The 2005 Vintage -- how good is it really?

[AKR]

Let's not get too ruffled over pleasantries. I think between all of us speaking Merican, Kings English, and European - we are rubbing each other coarsely without ill intent.

My random not totally on topic observations

1986 Right Banks were generally disappointments for my tastes during the 90's and later. I only had a few of the elite wines but the large 'middle class' of wines weren't anywhere as nice as 1989. For every freakish Figeac there were lots of stern Le Gays or wimpy l'Arrosee. Paying up for them only made it worse. Better to stick with the 86 Cordier stable, which were sort of like Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale of their era.

We were so spoiled in this era, between 2000 and 2010. So many great years, such a strong dollar, and such easy shipping of wines. Maybe the only years that collectors didn't lay down, and thats likely only out snobbery/cramped storage would have been 2004, 2006, 2007 which were still good/functional/drinkable years. Compare it to the 90s where you had some real dogs interspersed with years where a connoisseur could find something...but a less knowledge person guided by a cynical salesman would have ended up with 96R, 98L, 93's and 97's. Perhaps the frost and hailstorms of the last two seasons will teach us a lesson: appreciate what the Almighty bestows.

I think that vintages like 1966 and 1970 were subject to Parker's old scoring grades. In that era, an 88 point wine was actually a good, purchase worthy wine. Nowadays, that kind of score damns a year to desperate LBW emails, or the British Airways Club World pour. I'm glad Blanquito and some local BWE splinter cells are still enjoying them.

Tonight, I'm going to commit another food/wine pairing crime. Cod -- braised in scandalous, non cardiologist approved amounts of butter -- with the rest of that 1994 Pontet Canet opened yesterday. I expect it will only be better having had some air. I just need to figure out how to do this on the grill. It's like 96F here and I don't want to put any more heat in the house. The shitty Acacia chard I'm drinking now can't handle fresh fish, lemons, and butter. So it'll be red wine with white fish, another affront to all that's decent.

[BordeauxNut]

1986 is for me Left Bank vintage and I don't recall Figeac and La Consellante being soo good. Cheval Blanc maybe. Three wines among the top don't make a great vintage on Right Bank. Still, I have great difficulty to accept the fact that 1986 vintage was drawn in discussion with 2005. Why not compare 2005 to 1982, 1985 and 2000!!

Totally agree that the RB 1986 vintage cannot be compared to 2005. But, I do think the 1986 LBs are similar in nature to the 2005s -- though, I believe the 2005s are both more consistent and better. It's the combination of dense but cool fruit and massive structure that reminds me of 1986.

FWIW, I was walking around Pavie at harvest in 2006 and all I saw was grapes that were raisins on the vine. In the rows next to them at Pavie Macquin -- the grapes looked perfectly healthy.

[Blanquito]

I recall those Pavie pics you posted, crazily shriveled berries.

[greatbxfreak]

BordeauxNut,

Interesting. They waited too long with harvest, gaining more alcohol and losing freshness and tannin getting dry.
But happily they realised that it was not the way it should go after heavily criticism of many wine writers. From 2014 vintage it is different story.

AKR,

Nice write up!

[Comte Flaneur]

Ian,

As my comments weren't directed especially towards you, because you are one of the few posters here to talk really nice about 2005, I don't understand you comments about me. I am disappointed. I have every right to express my criticism.

You speak about 14.5% alcohol. It's natural, no sugar added. Should chateau owners dilute their grape must?? The problem with some estates in 2005 is that despite nature serving all the things on a silver spoon and vinification was crying for gentle one, they decided to push the extraction/maceration with Angelus and Pavie. Pavie abandoned this beginning with 2014. Its manager, Henrique da Costa had a serious conversation with Gerard Perse in 2013 about future style of Pavie. I only mentioned T.Roteboeuf 2005 to set the bar for quality.

Someone here is saying 2005s are too tannic and monolithic on Left Bank. Come on! I tasted during 2-3 years many 2005s from Left Bank and can't find anything monolithic at all. Too tannic?? It's Bordeaux for heaven's sake!

1986 is for me Left Bank vintage and I don't recall Figeac and La Consellante being soo good. Cheval Blanc maybe. Three wines among the top don't make a great vintage on Right Bank. Still, I have great difficulty to accept the fact that 1986 vintage was drawn in discussion with 2005. Why not compare 2005 to 1982, 1985 and 2000!!

Ok fair points...my main point Izak was that people may take umbrage at being called clueless...there are more diplomatic ways to make your point...I don’t think there is a great difference here between all of us...I do agree that to pronounce the 2005 vintage less than its billing based on 13 year old wines is certainly premature especially when we all agree it will be a long lived vintage...I think that’s mainly why the comparison was made with 1986...because that was a vintage which took a long time to come around (though I note parenthetically not as long as 1995 is taking). I made the mistake before of pronouncing the 2000 vintage over-rated when the wines were going through an excruciatingly awkward stage. We all live and learn.

