GOAT....Best 4 Consecutive Years for Red Bordeaux Ever?

[RPCV]

2014, 2015, 2016, 2017

My wine appreciation goes back to the early 80s' but I can't think of a better four-year stretch for red Bordeaux. Thoughts and opinions welcome....

[Blanquito]

It's cheating, but I'd vote 82, 83, 85, 86.

If a strict 4 years in sequence is required to play, there were no duds from 2000-2010, but there were some "useful" vintages sprinkled it, making a 4 year run hard to single out.

Is '17 supposed to be good? I've been ignoring the hype. If yes, then 14-17 would be a great run for sure and I've not tried any 16s yet.

My ranking of 2000-2009:
2005 (best across the board)
2000 (starting to show well after a long awkward stretch, but not a standout year for most littler wines)
2009 (gotta get the producer right and much better on Left Bank overall)
2002/2001 (tied)
2008 (could move up with time in the cellar, but in a tougher phase right now next to the older years)
2006/2004 (tied)
2003 (the good wines are very good, but many are showing less and less impressive with time for my palate)
2007 (the only true dud of the decade)

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

2000-2005 produced just about every kind of vintage Bordeaux is capable of without a washout. That's six to your four.

[JimHow]

Yes but wouldn't you extend it to 1998-2006 Hound?

[Blanquito]

Art, no fair.

Let's pick one:
1998-2001?
1999-2002?
2000-2003?
2001-2004?
2002-2005?

I'd pick 2002-2005.

[JimHow]

Boy this is a tougher question than it seems.
RP may end up being right but I haven't had any 2016-17 yet.
But certainly 2014 is a great start and 2015 seems to be great too.

[Nicklasss]

Very tough question.

I guess that 2008-2009-2010-2011 might be considered too. I did not sample a lot of these vintages, especially low for 2008, but 2009-2010 are recognized as super excellent, and I liked all the 2011 I had until now. 2011 seems to me like a sligthly improved 2002.

Also 1945-1946-1947-1948 could be considered, even if 1946 is a bit weaker.

Nic

[Comte Flaneur]

I would go for 2008-2011

[Nicklasss]

I would also go with 2008-2011. Two different great vintages, surrounded by two excellent classical vintages.

My problem with the 1998-2005 Stream, are 1999 and 2003, so make it tough to get 4 in a row. I think that 2008 and 2011 will prove they are better than 1999 (when considering both banks + Graves) and 2003 is too far away from my conception of a balanced red Bordeaux, while 2009 being rich AND balanced.

Nic

[Blanquito]

Hmmmm, 2011 must be better than I knew. From 2011, I only own 2 half bottles of Canon.

[Comte Flaneur]

Of that quadrumvirate ... (takes a bow for fancy word of the day) ... I think 2011 would be in fourth place not because it is a poor vintage but because 2008 is so good, so classic. I think average best describes 2011, but it is pretty solid on both banks.

I am beginning to have creeping doubts that the 2001 vintage does not quite live up to its billing, mainly from anecdotes from others who have keen palates.

My latest pecking order 1999 to 2016 is like this.

2016, 2010, 2015, 2005, 2009, 2000, 2008, 2004, 2014, 2012, 2001, 2006, 1999, 2011, 2002, 2007, 2003, 2013

We are doing a fairly comprehensive 1999 tasting two weeks from now, and have not had enough 2014s to form a strong view based on my own experience.

[AKR]

I think its strange how 2003 is so lowly regarded here. There were excellent wines made in the vintage, and in general it wasn't hard to steer clear of the problem areas.

Personally I'd judge vintages based on the better wines, since that's what most oenophiles are going to be cellaring anyways.

2001 also might get a little credit for the excellent sweet wines, which also were the first in a long wave of great odd numbered vintages for the region, but in the prior decade (between 1991-2001) only 1997 really merited cellaring, even if others were bought and drunk. So at the time, 2001 seemed a bit more special that it might seem today, when there is a large glut of great Sauternes/Barsac on the markets.

