 2000s and 2010s that are indifferent to your desire to drink them and remain recalcitrant and unapproachable until they decide "It's time". The final category is for those that might never come round, 1975 or perhaps some of the 1986s.
Approaching the 2006s, it is difficult slotting the wines into one of these categories. As I stated many times before, it is a vintage that had the unenviable task of following the feted 2005s, yielded wines neither good nor indeed bad enough to ignite interest and fervor amongst wine cognoscenti. Inevitably after their release they were rather forgotten, put on the shelf of wine-lovers' memories gathering dust until they reached a significant age like this. So let us examine the season to see what meteorological events took place that year.
............
NM on the 2006's
-
JimHow
- Posts: 20176
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
- Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
- Contact:
Re: NM on the 2006's
Interesting. Myself, I've had pretty good luck with the 2006s from Pichon Baron, Haut Bailley, Montrose, Lagrange, we tasted some nice 2006s in the BWE France trip last year, I believe from Palmer and Haut Brion/LMHB.
Re: NM on the 2006's
My first tasting of the 2006 was not positive, but it is true it was made during NHL playoffs, Montréal was playing against Washington, hockey was grabbing more our attention than the wines...
So i did not opened any serious 2006 since then. I guess i have good ones, but will wait a few more years to crack another one.
This is what I wrote in 2010:
ast Wednesday, I gathered with my tasting group and we did some 2006 Bordeaux, to have better view on that vintage. 7 wines opened, and we taste then while watching the Montreal Canadians eliminating the Washington Capitals... The wines were tasted semi-blind, and fairly, I only nailed the Pomerol.
2006 Chateau Ferrière : Deep red. Nose of red berries, black fruits, plum skin, blueberries. In mouth, rocky, minerals, bitter, with medium tannins and good black berries finish. Medium to light to drink, I liked the style for it drinkability but I would not buy more. TN : 85.
2006 Chateau Beaumont : That Haut-Médoc impressed me for 20 $. Deep red color. Rasberries, red berries and herbs on the nose. In mouth, really ''Médocain'', earthy, minerals, black berries, with a long bitter finish, with again medium tannins. Really drinkable too, but with just a touch much structure and concentration than the first wine. Good. TN : 88.
2006 Chateau Puygueraud : Another cheap wine, but still darker red color than the two first. Dumb nose to start, opened on prunes, black berries, chocolate, red berries. Mouth was medium balck bitter fruit, full of tannins on final, drying the mouth. Still some flesh in mouth, but at the end, nothing special. TN : 85.
2006 Alter Ego : Second from Palmer. Dark red color. Nose of fruit confit, exhuberant, sweet rasberries sauces, Merlot berries, and touch of dark berries. Good black fruits, dark red berries, medium length, more balanced than previous wine, tannins are smooth. TN : 88.
2006 Clos du Marquis : Darker red. Nose is slightly meaty, ripe cranberries, red berries, roasted wood. frank attack on good fruit, red and dark berries, middle of mouth strong and concentrated, not much tannins, but long exotic wood finish. TN : 87.
2006 Chateau Rouget : Dark red. Nose of tobacco, dry wood, ripe red berries, rasberries, something like sweet vanilla. Mouth is tobacco attack, with brown sugar, velvety, smooth, maybe a bit ''sexy'', finish is full of caly style tannins, abundant tannins, and sweet wood. Elevage is a bit exotic, but it was my favorite that night anyway. TN : 90.
2006 Chateau Prieuré Lichine : Darker red. Incredibly hard at first, I could not believe that wine was on top 10 of the European Grand Jury choice... Nose was quite closed. Almost nothing, over 2 hours, maybe some dark strawberries. Mouth was green, hard, diluted red berries, meaty finish. Acidic and hard, not charming. At the end, I thought that bottle had something wrong. TN : 80.
This Friday night, I continued by opening a bottle of the 2006 Chateau Larrivet Haut-Brion. Bloody red color. Nose of rasberries, dark red berries, dust of rock, hard wood. In mouth, medium concentration, austere, medium dark berries, light spices, old oak. Medium tannins, final with red berries and wood. Uninspiring. TN : 87. I revisit the wine Sunday night (2 days after) and the nose add some cassis, and the mouth some dusty spices, but kept a really dry finish. Maybe improved to 88-89 but for the 50 $ price, a deception.
