Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

I tried to conduct a poll but it didn't work

Mine are 1989 and 2005

With the qualification that I have not tried the 1970 and 1975 and probably never will

1982

Let say that among all vintages i tried (1986-1989-1990-1995-1996-1998-2001-2003-2004-2005-2006-2009-2010-2012), the 1990 is clearly the winner. Probably THE BEST qpr of that vintage.

Nic

Comte Flaneur wrote:I tried to conduct a poll but it didn't work

Mine are 1989 and 2005

With the qualification that I have not tried the 1970 and 1975 and probably never will

A couple of years ago I saw a single bottle of one of those 70's era .... by the time I had called up it was gone.

Those are really hard to find over here.

I have not had recent vintages but we did a big vertical some years ago.

My favorite was 1990, but given the high (warranted) price for it, I'd go with 2003 as my favorite for practical purposes.

I was there Arv, iirc it was in 2006 in NYC.

From memory we had vintages including 1982, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1995, 1996, 2000 and 2003...I think we had a couple more vintages in the mix. My wotn was the 1989 with the 1986 second. The group's favourite I think was 1990 by a nose over the 1982. One of them was served en mag iirc. The 1996 didn't shine that night and was well down the pecking order.

Good bottles of the 82 are incredible. That's easily my top vintage. After that I'd rank them in order: 90, 96, 03 (but it could surpass the 96 in time), 01, 02, 00. I've not had any younger than the 03, and I don't think I've had a sound bottle of the 86 or 89, so judgment reserved there.

Anyone had the 09? That seems like it should be a great Sociando vintage.

I had the 2009 at the Chateau in 2012. At the opposite of some other 2009, this was a wine to wait for 10 years minimum, but with a great potential. Not easy or young superripe fruit 2009, very "Sociando" in style. I clearly preferred the 2010 at the same age (3 years after the vintage).

Nic

2005 might turn out to be the best, but it needs time IMO. 2003 is better for drinking now. 1970 was excellent, but it has been a long time since I drank it. I must have tasted the 1982 but cannot remember my impression of it.

Comte Flaneur wrote:I was there Arv, iirc it was in 2006 in NYC.

From memory we had vintages including 1982, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1995, 1996, 2000 and 2003...I think we had a couple more vintages in the mix. My wotn was the 1989 with the 1986 second. The group's favourite I think was 1990 by a nose over the 1982. One of them was served en mag iirc. The 1996 didn't shine that night and was well down the pecking order.

Ahh right. Memories are blurry, although I recall bringing the mag of 82.

I've put down some mags of 2010 for the kids. Perhaps it will be rounded out when they are ready to enjoy fine wine.

Of the few I've tasted
Favorite is 1989
Least favorite is 1995

The 04 is packed with green peppers and is quite approachable, so it gets my nod. Edited, sorry no green peppers in this one.

this depends a lot on storage. I've had excellent bottles of the 96 and terrible bottles. The one bottle of the 89 I had was pretty tired and bad.

I think the 2005 will be fantastic, it has so much tension and energy it practically levitates out of the bottle, but it's not all that accessible now. You can tell the balance and depth is excellent though.

For my actual favorite experience drinking a SM, it has been the 2000. Has been better than the 03 for me.

Memory is a tough thing to rely on and especially not having the ability of comparing a vertical at a single sitting. 1990 I've had a few times and both were memorable to the point of likely edging out a near second for me the 2000. 2003 in my mind is the best qpr for this Chateau at the moment and all three of these given any individual bottle could be #1. With that being said I'd love to try these vintages in a side by side tasting to confirm my preference as all three are very good on their own. 96 from memory just didn't strike me as being in the same league as these others.

1996 will always have a place in my heart although I'll agree with Marcs about that wild and wonderful 2000, which I place a notch above the 2003.

I love the '03 now

my favorite is 1998...tasted it 8years ago...i didn't score it as high then because I was into more new world wines...it was a fantastic treat, my notes say red fruited with tapenade and coffee notes.

1982

The only Sociando in my cellar is the 2000. Love the one you're with...

My favorite is 82 in about 1997. Tonight the 95 is talking a smooth talk to me. Roasting an herbed truffle butter Kosher turkey right now. No sign of green herbs on the wine. Close to the 90 in quality. Very nice.

