The 2005 vintage begins to strut its stuff

[Comte Flaneur]

Some interesting insights and useful tips here:

https://www.farrvintners.com/blog.php

[Comte Flaneur]

The most interesting being, how badly some of the more manipulated St-Emilion wines are ageing.

[AKR]

very interesting notes.

[JimHow]

Kind of skimmed over the article.
I wonder when I should crack open my case of 2005 Carbonnieux?

[stefan]

Now, BD.

[Blanquito]

Kind of skimmed over the article.
I wonder when I should crack open my case of 2005 Carbonnieux?

I had this recently from 375, I don't think it's quite ready. But that could mean its right in your zone, Jim. If you're got 12 Carbonnieux rouge, I would definitely open one (unless it means the whole case will be consumed in short order).

[JimHow]

I swear I'm not trying to be a wise guy or mean, Patrick, I love you, man, can't wait to see you and the bro in a couple weeks. You have one of the greatest palates I've ever seen.
But you like say that on EVERY one of your notes:
"Not quite ready, will revisit in another 5 years."

Have you EVER met a wine that is not at least "another 5 years" away from being worthy of drinking????

Come on! Live life, man!

[Blanquito]

I swear I'm not trying to be a wise guy or mean, Patrick, I love you, man, can't wait to see you and the bro in a couple weeks. You have one of the greatest palates I've ever seen.
But you like say that on EVERY one of your notes:
"Not quite ready, will revisit in another 5 years."

Have you EVER met a wine that is not at least "another 5 years" away from being worthy of drinking????

Come on! Live life, man!

Guilty as charged! I plead no contest.

I find nearly all classified Bordeaux from 2000-present needing more time to peak. For instance, I love the 2002s LB right now (just had a really lovely 2002 d'Issan), but I am sure they'll be better in "5+ years". That said, except for a couple of first growths, I find everything 1990 and older to be fully mature.

[jckba]

I have not yet dipped into my 2005 St Emilion case purchases (Canon la Gaffeliere, Clos Fourtet, La Gaffeliere and Pavie) but have had a btl of Faugeres which was okay sans plus, 2 btls of Quinault L'Enclos where one was clearly better than the other as well as a btl of Monbousquet which I thought was great granted it was Napaesque but still maintained a Bdx grip. I'd definitely be interested in helping assemble a 2005 tasting here in NYC for those interested but to borrow a line from Blanquito, just maybe in 5 years time

[DavidG]

I liked the article. Thought it was extremely positive about the vintage with the exception, as Ian noted, of some of the heavily extracted St Ems.

I'll How a wine now and then, especially if prodded by our BD. Generally, my maturity preferences tend to parallel Patrick's and those of the group that held the tasting. They waited an extra 2 years before doing this "10 years on" tasting because the bigger 2005s are a bit more tannic and extracted and are taking a little longer to develop than most. So I'm still holding the big boys, including 3 of the Parker darlings that got called out for their over-extracted harsh woody finishes. Will they come around, or are they doomed to perpetual imbalance? Wines for laying down and avoiding? Nothing in the article makes me want to try one now.

I've been drinking some of the (presumably) earlier maturing 2005s and have enjoyed most. A disappointing Lanessan was an exception. The only 2005 St Ems I've tried this past year have been the Barde Haut and Croix de Labrie. I thought both were excellent. The Barde Haut was still not near peak but I'm confident it's on a good path. The Croix de Labrie was more modern (maybe like jckba's Monbousquet?) and had a little of that oak/wood/soy stuff attributed to overextraction going on, but more than made up for it with lush ripe fruit.

[greatbxfreak]

Thanks Comte Flaneur for link.

I'm more or less on agreeing with Steven B. from Farr concerning ratings. However it's very difficult for me to accept his ridiculous statement, "My view on dry white Bordeaux is that it is at its most attractive soon after bottling". For me it touches ignorance! Most white Bx can hold for more than 10 years and I don't think the St.Emilion wines he mentioned disappointing are extracted too much as it simply wasn't necessary to do it in 2005. It's so-called modern style.

Funny thing is, that no-one complains anymore about high alcohol in 2005.

[stefan]

I did not buy much 2005. I figured that I would die before most would be ready for my taste. I will try to back fill when and if the wines become attractive.

Of the left bank wines, I have found D'Armailhac decent but would prefer this early maturing Pauillac to have at least five more years in the bottle. I have some Pichon Lalande and will try a bottle next week when we are at stefanJr's.

[Comte Flaneur]

I am also light on 2005s. I thought the prices were crazy on release. I have six cases, luckily including Baron. I know Patrick made out like a bandit and is looking good.

I know this is amazing vintage, but at current prices, with a free hand I honestly can't think of that many compelling purchases outside of Ch Margaux, which I can't afford, or Sociando Mallet, which I already have.

For those who don't have any I think wines like Sociando, Branaire Ducru, Beychevelle and Leoville-Barton are strong candidates. The latter is very backward. I don't think the market adequately prices the difference in quality between Leoville and Langoa.