In 2016 Tim brought over a 1986 Conseillante which we shared with Danny. It was a magnificent bottle and equal to the 1985 in my opinion. Likewise I have had some superb 1986 Figeacs, one with Eric D’Aramon, and 1986 Cheval Blanc was superb both times I tried it, once served by Alex at his house. The first time I tried 1986 Petrus I was disappointed. But the second time I was really pleasantly surprised. That was when Tom in DC (now CD) brought it as a ringer in our 1986 dinner in Manhattan in 2008. It didn’t quite match Mouton-Margaux-Lafite triumvirate but it was a jolly good wine. I also remember Canon and Magdelaine being very good in 1986 but it has been a while since I tried them.

[Musigny 151]

I am finding it hard not to just raise my eyebrows: there are quite a few opinions which seem to suggest that they don't understand the life cycle of great Bordeaux vintages, and the comparison to 1986 is completely nonsensical. Also it seems that many are relying on a few wines without tasting enough wines to have a global perspective.This is a great vintage entering its thirteenth year, way too early for final assessment, and if a wine does not show well, it is probably closed or the winemaker intervened heavily.

My first day tasting the wines en primeur in Bordeaux was at Circle of Right Bank wines. I was bitterly disappointed given the hype surrounding the vintage, as it was hard not to find wines which had been extracted. This was a vintage that needed no extraction, so there a number of wines where the winemaking was suspect. As others have stated, growing conditions were nigh on perfect; if you heard what the vintage was saying, and interfered minimally you made a great wine. If you arrogantly decided to help Nature along, you produced Pavie and its disciples, wines that are still undrinkable, and probably always will be. After that difficult first day, I found the vintage enthralling, some absolutely brilliant wines, and an average quality as high as any vintage with the the exception of the wines mentioned before.

As for the Medoc, I tasted them in barrel, also in bottle when they arrived in the US, and then tasted thirty wines last year. A few, probably a third were slightly open, the best for current drinking Pichon Baron although still not ready; the others were all showing different degrees of adolescent sullenness. I was not surprised, it's a characteristic of Bordeaux from a strong vintage. But even in their adolescence, the wines remained in balance. As I mentioned, I fail to see any similarity to the 1986 vintage apart from the fact that they are both fairly tannic; the problem was that the balance of the 1986s were out of kilter, and there wasn't enough compensating fruit to soften them. Margaux 1986 for instance, remains a monolithic powerhouse, with little charm and I have sold all but one bottle. Look at 1975 Medoc wines, and you will see another Medoc vintage with little charm (BTW a really strong vintage for Pomerol).

[BordeauxNut]

I am finding it hard not to just raise my eyebrows: there are quite a few opinions which seem to suggest that they don't understand the life cycle of great Bordeaux vintages, and the comparison to 1986 is completely nonsensical.

I don't think it's remotely nonsensical that 2005 has more in common with 1986 than 1990 or 2003 or 1982. If you were to peg a pre-2005 vintage that 2005 reminds you of -- it's closest cousin -- what would it be?

Speaking strictly of the LB wines, 2005 is head and shoulders better than 1986 as a vintage. But the best from 1986 has a similar concentration and depth of fruit, combined with a sense of coolness to that fruit (as opposed to the warmth of 1990, for example) that causes me to draw the comparison. Massive depth without getting into over-ripe mushy fruit and big structure underneath. That describes the best of 1986 and LB 2005 in general.

It's really not important. But, I think I have enough experience on the subject to have a respectable opinion. Anyway -- in what vintage do you find 2005's closest cousin pre-2005 in the LB?

[Comte Flaneur]

Yes agreed Jim. Also as I noted more than once people are understandably guessing - not unreasonably - that the ageing profile of the two vintages may be similar. It was another annoyingly condescending post; or at least the bit you quoted.

Getting back to another point I made before my main misgiving with 2005 is that it was probably at the height of the era of ‘extractionism’ as in wringing a wet towel, from whence we have moved a long way...tea bags.

[greatbxfreak]

I totally agree with Musigny 151!

In my view, 2005 is to be compared with 2000, not 1986 or 1975.

1975 is strong on Right Bank and St.Julien.

[Musigny 151]

I am finding it hard not to just raise my eyebrows: there are quite a few opinions which seem to suggest that they don't understand the life cycle of great Bordeaux vintages, and the comparison to 1986 is completely nonsensical.

I don't think it's remotely nonsensical that 2005 has more in common with 1986 than 1990 or 2003 or 1982. If you were to peg a pre-2005 vintage that 2005 reminds you of -- it's closest cousin -- what would it be?

Speaking strictly of the LB wines, 2005 is head and shoulders better than 1986 as a vintage. But the best from 1986 has a similar concentration and depth of fruit, combined with a sense of coolness to that fruit (as opposed to the warmth of 1990, for example) that causes me to draw the comparison. Massive depth without getting into over-ripe mushy fruit and big structure underneath. That describes the best of 1986 and LB 2005 in general.

It's really not important. But, I think I have enough experience on the subject to have a respectable opinion. Anyway -- in what vintage do you find 2005's closest cousin pre-2005 in the LB?

