English Lady's Recommended Order of Which Vintages to Drink
Re: English Lady's Recommended Order of Which Vintages to Drink
Jancis Robinson 12 HOURS AGO
Red bordeaux keeps on surprising those of us who care about it, even if we may be dwindling in number. Bordeaux on a wine list in Brooklyn or Shoreditch is a rare beast indeed, but there are hundreds of thousands of wooden cases of red bordeaux sitting in private cellars and wine storage facilities all over the world, waiting for the perfect moment to be sold on or, more appetisingly, drunk.
My correspondence suggests that many wine collectors appreciate opinions on which vintages are currently drinking well, given that Bordeaux makes some of the world’s longest-lived reds (and sweet whites), and in considerable volumes.
According to the tally of tasting notes on JancisRobinson.com, I taste more than 1,000 wines from Bordeaux every year, many but by no means all of them fairly young.
The latest vintage of classed growths and their like shown off in quantity by the Bordeaux establishment, the Union des Grands Crus, was the most recent to go into bottle, 2016. When I tasted them in London a couple of weeks ago, I was struck by how much more accessible young red bordeaux is nowadays.
Even the Brits will have to abandon the old rule whereby bordeaux is judged broachable only when 10 years old. (Most other people, especially the French, are in the habit of drinking their wine much younger.)
Whenever I taste a wine, I try to suggest a drinking window alongside my tasting note and the score that modern wine enthusiasts have, for better or worse, come to expect. At this UGC showing of almost 140 2016s, I found myself suggesting drink dates from as early as 2020 in the case of many a Pomerol and St-Emilion (on the right bank of the Gironde), and even for the unambitious Château Croizet Bages on the left bank in Pauillac, whose wines are supposed to be particularly long-lived.
And it’s not as though 2016 is a vintage low in the wine preservative tannin; underneath all that bright fruit, the 2016s have no shortage of structure (as we call chewiness) and should last a nice long time, as well as being approachable relatively young. I take my hat off to the skill of Bordeaux’s best winemakers (and academic oenologists). The wines made in this second decade of the 21st century suggest that the problem of how to make red bordeaux that will drink well both young and old has been solved. Presumably identifying homogenous parcels of vines, picking them at just the right ripeness and handling the results extremely carefully is key.
Like wines made elsewhere, typical red bordeaux has become much fresher and less freighted by alcohol and oak. Everything has been dialled down to showcase the vineyard rather than cellar technique.
This is a welcome development from the last decade of the last century in particular, and the early years of this century in many cases, when wines tended to be much more concentrated, even exaggerated, especially in St-Emilion. Too often they were made from grapes pushed to the limits of ripeness, from which every last element was extracted, sometimes even concentrated, by special machines, and the result matured in toasty oak barrels that often left their tasteable mark on the wine.
I’m not so confident that all of them will make old bones. In a comprehensive tasting of bordeaux 2005s last year, that was evident in many a St-Emilion, for example.
I may well be wrong — wine has a habit of surprising us — but I suspect that, depending on how heavily their makers, or at least proprietors, fell for the religion of (excessive) ripeness, wines made in vintages from the early 1990s to the mid to late 2000s will turn out to have shorter active lives than wines made from the vintages immediately before and after this period.
I had a chance the other day to taste a representative selection of smart bordeaux from the last good vintage before this period, 1990. This was a particularly warm year and the wines, while hedonistically velvety in their charming youth, were not expected to last very long. But of the 11 in this tasting, only the relatively lowly Chasse-Spleen seemed anything like nearing the end of its active life, and Forts de Latour, the second wine of first growth Château Latour (certified organic last month, incidentally) and Vieux Château Certan were still extremely youthful.
Of course, more modest red bordeaux can usually be drunk much younger than classed growths — a plus point — but don’t last nearly as long, which is part of the reason they are so much cheaper. They tend to be grown on less propitious terrain that — in the old, pre-global-warming days — would struggle to ripen grapes fully in cooler and/or wetter years. But in particularly ripe years such as 2016, 2015 and, especially, 2009, these wines can be hugely attractive bargains that drink well relatively early. As summers become warmer, the prospects are good for these so-called petits châteaux, many of them labelled Cru Bourgeois.
My website colleagues, Masters of Wine Julia Harding and Richard Hemming, dutifully tasted their way through 156 2016 Crus Bourgeois recently and were also impressed by the vintage. But while many of these wines seemed to be drinkable already, their suggested drinking windows were sometimes as short as five years and rarely as long as 10. By contrast, my classed growth 2016s (a notch or two above the poor old bourgeois) tended to stretch well into the 2030s and sometimes beyond.
