To be 2016 or not to be 2016?

[Nicklasss]

I finished reading reviews, vintage weather, style, etc...

I don't have the choice to cut the weed under the BD feet and to tell you that if you're a real BWEer, a real Bordeaux (read Cabernet Sauvignon...) lover, a real Left Bank defender, you need to buy minimum a 3 pack (3 bottles) of a 2016 red wine from that nice place called Médoc, and that is delimited from the aoc Médoc north to the City of Bordeaux south.

There are no reasons, I repeat, NO REASONS, to not buy a few bottles of 2016 Médoc. Age, sickness, bankruptcy, religion, mother in law, NO REASONS.

The 2016 Médoc promises up to now is to be better 1996 kind of wine. Do you remember the 1996 Cantemerle, Sociando Mallet, LLC, GPL, Lagrange, Lynch Bages, Pichon Lalande, Cos d'Estournel or Rauzan Ségla?

I'm not the BD, but I'm proposing to him that any BWEer that will not buy some futures 2016, be banned for a single day as reward (I'm trying to keep that post positive!), for resisting to the 2016 that are wines that will be in their best all their aging life.

Nic

[JimHow]

so it is written. so it shall be done.

[Chateau Vin]

I caved in. Started with Duhart.

[jckba]

I for one have not pulled the trigger on anything 2016 as-of yet and will probably refrain from doing so mostly because I don't see a real incentive to part with my money 2 years in advance. So will I be better off waiting until release once the wines are in bottle, I don't know but I also don't think I will be much worse off

[Gerry M.]

I'm eyeing quite a few right now and will probably pull the trigger on a few soon before a couple disappear.

Pricing has been fair but I just got an e-mail for Palmer at $325? Why so high? It's very good but at that price I'd be more inclined to buy some 09' or 10' for the same money.

[AKR]

I think the Margaux, Graves from 2015 seem more interesting, from the write-ups so far.

But larger than that - why buy them now? For most US persons, its pretty easy to find Bordeaux later on.

[Claudius2]

Nicklass/AKR,
At 60 years of age, and with a few degenerative health problems that are increasingly intruding into my life, I am loath to buy wines that require 20+ years of ageing.
So these days, I am often going for the wines that will be open and ready in 10 years rather than 20.
I also think I've got to appreciate the right bank wines a bit more with age.

So my question is what 2016 wines at reasonable price points would you recommend, and without tannin requiring 20+ years of ageing?
Secondly, what do you see as the difference in style and quality between the 2015s and 2016s?

Thanks

[AKR]

Claudius - this is likely unhelpful, but I'm just going to post a snippet from NM's 15 & 16 previews. When I read them, it sounds like 2015 would be the vintage I'd probably have a mild preference for, since it sounds bigger. Still it sounds like Margaux/Graves from 2015 will be very nice, and St Estephe in 2016 is a year of interest. I do not know how difficult it is to acquire things later in your part of the world; in the US it doesn't seem to be an issue, and if anything, paying up front has probably been a net loser for many years when all costs (opportunity cost, fraud, etc.) are all baked in. So perhaps that will be the decision point for you. It seems like from reading reviews the 15's might drink well early, even if the summaries don't make that so obvious. (Do others who have read various barrel notes have different views?)

NM on 2015
--------------
The Lowdown

The headlines for the Bordeaux vintage are as follows:

1) Generally, 2015 is an excellent vintage. Across the region, the wines do not possess the consistency demonstrated by 2009 or 2010 at this stage, though you could argue that it might pip the quality of 2005 due to subsequent advances in technology and know-how. Certainly, I cannot remember the 2005s displaying such fine tannin, although they did show more density and structure out of barrel.

2) As mentioned in this introduction, quality is not geographically uniform. The best wines tend to be in the southern Médoc, specifically Margaux and Pessac-Léognan, across the Right Bank in Saint Emilion and Pomerol, then into several satellite appellations. Limestone soils and vineyards with a healthy proportion of Cabernet Franc produced many of the vintage's peaks. Elsewhere, it is a little patchier for sure, but with many gems to be found.

