The 2005 Vintage -- how good is it really?

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Wed May 30, 2018 3:26 pm

Spinning off the thread re the best vintages of the last ten years, I would like to discuss peoples' views on the 2005 vintage and how it is developing / where it ranks.

The 2005 vintage is a really interesting case to me for a number of reasons:

--a lot of people said on release that this was a historically great vintage. There were many claims that it was the best ever, and not just from the usual suspects.

--however, as it often does, enthusiasm for the vintage seems to have cooled a bit during its adolescent period. A lot of the wines on the right bank seem to be oversized and overextracted, and on the left bank they remain somewhat monolithic/tannic and lacking in complexity in my experience.

--lending credibility to the idea that enthusiasm for the vintage is not that high right now, prices remain depressed for such a "great" vintage. I recently saw two bottles of 2005 Pichon Baron for $135/bottle (admittedly a bargain). Compare 2000 at over $200 a bottle and 2009/2010 at about $190 a bottle.

--one interpretation is that the vintage is still shut down. 2005 is 13 years old now, which is adolescent for a vintage of that size. I remember that when the 2000 vintage was 10-13 years old a lot of people were expressing skepticism about whether it would come around. Now 2000 is at peak for smaller wines and starting to re-emerge for bigger wines and I think it is getting credit again as a classic. I think the most likely interpretation for what is going on on 2005 left bank is just that it's shut down and tannins are still excessive, even if the sheer fruit allows you to drink them. On the right bank, I'm not so sure -- I think there may be a real issue, particularly in St Emilion.

--another interpretation is that there is an issue with the overextraction/"Parker-ization" of the vintage and what we are seeing is a preview of how the Parker-era vintages, including 2010 and the like, are going to age. They will take a long time to come around, the tannins and acids will be elevated along with the fruit due to extraction, and they may be out of balance. The question then would become whether these wines will achieve balance with age.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Wed May 30, 2018 5:01 pm

I thought Parkerization = too ripe, low acid. That’s not 2005, but Parker was also a fan of greater extraction and concentration and his influence was strong back then. So I’ve got no problem with laying the trends in force at the time at his feet.

I don’t think you can generalize how 2005s are aging to other Parker-era vintages. Each vintage has its own characteristics. You contrast 2005 with 2000, but both were Parker-era vintages.

That said, I think the 2005s are really good, but the big boys are not yet at peak. That the market appears to value them less than the 2009s or 2010s (at least in your examples) suggests an opportunity for backfilling.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Wed May 30, 2018 6:42 pm

I’m not touching my 05s yet, even the cheapies need more time for my tastes (and I have older stuff to keep me busy). So I’ve limited recent, direct insight.

But the observers whose opinion I follow (Gilman, Neal, Panos, etc) seem high to very high on the 05s still, especially on the Left Bank.

One thing I vividly recall from trying lots of 05 on release were the tannins, which were really abundant but super fleshy and ripe. The fruit was also really concentrated but without any signs of torrefaction (on the Left Bank at least). That combo seemed very promising.

My instincts are still very high on 05 overall.

johnz · Post by **johnz** » Wed May 30, 2018 6:51 pm

The 2005s are too you for me to judge. It's a backward vintage.

--Gary Rust

AlohaArtakaHoundsong · Wed May 30, 2018 7:55 pm

I have not analyzed things in a statistically meaningful way (such as the making of "exact estimates") but it seems to me that the shiny new vintages are always better-reputed than (or in some supposedly significant way have outdone) the formerly shiny old vintages and thus brand new wines from shiny new vintages command a premium to pre-owned wines from shiny old vintages. It helps move stock, and indeed pricing may follow or sometimes even lead demand. Or at least, as you have discovered, these seeming price or value anomalies occur fairly frequently. There's a lot of blue sky in a shiny new vintage and by contrast the shiny old vintage has been proven by experience to be just wine after all.