At the end, I know there are no great names here, but these wines let me think that the 2006 vintage, is kind of a 1993, just slightly more ripe, and where the winemakers tried to extract a bit too much so giving rough, medium acid wines. Yes with time (my experience with the Larrivet Haut-Brion and Cantemerle) they are slightly better, but at the end, I thought all these wines were missing some ''ripe character'' Cabernet or Merlot. I don't think they will age for long, probably 10-12 years, not more.
The 2006 Chateau Smith Haut Laffite was better than all those wine above, way more satisfying, but more expensive too. From all these experience, I think I will limit my 2006 purchase now, limiting myself to a case or just a bit more. It is clearly a vintage below the 2005 in quality and will buy more 2005 instead. Or concentrated on the few 2000-2001 still available in Québec.
Nic
So i did not opened any serious 2006 since then. I guess i have good ones, but will wait a few more years to crack another one.
This is what I wrote in 2010:
ast Wednesday, I gathered with my tasting group and we did some 2006 Bordeaux, to have better view on that vintage. 7 wines opened, and we taste then while watching the Montreal Canadians eliminating the Washington Capitals... The wines were tasted semi-blind, and fairly, I only nailed the Pomerol.
2006 Chateau Ferrière : Deep red. Nose of red berries, black fruits, plum skin, blueberries. In mouth, rocky, minerals, bitter, with medium tannins and good black berries finish. Medium to light to drink, I liked the style for it drinkability but I would not buy more. TN : 85.
2006 Chateau Beaumont : That Haut-Médoc impressed me for 20 $. Deep red color. Rasberries, red berries and herbs on the nose. In mouth, really ''Médocain'', earthy, minerals, black berries, with a long bitter finish, with again medium tannins. Really drinkable too, but with just a touch much structure and concentration than the first wine. Good. TN : 88.
2006 Chateau Puygueraud : Another cheap wine, but still darker red color than the two first. Dumb nose to start, opened on prunes, black berries, chocolate, red berries. Mouth was medium balck bitter fruit, full of tannins on final, drying the mouth. Still some flesh in mouth, but at the end, nothing special. TN : 85.
2006 Alter Ego : Second from Palmer. Dark red color. Nose of fruit confit, exhuberant, sweet rasberries sauces, Merlot berries, and touch of dark berries. Good black fruits, dark red berries, medium length, more balanced than previous wine, tannins are smooth. TN : 88.
2006 Clos du Marquis : Darker red. Nose is slightly meaty, ripe cranberries, red berries, roasted wood. frank attack on good fruit, red and dark berries, middle of mouth strong and concentrated, not much tannins, but long exotic wood finish. TN : 87.
2006 Chateau Rouget : Dark red. Nose of tobacco, dry wood, ripe red berries, rasberries, something like sweet vanilla. Mouth is tobacco attack, with brown sugar, velvety, smooth, maybe a bit ''sexy'', finish is full of caly style tannins, abundant tannins, and sweet wood. Elevage is a bit exotic, but it was my favorite that night anyway. TN : 90.
2006 Chateau Prieuré Lichine : Darker red. Incredibly hard at first, I could not believe that wine was on top 10 of the European Grand Jury choice... Nose was quite closed. Almost nothing, over 2 hours, maybe some dark strawberries. Mouth was green, hard, diluted red berries, meaty finish. Acidic and hard, not charming. At the end, I thought that bottle had something wrong. TN : 80.
This Friday night, I continued by opening a bottle of the 2006 Chateau Larrivet Haut-Brion. Bloody red color. Nose of rasberries, dark red berries, dust of rock, hard wood. In mouth, medium concentration, austere, medium dark berries, light spices, old oak. Medium tannins, final with red berries and wood. Uninspiring. TN : 87. I revisit the wine Sunday night (2 days after) and the nose add some cassis, and the mouth some dusty spices, but kept a really dry finish. Maybe improved to 88-89 but for the 50 $ price, a deception.
