Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

Just had a bottle of the 96 Branaire Ducru, now a 21 year old wine. Boy, it sure showed little for a wine with 2 decades to develop. The aromas and flavors were quite earthy and subdued and the body and midpalate seemed light and a little weedy even. I suppose the tannins have softened some and the second half of the bottle showed a bit better, but where is the silk, the complexity, the sweetness, the integration of a mature claret? Is this just too young still as my instincts suggest? Isn't Branaire a relatively early maturing wine?

I've had very similar feelings about many Bordeaux from 95 and 96 tried in the last year or two-- they taste pretty primary still despite 20+ years. Many are even in a lean, extra dry phase* where the fruit and glycerin are in hiding. I know it's in hiding as these wines showed great fruit when young. We've all seen this before of course where a Bordeaux's greatness just needs more time to be revealed and the bottle sweetness and complexity come out once maturity is reached, but I continue to be (mostly) disappointed with how the 95 and 96 Medocs are showing at present. I remain convinced that these will be great wines someday, it's just taking longer than I would have guessed. *There are exceptions of course: some 96s from the southern Medoc have been drinking well for a while, like Brane Cantenac and Cantemerle.

This all reminds me of the discussions on the 86s on the old site, as to if the 86s would ever come around, which prompted Ian to organize the legendary 86 horizontal at Fabio's in the Fall of 2008. Those 86s were pretty close in age then as the 95s and 96s are now, and I think by and large the 86s were better at age 22 even with all of their famously hard tannins. For my money, I thought the 86s were awesome in 2008 and they've only improved from there.

When will the vintages of 95 and 96 Medoc join in the fun?

P.S. I don't think there are any vintages pre-1995 that aren't fully ready or mature. Even the 86s and 88s are fully mature, just in a stern style. There are individual wines which may need more time still from before 1995, like the 1986 LLC or the 1989 Lynch Bages, but these are the exceptions in my experience.

So the last vintages we are waiting on are the 95s and 96s.

Do you agree these aren't really ready/at point/fully mature in the northern Medoc at least? If yes, when do you think these will fully open into secondary and tertiary maturity? Will these vintages live up to the hype they once claimed? Do you agree that the 95s and 96s taking longer to come around than the 86s and 88s?

I never had enough stock of 95-96 to follow along, certainly not to any meaningful degree of classed growths and not even very many lesser properties, so I'll take your word on this. I do know that the 95 RBs I've had have been terrific for at least a decade.

I had a 95 Branaire (held since release) a while back and it was 'ok' but nothing special, nothing that would make one think that the years and imputed cellaring costs were warranted.

There is a 96 on the shelf to try in the next few weeks as well.

I've never hid my view on the 95 Medocs - they've only increasingly underwhelmed me as the years go by.

Maybe Pichon Lalande is the exception.

Maybe it was age 10 we did some kind of 95 vs 96 panel of cru classe Medocs, and in general I liked the 96s better.

I can't remember if the event was blind or not.

Sadly we had some corky GPLs at that.

Older wine comes with lots of bottle variation too, even when you've held them yourself.

I think the last two bottles of 2000 La Tour Carnet I had were quite different, just looking at my contemporaneous notes for each, yet each were sound / proper bottles.

Sigh.

No reason getting impatient on 96s Bordeaux.
Sociando Mallet, Duhart Milon, Batailley, both Pichons, even Latour with adequate decanting offer lots of fun now. Wines like Cantemerle, Maucaillou are on or past peak now.
95 Bordeaux is a different story...not sure if they ever will show......

La Lagune was excellent early on and excellent now. Sociando Mallet could use more time IMO but is all right. Leoville Barton is excellent but still too young for my taste. These are the three '96 Medocs I have drunk the most. Of the very fancy wines, Haut Brion and La Mission Haut Brion are the most advanced in my experience.

I feel your pain Patrick. You make a good point about the top 1986s we drank in NYC aged 22 and how ready and good most of them were relative to some of the curmudgeonly 1995s and 1996s today. Here are some incoherent and random observations.

Regarding 1995s this seems like a difficult vintage but I still have a lot of faith. In my recent experience Leovilles Barton and Lascases are starting to show glimpses of their great potential, the last bottle of Ducru I had was just magnificent, Pichon Lalande has been drinking great for a decade - both the 1995 and 1996, Baron is a dud by comparison in both years, while GPL is still a bit recalcitrant but superb in 1995 and been drinking well for several years in 1996.

Pontet Canets 1995 and 1996 are now drinking very well as is Cantemerle and Montrose 1996.

Over here the consensus view is that the 1995 vintage will never get close to 1996, which I think is a premature judgment. The single best wine I had from either vintage was the 1995 Lafite that Jacques's friend Pierre brought to one of Monday night dinners in Kittle House in 2010/11.