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Wed May 30, 2018 8:18 pm

AlohaArtakaHoundsong wrote:I have not analyzed things in a statistically meaningful way (such as the making of "exact estimates") but it seems to me that the shiny new vintages are always better-reputed than (or in some supposedly significant way have outdone) the formerly shiny old vintages and thus brand new wines from shiny new vintages command a premium to pre-owned wines from shiny old vintages. It helps move stock, and indeed pricing may follow or sometimes even lead demand. Or at least, as you have discovered, these seeming price or value anomalies occur fairly frequently. There's a lot of blue sky in a shiny new vintage and by contrast the shiny old vintage has been proven by experience to be just wine after all.

LOL exactly. WE THOUGHT IT WAS MIRACLE MAGIC JUICE HERALDING THE DAWN OF A NEW ERA...but it's just wine.

It's pretty amazing that I was able to buy two bottles of 2005 Pichon Baron for $135 each, a previous "vintage of the century", when the 2015 and 2016 are at $150 on futures right now.

another thought: financial speculators like volatility (more chances to sell high), and by definition and for the most part a new vintage will have significantly more price volatility than an older one.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Wed May 30, 2018 8:47 pm

Marc

I thought your opening post was a perfectly judged summary.

It is a big vintage, it is a great vintage, but aged 13 it is barely adolescent - as a generalisation.

It probably did even in hindsight move the game forward.

At least on a relative basis it is a great time to buy this vintage. I also loaded up on 2005 Baron where there is little or no premium over vintages like 2001, 2003 and 2004...the 2005 is in a different league to these and close to the 2010 in quality.

My main worry about this vintage is that the wines may be over extracted on the left bank and also overly alcoholic on the RB reflecting the influence of Parker. Pavie and Angelus are horror shows in 2005.

Although I have remarkably little of the 2005s - according to CT I only own Baron, Beychevelle, Sociando and Belair - if the pricing is compressed relative to lesser vintages this is an opportunity.

But I do think 2016 has moved the game forward - less emphasis on extraction.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Wed May 30, 2018 9:10 pm

Ian, I'm curious how you expect this over-extraction to show? I don't doubt it, I just am not sure what that will mean in practice. Coarse raspy tannins? Too much alcohol? Too candied fruit? Heavy textures/lack of integration, weightlessness and textural elegance? All of the above?

My biggest 'doubt' about the 05s is that can seem a blocky or chunky (but not heavy, like some Cali wines are), whereas the flaw in the 2000 vintage is that they can seem too dry and austere especially on the finish. I still expect this chunkiness to resolve with time for the 05s, but perhaps some chateau stuffed too much into the bottle for a real grace to emerge with time.

Nicklasss · Post by **Nicklasss** » Thu May 31, 2018 12:19 am

The 20$ red Bordeaux were and are still great. All across board. This doesn't lie and prove the quality of the vintage. For me, definitely one of the best because of quality, concentration, ripeness and homogeneity.

But the thing is that the 20$ wines will hold easily for 15 years, so Latour can wait a 100 years, and still be unbelievable.

The 2005 Latour-Martillac opened a few weeks ago was just between excellent and great.

The problem is to wait, and i'm at the same time, looking forward to try them. Tough job.

Nic

BordeauxNut · Post by **BordeauxNut** » Thu May 31, 2018 1:04 am

I love the 2005 vintage. Lots of reasons... some related to the wines themselves, some related to the memories surrounding the vintage. But, I love the 2005s. There are so many really great wines...

AKR · Post by **AKR** » Thu May 31, 2018 3:25 am

I've pretty much loved every 2005 I've had. I'm trying to think of one I didn't like but nothing sticks out.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Thu May 31, 2018 11:44 am

Blanquito wrote:Ian, I'm curious how you expect this over-extraction to show? I don't doubt it, I just am not sure what that will mean in practice. Coarse raspy tannins? Too much alcohol? Too candied fruit? Heavy textures/lack of integration, weightlessness and textural elegance? All of the above?