3) The heady peaks of 2015 stand shoulder to shoulder with 2009 and 2010. I am not certain everyone will agree with that, however, there is a small cluster of wines that will be benchmarks for their respective estates. This is where there is a conjunction of favorable climatic conditions, propitious terroir and clever winemaking practiced by a clever winemaker.

4) In terms of barrel samples, the red 2015s demonstrated bright and lucid colors; vivid and highly perfumed, often quite floral aromatic profiles allied with fine and unobtrusive tannins that often lend them velvety textures. Samples were relatively easy to taste compared to 2000, 2005 and 2010. Acidity levels tend towards low pH levels thanks to the cool September nights, thereby imparting agreat deal of freshness that is often crucial in counterbalancing their opulence. The 2015s' silky textures might tempt some wine-lovers into drinking them early, however...

5) ...The best 2015s have the substance, balance and complexity to merit long-term aging. My fear, one shared with winemakers, is that many of these 2015s will not be given the opportunity to reach their plateau of maturity after 20, 30 or 40 years. That would be a crying shame. There are plenty of wines that are born to drink earlier and will give just as much pleasure.

6) It is clear that the northern reaches Médoc were affected by the September rain. That does not imply that they are poor or not worth consideration (depending on prices). On the contrary, many are very good. It is simply that when juxtaposed with their counterparts further south, in areas unaffected by rain, you can discern that potential quality in the final blend was compromised, despite Herculean efforts by some winemaking teams.

7) Most Saint Emilion 2015s possess alcohol levels between 14.3%-14.8%, though it should be remembered that this is a result of Nature - the arid summer, optimal amount of showers and then a dry, warm September - rather than premeditated manipulation of alcohol levels through excessively late picking or warm fermentation temperatures. Consequently, I found that many, though not all of these wines, retain their balance and terroir expression - particularly on limestone soils.

8) The dry white Bordeaux are generally high in quality due to benign conditions during the summer and harvest. Some of the Sémillons were occasionally affected by the August rain, but less so the Sauvignon Blanc. Acidity levels were locked in by the cool nights in early September and though many are drunk young, they will repay cellaring.

9) Do not overlook Sauternes! You will...I know that...but there is no harm in repeating it. The region produced a host of outstanding sweet wines with good botrytis levels, rich in sugar between 130-150 grams per liter, but more crucially, marked acidity and tension. One mark of the 2015 vintage is a consistency across the board thanks to the almost leisurely manner in which botrytis spread across the vineyards. For once, the pickers in Sauternes had "options" and the results can be seen in the glass.

=====================

Then NM on 2016

The Verdict
Let’s cut to the chase: 2016 is unequivocally a great vintage in Bordeaux. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. There are some caveats: properties with younger vines or less propitious, sandier soils whose fruit was unable to reach full phenolic ripeness levels, also the occasional hardness of tannins. That aside, we are looking at a vintage that can send tingles down the spine and back up again. Over twenty years of tasting Bordeaux from barrel at en primeur, this was my most pleasurable tasting experience alongside the 2009, albeit in a very different style. The 2005 and 2010 are both bona fide great vintages, however their girder-like tannins, the alcohol levels of the latter and obduracy rendered the exercise far more arduous. It was weeks before my tongue no longer felt furry.

The rhetoric from the mouths of winemakers was either “Our 2016 is the best we have ever made” or “It is the wine that I have always wanted to make.” A number downplayed the quality of the 2015 to emphasize those claims, unfairly in my opinion. The two vintages are different, but there is no gulf in general quality between them. The differences are stylistic and in terms of performances of each appellation, and here we are only talking nuances. On the Left Bank, Saint Estèphe did not quite excel in 2015, but shines in 2016. Vice versa, Margaux flourished in 2015, but lags a step or two behind the northern Médoc. Pomerol might be slightly better in 2015 than 2016, but the other way round in Saint Emilion. Pessac-Léognan? About equal. It is these comparisons that make Bordeaux so fascinating. They are just two great vintages whose evolutions will be constantly juxtaposed, whose wines are going to give great pleasure.