I have made a list of the most successful vintages of red bordeaux from the 1980s onwards. Wines from these vintages may already be approachable (which is why, for example, 2015 and 2016 do not feature). These suggestions apply to wines of classed growth level and equivalents.
Less ambitious wines, and smart wines from less successful vintages, can be drunk much sooner. The vintages have been arranged in very approximate order of readiness, with the most evolved first.
Then, of course, if you have a really venerable wine collection, you may just be tackling your 1961s, 1959s and 1945s . . .
Bordeaux vintages to drink now (in order of attack)
1985
1989
1990
1982
1986
1988
1996
1995
1999
1998 (especially right bank)
2009
2001
2004
2000
2006
2008
2012
2005
2014 (but probably not if you’re British)
2010
Red bordeaux keeps on surprising those of us who care about it, even if we may be dwindling in number. Bordeaux on a wine list in Brooklyn or Shoreditch is a rare beast indeed, but there are hundreds of thousands of wooden cases of red bordeaux sitting in private cellars and wine storage facilities all over the world, waiting for the perfect moment to be sold on or, more appetisingly, drunk.
My correspondence suggests that many wine collectors appreciate opinions on which vintages are currently drinking well, given that Bordeaux makes some of the world’s longest-lived reds (and sweet whites), and in considerable volumes.
According to the tally of tasting notes on JancisRobinson.com, I taste more than 1,000 wines from Bordeaux every year, many but by no means all of them fairly young.
The latest vintage of classed growths and their like shown off in quantity by the Bordeaux establishment, the Union des Grands Crus, was the most recent to go into bottle, 2016. When I tasted them in London a couple of weeks ago, I was struck by how much more accessible young red bordeaux is nowadays.
Even the Brits will have to abandon the old rule whereby bordeaux is judged broachable only when 10 years old. (Most other people, especially the French, are in the habit of drinking their wine much younger.)
Whenever I taste a wine, I try to suggest a drinking window alongside my tasting note and the score that modern wine enthusiasts have, for better or worse, come to expect. At this UGC showing of almost 140 2016s, I found myself suggesting drink dates from as early as 2020 in the case of many a Pomerol and St-Emilion (on the right bank of the Gironde), and even for the unambitious Château Croizet Bages on the left bank in Pauillac, whose wines are supposed to be particularly long-lived.
And it’s not as though 2016 is a vintage low in the wine preservative tannin; underneath all that bright fruit, the 2016s have no shortage of structure (as we call chewiness) and should last a nice long time, as well as being approachable relatively young. I take my hat off to the skill of Bordeaux’s best winemakers (and academic oenologists). The wines made in this second decade of the 21st century suggest that the problem of how to make red bordeaux that will drink well both young and old has been solved. Presumably identifying homogenous parcels of vines, picking them at just the right ripeness and handling the results extremely carefully is key.
Like wines made elsewhere, typical red bordeaux has become much fresher and less freighted by alcohol and oak. Everything has been dialled down to showcase the vineyard rather than cellar technique.
This is a welcome development from the last decade of the last century in particular, and the early years of this century in many cases, when wines tended to be much more concentrated, even exaggerated, especially in St-Emilion. Too often they were made from grapes pushed to the limits of ripeness, from which every last element was extracted, sometimes even concentrated, by special machines, and the result matured in toasty oak barrels that often left their tasteable mark on the wine.
I’m not so confident that all of them will make old bones. In a comprehensive tasting of bordeaux 2005s last year, that was evident in many a St-Emilion, for example.
I may well be wrong — wine has a habit of surprising us — but I suspect that, depending on how heavily their makers, or at least proprietors, fell for the religion of (excessive) ripeness, wines made in vintages from the early 1990s to the mid to late 2000s will turn out to have shorter active lives than wines made from the vintages immediately before and after this period.
I had a chance the other day to taste a representative selection of smart bordeaux from the last good vintage before this period, 1990. This was a particularly warm year and the wines, while hedonistically velvety in their charming youth, were not expected to last very long. But of the 11 in this tasting, only the relatively lowly Chasse-Spleen seemed anything like nearing the end of its active life, and Forts de Latour, the second wine of first growth Château Latour (certified organic last month, incidentally) and Vieux Château Certan were still extremely youthful.