My biggest 'doubt' about the 05s is that can seem a blocky or chunky (but not heavy, like some Cali wines are), whereas the flaw in the 2000 vintage is that they can seem too dry and austere especially on the finish. I still expect this chunkiness to resolve with time for the 05s, but perhaps some chateau stuffed too much into the bottle for a real grace to emerge with time.

Patrick in my experience it manifests itself in a lot of power and concentration and stuffing in the mid palate. My (only small) concern is that the 2005s will never be elegant or fleetfooted....but of course that is not the nature of the vintage. If you want that you can buy another vintage. But I strongly suspect that if we had similar growing conditions today, e.g., for the 2018 vintage, somewhat less extracted wines would emerge, because the philosophy seems to be moving away from extracted wines, hence the Ausone teabag analogy in the Lisa Perrotti-Brown write up on the 2017s - on one of the other recent threads.

Musigny 151 · Post by **Musigny 151** » Thu May 31, 2018 2:18 pm

The 2005 is an incredibly good vintage, and way too young to be drinking. The over extracted Right Bank like Pavie should not be judged by the vintage, but by the producer. If a chef deliberately burns a roast, you shouldn't blame it on the quality of the meat.

BTW, the Pichon Baron 2005 was one of my wines of the vintage, and certainly one of the best values. At $135, I would grab it.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Thu May 31, 2018 3:07 pm

No question the vintage on sale always gets an extra dose of price-supporting hype. Then prices often sag but they usually climb back up so that by 10-15 years out the wines cost more than on release.

If that's not happening with the 2005s, I would suggest it's more an indication that the wines are still drinking too young to command the pre-aged premium rather than any lack of confidence in the quality of the vintage. And it's way too early for any scarcity premium. So there's still a buying opportunity before the prices rise. Which they will, barring a major economic downturn.

Ian and Patrick, you raise the issue of finesse vs. chunkiness due to extraction as the wines age. Time will tell, but in either case the lack of fleetfootedness would not be a significant negative for my palate as long as the wines develop complexity over the next 10-20 years.

felixp21 · Post by **felixp21** » Fri Jun 01, 2018 3:01 pm

A lot of Bordelaise over here (HK) at the moment for vinexpo. I went to a couple of horizontals, including 2015 Bordeaux where I had the opportunity to discuss vintages with many of those pouring, and a few after at dinner.
Firstly, 2015 is an excellent vintage, great wines on both banks and both colours.
Secondly, even the Bordelaise have no pecuniary interest in 2005, now that almost 13 years have past since the grapes were picked and more than 10 years have passed since the bottles were sold. Yet, discussing the vintage, amongst others, 2005 never came up as a "great" vintage (a view I wholly support). Most of those I spoke to consider 2016 a great vintage (of course!!!), 2010 a great vintage, 1961 a great vintage, but no mention of 2005. The Medoc produced wines of huge promise sending the scribes gaga at the time of en primeur, but all these years later there are far too many tannic, foresquare examples amongst the Classified growths to call the vintage "great". These wines are now being touted as "too young", but as time slides by, this excuse for how they look is, in my opinion, becoming more a grasp at hope than a realistic assessment. Ironically, the wines on the Right Bank, so long thought of as the poor cousin in this vintage, are looking better propositions than their Left Bank neighbours.
More and more, to me, 2005 is beginning to look a lot like a better version of 1986, and a much better version of 1975. If the fruit of the wine outlives the tannic wall, I will be extremely happy (as I still have a large holding of LB 05 Bordeaux) but I have my doubts.
I'll be very, very happy to be proven wrong on this one!!!!