At the end, I know there are no great names here, but these wines let me think that the 2006 vintage, is kind of a 1993, just slightly more ripe, and where the winemakers tried to extract a bit too much so giving rough, medium acid wines. Yes with time (my experience with the Larrivet Haut-Brion and Cantemerle) they are slightly better, but at the end, I thought all these wines were missing some ''ripe character'' Cabernet or Merlot. I don't think they will age for long, probably 10-12 years, not more.
The 2006 Chateau Smith Haut Laffite was better than all those wine above, way more satisfying, but more expensive too. From all these experience, I think I will limit my 2006 purchase now, limiting myself to a case or just a bit more. It is clearly a vintage below the 2005 in quality and will buy more 2005 instead. Or concentrated on the few 2000-2001 still available in Québec.
Nic
-
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
- Posts: 1460
- Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
- Contact:
Re: NM on the 2006's
Maybe no great names but a representative cross-section of good ones. Of them I've only had the SHL and it did not disappoint -- as wine or as SHL, or what I was expecting given what I'd read here about the style. And yes, the impression I've gotten from the few 06s I've tried is that it's a lighter, leaner vintage in general.
-
JimHow
- Posts: 20176
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
- Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
- Contact:
Re: NM on the 2006's
This is the "light on its feet" vintage.
I generally consider "light on its feet" as a positive, as it implies that there is an underlying backbone to the wines as well.
I generally consider "light on its feet" as a positive, as it implies that there is an underlying backbone to the wines as well.
-
Racer Chris
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:41 pm
- Contact:
Re: NM on the 2006's
I tasted a '06 Cos d'Estournel on Sunday.
It was very good, not great.
It was very good, not great.
-
Comte Flaneur
- Posts: 4882
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
- Contact:
Re: NM on the 2006's
I am unconvinced about 2006...not absolutely but relative to say 2002 and 2004, quite a few examples where 2002 or 2004 are better or at least equal.
Take Mouton: of the three the 2002 is by far the best in my opinion. Certainly a 'useful' vintage if the price is right. I would be curious to try the 2006 Pichon Lalande after the disappointment of the Mouton.
Giscours 2006 was fabulous when I taste it a year ago. I am still considering buying a case funded by the sake of my case of 2003.
Take Mouton: of the three the 2002 is by far the best in my opinion. Certainly a 'useful' vintage if the price is right. I would be curious to try the 2006 Pichon Lalande after the disappointment of the Mouton.
Giscours 2006 was fabulous when I taste it a year ago. I am still considering buying a case funded by the sake of my case of 2003.
Re: NM on the 2006's
Folks, I have written several times about the 06s and still see it as a variable vintage.
The vintage has always been a hard one to assess and make generalisations about.
My general view is that it is better on the right than left bank, though no one appellation stands out as a true winner.
It seemed to do quite well in Pessac and the Graves.
I have found that 06 is more like 04 than 02.
Both 04 and 06 are medium bodied, with sometimes coarse tannins and acid, and lack the density of fruit to carry the structure.
I did not buy a lot of 06s after loading up on 05 (and also 00) but I have so far found the vintage to be a bit frustrating.
I actually liked the 06 Lagrange, but the 06 LB and Langoa were not to my taste, rather acidic and tart.
The Pauillacs that I have tired are not yet ready and need to be forgotten about for some years, including Pontet Canet; maybe it will bloom later in life.
I get bagged whenever I mention 03 - sheesh people get touchy these days, but this was an extreme vintage and not much like Bordeaux.
Of the vintages 2000 to 2009, I would rate 05, 09 and 00 as outstanding (actually not sure 00 is as good as it was cracked up to be), and I'd rate 01, 02, and 08 as very good, 02 better in the left bank, the others better in the right.
06 and 04 are good but rather hard, and 07 is rather light.
The vintage has always been a hard one to assess and make generalisations about.
My general view is that it is better on the right than left bank, though no one appellation stands out as a true winner.
