Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

For all the veterans and gurus on this forum....

Since which vintage or decade do you think Palmer ramped up its quality and started producing wine that rivals the first growths of bordeaux? What was the turning point?

1921 or 1961.

Don't have much experience with Palmer, but 1983 was exquisite.

Bill

CV

I don't think there really was a turning point. Palmer has produced some incredible wines in nearly every decade.

Whether it deserves to be a first growth or not is however moot.

I like to think of it as one of the special wines in between super second and first in the pecking order like LMHB and LLC.

Is Palmer better than Pichon Lalande?

I agree with Ian, but based more on what I've read than what I've tasted - no experience with old ones from the 60s or earlier.

Patrick, the Pichon Lalande question is interesting. If you like Pichon Lalande's style, which I do, when they knock one out of the park it's Palmer's equal or better. But Pichon Lalande has been less consistent than Palmer over the last 40 years IMO. And if even a tiny hint of green turns you off, you will have a strong preference for Palmer.

An important point (and it can be argued about a couple of those that are on the list) is that a first growth really should be consistent top quality across all vintages. While I do think that Palmer has some absolutely fantastic vintages, I'm not sure it makes the grade consistently. On the other hand, I would question whether either Mouton or Margaux are reliably consistent either.

I rarely have had Palmer. Pricing these days at least is nearly double that of Pichon Lalande I think, hence my question.

But you make a good point about style, David- PLL is something of an outlier with all that Petite Verdot (green) and the occasionally high amounts of merlot (softer). Maybe Palmer has a more refined signature year in and year out.

Wow, I agree with your point on Mouton, Tim, but Margaux as well?
I mean, I know it went through a rough stretch there in the 70s but isn't consistency one of the hallmarks of that property?

Jim, I would argue that consistency is more the hallmark of Haut Brion. Perhaps I am a bit hard on Margaux because of the pre-Mentzelopoulos era, I agree they certainly have regained their status since then.

Arguably Lafite was pretty patchy too over that same period, but I would rate Lafite and Margaux as the top two left bank estates in that order with Latour third, Haut-Brion fourth, Mouton fifth, La Mission sixth and a close call between Palmer and LLC for seventh. I would say the next strongest wine after that is Montrose based on recent form, with Baron the more consistent of the two Pichons.

My ranking would be Latour, Haut Brion, Margaux, Mouton & LMHB (tie), with LLC and Palmer following. I omit Lafite simply because I have tasted so little of it.

Mine would be:

Lafite
Margaux
Haut Brion
Latour
Mouton

tim wrote:An important point (and it can be argued about a couple of those that are on the list) is that a first growth really should be consistent top quality across all vintages. While I do think that Palmer has some absolutely fantastic vintages, I'm not sure it makes the grade consistently. On the other hand, I would question whether either Mouton or Margaux are reliably consistent either.

Tim this is an interesting discussion point.

Let's compare Mouton and LLC. I love them both but with a gun to my head I might choose LLC as one to drink for eternity, because LLC is more reliable. But unquestionably Mouton hits the higher highs. I doubt LLC has ever produced a wine to rival the 1945 and 1959 Mouton which is good enough in my book to give the Mouton the ticket to the first club. Is it not more about greatness, or potential thereof, than consistency? (Discuss). That is perhaps why Palmer has as much claim as LLC to be upgraded to a FG.

You know, when you think about it, Mouton is almost always a special event.
It's pretty damned consistently great.
Perhaps it is even somewhat underrated?
Indeed, can an argument not be made that, since the 1940s, Mouton
has been the most consistent of the first growths?

I've recounted the story before.
The first time Ben and I met Jacques and Arv -- at lunch time -- in the back room at that little French bistro in midtown.
I brought a 1997 Mouton -- supposedly light, supposedly off vintage, blah, blah... It was SO good.
Maybe it was the company that elevated it.
But, in my nearly twenty year experience with Bordeaux wine, I'm hard pressed to remember a disappointment.
I remember He Who Shall Remain Nameless gave 79 points to the 1981 Mouton.
I bought three bottles from Premier Cru in the late 90s.
They were superb. He was wrong.

Other supposedly off year Moutons that were superb: 1983, 1987, 1991, 1993, 1994.

I would call Mouton consistently good, and often great. Latour is consistently great. So is Haut Brion. I am slightly biased toward Haut Brion (and perhaps LMHB) because I have an affinity to the Graves profile. I have never had a Latour that wasn't amazing. Let me also say that when Mouton is great, it is often better than Haut Brion.