I don't think there is any modern vintage that resembles the 2005. The fruit was unique, bright and crunchy, red with enough plushness to work with the tannins. This thread did unlock an old memory. In those days, I needed to find context, and after a week of tasting, I loved the vintage, but couldn't find one. Perhaps 1998 Right Bank, and a better version of the classic 1996 Left Bank. But no single vintage.

On the way to the airport, I stopped to see my guru, Jean-Henri Schyler at Chateau Kirwan who had recently retired as a negotiant. Over tea, I asked him if there was any vintage like 2005. "Yes," he said "1953. They were both effortless, and you will see the 2005s will also be a vintage for the ages."

Going back to the 1986 comparison. I racked my brains to see if any of the wines had a similar quality of fruit. High flyers such as Margaux and Mouton weren't in my opinion close, and both now seemed overwhelmed by the harshness of the tannin. Strangely, the one wine I like from the vintage is Rauzan Segla, where the tannins were riper and the fruit was lovely. Perhaps a 2005 look a like, but having done a few 1986 tastings, I would be hard pressed to find wines of similar quality.

[Blanquito]

While abundant in both vintages, the tannins on even the best 1986s are quite different (hard, ironesque with a few exceptions) than the 2005s (fleshy, ripe at least compared to 86) and of course the merlot was far more successful in 2005 than 1986. What vintage had tannins like the 05s? I can't really think of an analog for that in recent decades.

[Nicklasss]

For me, limited experience, 2005 is like a more fruity(red and black) and more concentrated 1988. But 2005 keep some freshness, like 1988.

Comparison with 2000 is a good one too.

I don't think I had any 1953.

Nic

[DavidG]

Well, Mark and Izak, where we agree on the 86/05 comparison is with respect to tannins and the time required for them to strut their stuff. That’s the comparison I was trying to make as a rebuttal to those who are doubting the quality of the 2005s: the 2005s are fine, just give them time.

Where we disagree is on the quality of the 86s. I held them in higher regard than you, but am happy to hear from experienced palates that 2005 should be head and shoulders above 1986.

[felixp21]

Hell, it isn't hard to work out how the Europeans keep having wars amongst themselves!!! hehe. Clearly Diplomacy 101 is not a strong suit anywhere in that part of the World.
Here is what I said, twice in some circumstance, in a (clearly failed) effort to clarify myself. I appreciate some here do not have English as a first language, but that shouldn't excuse rudeness and unwarranted arrogance.

1. 2005 is an excellent vintage
2. IMO, which at this stage is every bit as informed as any of the posters above, 2005 is not showing signs of being "one of the all-time greats" (which was even mentioned in a post above). Many hold this view, I do not agree. It doesn't make my post crappy, and it shouldn't raise any dear old eyebrows, unless the owner of such eyebrows has invented a time machine, gone 30 years into the future, and returned in the knowledge that the Medoc wines have shed their robe of moderate anonymity and transformed into Earth-shattering wines.
3. 2005 is a better vintage than 1986
4. 2005 resembles 1986 in that it is a vintage that is taking a long time to "come around", and IMO (which again, you might note, is an opinion, and not stated fact) the Medocs from 2005 will likely need at least another decade to do so. (which makes them, in that respect, similar to the wines of 86 )
5. I went to some pain to explain point 4 twice, noting that the similarity of the vintages was not in either the style of wine (they are not similar) and the successful communes.

Hopefully, those posters above can read this, and even more hopefully, have the intellect to comprehend what I am trying to say, as badly as I might have explained it.

OK, enough said, I have just arrived in London, having been treated by Emirates to a superb in-flight wine list, that included a sublime 1998 Chateau Margaux, an absolutely thrilling 2004 Chateau Cheval Blanc, and an utterly boring 2005 Les Forts de Latour. hehehehehe
Oh, and IMO the 2009 Dom is a better drink than the 2000 P2, which costs about twice as much

[JimHow]

I flew Emirates to Thailand last year Felix in just the "regular" class and it was a pretty impressive experience.
I have to load up on some of that 2009 Dom Perignon, they have it for $145 in New Hampshire but I'll wait for one of their 15% off sales.

[Tom In DC]

Despite opinions to the contrary, I find age 12 to 20 years or so to be a bad time to be expecting much from most great vintages of Bordeaux. I seem to recall folks giving up on 1982 at around the same age because the wines weren't changing from their primary fruit profile from release and some of the bigger wines were finally shutting down a bit. (Not suggesting that 2005 is anything like 1982 - just that the second decade of life for many of the best vintages is not the best time to try the wines.)

I got some raised eyebrows at one of the DC conventions when I called 1986 left bankers a "useful" vintage, which i clarified as "useful for passing on to your children and hoping the wines eventually become pleasant to drink instead of just interesting." (I still think you have to be at least part masochist to drink 1966 and 1975 left bankers, or just a tannin pig!)

I don't find the comparison of 2005 to 1986 very appropriate because the 2005's started out life with much more fruit than 1986 ever showed. And I didn't have any 1953's until they were approaching 30 years old, so I'll report back on 2005's similarities in 2035 provided I have any taste buds and brain cells left then.