90s Mags for now and long term.
2003, 1998 and 1996 for now.
2000, 2005 and 2010 in 10 years maybe.
But my heart belongs to 97. Best value in this vintage.
89 is not bad either.
You won't find any bad vintage in Sociandos

I do remember that 1997 Sociando.
It was one of the wines of the vintage.

Buy if you find any well stored. Sad i sold one case of two long ago....

My favorites of all time were 1990, all long gone.

And for today is the 2003.

I've never tried their 'Jean Gatreau' special cuvee / best vats I read about.

Anyone seen those?

1982 and then 2000

Yes the 90 is a stunner. The 95 is very worthy. Not too many so so vintages it seems.

My fav is 1996.
Not exactly sure why I liked it so much, but it didn't have the peppery streak of some vintages and the tannins were a bit more approachable compared to the very stern 1986 and even the 2000.
It was long, elegant, cool and calm.
Not tried that many since, and started re-buying it on indent in 09 and 10.

1996 for a fav?
Don' t you think is a little bit......lean?

The 1996 Sociando was the first BWE wine of the year Ognik back in 2001.
It has been probably a decade since I last had it but I remember it as a beauty.

Went to my company Christmas party this year (first time to a Christmas party in quite a while). Brought a magnum of 89 SM which was hidden behind the bar for those that knew the code word (vin de Tim). This was a younger alcohol crowd so mostly were drinking mojitos. Anyway, this bottle was just in a perfect place, mature, fully integrated tannins, just fantastic. Nowhere near first growth quality, mind you, but definitely solidly in the classified growth category. I also don't see it getting much better, if there were such things as drinking windows, it would be about 1/3 of the way through, probably a good decade ahead of it. Great time to open the bottle.

Tim,

We certainly hope all is working out with the new job and nice to see a Christmas celebration. I know what you are referring to the mojito crowd as I've been working amongst many for years. Lots of money, young and clueless. I can't remember being that way but probably was.

The 89 SM seems like it was in a good place and not sure how you lose a magnum behind the bar. Did it score above 90RMP pts??

Merry Christmas and we hope all is going well across the pond.

Thanks Danny. This isn't a rich crowd (the company is not known for high salaries, and I can attest to that personally), but it was a good group of people.

As to the SM, I'd probably score it slightly above at 91pts. Excellent QPR, not in the top growth class though. Just solid, aged left bank bordeaux.

Wishing everyone happy holidays!

Comte Flaneur wrote:
With the qualification that I have not tried the 1970 and 1975 and probably never will

I once got an email offer on the 1975 for maybe 50 or 75 bucks and called right away.

It was -- of course -- already gone, to the surprise of the bemused merchant who didn't have much regard for S-M, and made little effort to hide his contempt for such a severe wine.

This reminded me of the time in the 90's when I came very close to acquiring an original copy of Margin of Safety, a book kept under literal lock and key at the Boston Library. I called as soon as I got the email -- I'd set up a tickler on some rare book website -- but of course someone in a better timezone had called first. Now of course I have a pdf copy, but once upon a time, information was hard to find.

Ognik,
nope, I don't think the 96 was too lean.
It was what I always called a classic Medoc, with cool, elegant, minerally fruit.
I accept that it will not be to everyone's taste, but SM is not lean to my palate.
Having said that, there were a few vintages of SM that really didn't suit my palate such as 2001 and 2002, as I found them a little too green and bell pepper like.

Just as a contrast, I was in London in 2000, and bought 1996 Demoiselles SM (second wine) and I was quite amazed at how drinkable it was.
Had a night out with a few old friends (who were also from Australia) and we guzzled it by the magnum - it was on sale at the local supermarket.
While the Ch SM 96 was long, cool, minerally, the Demoiselles was more Merlot like, with soft, ripe red fruits.

I had a second bottle of 2001 I think over the summer. It was pretty vegetal / ashen to my tastes.

1989 is the only bottle I have got...so probably is the best (and the worst)

Pretty hard to imagine any Sociandos wth more greenness/bell-pepper than the 2000, but for my taste that's what makes it so unique and what makes t the greatest SM ever!