I was probably less impressed with the off vintage Margaux's at the Margaux tasting than Ian. The 96 was absolutely stunning, a wine of the decade. Most of the rest were good to excellent. The 2000 is also an amazingly special wine from prior tastings. Margaux is a step above LLC, including in the off years, but not by that much.

Granted, I don't drink as much first growth as some others here. But that has been my experience.

I've had the 1993 and 1994 Mouton on many occasions. They were very good, but I wouldn't describe them as superb. In fact, for 94, from memory I prefer the Pontet Canet.

That would be an interesting pairup. I need to find myself another bottle of the 94 Mouton...

Latour lets me down more often than it thrills me.

I have one bottle of the 1996 Margaux in my cellar.
Should I drink it for my 60th, 65th, 70th, 75th, or 80th birthday? (I'm 58.)

60th - Jim even though with your fasting you will live as long as your Dad. You like them young.

At the Margaux dinner that Tim and I hosted in London in April, Neal Martin had the 1996 way in front of everything else on the table. The fact I did not fully agree with him was immaterial.

I drank this with Jacques and Pierre when I came out of my fast in March 2011 and it was awkward, but last year it was class as it was when Paul Pontallier showed it in London in 2013.

Ha Ian, I hope I don't live to 90.
But the sentiment is great.
So I just checked Wine Searcher.
1958, my birth year, is supposed to be poor in Bordeaux.
But some place called 67 Wine and Spirits in NY, NY has a MAGNUM of 1958 Margaux for $1,200....
Hmmmm.
It HAS been a good year.
And you only live once.....

Of course the 1958 Mouton is the real prize, it has the Salvadore Dali label.
I had a chance to get a magnum back in the day for $400.
I'm a madman for not doing so.

Jim are you planning a trip back to France anytime soon?

Yes, I'm definitely coming to France either late spring or summer, I'll keep you posted.

...And hopefully London/Cambridge as well.

I think I can count on two hands all of the first growths I've had: the 93 Latour, the 86 and 98 Lafite, the 86 and 82 Margaux, the 71, 73, 85, 86 and 99 Mouton, and the 70, 78, 82, 85, 86, 88, 95 and 96 Haut Brion.

I believe that is four hands

JimHow wrote:Yes, I'm definitely coming to France either late spring or summer, I'll keep you posted.

Ok, assuming I am still here, I have a bottle reserved for you... and it is not a Lynch Bages.

Wow....
I can't even count all the first growths.
That is why I am so "blessed" -- I hate that word, because I am an atheist -- to be the BD of BWE, the greatest internet wine web site in the world.
Seriously, I consider myself the luckiest man in the world, this website being one of the reasons why.
Just off the top of my head, and I'm positive I'm missing some:
Latour: 59, 61, 70, 71, 75, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91 (yum, one of my favorites), 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99.
Lafite: 59, 61, 66, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, , 01, 02.
Margaux: '78, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 95, 99, 04.
Mouton: 70, 75, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 01, 02.
Haut Brion: 78, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 95, 96, 02.

I'm sure I've missed some.

A much longer list than I have experienced, I must admit. But I've been lucky enough to experience two of the greatest wines of my life which were first growth: 1907 Latour (with Francois and stefan) and 1924 Latour (my bottle with Francois).

We had the 1924 Margaux at the Margaux dinner, which was amazing but not at the same level as the Latour.

We are very lucky.

Wait, I forgot to add the vintages of Latour and Margaux and Haut Brion we had in France '15.
What were they again... 2004 Margaux, 2007(?) Haut Brion, and what year Latour, was it '04?

I brought the mag of the 93 Haut Brion to the Sunday dinner. And we had the 04 Latour and 04 Margaux at the tastings there.

I sit at the other end of the table from Jim.
My list:
1984 Margaux

I have also tasted 1978 Chateau Palmer, last year at a Berserkerfest in White Plains.

Sounds like I need to go to France.

You guys drink a lot of FGs.

My opinion based on 20th century only and somewhat limited number of vintages:

Palmer is still great/dazzling in '61 and '83, maybe '89. Both '66 and '70 were outstanding but they have faded badly.

I find Latour to be the most consistent of the Firsts. Second most consistent for me is LMHB, the only really good '75. Lafite, the most disappointing except for '59 and '82 and '90, maybe '96. Mouton underwhelming except '59, '61, '82, '86 and '00. Margaux great in '61, '82, '83, '90, '00. HB always at least good, fabulous in '59, '61, '82, '89, '90.

My picks are boringly obvious, though.

