Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

I drink it all very young now. I find it fresh, the fruit is up front, the young wines match the carnivore selections I like to grill, it seems I worry less about whether a wine is damaged, corked, or past its prime, experience wise "young" Bordeauxs like 1986 Mouton, 1999 Margaux, 1986 Pichon Lalande, 1989 Lynch Bages, etc., etc., have given me consistently immense pleasure. Bob Parker and I are not afraid to drink our wines young.

Jim,

I'm closer to you than many Bordeaux lovers.

In finding the G spot between fruit and tertiary complexity, I will always prefer the fruit.

When I read/hear people say something like "The 86s are starting to come around..." I am incredulous.
Incredulous because:
- Such appraisals are so far removed from my experience
- A wine from 1986 is 30 friggin' years old. This is the 21st century! How many people can buy wine and wait that long or longer?
Certainly, this can be worthwhile. But rarely in my opinion.
My point is that the 30/40/50 year-old wine that tastes wonderful would have tasted JUST as wonderful - albeit in a different way - décades earlier!

Matching food and wine is too often left out in these discussions.
An old teriary wine may be best-suited for delicate dishes in a sauce.
But with a steak, give me a young wine every time!

Best regards,
Alex R.

I haven't lost my taste for aged Bordeaux, and I respectfully disagree with some of what Alex says here. However I do hark back to a spectrum I tried to draw of BWE tastes for aged wine. Jim then Alex would define one end of the spectrum - preference for young wine - and Francois then Tim the other!

I would put myself somewhere in the middle but more towards the prefer older end. Not all vintages are the same so that is why we can cellar some - like say 1986, 1995 and 2000 - and enjoy the more forward vintages.

I tried LMHB 1986 twice. Once ten years ago when it was clearly too young and once half a year ago when it was brilliant and near full maturity. Rewards of patience.

In my opinion quite a few notable 1995s and 1996s need a lot more patience.

When we did our Cantemerle dinner last week the 1996 and 2000 tasted very young after the 1979, 1983 and 1989. The 1989 though drinking beautifully has plenty left in the locker.

Of course Tim and Francois would regard drinking the 1989 now as infanticide...

I would be happy to drink the young wines Jim mentions all the time.

So much depends on provenance and personal preference. The other night with quail we drank 1978 Ducru-Beaucaillou and 1988 La Lagune. Our daughter T, who has never drunk a Bordeaux that she thought was too old, loved the Ducru, while her husband Judd much preferred the 1988 La Lagune. I liked both, but the the Ducru, which I bought at auction a year ago, had surely been stored at higher than traditional cellar temperatures. For me this is the perfect time to drink '78 Ducrus that had cold storage, while the bottle we drank would have been better for my taste ten or fifteen years ago.

I'm pretty close to Ian on the spectrum, maybe between him and Bill but I do drink them younger than Tim or MichaelP. Mostly because of provenance concerns. I prefer to age them myself, but that does impose some limits.

Here's a related question for you Jim: If you like them young, are you paying a premium for wines that are built to age? Can you satisfy your young Bordeaux cravings with less expensive wines meant to be drunk young? Or do those wines lack other essential characteristics you seek?

Interesting discussion. I am on a similar point in the spectrum as Ian. For me, the main thing that maturity brings that a younger wines rarely attains: complexity, expressive aromatics. A fully mature Bordeaux bouquet is beguiling and the smelling becomes paramount for me, over the taste, the texture, the body, the length, the food pairing. Maybe newer vintages of Bordeaux will develop faster, but at least from vintages 2000 and older, the only way to get those aromatics is to age the wine, often for decades.

Many top wines from 1995, 1996, 1998, and 2000 are still semi-closed up and even a stolid for my mileage. I recall buying a case and half of the 1989 Meyney in 1995, and finding bottle after bottle quite boring. Then around 2003, it emerged from its cocoon and blossomed into a terrific wine. There are other examples of this curve we've all probably experienced. This aging pattern is the biggest reason Bordeaux can be such a hard sell with younger wine drinkers, because the stolid phase is all they usually get to experience. It can be magical to serve a fully mature claret to one of these folks and watch their eyes light up.

Of course, there is a sweet spot when the wine has all the complexity and velvety texture of a mature wine while still retaining its vigor and depth of fruit. I think many 82s, 86s, 89s, and 90s are in that zone these days, while the 79s, 81s, 83s, and 85s are more about gloriously tertiary maturity. Clearly, I think 30 years is an optimal place for a well stored Bordeaux from a big vintage, and thank goodness for the proliferation of auctions or I would almost never get to enjoy wines of this age.

Another thought for Jim related to David's query- you and Bobby P like 'em young and robust. This could make early drinking vintages much more attractive. So the immediate balance of the 2002, which are much more enjoyable than most 2000s right now, becomes a plus. The upfront charms of the 2012s work their way into you heart and liver.