The second best is 1996 Chateau Margaux which was wotn at our Chateau Margaux tasting in May 2016, and was drinking very well. In July I opened a 1996 Latour for MEK's birthday and it was very backward.

Instead I suspect these are the last two vintages that really need patience, even the 2000s are overtaking them.

Between global warming, UC Davis science, better elevage, and improved vineyard practices I think some of these hard, recalcitrant vintages like 1975 and 1995L are more remote risks now.

Hi Blanquito.

It is an interesting topic.

My quick analysis: all the wines from your cellar are 5 years away of maturity, because it is colder than wanted? Or maybe it is that the wines of these vintages are the last ones made in a more traditionnal way, and starting around 1998-2001, the wines were made more fruity?

I have one or two bottles of 1996 in the place left, no 1995. From what I sampled, i had satisfying time with these wines, but my storage area is a bit warmer than what is recommended. Maybe my bottles are aging a little bit faster, but I'm ok with that as I don't really want to keep bottles more than 20 years.

And Patrick, even you seemed to have a good time with these vintages, not so long ago.

A closed "made after 1986" red Bordeaux after 22 years? Yike don't say more, this is already too scary!

Nic

Good points all around. I clearly am ambivalent about the progress of these years— I remain a believer in both vintages and as Nic notes I’ve had many enjoyable bottles at tastings including at conventions. But at the same time, part of my brain says when I’m poking around the cellar, “hey, 20 plus years, this will be good and ready, no reason to wait anymore” and I keep ending up disappointed with the wine’s evolution.

Maybe we just need a running list of what’s ready and what’s not?

Patrick, do you use CT or some sort of program to track your TNs? I update drinking windows whenever I find a wine drinking substantially younger or older than expected. It’s far from foolproof, but I do look at them before opening a bottle. And it’s more accurate than my memory at this point.

We opened 96 Pichon Baron last night. A delightful mix of fruit and early mature flavors. Still young at age 21. A very good wine.

Folks,
I'd say that from the wines I have tasted, 95 was rather over-rated.
The wines are generally medium weight but I have to say that I have had more disappointments than surprises.
I think 95 was better in the right bank, but that is just a personal view.

In regard to 1996, I wonder if it is a more modern version of 1975?
Many of the wines were rather stern and closed when young, though some I have to say were excellent, even at CB level.
But I tried some 1996's at a tutored tasting in Singapore this year, and whilst I liked the wines, I did not buy any of them.
The wines still seemed young and many appeared to need more time, thus I kept thinking of the 1975 vintage, which was stern for so many years.
At 20 years of age, many 1975s appeared to be very young, and the better wines are still young today.

I actually thought 1995 was more like 1975. I remember buying the odd stern 75 when I was getting into wine, they would have been about age 20 then.

And today the 95's are basically the same way today. Right banks are fine in both years though

So I too opened a bottle of the 1996 Branaire Ducru [St Julien] last night to go with a roast I made in my new Ronco rottisserie countertop oven.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/93tgjH9nYevzI4AA3

I'd bought this on release -- I think it was $40 at Sams -- and cellared it since then. For the opportunity cost, I was underwhelmed. I've had it a few times, but not in many years, so wasn't expecting Shangri-La. A 1995 a year or so ago was also kind of 'eh'. I think recent quasi comparables like a 96 Langoa Barton and Leoville Poyferre were more interesting. 1996 is a medium bodied wine, didn't seem to get hurt by a double decant, and showed cedar and cranberries on the nose. It's a food wine, with fine acidity, and the tannins have resolved themselves by now. The SO said she wasn't drinking, but after she had a sample taste, went on to have a couple of glasses, so it seemed to be to her liking. There's glass left for tonight. All in all, I'd give this a B+, and I'm glad I didn't bring to a panel tasting. For Branaire, I've liked 2000 and 2003 better, but those were bigger years. This 96 is a lean, taut wine now.

Not sure how many 96 Medocs I have left outside of Lagrange, Lafon Rochet, and Sociando-Mallet, but I'm going to be finishing them sooner rather than later.

To my taste I agree than 95 and 96 need more time. The only '95 or '96 classified bordeaux that I considered mature or close to mature is Pape Clement, and that's really good. For me, wines like LLC, GPL Leov P and Leov B need more time. Branaire usually comes around earlier, but the 2000 of that wine is very stern and backward too.

--Gary Rust

I finished the last glass with a roast chicken (also made in my new toy) the next night, and it had faded a little.

To me, that's not a great indicator for future positive development.

22 years is a long time for most cru classe.

For most of the last decade I was drinking the 2003's first, then some 2000's, and ignoring the 1996s.

I think now, I'm shifting that priority.

Plus, most of the delicious 2003s drank so well early, that there are not many left.

So 1996 is now front of the queue.

Group 1 boarding !

Great showing by 1996 Cos d'Estournel last night. I've also been very pleased with 1996 Pichon Lalande. I think most 1995s are still a little stern.

Chris Bublitz