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Fri Jun 01, 2018 3:41 pm

If these too-tannic 2005s turn out like the 1986s, that will qualify as great in my book. Patience, grasshopper.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Jun 01, 2018 3:45 pm

Interesting perspective, Felix.
Yes, David stole my thunder, being a fan of 1986, I’ll take it.
I don’t have a lot of 2005 in my cellar: A case of Duhart Milon, five bottles each of d’Issan, Brane Cantenac, and Grand Mayne, a few other bottles here and there.

RPCV · Post by **RPCV** » Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:34 pm

I also agree with Felix. A modern version of '86 but better across all regions. Of course, this is what is great about Bordeaux....vintage styles. There are times that I want something like an '86 or '05 with a particular cuisine as I view these sorts of vintages as "food wines".

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:13 pm

I have only about 4 cases of 2005 Bordeaux. I bought more 2005 red Burgundy than Bdx. So far it looks like I made the right choice. We eat few meals that call for a big tannic Bordeaux.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:48 pm

DavidG wrote:If these too-tannic 2005s turn out like the 1986s, that will qualify as great in my book.

I had the same thought!

95 and 86 have crossed my mind as possible comps for 05, except that 05 has softer tannins than either and probably more concentration too (certainly more than the 95s).

greatbxfreak · Post by **greatbxfreak** » Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:52 pm

Some crappy posts here and some posters don't have a clue whatsoever what 2005 vintage is about!! I'm sorry to say that.

A better version of 1986, c'mon, this vintage (1986) is Cabernet Sauvignon and not Merlot/Cabernet Franc vintage. Only Left Bank made excellent wines.

2005 was an easy harvest with perfectly ripe grapes and ripe tannin, no sickness in the vineyard. Successful in all Bordeaux.

It reminds me of 2010 and 2015. It's normal that 2005 is closed now, 2010 and 2016 will go through same phase too in the near future.

I bought a lot of 2005 and I love this vintage. 2005 Tertre Roteboeuf is heaven in paradise!

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Jun 01, 2018 8:30 pm

Also, if 61 is the standard for great Bordeaux, with nothing qualifying in between until 2010, that’s a very very high bar! I don’t expect any thing to compete with 61 really except a top handful of chateau in 82s, 86, 89s and 90.

That said, interesting that 2010 is placed at the top. Gilman is a big critic of the 10’s, but I haven’t tried any myself.

felixp21 · Post by **felixp21** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:59 am

indeed, some "crappy" posts here!!!

As I said, for me (and many others) the problem lies in the Medoc, so quoting how fantastic a wine from St Emilion is would be, to the neutral observer, a pretty "crappy" observation in refute to my post. As I said above, it seems a little ironic that the Right Bank wines (this includes Tertre Roteboeuf, dear sir) seem to be the shining light at this stage.
I have no argument that 2005 is a very good vintage, indeed I consider it an excellent vintage, but the (present) weakness in the Medoc is well and truly enough to keep it from being classified amongst the "great" vintages of the past 50 years, as has been so often claimed in the thirteen years since harvest.
My point, therefore, is that I, like so many others, purchased large quantities of 2005, especially in the Medoc, on the back of so many scribes declaring this an "all-time" great vintage, which at this stage, it is clearly not. Should the wines of the 2005 Medoc arise out of their current mediocre state, which to me is a state where a large number of classified growths simply have no personality (and are not necessarily closed,) then maybe 2005 could be elevated to a great vintage.

I disagree that these wines are frightfully "closed", I find them to be quite boring (pertaining to the Medoc). Sure, there are wines like LLC and Latour that are still too young to even begin to assess, but the majority of Classified Growth Chateaux are now pretty easy to get a read on, and I am not particularly liking what i see.

My comparison to 86, and 75 was not about the style of wine or the favoured communes, but more a comparison on how backward those vintages are/were. I indeed like 1986, it is a very good vintage, but not a "great" vintage, and certainly never lived up to the gaga-like hype attributed to it in it's infant stage. (which is also my concern with 2005)

Sure, the bar for "great" vintages is high, as it should be when you are talking about the upper-most echelon of this great wine region.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 11:12 am

I've got no quibble with "very good" vs "great" vs "all-time great" - there was and continues to be increasing hype over new releases and much of it dies down over time. We all have our own opinions. Doesn't make anyone else's "crappy" just because it's different.