Tom In CO

[Musigny 151]

Hell, it isn't hard to work out how the Europeans keep having wars amongst themselves!!! hehe. Clearly Diplomacy 101 is not a strong suit anywhere in that part of the World.
Here is what I said, twice in some circumstance, in a (clearly failed) effort to clarify myself. I appreciate some here do not have English as a first language, but that shouldn't excuse rudeness and unwarranted arrogance.

1. 2005 is an excellent vintage
2. IMO, which at this stage is every bit as informed as any of the posters above, 2005 is not showing signs of being "one of the all-time greats" (which was even mentioned in a post above). Many hold this view, I do not agree. It doesn't make my post crappy, and it shouldn't raise any dear old eyebrows, unless the owner of such eyebrows has invented a time machine, gone 30 years into the future, and returned in the knowledge that the Medoc wines have shed their robe of moderate anonymity and transformed into Earth-shattering wines.
3. 2005 is a better vintage than 1986
4. 2005 resembles 1986 in that it is a vintage that is taking a long time to "come around", and IMO (which again, you might note, is an opinion, and not stated fact) the Medocs from 2005 will likely need at least another decade to do so. (which makes them, in that respect, similar to the wines of 86 )
5. I went to some pain to explain point 4 twice, noting that the similarity of the vintages was not in either the style of wine (they are not similar) and the successful communes.

Hopefully, those posters above can read this, and even more hopefully, have the intellect to comprehend what I am trying to say, as badly as I might have explained it.

OK, enough said, I have just arrived in London, having been treated by Emirates to a superb in-flight wine list, that included a sublime 1998 Chateau Margaux, an absolutely thrilling 2004 Chateau Cheval Blanc, and an utterly boring 2005 Les Forts de Latour. hehehehehe
Oh, and IMO the 2009 Dom is a better drink than the 2000 P2, which costs about twice as much

I could agree with you Felix, but then we would both be wrong. English is my first language, so I will try and and be as clear as possible as to why you are wrong, and use words that are perhaps a little less condensing than yours. But then, maybe not.

1. Saying that 1986 and 2005 are similar because they are both tannic, is simplistic, and shows precious little understanding of what tannins are and the differences between their quality and and ripeness. The tannins in 1986 are hard, as hard as anything I have ever encountered. The tannins in 2005 are much finer, a lot riper, and there is no doubt that they will soften in time for the fruit to balance. As far as 1986 is concerned, there are still questions whether there will still be anything left to counter the tannins when they begin to soften. Given how different the two vintages are, calling them similar because they both are tannic, is about as useful as saying they are both red and made from grapes. As for your arithmetic 1986s are still hard as nails and thirty two years old, while the 2005s are still in their infancy, and even adding ten years does not make them outliers in the way 1986s are. Now that they are twenty, I was planning a large scale tasting of 1998 Right Bank wines this fall, but given my experience with a few, and actually some informed opinions on the board, we are holding back another five years. For great vintages, twenty five years is about right.

2. Delighted you have reiterated that 2005 is an "excellent" vintage and better than 1986. I will agree with that, although given my time machine, years of experience and the fact that I have tasted the 2005s and many other Bordeaux vintages in their youth and maturity, I would say that it is potentially a great vintage.You can disagree of course, but I do hope you can back up your views with something more compelling than a comparison to 1986.

[Comte Flaneur]

Re Felix’s post I agree with most of it and empathise with him. Where I would divert is the notion that 2005 is yet to prove itself as a great vintage. In my opinion that has never been in doubt, even though I have misgivings about over extraction in some wines. I have long (since 2012 actually) been touting the brilliance of 2005 Baron on here, which is close to the 2010 in quality and much better than the similarly priced 2001 and 2003. Granted Pichon Lalande was a bit underwhelming in 2005 but you don’t have to look very far to find plenty of great wines on the left bank and on the right bank La Conseillante is an absolute gem, among some of the other more extracted alcoholic stuff. The fact that 2005 is a great vintage was established pretty much on day one. The only thing that stopped me buying it in volume was the prices against which I recoiled. IIRC Blanquito went in balls deep.

Turning to 1986 I have an enormous amount of experience with this vintage and it is undoubtedly a great left bank vintage in my opinion. It is also better than you might think on the right bank. My main bugbear with 1986 is its lack of consistency from bottle to bottle, and this seems to have been attenuated in recent years. In my opinion the wine of the vintage is Ch Margaux, a wine which I have had more than half a dozen times. In 2006 at a Margaux vertical in Manhattan it blew away its flight mates the 1982 and 1983. It is a brawny masculine wine which takes no prisoners. At a dinner in early 2012 my La Mission Haut-Brion 1989 was blown out of the water by a 1986 Margaux its flight mate brought by Neal Martin. I have also had some disappointing bottles most recently at our Margaux vertical here in London two years ago. In my opinion Ch. Margaux was wotn at our 1986 horizontal in Manhattan in 2008 when the rest of the table was mesmerised by Mouton. I have also had Mouton more than half a dozen times and a couple of times it was sensational too. Likewise Lafite, most recently in March this year. I have also drunk magnificent 1986s from Cos, Lynch, Pichon Lalande, Latour (even), LLC, Ducru, Gruaud and Talbot (of course), St-Pierre, Rausan Segla and Palmer. Palmer is highly variable but when you get a good bottle you are on the ceiling. Sociando can be wonderful on a medieval kind of way, likewise La Lagune. I agree that the tannins have been formidable and less refined than more recent vintages, including 2005, but there is no doubt in my mind that 1986 is a great left bank vintage.

