2004 SHL and my buying strategy at age 60.

[JimHow]

Yesterday I had a couple glasses of 2004 Smith Haut Lafitte, my first alcohol consumption in over five weeks. (Paying for it a little today though. More nuclear tests next week, I think I just need to get that gallbladder yanked. Should know by a week from Monday.)
The '04 SHL, now in its 16th year, was drinking beautifully. One of the best bottles I've had of this yet: Splendid Graves aromatics, still rich deep purple color. I don't think Bordeaux needs to age 20 years in most cases.
I think AlexR has spoken on this issue before.
The SHL was beautiful, fresh, with some nuances that are the result of sixteen years of aging.
So if I'm 60 now, the 2018 vintage will be 16 years old when I'm 75... still an age at which I hope to be able to enjoy some fine Bordeaux.
I can't afford the first growths or a lot of the super seconds anyway, the wines that would more likely require aging of 20 years or more.
The wines I've been buying regularly in recent years are: Calon Segur, Giscours, Leoville Barton, Cantemerle, Chasse Spleen, Meyney, Sociando Mallett, Tour St. Christophe, and a few others.
I'll buy some 2017 and 2018, just not in any significant quantity.
2016 will be my last vintage of major investment.

[stefan]

>>
Calon Segur, Giscours, Leoville Barton, Cantemerle, Chasse Spleen, Meyney, Sociando Mallett
>>

Well, if you add in La Lagune, I would still die happily if I could drink those every day.

[Nicklasss]

A good strategy Jim. And i really need to go to Maine. The Chateau Smith Haut Lafitte is in a perfect spot, in vintages like 2001-2002-2004-2006. What an achiever.

Nic

[Claudius2]

Jim
I'm in my early 60's and one option is to backfill the vintages you like best.
Although I have quite a few 2010 and 2009's plus numerous 2005's, I am eyeing off full cases of those vintages when they hit the auction markets and the auctioneers can vouch for their provenance.
I don't see many older vintages here and when I do, they are normally broken lots which I have learned to avoid.

I am finding that the middle ranked 2010's are starting to taste great, and 09/10 does look a lot like a modern version of 89/90.
The lesser 2005's are drinking well now, though the better wines clearly need a bit more time, and similarly, 09 is showing well now though the better wines are not ready yet.

In recent years, I have also been buying more St Emilion wines.
I think the region has improved out of sight in recent decades and there are values to be had outside of the garargiste wines and top ranked crus.

Similarly, 05, 09 and 10 are top Burgundy vintages and they are a delight to drink now.
Not to mention white Burgs from 06 to 10 inclusive.
I've now finished just about all my older white Burgs and will just have to find more.

[OrlandoRobert]

I have to admit that I always wrestle with this issue. At 53 today, my last big vintage for purchase was 2014. Using your math, I should still keep buying some classics and daily drinkers. My dad and mom at 79 still enjoy fine wine every evening. My issue, though, is as much one of storage. Were i in a house that I knew I would stay in, I’d build a walk-in and fill it to the rim. Right now all my stuff is off-site.

[jckba]

That sounds like an easy decision to me; save on monthly off site storage costs and instead plow that $$$ in to a home walk-in and then you will see how much happier you will be.

[DavidG]

The only wine mistake I continue to regret is switching from a walk-in cellar with excess capacity to wine fridges stuffed to the gills when we moved. I can’t wrap my head around off-site storage, though I know many are happy with it.

[Blanquito]

A 2500 bottle cellar (about what I have) is just less than 7 years of wine if you open a bottle every day. Wow, that only gets me to 54-55!

Of course, few of (even) us go through any where near a bottle every day. The most I ever opened in a year was 220 bottles and that included corked bottles, gifts, etc. And I figure my sustainable rate is more like 150 bottles/year which extends 2500 bottles to nearly 17 years, which would take me 65... without buying a single additional bottle!

For me, that’s why 2009 was my final big new vintage outlay. I mean, I bought 2 cases of the 09 Lanessan, who needs that much? I can always backfill younger years if and when wanted, but I’m still focused on enjoying/drinking down mostly 80’s Bordeaux or even older, so who needs this primordial new stuff? By the time most of my 95s, 96s, 98s and 00s are fully mature, I’ll be close to 60.

[Claudius2]

Blanquito
I must like younger wines than you do. I am drinking even top recent vintages such as 05 09 and 10 and to my rather spoiled palate they taste wonderful. Okay wines such as LLC I will leave for 20 yrs or so and I could not be bothered with first growths. Now in my early 60s I have no interest in wines that need another twenty yrs.
I rhink many forum members don’t like auctions but if you know the auctioneers they will normally be pretty honest about provenance.
I also love Burgundy and my rule of thumb is that 1ers Crus are fine 8-10 yrs from vintage and 10 to 15 yrs for GCs.

[Claret]

C

[marcs]

I am not a necrophiliac but to my palate in a lot of years higher end classed growth Bordeaux is best about 20-25 years from vintage date, give or take a few years. The 2000 and 2001s are just rounding into shape for me, 1996 is optimum, and 2005 is still too young. That's the best mix of fruit impact and aged complexity to me. Some years drink well earlier (e.g. 2004) but rarely before 15 years.

