Best Bordeaux vintages of the last 10 years (2008 on)?

[marcs]

Can those with more information than me weigh in?

We all know 2013 is crap. I'm particularly interested in:

How do the "good but not great vintages" -- 2008, 2012, 2014, 2017 -- compare? What is the ranking among these vintages and how certain are people about that ranking? If you were going to stock up on just one or two of those vintages which should it be?

How do the four supposedly "great" vintages -- 2009, 2010, 2015, 2016 -- compare?

How do the "good but not great" vintages compare to the supposedly "great" vintages? How much of a premium should we be willing to pay for the more expensive 2009/2010/2015/2016 compared to the other vintages?

What is the deal with 2011 anyway? Stinko like 2013, or worth owning at the right price?

thanks for any thoughts. I could give opinions but I don't think they're very informed.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

Not much experience with these "good but not great[s]" but I've liked the style of the 08s I've had and would describe them as full but stern and needing time. Like the kind of wine the BD formerly known as JimHow used to like.

[Racer Chris]

2008s were mostly gone when I began buying so I have only had a few.
Many 2009s are drinking well now. Ripe fruit and soft tannins.
Some 2010s can be enjoyed now but for the most part they won't be ready for a long time. Lots of great wines.
2011s are typically lighter and ready to drink sooner. Plenty of good wines to be had but prices should have been lowered more in comparison to 2010.
2012 is sort of between '10 and '11, bigger and more tannic than '11 but not as powerful as the '10s.
2014 is an excellent vintage with some great wines and a return to sensible pricing.
Early arrivals of 2015s have been excellent. Margaux is the appellation to load up on. Prices started creeping up again but still good bang for the buck.
2016s and 2017s haven't been released so I can't comment from experience.

[AKR]

This would be a good topic for an offline!

I've liked the 2012's I've tried, and have bought some.

It does seem to me that these wines are all much better than so many 90's era wines.

I suspect RacerChris has the most experience with these in actual consumption, rather than the mass, crammed, hurried UGC kinds of events.

[Racer Chris]

I suspect RacerChris has the most experience with these in actual consumption...

Just checked - I've consumed 77 bottles of 2012 red Bordeaux, from 23 producers.
Only one Classified Growth - Cantenac Brown, but plenty of Cru Bourgeois level.

[AKR]

Cantenac Brown has some upside for the patient.

http://www.bordeauxwineenthusiasts.com/ ... 65&p=54160

[Racer Chris]

Cantenac Brown has some upside for the patient.

I have three more to find out with, but I'm not planning to let them rest past 2025.

[Winona Chief]

Besides the big 4 (2009, 2010, 2015, 2016), I think 2014 is probably the best. However, for short term drinking, I'm a big fan of the 2012 vintage - lovely fruit with nice ripeness but not over-the-top and great for drinking young.

Chris Bublitz

[marcs]

My interest in 2012 has mainly been because it's a birth year wine for my son, so the "early drinking" aspect has actually not been a plus.

So far in 2012 Bordeaux I just got him Rauzan Segla and Conseillante (the latter of which may not make old bones)

Instead filled in with some Burgundy (2012 Faiveley Corton) and California (Spottswoode, Monte Bello), and Rhone (Pegau).

Then went hog wild on 2014s for me (two cases total).

[tiesface]

The 2012 Monte Bello is a great wine

[Comte Flaneur]

Marc I think your 2012 Conseillante will be just fine when your son comes of age. It reminds me of the 1985 which was similarly precocious and is still going strong aged 33.

When it comes to vintages generalisations should be taken with a healthy dose of scepticism.

Having said that 2011 is not a stinker and is in fact a pretty respectable vintage. See Alex’s thread on his recent lunch in Bordeaux where a lot of 11s showed well. Only 2013 is a probably write off, but I have only experienced a few of them.