The last point I would leave you to cogitate is that the gap between 2005 and 1986 is in my opinion qualitatively about the same as the gap between 2016 and 2005. So 2005 is neither the greatest nor the final word.

[JimHow]

I’m just a country lawyer from Maine but I’ve always enjoyed those 1986s from the left bank.
Cos, Mouton, Lynch, PLL, LLC, Sociando, Leoville Barton, Langoa Barton, Meyney, Chasse Spleen, Lafite, Haut Brion, Margaux, Rausan Segla, Talbot, Beychevelle, the old man Tesseron Pontet Canet was excellent, even the GPL didn’t completely suck. The Latour was weak, I don’t recall the Baron or Montrose being particularly great. Ducru was probably beginning their tainted period, no? Otherwise, I’m usually thrilled when someone pulls out a 1986. And I seem to recall really liking VCC, l’Eglise Clinet and Figeac as well.
Gruaud Larose, Pichon Lalande, Talbot and Mouton I found stunning in 1986.
1986 d’Yquem was thrilling at a Stuart dinner.

[stefan]

The 1986 we'll drink tonight from Ed & Lisa is Gruaud-Larose. It has been some time since I have had one.

[Blanquito]

I still have 343 bottles of 2005 Bordeaux in my cellar. Should I be happy about this or not?

Here's the breakdown and the prices I paid (mostly in 2007 and 2008 as futures):
Aiguilhe - 3 bottles - $27
Armailhac - 9 bottles - $40
Barde-Haut - 11 bottles -$34
Batailley - 6 bottles - $33
Beaulieu Comtes de Tastes - 4 bottles - $14
Beychevelle - 7 bottles - $76
Bienfaisance - 2 bottles - $28
Boyd Cantenac - 12 bottles - $40
Brane Cantenac - 10 bottles - $52
Calon Segur - 12 bottles - $43 (half bottles)
Cantemerle - 11 bottles - $28
Carbonnieux - 18 bottles - $30
Carmes Haut Brion - 4 bottles - $60
Caronne Ste. Gemme - 4 bottles - $14
Charmail - 7 bottles - $18
Chauvin - 3 bottles - $35
Chevalier Rouge - 7 bottles - $49
Clos les Lunelles - 3 bottles - $45
Clos Rene - 1 bottles - $41
d'Issan - 7 bottles - $52
Duhart Milon - 7 bottles - $23 (half bottles)
Faizeau Vieilles Vignes - 9 bottles - $21
Figeac - 4 bottles - $51 (half bottles)
Fonbel - 8 bottles - $18
Gaffeliere - 5 bottles - $32 (half bottles)
Giscours - 3 bottles - $60
Grand Corbin Despagne - 5 bottles - $22
Grand Mayne - 3 bottles - $45
Grand Puy Lacoste - 17 bottles - $68
Gruaud Larose - 1 bottles - $55
Gurgue - 2 bottles - $18
Haut Batailley - 4 bottles - $20 (half bottles)
Haut-Bergey - 5 bottles - $27
Haut Carles - 1 bottles - $27
Joanin Becot - 3 bottles - $25
Lagrange - 8 bottles - $48
Lagune - 6 bottles - $21 (half bottles)
Lanessan - 5 bottles - $16
Les Grands Marechaux - 3 bottles - $14
Malescot St. Exupery - 4 bottles - $75
Marquis d'Alesme Becker - 2 bottles - $16
Monbousquet - 4 bottles - $60
Montrose - 5 bottles - $54 (half bottles)
Pipeau - 9 bottles - $22
Poujeaux - 3 bottles - $25
Prieuré Lichine - 1 bottles - $38
Puygueraud - 4 bottles - $17
Reignac - 1 bottles - $26
Rouget - 3 bottles - $36
Senejac - 1 bottles - $23
Siran - 4 bottles - $28
Smith Haut Lafitte - 2 bottles - $54
Sociando Mallet - 7 bottles - $43
St. Pierre - 12 bottles - $50
Tertre - 1 bottles - $20 (half bottles)
Tour du Haut-Moulin - 8 bottles - $16
Tour St. Bonnet - 22 bottles - $11
Vieille Cure - 7 bottles - $21

[Blanquito]

...1986 ... is undoubtedly a great left bank vintage... I agree that the tannins have been formidable and less refined than more recent vintages, including 2005, but there is no doubt in my mind that 1986 is a great left bank vintage.

This.

[Comte Flaneur]

I still have 343 bottles of 2005 Bordeaux in my cellar. Should I be happy about this or not?