Of course, more modest red bordeaux can usually be drunk much younger than classed growths — a plus point — but don’t last nearly as long, which is part of the reason they are so much cheaper. They tend to be grown on less propitious terrain that — in the old, pre-global-warming days — would struggle to ripen grapes fully in cooler and/or wetter years. But in particularly ripe years such as 2016, 2015 and, especially, 2009, these wines can be hugely attractive bargains that drink well relatively early. As summers become warmer, the prospects are good for these so-called petits châteaux, many of them labelled Cru Bourgeois.
My website colleagues, Masters of Wine Julia Harding and Richard Hemming, dutifully tasted their way through 156 2016 Crus Bourgeois recently and were also impressed by the vintage. But while many of these wines seemed to be drinkable already, their suggested drinking windows were sometimes as short as five years and rarely as long as 10. By contrast, my classed growth 2016s (a notch or two above the poor old bourgeois) tended to stretch well into the 2030s and sometimes beyond.
I have made a list of the most successful vintages of red bordeaux from the 1980s onwards. Wines from these vintages may already be approachable (which is why, for example, 2015 and 2016 do not feature). These suggestions apply to wines of classed growth level and equivalents.
Less ambitious wines, and smart wines from less successful vintages, can be drunk much sooner. The vintages have been arranged in very approximate order of readiness, with the most evolved first.
Then, of course, if you have a really venerable wine collection, you may just be tackling your 1961s, 1959s and 1945s . . .
Bordeaux vintages to drink now (in order of attack)
1985
1989
1990
1982
1986
1988
1996
1995
1999
1998 (especially right bank)
2009
2001
2004
2000
2006
2008
2012
2005
2014 (but probably not if you’re British)
2010
Re: English Lady's Recommended Order of Which Vintages to Drink
I'm rather surprised that she says drink 2009 before 2001, 2000, 04, 06, 08 etc
Also surprised that she sees 2010 as long lasting and not 09.
Also surprised that she sees 2010 as long lasting and not 09.
Re: English Lady's Recommended Order of Which Vintages to Drink
Arv, thanks for posting that interesting and thought-provoking article.
Predicting drinking windows for Bordeaux (perhaps any wines capable of aging) is an extremely difficult task. When the window opens and closes is not only hard to predict, the definition of when a wine is ready and when it’s over the hill is also highly subject to personal preference. Jim’s drinking window opens and closes a lot earlier than mine. Mine opens and closes earlier than SFEd's or Tim's. And then there’s Francois.
So Jancis is now warning that Bordeaux from 1991 to 2005(?), 2009(?) will not make old bones. Because they were picked too ripe. The Parkerization era. The sky is falling. She could be right. Undoubtedly she will be right, at least about some wines, but how many? I’ve heard this before. About 1982. About 1990. Too ripe and too open too early to make old bones. They turned out just fine. Jancis says 2005 is already past prime but puts it near the end of her order of attack. Or is it only the 2005 St Ems that are fading? I’m not worried about 1996 or 2000 based on the few I’ve opened, but that can only be said for the ones I’ve tried. That’s the other problem with vintage generalizations. They’re generalizations. OK for general guidance and discussion, but not so useful on a wine by wine basis. Even if she’s right, I don’t think I’ll be selling off all my 1991-2009 Bordeaux. I’ll be watching others' TNs for when they sound like they’re in my drinking windows.
I am also left a bit uncertain about the meaning of her ordered vintage list. Are the classed growths from those vintages all ready to drink "now?" She says so, but then puts them "in order of attack." Is Jancis assuming that it will take some time to work through the vintages at the top of the list? If so, how long? If her directive is to drink them all now since they aren’t closed down and don’t bother waiting for aged complexity, I think following her advice will result in a lot of missed opportunities to drink beautifully aged Bordeaux. It may also succeed in avoiding some duds, which may be the more important consideration if aged complexity isn’t that important to you. If it is important, and the wines in your cellar are ones that usually appeal to you with age, it would be a mistake to consume them all young or sell them.
Predicting drinking windows for Bordeaux (perhaps any wines capable of aging) is an extremely difficult task. When the window opens and closes is not only hard to predict, the definition of when a wine is ready and when it’s over the hill is also highly subject to personal preference. Jim’s drinking window opens and closes a lot earlier than mine. Mine opens and closes earlier than SFEd's or Tim's. And then there’s Francois.