I don’t have enough personal experience of 2014 to judge but everything I read about it - mainly on here - really excites me, so I suspect it could turn out to be the best of the non-trophy vintages, unless eclipsed by 2017, which is entirely possible - see the Lisa Perrotti Brown comments on the evolution of winemaking philosophy in Bordeaux in the 2017 thread - very exciting.

I think 2008 is still under-estimated and will turn out to be the best non-trophy vintage in the noughties, better than 2001 and even 2004. Twelve as we have discussed is a very useful and accessible vintage, which does not necessarily mean an early demise.

My pecking order of the trophy vintages is 2016, 2010, 2015, 2009. For the non-trophy vintages I predict it will turn out 2017, 2014, 2008, 2012, 2011, 2013. You might characterise it as four outstanding vintages, four very good/excellent vintages, one good one and one lousy one. Happy days...

[Blanquito]

Great summary Ian.

One thought I had re-reading this thread: vintage generalizations are useful and limited at the same time. But they are made more useful for me in that at this stage of my wine life, I tend to seek out the same ~30 or so Chateau year after year and they tend to be concentrated in the northern Medoc (at least for recent vintages, the Right Bank is mostly dead to me either due to the pricing in Pomerol and the prevailing style in St. Emilion).

Given that consistency and the mostly traditional estates I prefer, 2009 is pretty high on my list as many of these old school producers excelled in the torrid conditions, although I’m far less convinced with the Right Bankers I’ve tried in 09 even from the likes of Magdelaine and Canon.

[felixp21]

FWIW, my take on the 10 vintages (2007-2016)
I haven't seen the 17's in barrel yet, couldn't make it earlier this year. But the reports from those in the know is that 17 is an average vintage.

2010
Daylight
2009
2015
2016
2014
2012
2008
2011
2007
2013

I've seen the 16's twice and extensively. Methinks they are all going a little gaga on it, the tannins are HUGE, even though the fruit is very very high quality. Depending on how it evolves, it might turn out superb, but another 05, or even an 86, looms in the background. We will know much more in another 5 years.
2010 is bar far the best vintage of my (sadly, extensive) life-time. By far, throw in 82, 90 or whatever. By far. There are at least 10 wines that are going to be utter legends in another 30 years. That is a huge number for a single vintage. Throw in fantastic whites, and you have a complete vintage.
I think 15 and 09 are just about equal quality, so you can toss a coin there.
The 14's and 12's are good, nothing to call dad about.
The rest are pretty pedestrian. Neal Martin recent "8"s article sums up the 08's well, not much going on there. 11, 07 and 13 are truly forgettable.

[Gerry M.]

I will say I loved 2001 from the beginning, especially the left bank. On release they were approachable and showed a lot of promise for the future. 2002 was a late surprise for me. Early on I thought the vintage was rather thin and missed out on quite a few good opportunities. Thankfully I did luck out and find some after I realized many quickly began to put some weight on.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I tasted the 2008 at a UGC tasting and came away thinking many of the wines were overly hard and rather austere. Now it appears after ten years they have evolved and given up some of the harshness and could end up being very good. I'm suspecting something like 1988, maybe? From what I've tasted (Pichon Baron, Lalande, Giscours, Clerc Milon, Malescot and a couple of others) 2013 is a washout, at least on the left bank. I've had a few 2012's that have been pretty good but underwhelmed given the pricing, at least locally. That leads me to my conclusion that 2014 is the best bet given pricing levels and overall quality. 2011 and 2012 are not bad years but my take is why chase it when I can get 2014 for the same or less money? 2017 may turn out to be OK but given the uptick in the Euro I seriously doubt there will be much in the way of value. I bought 2016 Lynch Bages futures for $125/btl and the latest offering I just got for 2017 was $110. At those prices I'll pass.