Let me put it this way- if I was looking for young Bordeaux to drink now or soon, my ranking of recent Bordeaux vintages would change a lot, with 2005, 2008 and 2010 dropping while 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2012 go way up.

To each his own.
Part of my respect for Bordeaux is treating it properly and investing in the time and patience and environment to enjoy it properly aged.
If you drink them all young, you'll never know how wonderful they can be aged.
Also you'll never enjoy a good Barolo.
You want something young, there's Rioja or Australian wines.

To paraphrase RDD... If you like wines young, that's what Pinot Noir is for. And Zinfandel.

I don't know what to say, I like 2010 Cantemerle better than 1989 Cantemerle. I was thrilled by 1989 Lynch way back around 1997 when I was first getting into Bordeaux. I was so thrilled with a bottle of 1986 Pichon Lalande in 2000 that I literally started singing Barry White music. 1986 Gruaud Larose was every bit as thrilling when Stefan brought two bottles to Chicago '01 as they were when he brought two bottles to the last convention. I don't remember too many people around the table crying that Jay's 1986 Mouton was too young when we drank that stunning wine in Sonoma in 2006. The 2003 Pontet Canet in its infancy has never been more spectacular since. The 2009 Giscours upon release with steak was heavenly. The 1988 Dal Forno Romano was 100++++ when we had it in 1999, only 99+ when Tom brought it last year. These 2012 right bankers have been splendid. The 2005 Haut Bergey and 2005 Barde Haut have been excellent in recent months, but no great improvement over what they offered a decade ago upon release. I could go on and on. It is indeed a matter of taste, what makes the world go round. As I mentioned, Bob Parker and I like our wines young, hey, what do we know, we're just a couple of country lawyers….

Jim:
You've paid you dues and have had aged and young wines.
You know your preference.
You have a calibrated palate.
You've paid your money.

I have friends that can't stand wine, but love their Bourbons.


Have others that tout the merits of a some obscure Eastern block white grape.
Then, I simply ask if they've ever had a Montrachet.

Knowing what you like is half the battle.

Yes each one to his or her own. We should know what we like by now. When I said I disagreed with some of what Alex wrote it was mainly on the point about 30/50 year old wines...a very few wines really do need 30 plus years, and reward that kind of patience.

I am pretty much aligned with Patrick on this and David G.

One of BWE's favourite vintages is surely 1996. I could name ten wines straight off the bat that could use more time:

Cos, LLC, Lynch-Bages, Leoville -Barton, Ducru Beaucaillou, Palmer, LMHB and the three Pauillac first growths.

"And the other 90% is raising the $$$ to buy what you like," adds Yogi.

I agree on those, Ian. OTOH, '96 while there is no hurry to drink up the '96 Haut-Brion, I don't expect it to get better.

See, I loved that bottle of 1996 LLC we had in the village 10 years ago Ian. Loved it. I thought it was stunning. I drank up my 1996 Pichon Lalandes years ago, couldn't keep my hands off of them. I thought the '96 Lynch and '96 Pontet Canet were both much more compelling ten years ago, when they were displaying big, rich, ripe, youthful, rough and tumble tannins. I have not found either of them to be improving as they have softened and "integrated."

The French, like Bob Parker and I, also like their wines young.

Haven't had the 96 Pontet Canet in ages, but wow was I impressed with SF Ed's 96 Lynch Bages in DC. And for my money, it is just getting there and will continue to improve for 10-20 years I'd wager. But I felt that way about most of the 96s we had in DC, I just can't wait for them to reach the zone that so many 80's Bordeaux were in that night at Charlie Palmers. It's crazy to say, but one wine that really stood out for me in DC was Tom's 83 Cos. I had it early on in the night, and though it was eclipsed by other wines in the end, it was just so perfectly mature (and the 83s clearly speak to me in general).

But I also loved the 96 LLC we had in 2008 in NYC and on that night the 96 Lagrange also showed really terrifically (and never as good since). I think many 96s went through a weird weedy phase in the last 6-7 years (Sociando, GPL, Lagrange, even PLL), from which they are finally starting to come out of and attain their glory.

I see nothing wrong with liking them young, even though I tease you about it now and then. As everyone's said, knowing what you want makes it a lot easier to focus your purchases.

JimHow wrote:See, I loved that bottle of 1996 LLC we had in the village 10 years ago Ian. Loved it. I thought it was stunning. I drank up my 1996 Pichon Lalandes years ago, couldn't keep my hands off of them. I thought the '96 Lynch and '96 Pontet Canet were both much more compelling ten years ago, when they were displaying big, rich, ripe, youthful, rough and tumble tannins. I have not found either of them to be improving as they have softened and "integrated."