So Jancis is now warning that Bordeaux from 1991 to 2005(?), 2009(?) will not make old bones. Because they were picked too ripe. The Parkerization era. The sky is falling. She could be right. Undoubtedly she will be right, at least about some wines, but how many? I’ve heard this before. About 1982. About 1990. Too ripe and too open too early to make old bones. They turned out just fine. Jancis says 2005 is already past prime but puts it near the end of her order of attack. Or is it only the 2005 St Ems that are fading? I’m not worried about 1996 or 2000 based on the few I’ve opened, but that can only be said for the ones I’ve tried. That’s the other problem with vintage generalizations. They’re generalizations. OK for general guidance and discussion, but not so useful on a wine by wine basis. Even if she’s right, I don’t think I’ll be selling off all my 1991-2009 Bordeaux. I’ll be watching others' TNs for when they sound like they’re in my drinking windows.
I am also left a bit uncertain about the meaning of her ordered vintage list. Are the classed growths from those vintages all ready to drink "now?" She says so, but then puts them "in order of attack." Is Jancis assuming that it will take some time to work through the vintages at the top of the list? If so, how long? If her directive is to drink them all now since they aren’t closed down and don’t bother waiting for aged complexity, I think following her advice will result in a lot of missed opportunities to drink beautifully aged Bordeaux. It may also succeed in avoiding some duds, which may be the more important consideration if aged complexity isn’t that important to you. If it is important, and the wines in your cellar are ones that usually appeal to you with age, it would be a mistake to consume them all young or sell them.
Re: English Lady's Recommended Order of Which Vintages to Drink
It seems to me that she had no counsel on which of the 2002 / 2003 Lagrange's stefan should have sipped first.
Perhaps she considers those years undrinkable?
Perhaps she considers those years undrinkable?
Re: English Lady's Recommended Order of Which Vintages to Drink
No doubt, Arv. These vintages being undrinkable, I will dispose of them for you and even pay for shipping them to our recently purchased lake house in Oregon, which needs some decorative bottles in the basement.
Re: English Lady's Recommended Order of Which Vintages to Drink
Maybe she thinks the 02s and 03s are just not ready yet? The list was vintages to "drink now."
Or maybe she thinks they’re for laying down and avoiding, like Perth Pink?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RbOZccv9ym8
Or maybe she thinks they’re for laying down and avoiding, like Perth Pink?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RbOZccv9ym8
Re: English Lady's Recommended Order of Which Vintages to Drink
Jancis Robinson has always seemed like a very pleasant person and I also appreciate that her tasting notes have very little correlation with other critics, providing a hedge against groupthink. But I’ve never had much respect for her opinions on wine. They have always seemed rather ungrounded and pointless to me, and this is the latest example.
Hardly worth pointing out the problems — does anyone really think, after tasting them at this years BWE, that ‘98 RB won’t age? That 1996, 2000, or 2005 won’t age? Hell, 2005 could be a fifty year vintage, and the better 2000s are still emerging from adolescence. Also, 2009 will age great and my bet is that it will be very long lasting. It’s a silly prejudice to think that there is some kind of direct trade off between tasting good young and aging well — a prejudice that is all over this article. As I’ve said elsewhere 2009 strikes me as a modern day 1990.
Also, I suspect she shelved 2002 and 2003 with her “never drink” vintages — note that 91, 92, 93, 97, and 07 are also missing from the list.
Hardly worth pointing out the problems — does anyone really think, after tasting them at this years BWE, that ‘98 RB won’t age? That 1996, 2000, or 2005 won’t age? Hell, 2005 could be a fifty year vintage, and the better 2000s are still emerging from adolescence. Also, 2009 will age great and my bet is that it will be very long lasting. It’s a silly prejudice to think that there is some kind of direct trade off between tasting good young and aging well — a prejudice that is all over this article. As I’ve said elsewhere 2009 strikes me as a modern day 1990.
Also, I suspect she shelved 2002 and 2003 with her “never drink” vintages — note that 91, 92, 93, 97, and 07 are also missing from the list.
-
BordeauxNut
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:45 pm
- Contact:
Re: English Lady's Recommended Order of Which Vintages to Drink
Almost any 1991 - 1993 would have been better some time ago. That's different than saying, 'they're all dead'. I am sure they aren't. But, she's not talking about the lesser years here...
Re: English Lady's Recommended Order of Which Vintages to Drink
Yes its strange she's totally ignoring 2003.
The vintage in some AOC is very delicious, and has been almost since release.
And its not just standard bearers like 2003 Montrose or Cos.
The vintage in some AOC is very delicious, and has been almost since release.