BordeauxNut · Post by **BordeauxNut** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:06 pm

DavidG wrote:If these too-tannic 2005s turn out like the 1986s, that will qualify as great in my book. Patience, grasshopper.

It's funny... I tasted the 2005s EP at the various chateau and at the end of it all I said, this is like the best of 1986, but even better. Big, structured wines but with a classic more norther fruit profile, particularly in contrast to vintages like 2003 or 1990. The wines have a nice combination of crunchy freshness and power.

I would be really surprised if 2005 doesn't prove itself to be in the top 10% of vintages when looking back 30 years from now. And, given the recent string of solid vintages, that's saying a lot.

BordeauxNut · Post by **BordeauxNut** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:21 pm

Blanquito wrote:Also, if 61 is the standard for great Bordeaux, with nothing qualifying in between until 2010, that’s a very very high bar! I don’t expect any thing to compete with 61 really except a top handful of chateau in 82s, 86, 89s and 90.

That said, interesting that 2010 is placed at the top. Gilman is a big critic of the 10’s, but I haven’t tried any myself.

There may not even be anyone who has posted on this board qualified to assess the relative quality of the 1961s versus any recent vintage.

- Who was taking wine so seriously in 1968, bought a lot of Bordeaux then and can remember the nuance and detail of the wines beyond, 'they tasted great on release...'. Lots of vintages were spectacular on release... 1982, 1990, 2000, 2005, 1998 RB, 2003s, et al.
- What is there to compare to? They are nearly 60 years old. That means they were the rough equivalent of the 1982s today a full 20 years ago. The 2005s today are where the 1961s were in 1974.
- Vineyard management is totally different today. If you want to wax poetic about 1961s -- I'd argue the differences in vineyard management and winemaking are more pronounced than whatever perfection God offered the weather.
- The 1961s live in myth today because of the comparative shit that followed them for 20 years.

I never opened a bottle of Bordeaux until the early 1990s -- so, I have no opinion as to the relative merits of 1961 compared to recent vintages. But, my guess is if it really is the greatest vintage... it's a lot more about other things than the vintage itself.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Good post(s) Jim.

Legends do get burnished over time. I've been drinking Bordeaux since the late 70s, "seriously" since the mid 80s and I've heard more about the wonder of the 1961s than I've had the chance to taste. The last and one of only a few 1961s I've drunk was Ch. Margaux, 13 years ago. It was magnificent but I can hardly say that I have the personal experience to put 61 in perspective with more recent vintages.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 4:18 pm

Jim D, your travelog from the Gironde with JMQ back in 2008 (?) was a great read and strongly influenced my large position in 2005 claret. I remain bullish on 05.

My comment about 61 being a high bar was mainly to point out that only 2 “outstanding” vintages in the last 50 years seems like a very rarefied standard. I’ve actually had some truly stunning 61s (it’s the birth year of a wine buddy), but honestly a select few 66s, 70s, 82s, 86s, 89s, and 90s have been just as good.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 5:20 pm

>>
The 1961s live in myth today because of the comparative shit that followed them for 20 years.
>>

What nonsense that is! There were many excellent Medocs in 1962, 1964, 1966, 1970, 1975, 1978, 1979, and many very nice ones from other years.

Lucie and started drinking Bordeaux in 1969, too late to buy much high end 1961s because of the price and availability, but those we did drink were good across the board. It rivals 1982 as being the best Medoc vintage 1960 - 2004 in my experience. I don't include 2005 - present because most Medocs from the better vintages in these period are still maturing. However, I will say that in the early and mid 1970s, it is my impression that the 1961s gave me more pleasure than the 2005s do now.