The French, like Bob Parker and I, also like their wines young.

That was a great night. It was a demolition job!

The Lagrange ran the LLC very close...they both showed very well.

That's the beauty of 1996. It has always showed well. I always think the best is yet to come. Roughly 10% of my wine portfolio is in 1996 left banks. My biggest regret is buying the wrong Pichon.

I prefer my great Bordeaux at age 15-20. Is that young or old? I have a wine storage area a bit warmer than what is recommended.

Nic

So, yes, I am in disagreement here. Aged Bordeaux can be simply magnificent. Granted, I am lucky enough to drink a lot of it, but I would almost always prefer aged Bordeaux over younger Bordeaux. Comte's Margaux tasting was an exception, where the 96 Margaux was simply heads and tails above anything else we drank that night.

As for provenance, yes, there is always that risk. I factor that risk into my purchases. I am willing to purchase a risky bottle at a lower cost. I did that today in fact. I purchased two 1947 Ormes de Pez, one had a mid shoulder fill, one had a high shoulder fill. I realize these bottles are both risky. I realize that there is a 30% chance that they are dead. But there is also a 15% chance that they are incredible. I won't know until I open one of them (any takers???). But they were 65 Euros apiece. I'm willing to take a risk at that price, considering that it is difficult to get current vintages at that price.

I'd love to host an old wine dinner at some point (and no, I'm not planning to take over for or compete with Francois). I want people to experience the pleasure that is old wine. Having been to enough of the Academie des Vins Anciens dinners from Francois, as well as the various bottles that I've opened separately, I'm convinced that there is nothing more amazing than a good old Bordeaux.

On the other hand, I'm still not convinced with Burgundy. I've had enough bad old Burgundies that it's difficult to really be into it. Yes, the Beaune dinner in 2005 was incredible, outstanding, amazing, but that was the anomaly. I don't see the same thing across the board.

Out of curiosity, is there an interest in doing an offline in NYC in August? E.g. August 12th or 13th? I'd be willing to bring over a selection of older stuff if there is enough interest....

A real eye opener last year was a flight of 1966 and another of 1970 at a tasting. Both flights were amazing, and we're talking about the likes of Beychevelle, Canon, Domaine de Chevalier, and Magdelaine here, excellent chateau but not Firsts or Super Seconds.

But I think Jim's question/point is if these wines are better old. For me, the answer is usually yes when we are talking about Bordeaux from a classic vintage and era.

Nothing beats an aged Bordeaux when the magic happens in the bottle, producing that amazing mélange of tertiary complexity and underlying fruit. That usually takes 20-30 years, and it doesn't always happen, so I end up drinking my share of younger or less than amazing bottles. I still enjoy them, sometimes love them, but not quite as much as those aged beauties. When I'm in the mood for fresh, up-front fruit I tend to go to California.

There is nothing like Howing a great young Bordeaux, be it a big young fruit-driven 2003 Pontet Canet or 2009 Giscours, drink it over an evening with a grilled sirloin…. I like aged Bordeaux too -- I've got a couple bottles of '86 and '89 Chasse Spleen coming in that I'm looking forward to trying. Of course, when we are talking about the magical decade of the 1980s, that is a whole other discussion.

I went to taste the 2014 vintage at Château Latour three months ago.

Latour doesn't sell their wine en primeur any more, but they still serve it during en primeur week, along with one other older vintage.
The one this year was the 2000.

You know, and I know, that this is a very pricey wine: a first growth from a great vintage.
And I wish some of you were there to share the moment with me because this was not a wine to hold for décades despite a whole bunch of preconceived notions.
When I tasted it, I remarked to the people from Latour "But this is surprisingly ready to drink". And they agreed with me.
You'll be able to hold on to it, and it'll still be a pleasure décades from now.
But what's the point?

If the wine can benefit from ageing, I'm all for it.
And I have kept wine for decades too.
But a lot of people keep their wines too long in my most humble opinion. They prefer feeble old men to young vigorous ones.
The old men have experience and subtlety on their side, the young ones have spririt and freshness.

Of course, it is all a question of taste.

Best,
Alex R.

2000 Latour is ready?!?! I have not tasted it, but it is really surprising given my experience with Latour.

Stefan,

I have two bottles.

If you make it back to Bordeaux, I promise to open one up for you.

Alex

Thanks, Alex. I'll gladly take you up on that kind offer.

DavidG wrote:Nothing beats an aged Bordeaux when the magic happens in the bottle, producing that amazing mélange of tertiary complexity and underlying fruit . . .When I'm in the mood for fresh, up-front fruit I tend to go to California.

+1

The glory of Bordeaux is how wonderfully it ages. No need to buy Bordeaux if all you want to taste is Cabernet Sauvignon/Merlot, etc.