[AKR]

2008 in particular is a vintage that I have little tasting experience with. I popped an 'eh' Lafleur Gazin from that a few weeks ago.

I suppose ten years on in, that might be a good year to rustle up a panel horizontal of, next time BWEers are around.

[Comte Flaneur]

Good point Arv about the 2001 sweet wines, which should be worth at least a couple of rungs in the pecking order.

Re the reds some including a guy called Juergen, who seems to know what he is talking about, has reported that some 2001s are going through an awkward stage with unripe tannins an drying finishes. It wasn’t a very ripe year and now it is a battle between the fruit and tannins to see which will outlast the other. That was the gist of it.

[Chateau Vin]

...
.
.
.

My latest pecking order 1999 to 2016 is like this.

2016, 2010, 2015, 2005, 2009, 2000, 2008, 2004, 2014, 2012, 2001, 2006, 1999, 2011, 2002, 2007, 2003, 2013

We are doing a fairly comprehensive 1999 tasting two weeks from now, and have not had enough 2014s to form a strong view based on my own experience.

I have not tasted any 2016s yet, but I am surprised to see you, Comte, that you have put 2016 above 2010, and 2015 above 2005/2009...Curious to know and wondering based on your specific purchases...

[Comte Flaneur]

CV

I think 2016 raises the bar even higher than the previous benchmark set by 2010. The 16s may have less power and extract than the 2010s, but they have more harmony, balance, finesse and freshness. They certainly do not lack stuffing, but the extraction is less forced than say 2005. I think 2016 represents a philosophical change in winemaking in the post Parker era. In 2005-10 he was still dominant. I love the 2015s because they have a lot of ripeness but less extract than 2005s and less opulence than 2009, which borders on Napalike in my experience. The 2015 vintage was hotter than 2016, and not quite as fresh.

My 2c and method in my madness.

Ian

[Blanquito]

Funny how 2000 is the forgotten vintage amongst many of us cognoscenti. That said, auction prices for the top 40-50 wines from 2000 have gone from strength to strength, but that might be partially due to the millennial vintage date.

[DavidG]

I think 2000 is an outstanding vintage and the wines are just starting to show some aged complexity. In that decade, 2005 and 2009 may surpass it, but that takes nothing away from the 2000s.

Picking a best 4 consecutive vintages is an interesting exercise. I’m not sure I can do it because it requires including a vintage or two that falls well below my ideal. I’ll go with 87-88-89-90, with 87 being the straggler.

[JimHow]

Indeed, when you make it FOUR years like RP has done, it adds all kinds of complications.
Time for another poll!

[Blanquito]

88-90 easily would be the best 3 years run, for what I’ve tried. But 87 and 91, ouch.

[stefan]

What DavidG said.

[jal]

Except for Grand Puy Lacoste in 2009 and Lagrange in 2010, every wine I drank from 2009-2012 has been enjoyable. I have not tasted any 2014 or 2015 yet, so I'll go with 2009-2012
I have not found any wines I liked from 1987, 1988-1990 are my 3 favorite years as well.

[stefan]

Really, Jacques? The wines from 1987 were light but true; much better than 1991 IMO.

[jal]

Light is right, Stefan. But you're right, I found 1991 was even more diluted.

[marcs]

Re the reds some including a guy called Juergen, who seems to know what he is talking about, has reported that some 2001s are going through an awkward stage with unripe tannins an drying finishes. It wasn’t a very ripe year and now it is a battle between the fruit and tannins to see which will outlast the other. That was the gist of it.

As I said somewhere else here, I feel like the 2001s were underestimated coming out in the shadow of 2000, but then were overestimated. On the left bank especially, it was always somewhat clipped vintage and underfruited compared to the tannins.

2000 is a great vintage. Fantastic combination of classicism and depth without the slightly over the top aspect I sometimes sense in 2005 and 2010

[JimHow]

You’ll not find too many shabby 2000s.
The vintage is 1982-like.