2009 will be the best for early drinking while you let 2010 sleep, I think both 2015 and 2016 offered up many incredible wines with some communes out performing others. My only hope is I live long enough to see them achieve some level of maturity. I think the consensus is those are the four best years

[Blanquito]

The criticisms one hears of 2009 and 2010 is that they are both out of balance— too high alcohol, too tannic, too extracted. I’m not sure we’ve had many vintages like that historically, so predicting how they’ll age could be interesting. I largely skipped 2010 as they sounded like they’ll need 30+ years before maturity, but I bought and tasted a bunch of 2009 and even many of those had very high levels of structure.

I suspect these will turn out well or even glorious after enough time but they don’t seem to me to be risk-free propositions. From the sound of it, 2015 and 2016 might be “better” in that with a new post-Parker mindset vignerons avoided trying too hard. Time will tell.

[marcs]

The criticisms one hears of 2009 and 2010 is that they are both out of balance— too high alcohol, too tannic, too extracted. I’m not sure we’ve had many vintages like that historically, so predicting how they’ll age could be interesting. I largely skipped 2010 as they sounded like they’ll need 30+ years before maturity, but I bought and tasted a bunch of 2009 and even many of those had very high levels of structure.

I suspect these will turn out well or even glorious after enough time but they don’t seem to me to be risk-free propositions. From the sound of it, 2015 and 2016 might be “better” in that with a new post-Parker mindset vignerons avoided trying too hard. Time will tell.

I share this concern about overextraction and aging, especially given my age. Those Parkerized vintages are a new experiment. I do think 2009 will be friendlier through its life than 2010 -- the tannins are less aggressive and the fruit is warmer. But it still might not be as accessible throughout its life as I hear 1990 was.

I think the test case for this is 2005 and how it is aging. We should start a new thread on that.

[DavidG]

Agreed, Markus. I remember debates 10 years ago over whether the 2005s were too tannic and extracted. IMO, the 2005s are fine, though still 5-10 years from entering my preferred drinking window. The 2009s and 2010s will be fine as well. I can’t comment on the 2015s or 2016s because it’s just too soon. Sounds like both should be outstanding if the critics are right.

[Blanquito]

Compared to 09 and 10, the alcohol is generally a fair bit lower in 2005 at least on the Left Bank and 2005’s acid is high for a big year (as was 2010). This might not end up mattering once mature, but hedging my bets, I suspect 2005 is likely to be more to my liking then the other years. It will be fun to compare and contrast these once mature if I live long enough.

[DavidG]

Well, I bet bigger on 05 than on 09 or 10, but mostly because of my age. I’m hoping they all turn out well, and I think they will. At least I’ll keep telling myself that while waiting for them to hit the 15-20 year mark and hoping I age well enough to enjoy them then.

[robertgoulet]

Well, I bet bigger on 05 than on 09 or 10, but mostly because of my age. I’m hoping they all turn out well, and I think they will. At least I’ll keep telling myself that while waiting for them to hit the 15-20 year mark and hoping I age well enough to enjoy them then.

I do not think u can go wrong with any of the 3....
though '10 for me will be longest lived

[Racer Chris]

I've gotta say, I'm really enjoying the Medoc 2009s at this point in their development.
Tonight I drank the last half of a Ch. Potensac. Excellent right now. Well balanced fruit and acidity, with well resolved tannins. Still primary and needs a bit of time to relax after opening, but a real pleasure to drink with a burger.
ON the heels of that I drank a glass of Ch. Meyre, a somewhat obscure and inexpensive Cru Bourgeois that I (as a newbie) thought showed potential several years ago. At the time it was rather tannic, but right now it's drinking great. I'll have more to say tomorrow when I finish the bottle, but the first glass was really good.
Thinking ahead, I'm going to move another bottle of Ch. Lalande (St Julien) upstairs for near term consumption. I've already consumed 10 of these so I have no doubt the next one will be satisfying as well.
One more already moved to my upstairs fridge is Ch. La Cardonne. It is really old school, and a real pleasure already, as long as you give it plenty of air up front. Even Mary liked the last bottle I opened in February. She doesn't like much Bordeaux, so I'm always happy when she gives her approval.