Here's the breakdown and the prices I paid (mostly in 2007 and 2008 as futures):
Aiguilhe - 3 bottles - $27
Armailhac - 9 bottles - $40
Barde-Haut - 11 bottles -$34
Batailley - 6 bottles - $33
Beaulieu Comtes de Tastes - 4 bottles - $14
Beychevelle - 7 bottles - $76
Bienfaisance - 2 bottles - $28
Boyd Cantenac - 12 bottles - $40
Brane Cantenac - 10 bottles - $52
Calon Segur - 12 bottles - $43 (half bottles)
Cantemerle - 11 bottles - $28
Carbonnieux - 18 bottles - $30
Carmes Haut Brion - 4 bottles - $60
Caronne Ste. Gemme - 4 bottles - $14
Charmail - 7 bottles - $18
Chauvin - 3 bottles - $35
Chevalier Rouge - 7 bottles - $49
Clos les Lunelles - 3 bottles - $45
Clos Rene - 1 bottles - $41
d'Issan - 7 bottles - $52
Duhart Milon - 7 bottles - $23 (half bottles)
Faizeau Vieilles Vignes - 9 bottles - $21
Figeac - 4 bottles - $51 (half bottles)
Fonbel - 8 bottles - $18
Gaffeliere - 5 bottles - $32 (half bottles)
Giscours - 3 bottles - $60
Grand Corbin Despagne - 5 bottles - $22
Grand Mayne - 3 bottles - $45
Grand Puy Lacoste - 17 bottles - $68
Gruaud Larose - 1 bottles - $55
Gurgue - 2 bottles - $18
Haut Batailley - 4 bottles - $20 (half bottles)
Haut-Bergey - 5 bottles - $27
Haut Carles - 1 bottles - $27
Joanin Becot - 3 bottles - $25
Lagrange - 8 bottles - $48
Lagune - 6 bottles - $21 (half bottles)
Lanessan - 5 bottles - $16
Les Grands Marechaux - 3 bottles - $14
Malescot St. Exupery - 4 bottles - $75
Marquis d'Alesme Becker - 2 bottles - $16
Monbousquet - 4 bottles - $60
Montrose - 5 bottles - $54 (half bottles)
Pipeau - 9 bottles - $22
Poujeaux - 3 bottles - $25
Prieuré Lichine - 1 bottles - $38
Puygueraud - 4 bottles - $17
Reignac - 1 bottles - $26
Rouget - 3 bottles - $36
Senejac - 1 bottles - $23
Siran - 4 bottles - $28
Smith Haut Lafitte - 2 bottles - $54
Sociando Mallet - 7 bottles - $43
St. Pierre - 12 bottles - $50
Tertre - 1 bottles - $20 (half bottles)
Tour du Haut-Moulin - 8 bottles - $16
Tour St. Bonnet - 22 bottles - $11
Vieille Cure - 7 bottles - $21

That is the definition of putting your dollars behind you convications, going balls deep to put it more crudely...you should pretty happy with that lot Patrick, especially as your initial outlay with the benefit of hindsight, now looks perspicacious.

[Blanquito]

Tom in DC (now CO) was my inspiration, given how much foresight he showed going so long on the 82s. I hoped (and still do of course) that 2005 was the next great vintage, where even lowly cru bourgeois made terrific wines.

Looking back, my only regret is that I didn’t aim higher, buying fewer but better bottles. I guess I wanted 2005 to be my house wine, while still having enough to serve blind flights for 35-40 enthusiasts at future Conventions.

[dstgolf]

Patrick,

You'll be more than happy with having that group of 05s in your cellar. I think Tom sums things up pretty well. We are now 13 years out and many of these on your list which amazingly mimics mine and many recent forays have shown a mixed bag. Haut Bergey the last two years was awkward but in the last couple of weeks I've had two bottles and both have been superb. Many of the lesser wines have been drinking well for many years and have not shown poorly since day one from delivery. They are evolving very nicely but drinking well. Good fruit and I have not been struck by over extraction. Tannins certainly present but ripe fine tannins unlike the iron fist of the 86s that took so long to come around. Personally I think the 05s will be a very memorable vintage with many of the lesser wines currently drinking very well and a lot starting to come into their own but at least 10 years for the best to peak. I don't think that anyone will have major disappointments across the board and I've drank at least 4 mixed cases of this stuff so far and most too early because of the JH influence. With a plank of red fatty meat the tannins will be tamed and the fruit shines through nicely.

[Blanquito]

Thanks Ian and Danny, good feedback.

The only “major” 05 I’ve tried is the GPL. I cracked a half bottle when my 18 half bottles arrived in 2011 (from PC) and it was a 95 point wine. The 05 Cantemerle was also quite good on release.

[Racer Chris]

I'd consider buying a couple cases from you Pat.

[Nicklasss]

Blanquito, i think you're ok with that listing of 2005.

We'll have some great dinners together, in 20-25 years from now.

I guess Jim would like to have exactly the same list, but all 2013.

Nic

[Musigny 151]

I have had far less happy experiences with 1986 than you guys. I have found the back bone level of tannin to be disturbing and the majority of wines dour and unyielding, with no compensating freshness to offset them. There are a few wines I have enjoyed, but we did a tasting of 1986s and were underwhelmed as a whole, and in fact I was so disappointed, I actually sold many of the wines. Given their age, I felt they should have softened more. In contrast, the 1985 tasting we did the same month, yielded some really beautiful balanced wines.