It seemed to do quite well in Pessac and the Graves.
I have found that 06 is more like 04 than 02.
Both 04 and 06 are medium bodied, with sometimes coarse tannins and acid, and lack the density of fruit to carry the structure.
I did not buy a lot of 06s after loading up on 05 (and also 00) but I have so far found the vintage to be a bit frustrating.
I actually liked the 06 Lagrange, but the 06 LB and Langoa were not to my taste, rather acidic and tart.
The Pauillacs that I have tired are not yet ready and need to be forgotten about for some years, including Pontet Canet; maybe it will bloom later in life.
I get bagged whenever I mention 03 - sheesh people get touchy these days, but this was an extreme vintage and not much like Bordeaux.
Of the vintages 2000 to 2009, I would rate 05, 09 and 00 as outstanding (actually not sure 00 is as good as it was cracked up to be), and I'd rate 01, 02, and 08 as very good, 02 better in the left bank, the others better in the right.
06 and 04 are good but rather hard, and 07 is rather light.
Re: NM on the 2006's
It was still -- all in -- a great decade for Bordeaux.
And for the sweet wines, I can't think of a better era.
Ever better than the 86, 88, 89, 90 run.
And for the sweet wines, I can't think of a better era.
Ever better than the 86, 88, 89, 90 run.
Re: NM on the 2006's
I agree 2000 was overrated, except at the highest level.
Re: NM on the 2006's
Blanquito,
Overall, 2000 is a very, very good vintage but not a good as 2005, and that is arguably the best Bordeaux vintage I've ever tried young.
I also think 2005 is the best Burgundy vintage I have ever tried.
But agree - it hasn't developed as well as expected and time will tell.
I am always reticent to make sweeping judgements about vintages when the grapes have just been picked and when trying samples or young finished wines.
Overall, 2000 is a very, very good vintage but not a good as 2005, and that is arguably the best Bordeaux vintage I've ever tried young.
I also think 2005 is the best Burgundy vintage I have ever tried.
But agree - it hasn't developed as well as expected and time will tell.
I am always reticent to make sweeping judgements about vintages when the grapes have just been picked and when trying samples or young finished wines.
Re: NM on the 2006's
I purchased the 2006 La Lagune and Domaine de Chevalier several years ago at a nice discount (the release prices were significantly inflated due to the 2005 vintage!). I haven't dared to open one yet, as they can only be better at age 15 or 20.
-
KerrySudery
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:57 pm
Re: NM on the 2006's
Do you know that strawberries are used to treat hypertension, sclerosis, constipation, and various problems with the digestive system? In addition, many forms of disrepair with eczema can be easily solved with the help of special processing of strawberries.http://skywritingservice.com/blog/useful-properties-of-strawberries It helps to normalize the metabolism and helps to cope with serious heart disease, kidney disease and anemia.
Re: NM on the 2006's
KerrySudery, are you proposing strawberries to cure the 2006 vintage wines?
Nic
Nic
Re: NM on the 2006's
Haha. All I've got for Kerry is raspberries. Banned.
Re: NM on the 2006's
I bought only 3 wines: Calon segur, Lynch bages and Gazin. Have not opened a bottle yet...
Re: NM on the 2006's
I bought only one 2006 after emptying my wallet for 2005s, and that wine was Angelus. Haven't opened one yet.
Re: NM on the 2006's
I think I have two bottles of 2006's, or close.
Re: NM on the 2006's
I bought pretty heavily in 2006 just not on futures or shortly thereafter but after diageo exited the market as the deals from certain retailers were plentiful. I loaded up on multicase purchases of both the Pichon Lalande and Pontet Canet, cases of Cos d'Estournel, Haut Bailly, Leoville Barton, Montrose, a 6 pack OWC of L'Eglise Clinet and then a bunch of onesies and twosies for wines such as Brane Cantenac, Clerc Milon, d'Issan, Poyferre mags and a few others which have already been consumed. I would like to try and organize or participate in some vintage retrospective tastings so if this interests anyone in the NYC area then PM me.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], JimHow, Nicklasss and 9 guests