Stu

I am Extremely fortunate to have drunk well over 100 first growths and 200 plus first growth and first growth equivalents listed below. I may have missed a few.

I have had so many memorable experiences - je ne regrette rien - and very few disappointments.

Disappointments (everything not listed has been brilliant):

Lafite - none apart from one uninspiring 1970, while the '47' was a fake!
Latour - 1958, 1975, 1979 - all as hard as nails and charmless
Mouton - 70 and 75 are highly variable but can still be excellent, 91 is anorexic, 92 skinny
Margaux - the 88, 89 and 08 are uninspiring
Haut-Brion - the 47 and 70 underwhelmed
Cheval Blanc - the 47 was a porty let down and I have yet to taste a 98 that has lived up to its reputation
Ausone - 83 and 88 are a bit underwhelming
Petrus - the 81 is uninspiring
La Mission - jury still out with 98 (tough) and 99 (lightweight)
Palmer - the 70 is not all it's cracked up to be; the historiques are a marketing gimmick
LLC - stuff from the 30s, 40s and 50s are a bit ho-hum
Yquem - the 1908 (tasted 19 years ago) was a little bit past its best!


Lafite: 29, 45, 47, 52, 55, 62, 66, 70, 78, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 95, 96, 97, 98, 04, 10
Latour: 58, 66, 67, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 04
Mouton: 43, 70, 75, 76, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Margaux: 24, 37, 47, 59, 61, 69, 70, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, 04, 06, 08, 09, 10
Haut-Brion: 47, 59, 62, 66, 70, 71, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 07, 10
Cheval Blanc: 47, 70, 71, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 01, 10
Ausone: 71, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85, 88, 89, 95, 97, 04
Petrus: 34, 64, 71, 75, 76, 78, 81, 82, 86, 90, 01
La Mission: 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 07, 10
Palmer: 66, 70, 75, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 95, 96, 98, 99, 00, 05, 06, 07, 10 - Historique 04, 06, 13
LLC: 34, 37, 45, 55, 59, 61, 64, 70, 75, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 01, 02, 03, 04, 09, 10, 12
Yquem: 08, 37, 59, 67, 70, 71, 75, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 01, 03, 04

I am not a fan. Price too high from what's in the bottle.

Comte Flaneur wrote:I am Extremely fortunate to have drunk well over 100 first growths and 200 plus first growth and first growth equivalents listed below. I may have missed a few.

I have had so many memorable experiences - je ne regrette rien - and very few disappointments.

Disappointments (everything not listed has been brilliant):

Lafite - none apart from one uninspiring 1970, while the '47' was a fake!
Latour - 1958, 1975, 1979 - all as hard as nails and charmless
Mouton - 70 and 75 are highly variable but can still be excellent, 91 is anorexic, 92 skinny
Margaux - the 88, 89 and 08 are uninspiring
Haut-Brion - the 47 and 70 underwhelmed
Cheval Blanc - the 47 was a porty let down and I have yet to taste a 98 that has lived up to its reputation
Ausone - 83 and 88 are a bit underwhelming
Petrus - the 81 is uninspiring
La Mission - jury still out with 98 (tough) and 99 (lightweight)
Palmer - the 70 is not all it's cracked up to be; the historiques are a marketing gimmick
LLC - stuff from the 30s, 40s and 50s are a bit ho-hum
Yquem - the 1908 (tasted 19 years ago) was a little bit past its best!


Lafite: 29, 45, 47, 52, 55, 62, 66, 70, 78, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 95, 96, 97, 98, 04, 10
Latour: 58, 66, 67, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 04
Mouton: 43, 70, 75, 76, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Margaux: 24, 37, 47, 59, 61, 69, 70, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, 04, 06, 08, 09, 10
Haut-Brion: 47, 59, 62, 66, 70, 71, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 07, 10
Cheval Blanc: 47, 70, 71, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 01, 10
Ausone: 71, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85, 88, 89, 95, 97, 04
Petrus: 34, 64, 71, 75, 76, 78, 81, 82, 86, 90, 01
La Mission: 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 07, 10
Palmer: 66, 70, 75, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 95, 96, 98, 99, 00, 05, 06, 07, 10 - Historique 04, 06, 13
LLC: 34, 37, 45, 55, 59, 61, 64, 70, 75, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 01, 02, 03, 04, 09, 10, 12
Yquem: 08, 37, 59, 67, 70, 71, 75, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 01, 03, 04

Ian, I knew there was some reason complete strangers want your autograph, I was just not sure why. Now I know.

Wow.