And its not just standard bearers like 2003 Montrose or Cos.
Re: English Lady's Recommended Order of Which Vintages to Drink
I'd say Jancis has indeed Perth Pink'd any unlisted vintages. We might not be able to understand this as BWE'ers, but a less focused wine lover might suggest that there are years where one's wine budget is better spent on other regions. (I can clearly see stefan scratching his head over this. No, not the concept of choosing other regions in some vintages. Rather " What on earth is a wine budget???!!!")
Approach the list from the bottom up (most recent) and from the perspective of a Bordeaux enthusiast who has not been collecting since the 1982's were on indent (i.e., a more typical FT wine article reader.) If I only had vintages from 2010 forward in the cellar, I'd be drinking 12's before 14's and triple blanquito'ing my 2010's. Add ten years to the duration of the collection and the list still mostly holds up - I'd drink 01's and 04's before 2000's and mostly holding 2005's. And all should feel free to tap into their 2009's whenever they want - it is indeed a vintage much like 1990 with a wide open drinking window.
There's a lot on that list that aligns with our BWE shared tasting notes and experiences. Yes, there are still wines from 1981 and 1983 that can be excellent (and JR acknowledges this fact), but a rational consumer with a functioning cellar management plan (again, I'm visualizing much head scratching here; in fact, I quite confused how I'm the guy saying this!) should have consumed those wines before the other vintages listed from the 80's. We mostly see 86's as finally coming around, so they're working their way into the drinking queue. The 89's and 90's were very different on release but have been in the cellar long enough to both be at similar stages of readiness. BWE'ers have long suggested that 1995 needs more time than 1996.
Jancis is long on the record that 2003 was not a good Bordeaux vintage vintage and seems to be sticking to this opinion. Many of the wines may have been and may still be delicious but even the standard bearers are known for "Napa-like" notes. I didn't see 2003's as a vintage to completely avoid but I don't see any signs that they are still improving and I don't ever see them turning into "now this is Bordeaux!" wines either.
Approach the list from the bottom up (most recent) and from the perspective of a Bordeaux enthusiast who has not been collecting since the 1982's were on indent (i.e., a more typical FT wine article reader.) If I only had vintages from 2010 forward in the cellar, I'd be drinking 12's before 14's and triple blanquito'ing my 2010's. Add ten years to the duration of the collection and the list still mostly holds up - I'd drink 01's and 04's before 2000's and mostly holding 2005's. And all should feel free to tap into their 2009's whenever they want - it is indeed a vintage much like 1990 with a wide open drinking window.
There's a lot on that list that aligns with our BWE shared tasting notes and experiences. Yes, there are still wines from 1981 and 1983 that can be excellent (and JR acknowledges this fact), but a rational consumer with a functioning cellar management plan (again, I'm visualizing much head scratching here; in fact, I quite confused how I'm the guy saying this!) should have consumed those wines before the other vintages listed from the 80's. We mostly see 86's as finally coming around, so they're working their way into the drinking queue. The 89's and 90's were very different on release but have been in the cellar long enough to both be at similar stages of readiness. BWE'ers have long suggested that 1995 needs more time than 1996.
Jancis is long on the record that 2003 was not a good Bordeaux vintage vintage and seems to be sticking to this opinion. Many of the wines may have been and may still be delicious but even the standard bearers are known for "Napa-like" notes. I didn't see 2003's as a vintage to completely avoid but I don't see any signs that they are still improving and I don't ever see them turning into "now this is Bordeaux!" wines either.
Re: English Lady's Recommended Order of Which Vintages to Drink
Hey, Tom; I have a wine budget. My most recent purchase used my allotment for June-August, 2054.
-
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
- Posts: 1460
- Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
- Contact:
Re: English Lady's Recommended Order of Which Vintages to Drink
If you take your age and subtract from it the number of years from any vintage, then divide by the Blanquito constant, this yields the "time to" the appropriate drinking window. I know it sounds crazy ...
Re: English Lady's Recommended Order of Which Vintages to Drink
I love that I learn something new all the time on BWE.stefan wrote:Hey, Tom; I have a wine budget. My most recent purchase used my allotment for June-August, 2054.
Re: English Lady's Recommended Order of Which Vintages to Drink
Tom In DC wrote:stefan wrote:Hey, Tom; I have a wine budget. My most recent purchase used my allotment for June-August, 2054.
I love that I learn something new all the time on BWE.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], greatbxfreak and 15 guests