[AKR]

That's a lot of wine Blanquito!

I've had some of the names on your list though and think they are better drunk now though, given that they were better on day 1 than day 2, which is my simple rule for 'Drink or Hold' decision tree point

[marcs]

I am not as experienced as others with older vintages, but 2000-2005-2010 all seem to have a very deep fruit core but wrapped up in a sharply tannic exterior, making them shut down hard. I think of 1982-1990-2009 as the "softer" model of "great" Bordeaux vintage and 1989-2000-2005-2010 as the "harder".

I remember that around 13 years old a lot of people were dumping on the 2000s as being overrated also, and that talk has quieted down a lot now that they are re-emerging. I think the best 2000s are still maybe 3-5 years away from their initial peak.

However, especially on the right bank, the 2000s were not as extracted as the 2005s, or the 2010s for that matter. A more classic vintage.

I still have 343 bottles of 2005 Bordeaux in my cellar. Should I be happy about this or not?

WOW -- I have only about 700 bottles total in my entire collection and you have 343 just of 2005 Bordeaux! On another level.

One thing that I think separates me from a lot of people here is that I am far from a daily wine drinker. I drink on special occasions. Maybe 30-50 bottles a year or so is all. My vintage holdings are usually in the two to three case range even for a vintage I am "invested" in. My current 2005s are:

8 * Grand Puy Lacoste (loved this when I had it in 2010-2011 and bought a lot by my standards, but then it shut down hard)
3 * Leoville Barton
2 * Pichon Baron
4 * Branaire Ducru
2 * La Conseillante
4 * Beausejour Becot
6 * Sociando Mallet
1 * Gazin
2 * Bourgneuf
2 * Clos Rene
8 * Haut Bergey (got a good deal on a case recently so I bit, $25/bottle)
,,
I'm not going to drink most of those for quite some time. Even the Haut Bergey is not quite ready to go IMO. But definitely excited about some of them, especially the Conseillante and Pichon.

BTW the 2005 Sociando Mallet I think is going to be excellent -- a real powerhouse of a wine. Amazingly dense and structured but with soaring acidity making it not heavy at all. But it's only giving a small part of what it's got. I'd rank it above the 2003 based on tasting both.

I also think the 2005 Grand Puy Lacoste will be tremendous, even relatively shut down you can tell the balance and power. And it was extraordinary when I had it early on.

[Nicklasss]

You all have more wines and more 2005 than me. And Marcus, you have a good listing too. The Conseillante and LB make me envious.

Personnally, I have afew bottles of Latour-Martillac, Haut Bailly, Sociando Mallet, Dunart Milon, Batailley and Malescot Saint- Exupéry. I wish I would have a bit more, but as a poor guy, i will enjoy everything I have and be fair when I'll try them. But my dream would be a 3 pack of Latour or Mission, or both!

Nic

[Chateau Vin]

Marcs,

When I read your post, I was wondering whether it was my post. My cellar has just over 700+ bottles just as your's, and my drinking habits and consumption rate (from my cellar) is around 50, same as yours. I have around 4.5 cases of 05s...Because of my consumption rate, I end up buying growth properties (with exceptions from recommendations from fellow BWErs), as generally speaking, very few non-growth properties make my pleasure point gauge go high...

[marcs]

Marcs,

When I read your post, I was wondering whether it was my post. My cellar has just over 700+ bottles just as your's, and my drinking habits and consumption rate (from my cellar) is around 50, same as yours. I have around 4.5 cases of 05s...Because of my consumption rate, I end up buying growth properties (with exceptions from recommendations from fellow BWErs), as generally speaking, very few non-growth properties make my pleasure point gauge go high...

LOL, we're a type! For me it has a lot to do with just a lack of physical capacity to drink that much, as well as the fact that my partner is not a big wine drinker.

Not sure what you mean by "growth properties", but do you mean classed growth (first, second, third growth etc.)? If so, I agree. I am priced out of first growths and properties that price similarly (e.g. Palmer), but especially in recent years I have really tried to trade quantity for quality. I used to buy more experimentally and look for lower-priced bargain drinkers, but over the years I've come to feel that doesn't pay off given the comparatively limited amount i drink. I relate to what you said about only really good wines making your pleasure point gauge go high -- I aim for most bottles I open to feel special and to have an element of fascination/wonder in it. It takes very good wine to do that now. I am having trouble finding those wines at the kind of price points I used to be comfortable with, but the last couple of years I have been willing to go into the low $100 range where I never was before. Plus, I feel like I'm about done buying, at my consumption rate my current stock will last me well into my retirement years.

[stefan]

Gosh, we have only about 4 cases 0f 2005. At our current rate of consumption, if we drank only 2005 Bdx we would be out of it by the middle of July.

Lucie and I had a great time with Ed & Lisa last night. It was a good way to spend our last night in LA. We started with nice and bright 2007 Billecart-Salmon. They brought a lovely 2002 Jadot Griottes-Chambertin that is already drinking well even if it is years away from maturity and a special 2015 Condrieu that Lucie and I found exciting. What is relevant for some of the discussion in this thread is that 1986 Gruaud-Larose is a fine example of Gruaud and does not have harsh tannins after 32 years in bottle. Unfortunately, the special wine I had for them, 2001 Denis Mugneret Richebourg, was corked! We finished with a glass of 2003 Guiraud. Young, but I like 2003 Sauternes.