The traits of 2016 at its best are their fruit, freshness, precision, fineness of tannins and articulation of terroir. It is also a vintage where there are quirks in the hierarchy. Let’s tackle each in turn:

Fruit: All wines need fruit and 2016 has a surfeit thanks to those sunshine hours. Fruit profiles tended more towards the black rather than red side of the spectrum, perhaps showing more blue fruit at this stage both on the nose and palate. Aromatics were often incredibly detailed, enhanced by floral aromas that render them flattering even at this prenatal stage.

Freshness: Words that consistently appeared in my notes were energy, tension and freshness. The absence of heat spikes coupled with cool nights took a needle and thread and wove in the acidity, many châteaux recording low pH levels post-fermentation. These samples just sang and they should still be singing for many years to come.

Precision: I remarked to several winemakers that 2016 is the first vintage were Bordeaux delivered a level of precision hitherto unknown. It is the first vintage whereby investments both out in the vineyard and inside the winery have manifested wines so pixelated and so crystalline, that there seems not a stitch out of place. Even when given the chance to juxtapose them directly with the magnificent duo of 2009 and 2010, neither of those two vintages have the “HD” quality of 2016.

Tannins: Related to the above, there has never been a Bordeaux vintage, thus far, with such breathtaking fineness of tannin—this despite relatively high IPT levels (Clinet clocking in at 94). Where does that come from? Well, the fact that château no longer approach harvest as a single rudimentary sweep through the vines, but practice bespoke pickings according to weather conditions and individual vine/bunch maturity. It comes from the rigorous sorting methods. It certainly comes from the growing number of state-of-the-art wineries, spotlessly clean and equipped with vats tailored to house specific parcels in the vineyard instead of lumping them together. During my visit I had time to inspect new facilities at Beychevelle and Calon-Ségur, to name but two whose vat-rooms are barely recognizable from just a few years ago.

Terroir: One aspect of 2016 that heightened my zeal is that terroirs are clearly translated into the wines. The characteristics of each appellation are evident, to put it prosaically—the Pauillacs are very Pauillac, the Saint Estèphes are very Saint Estèphe and so forth. Part of the reason for that is that alcohol levels are lower than recent vintages. I have always found that place of origin and respective terroirs are more visible at lower levels, when alcoholic warmth does not blur the detail. That is not to say that vintages with higher alcohol levels cannot express their terroir. They can. However, it takes longer for it to come through because in the first few years, it is the growing season that influences the wines. Even at this embryonic stage, their places of origin are in most cases, very clear to see.

Hierarchical Quirks: Some of the most arresting and beguiling samples did not necessarily come from the top of the hierarchy. Though quality of terroir corrals quality here and there, the 2016s do not conform to preconceived notions set back in 1855. Certainly, the First Growths have potentially made incredible wines. However, my most memorable visits, perhaps the most thrilling wines, were located in lower echelons from Second down to Fifth Growths. Unexpected surprises, wines that were not just the best that I have ever tasted in 20 years, but dazzling wines that forced me to reconsider the potential of a château. We are talking new benchmarks.

[Comte Flaneur]

Thanks for posting this Arv. A fascinating insight into the two vintages

[Claudius2]

AKR
Well, I think the general view is that with the possible exception of Margaux, 2016 is better than 2015.
However, the offers here in Singapore are considerably higher priced compared to 2016.
This leaves me is a bit of a quandary.
The Chateaux can pump up the price of the wine due to the vintage - don't worry, it happens everywhere else too.
I'm in the process of bringing in some Burgundies from Beaune and 2015 prices have jumped as well.

I will try and find some of the lower priced wines that are "arresting and beguiling"