[JimHow]

I have a case of 2005 Duhart Milon and a case of 2005 Carbonnieux.
I also have six bottles each of 2005 d'Issan, Brane Cantenac, and Grand Mayne.

[stefan]

I checked and found that I have more 2005 Burgundy than 2005 Bordeaux!

[robert goulet]

I drank a few of the 2005 la mish second labels, they almost seem Cali-like and lacking that pessac character I njoy.....think I have a bottle left

[Comte Flaneur]

Has any one tried the Gruaud 05 lately? On another board it would as dissed for its lack of grippytannins...I can't find the expression used but it was as if the tannins were manicured to leave the wine without any grip.

[Comte Flaneur]

Has any one tried the Gruaud 05 lately? On another board it would as dissed for its lack of grippytannins...I can't find the expression used but it was as if the tannins were manicured to leave the wine without any grip.

[Blanquito]

Glad to see the 2005 GPL do well in this review. I have a ton of it.

[JimHow]

I don't think the market adequately prices the difference in quality between Leoville and Langoa.

Do you think the price difference is too much, Ian, or not enough?

[Comte Flaneur]

Not enough Jim

You may remember when we visited I asked Lillian Sartorious about the difference between Langoa and Leoville. She said that they are on different soils so that the roots of the Leoville vines have to go deeper to gain nutrient and this is reflected in added complexity of Leoville versus Langoa.

I think it shows too, on a vintage like 2004. The Langoa is a delicious though simple wine, but the Leoville has a lot more complexity. There is quite a gulf between them in my experience, and I don't think prices adequately reflect that.

[DavidG]

I agree that there's a huge quality/complexity difference between Langoa and a Leoville Barton. Especially after 10+ years of aging.

[JimHow]

The last time I had a Langoa was the 2000 when it was very young and I remember it was incredibly sweet, almost un-drinkably so.

[jckba]

Hi Ian --

As far as pricing for the Leoville Barton / Langoa Barton wines go, I think that you really ought to be looking at equivalent properties when making your argument. The second growth Leoville Barton's are priced similarly to second growth Leoville Poyferre's upon release and I think that is correct. The third growth Langoa Barton has never really appealed to me and as such I do not own any, but I for one would take the side that it is overpriced when compared to its stablemate Leoville Barton and not the other way around.

[Chateau Vin]

Hi Ian --

As far as pricing for the Leoville Barton / Langoa Barton wines go, I think that you really ought to be looking at equivalent properties when making your argument. The second growth Leoville Barton's are priced similarly to second growth Leoville Poyferre's upon release and I think that is correct. The third growth Langoa Barton has never really appealed to me and as such I do not own any, but I for one would take the side that it is overpriced when compared to its stablemate Leoville Barton and not the other way around.

I agree with you, but I thought that's what Ian was implying in his post..."Leo Barton is reasonably priced, but considering the quality difference, Langoa is overpriced vis a vis Leo Barton".

Pretty much every Barton tastings, you will get an opportunity to taste them side by side as they are under same ownership. This makes it easier to assess them and see the difference between them. And everytime I tasted at the UGCs, I could see a world of difference in complexity between the two. And I feel that Langoa is a bit overpriced compared to what I can get from Leo Barton for the extra money...

[Comte Flaneur]

I think I understood you JC. You are suggesting Langoa is poor value for money and Leoville OK value for money when compared to the second growth Poyferre if they are at about the same price.

First point of Leoville-B is a second and Langoa is a third, of course there will be a price differential. My argument is that the differential is too low given the much greater complexity of Leoville-Barton. Entirely agree with CV on this.

Second either the market is underpricing one or over pricing the other. I am in the camp that the Leoville-B is more under-priced than Langoa is overpriced. I generally don't think Langoa is overpriced because I have enjoyed some delicious bottles over the years.

When it comes to Poyferre, ok it just happens to be a second growth, but I personally think it is more often that not over-priced and cannot hold a candle to Leoville-Barton, despite the fact that it has notched up some pretty big scores from the critics.

But I am as often underwhelmed as I am wowed by Poyferre. We had a lovely dinner there but most of the wines IIRC were unremarkable. With Leoville-Barton you can shut your eyes and buy year in, year out. Even the 2013 is suppposed to be good. But 13 really is a train wreck of a vintage.

https://www.farrvintners.com/blog.php?blog=244

[jckba]

Hi Ian,

No what I am saying is that I am happy with Leoville Barton's (and Leoville Poyferre's and Gruaud Larose's) current price levels and would generally agree that they it offers an excellent value proposition when compared to some of the other now much more expensive second growths (i.e. Montrose, the Pichon's, Cos, Ducru and LLC) year in and year out, but, that I would be more inclined to join the pack that says that the latter are becoming too expensive rather than Leoville Barton being too inexpensive.

[Comte Flaneur]

Ah yes, got it JC. Have pity on us Brits. Our currency has been flushed down the toilet. We are paying through the nose for everything...I have been backfilling to beat price increases