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 5:23 pm

felixp21 wrote:
I disagree that these wines are frightfully "closed", I find them to be quite boring (pertaining to the Medoc). Sure, there are wines like LLC and Latour that are still too young to even begin to assess, but the majority of Classified Growth Chateaux are now pretty easy to get a read on, and I am not particularly liking what i see.

This to me is the interesting question. My guess on 2005 left bank is that they are in fact still somewhat shut down, but the fruit is so deep that they read as "open but boring" because they are not as thin as one would expect a "closed down" wine to be. I therefore predict some dramatic reemergence in the early 2020s. Thirteen years old is not always the best time to taste left bankers from big Bordeaux vintages. On the other hand, one could argue that great vintages always show clear evidence of that throughout their life. Aging is a crap shoot for sure. Others with more experience following aging curves could comment better than I could (e.g. Stefan in the post just above commenting on what the 1961s were like in the early 70s).

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 5:38 pm

Some great vintages (reputedly) drank great their whole existence, 82 and 85 and 90 come to mind. I only drank the 90s young and they were pretty sexy in their early days.

While there are often outliers in any vintage, other great vintages can go through long, closed, charmless stages, like the 86s and many 89s. I tried a number of top 86s between 95-03 and man were they consistently brutal and tough to like. But when they emerged circa 2008, it was liquid magic and if you like the style as I do, a truly special vintage (at least LB).

AKR · Post by **AKR** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 5:46 pm

It seems to me that we are spoiled, having had such a run of lovely vintages from 2000-2010, and having to debate whether 2005 is merely 'awesome' or 'awesomest'.

Maybe a few more wrecked years like 2013 or hail/frost damaged ones would restore our perspective.

BordeauxNut · Post by **BordeauxNut** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:59 pm

stefan wrote:>>
The 1961s live in myth today because of the comparative shit that followed them for 20 years.
>>

What nonsense that is! There were many excellent Medocs in 1962, 1964, 1966, 1970, 1975, 1978, 1979, and many very nice ones from other years.

I'm envious that you got to experience those wines young. But, I don't think my statement is nonsense. 1965 to 1981 was undeniably a rough patch for Bordeaux. I can't speak to 1962 or 1964 -- but, none of the other vintages noted were great and I've had a lot of the top wines many times. They were all 'average' vintages by the standards of what we consider a top vintage today and only made noteworthy by what surrounded them. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of 1978s and 1979s I enjoyed... but, my guess is that wines from 2001 and LB from 2002, for example, are much better over the long haul.

In the period 1982 to 2002, the following vintages are (IMO) better than anything in the preceding 20 year period (looking at the entire vintage):

1982
1985
1986 (LB)
1989
1990
1995
1996 (LB)
2000
2001

There are plenty of wines from each vintage you noted that were more than solid -- but none of those vintages and (few of the specific wines either) enter the pantheon of 'great' wine that are innumerable from the vintages in the 20 years that followed. Not sure if it was the weather, the winemaking, or both. Now Piedmonte in the 1970s -- that's a different story.

BordeauxNut · Post by **BordeauxNut** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 11:13 pm

Blanquito wrote:Some great vintages (reputedly) drank great their whole existence, 82 and 85 and 90 come to mind. I only drank the 90s young and they were pretty sexy in their early days.

While there are often outliers in any vintage, other great vintages can go through long, closed, charmless stages, like the 86s and many 89s. I tried a number of top 86s between 95-03 and man were they consistently brutal and tough to like. But when they emerged circa 2008, it was liquid magic and if you like the style as I do, a truly special vintage (at least LB).