Back home, Lucie announced that she would drink wine on weekdays for a couple of weeks after tonight. So I opened our last 2009 St Innocent Special Selection Shea. I wish I had more, but I will mooch from stefanJr.

[Blanquito]

My cellar is ~2500 bottles, and 2005 Bordeaux is by far my biggest holding of any particular vintage-region combo. 2009 Bordeaux is in second place with just over 100 bottles.

I definitely went overboard with the 05s, but it was a perfect storm (first time I ever had cellar space and a decent salary was late 2006, after years of waiting for such a time and then the vintage hype of the 05s was something else) led to that.

I tend to open about 150-160 bottles a year, with big tastings chewing through quite a bit of that. That only leaves 15 years of wine! OMG, why am I on a buying freeze?!

[greatbxfreak]

Similar vintage to 2005 in recent vintages - 2010!

Same ripening conditions, style and fruit. 2010 has fatter tannin, more grained and a bit sweeter. No diseases in neither 2005 and 2010, almost all the grapes went into Grand Vin. 2015 is close.

One winemaker told me in 2006 - if you couldn't make a good wine in 2005, you should be fired from your job!!

[Claudius2]

Folks,
I have regularly written that for my (Australian) palate, the lesser wines of 2005 are delicious now, particularly the right bank, and the left bank wines, whilst some are tannic, have masses of fruit and structure to carry it.
I have have a few disappointments in 2005, but big deal. That is always the case.
I have also been buying more of them at auction when they turn up, BUT in my careful way, only when they offer good value.

There is a big difference in the way Bordeaux is now made compared to 1961 and even 1982.
For some years, I thought that 1982 was the best Bordeaux vintage I'd tried, even better than 1961 as I did have some disappointments with it (including expensive wines) but the march of technology, viticulture and even climate change has made significant differences to what ends up in the bottle.

So I will continue to argue that 2005 is the best WINES I have tried from Bordeaux, with some reservation as the top wines still need time.

Can I make a few other comments about vintages:

1961 - I don;t have a lot of experience with it, and most of the 61's I tried were in the 80's and 90's from auction. I cannot be definitive about the quality but stylistically, they were not as overtly ripe and fruity than 2005s I've tried so far.
1982 - Until 2005, I thought this was the nicest bunch of Bordeaux I'd tried, with heaps of everything yet not too much of anything (incl alcohol)
1985 - not a great vintage to me. Very good, not without the structure and density of the best.
1986 - I think it is too patchy to be called a great vintage, but for a tannic vintage, better than 75 by a long way. The lesser wines of 86 were not the quality they were in 82 or even 90.
1989 - maybe the start of a more modern style of Bordeaux among some properties, which I really have had little direct experience with. Just did not have the cash at the time to back up the truck
1990 - A top vintage but I am not convinced that they have aged quite as well as expected. But more even than 89 and 86, richer than 85
1995 - I think this vintage is over-rated and some of the wines I bought have been sent to auction. It is a very good vintage at best with a lack of intensity in many wines.
1996 - very good LB and the top wines seemed to shine with tannin, fruit, acid, alcohol and sweetness well balanced. Bit variable on the RB but no issue agreeing that there were some stars.
2000 - I was staying in the Relais&Chateaux hotel next to the Bages area during this vintage. The fruit always looked great coming into hoppers and sorting tables, but I bought few of them and can't offer a broader opinion.
2003 - okay, the problem vintage to my palate. Cannot handle the burnt flavours, hi alcohol and loose structure in too many wines. Have disposed of many and have held a few as an experiment.
2005 - the wines are more modern in style in a nice way. The middle ranked wines are now starting to drink well and most RB wines are fruit bombs but with structure and tension. I love the style.
2009 - clearly too early for me but clearly an excellent vintage with lots of fruit and tannins, though I would argue that it is not as even as 2010 or 2005. A latter day 89?
2010 - experiences so far place 2010 above 09 in terms of consistency but I see the same 89/90 paradigm. Also on my auction buy list is reasonably priced, and should be as good as 2005 in time.

If I was to drink a middle ranking LB Bordeaux tonight, I'd take the 05 or 00. For the top wines, and assuming good storage, I'd go for 82, 89, 90 or 86 depending on the wine.
For the RB, things change a little. 98 comes into the picture, and so does 95, but for all but the longest living wines, I'd take 2005.

[Claudius2]

Blanquito,
If you are unhappy about your 343 2005 wines, please feel free to send them over here in SIngapore but just make sure it's in refrigerated freight........
I'm such a generous guy that I'll even pay the freight, taxes, insurance and handling.

[Blanquito]

Mark, your thoughts make me glad for my “generational” “investment” in 2005 Bordeaux. Come to the BWE Convention in 2028, when I plan to open 40+ bottles of Classified 2005 Bordeaux (served blind by a not-so-anonymous benefactor).