Bordeaux can still have fruit even at 50+ years of age. But if any wine loses all its fruit (at any age, for any reason), it's no longer fun to drink, it's work.

Stuart

Well I've had a few wines, which, if not exactly unHowable, were a waste of time and money to drink on release or several years afterward, which became excellent with appropriate bottle aging. My only other point of disagreement (to the extent the idea has been floated) would be that I can't really find a substitute for a truly Howable Bordeaux. I don't think even modern, meant to be drunk early Bordeaux has a close analogue in wines from other regions. Which is not a criticism of wines from other regions, which I frequently enjoy, it's simply my opinion that Bordeaux of whatever stripe seems to carry plenty of Bordeauxness. Other than that that I agree with pretty much everything that's been said in this thread from all sides.

I haven't had the 2000 Latour, but overall the 2000s are maturing faster than the 95s, 96s, and 98s-- most 2000 cru bourgeois have been ready to drink for 3-4 years at least even for me. Many ready-to-drink 2000s will continue to improve of course, but many are not a waste to open now especially with some good time in an open decanter.

Even though I am fond of the older stuff, I can say I have really enjoyed the 2000s I have tasted in the last couple of years for their ripe juicy fruit, especially the rather dazzling Mouton.

Stuart

That is really interesting. Who would have thought the 2000s would do that? That throws a curve ball into my perceptions...

My reference point is a tasting here about a year ago which I could not attend which found maNy lesser 2000s many years from drinking. That was soon after I tried quite a few curmudgeonly brutes like Batailley....

My experience has been that they are pretty backward but I did like the enticing density of the 2000 Cantemerle.

I feel so bad. I have a cellar with many aging Bordeaux and each time I try a bottle - utter disappointment. Some of my "wino" friends say -- you are wrong, this is good! I have evaluated several variables (including my cellar) and determined my cellar is okay but my taste palette must have changed. My latest disappointment was last night on my birthday with a 2003 Cht.Leoville Barton. The aroma was incredible and raised my hopes for a great taste. No. Great long finish, layers of flavors, but the predominant
flavor was not appealing. Not corked but it tasted sort of like I imagine cork tastes or abundantly earthy. Let it breathe longer? -- no change. Let it breath overnight? -- no change. Will this odd flavor go away? So it all comes back to me. My palette has gone south to places like Gigondas and Chtnf. de Pape. I also now realize why R. Parker rated the Washington State wine, Quilceda Creek, with consecutive 100's and high 90's. Perhaps his palette changed too.

Quilceda Creek is pretty awesome, even for those who like BDX first and foremost.

I wonder why more wines from that region have not caught oenophiles fancy like that one.

Fogeater wrote:I feel so bad. I have a cellar with many aging Bordeaux and each time I try a bottle - utter disappointment. Some of my "wino" friends say -- you are wrong, this is good! I have evaluated several variables (including my cellar) and determined my cellar is okay but my taste palette must have changed. My latest disappointment was last night on my birthday with a 2003 Cht.Leoville Barton. The aroma was incredible and raised my hopes for a great taste. No. Great long finish, layers of flavors, but the predominant
flavor was not appealing. Not corked but it tasted sort of like I imagine cork tastes or abundantly earthy. Let it breathe longer? -- no change. Let it breath overnight? -- no change. Will this odd flavor go away? So it all comes back to me. My palette has gone south to places like Gigondas and Chtnf. de Pape. I also now realize why R. Parker rated the Washington State wine, Quilceda Creek, with consecutive 100's and high 90's. Perhaps his palette changed too.

I think we all would admit to changes in palate preference over the years. I cut my teeth on Bordeaux as a young man and then got interested in Cali, Rhone and Germany. After about eight years of collecting high-end Cali stuff, my palate changed back to Bordeaux. That was the early nineties, just in time for me to buy heavy in '89 and '90. For me, there is nothing like a good, aged bottle of Bordeaux. Magic in a glass, although I admit to liking the young stuff too.

When I was young, I loved Bordeaux.

When I got older, I loved Bordeaux.

Now that I am really old, I love Bordeaux.

Sure, I like many other wines, too, but Bordeaux is, was, and always has been my wine center.

stefan wrote:When I was young, I loved Bordeaux.

When I got older, I loved Bordeaux.

Now that I am really old, I love Bordeaux.

Sure, I like many other wines, too, but Bordeaux is, was, and always has been my wine center.

Yes.*

* Like Hillary to the Don, Stefan has got me on experience, I'll give him that.

Tonight, 2000 La Lagune with chicken soufflé. The first few bottles of this wine were not very good. Then about 2 years ago it got better. Now it is wonderful--great nose, elegant, good structure. I am amazed at the fast turn around. I have not experienced this previously with La Lagune.