I loved the 2005s, in part, because the reminded me so much of the 1986s, the best of which I really love. If I remember correctly, there's a story about 1928 Latour, which for decades suffered in comparison to 1929. Thirty or forty years after the vintage, it emerged as a legendary wine. The 2005s have two things in spades -- fruit and structure. I won't say they're better than any of the other recent great vintages. But, they will be great. In my case -- I'm not going to start even sampling my better 2005s for another decade.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:14 am

BordeauxNut, I don't know about across the board, because leading estates were more likely to have a complete breakdown in earlier times, but for the median Grand Cru Classe Medoc, I would rank 1966, 1970, and 1978 alongside 1985, 1986, 1995, 1996, 2001, and maybe 2000. All of these are very good vintages IMO. If you look at the 25th percentile instead of the 50th, I would include 1964 and 1975 as well. Maybe I should have included 1979 with the first three as it is fine at the 50th percentile; it is just that I personally don't find wines from 1979 as exciting as those from 1966, 1970, and 1978.

The 1965-1981 period was awful for Bordeaux not because of the lack of good wines but because a number of vintages--1965, 1968, 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1977--were almost complete washouts. Since 1981, the only washout vintages are 1984 and 2013, although 1991, 1992 and 2007 are pretty bad; worse than any in the 1965-1980 period not on my washout list. Even in some of the earlier washout vintages there were some quite nice wines, something I cannot say about 1984 and 2013.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:42 am

I’ve been really amazed at how good some 66s and 70s have been at offlines in the last 5-6 years. I don’t think I’d ever had either vintage from Bordeaux before then, maybe I tried one or two at a Convention before that. But the NYC crowd loves these vintages and brings them a lot and they’ve usually been terrific or better.

Not really any point in this accept to point out that for my mileage these vintages were clearly underrated by Parker.

AKR · Post by **AKR** » Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:47 am

I didn't get to taste them til they were age 20, but the 1975 Pomerols were a bright spot. (esp that d-mag of l'Eglise Clinet at a recent BWE fest that made my cup runneth over!)

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:18 am

I’ve had a few outstanding 70s and a few very good 78s, but my experience with Bordeaux before the 80s is too thin to make generalizations based on what I’ve tasted. I think the reputation of the 60s and 70s suffers not just because some of the years were bad also because some of the top estates didn’t seem to care about producing quality wines (e.g. Margaux under Ginestet).

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:45 pm

greatbxfreak wrote:Some crappy posts here and some posters don't have a clue whatsoever what 2005 vintage is about!! I'm sorry to say that.

A better version of 1986, c'mon, this vintage (1986) is Cabernet Sauvignon and not Merlot/Cabernet Franc vintage. Only Left Bank made excellent wines.

I bought a lot of 2005 and I love this vintage. 2005 Tertre Roteboeuf is heaven in paradise!

Interesting choice of words...perhaps it is a language thing. There are several things I would take issue with:

1. The first part of the first sentence is undiplomatic (perhaps better to say ‘I disagree with with the thrust of some of the posts here’) and the second part is even more offensive. I think you will find that most people who post here really do know what they are talking about. You write some interesting reports, but I trust the palates of people on here who I know more than yours.

2. The comparisons re 1986 were at least in part in reference to the ageing curves of the respective vintages. I don’t think anybody is arguing that 1986 is the better vintage. However they may end up ageing in similar pattern.

3. I disagree with the notion that excellent wines were only made on the left bank in 1986. In recent years I have tasted incredible bottles of Figeac, Cheval Blanc and La Conseillante from the 1986 vintage.

4. If you have to resort to the example of Tertre Roteboeuf for an amazing 2005 you really are struggling...what about all the other 14.5% plus horror shows on the right bank in 2005, like as I noted earlier Pavie and Angelus? I agree that 2005 is a great left bank vintage. It may well turn out to be true on the right bank too it the jury is still out in my opinion, unless you generally like highly alcoholic wines.

‘I am sorry to say that’

You may well be sorry. But it is like me saying ‘you are a moron. No offence’. If you are sorry, then say it differently. And show some decorum. Not just in posting here.

greatbxfreak · Post by **greatbxfreak** » Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:40 pm

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!!