I like that range better than younger wine but also better than significantly older wine -- e.g. I would prefer a 1996 to the same wine from the 1980s I think.

That does make a big difference to my buying strategies. I assume that I shouldn't drink 2014s before 2029 or perhaps into the early 2030s (when I'm in my early 60s) and 2015s and 2016s probably won't be ready till I'm over 65. So the actuarial tables are a definite presence for me.

[Blanquito]

Fully mature claret is my wine nirvana. And my wine buddies in CO and NYC keep pushing the window back. I used to think, ok it all got real with the 1980’s, but then they open a series of 60’s and 70’s Bordeaux that are all fantastic and going strong. Fully, 100% mature to be sure, but on that plateau where they could hold for a Gilman drinking window or so. These aren’t first growths or the equivalent by and large, more like hand chosen wines of all stripes they know are good from firsthand tastings.

Young Bordeaux is often delicious and fun, but so far at least it has only supplemented not supplanted the hallowed place that the 25+ year old stuff holds for my palate. That reality heavily informs my cellaring philosophy.

[marcs]

The contrast between 18-25 years old and 30+ years old is interesting. When I do big vertical tastings (as I've increasingly had access to here in DC) I find I like the 18-25 year window more than the 30+ window. What I find is that in the 18-25 year window you still have complexity and smoothness, the wine is expressing itself in a totally different way than when it was new or adolescent, but you have some of that vivid fruit impression still there. In the 30+ year window you get more tertiary complexity and that tea-like softness but the fruit feels more tired. I find I like vivid fruit. For example, I enjoyed the 2000 and 2001 Pichon Baron more than the 1989 Pichon Baron at the dinner with Dave a few weeks ago. (In fairness, that 1989 might not have been stored perfectly).

This is a perspective I rarely see on the boards. Seems different than Blanquito's tastes.

Some people claim that Bordeaux gets better and better as it ages with no limit, but I wonder if some of that is just being impressed that a wine is still standing at 45-50+ years old, like a living piece of history.

[Blanquito]

For me, it’s a different question if the 79 Haut Bailly (that I last thoroughly enjoyed in December) was better at 25 than 40 (it may well have been, I just can’t say since I didn’t start enjoying it until age 35), than if the 79 Haut Bailly is still notably better than the vast majority of all Bordeaux I’ve had from 1995-present (which it is... for current drinking... for my palate).

There are time-honored questions about why this might be so, including changes in style, weather, wine making techniques, vine stock, etc., but for my tastes I still think it’s mostly the tertiary complexity that the old wines have which most younger wines do not (yet).

[OrlandoRobert]

The contrast between 18-25 years old and 30+ years old is interesting. When I do big vertical tastings (as I've increasingly had access to here in DC) I find I like the 18-25 year window more than the 30+ window. What I find is that in the 18-25 year window you still have complexity and smoothness, the wine is expressing itself in a totally different way than when it was new or adolescent, but you have some of that vivid fruit impression still there. In the 30+ year window you get more tertiary complexity and that tea-like softness but the fruit feels more tired. I find I like vivid fruit. For example, I enjoyed the 2000 and 2001 Pichon Baron more than the 1989 Pichon Baron at the dinner with Dave a few weeks ago. (In fairness, that 1989 might not have been stored perfectly).

This is a perspective I rarely see on the boards. Seems different than Blanquito's tastes.

Some people claim that Bordeaux gets better and better as it ages with no limit, but I wonder if some of that is just being impressed that a wine is still standing at 45-50+ years old, like a living piece of history.

Great discussion. I like the way you bracket the timeframes for general discussion, and your impressions of each period. I cannot say I like one more than the other, I like them both for both reasons. And a well stored Classified Bordeaux from a classic year should not have tired fruit. This is where provenance is critical.

[DavidG]

I generally agree with your general characterization of 18-25 year old Bordeaux. I love them and don’t object to opening them at that age. And while I can’t really disagree with your description of 30+ year old wines, when they’re really on the fruit doesn’t come across as tired. The added tertiary complexity blends with the fruit and, as Patrick put it, creates a state of wine nirvana.

The problem is that the odds of a wine achieving that state of perfection past 30 years of age are significantly lower than the odds of an 18-25 year old wine being the best that it can be. Some of that is storage, but not all. Corks are notoriously variable, and the effects of that variability are magnified over time. Even without dramatic ullage, old bottles from the same case can show very differently.

The 1989 Pichon Baron we drank a few weeks ago is a case in point. It’s been in my temp controlled cellar since release. Despite a perfect appearing cork and fill, it was more tired than others from that case. All the other bottles from that case have been great, so it’s unlikely they suffered heat damage prior to getting to me. The previous bottle drunk a little over a year ago was incredible. I’d have difficulty believing it would have gone that far downhill in 16 months.

In contrast, the 1989 Lynch Bages I had with Chris and Jay a few months ago was showing early complexity with no fading fruit character, and the one I had last winter with Jim and Jacques was in need of more aging.

So there really are just great bottles. If you love that aged complexity, it comes down to playing the odds of a bottle showing it 30+ years down the line vs. cashing in the chips earlier.

[Nicklasss]

I'm preferring my great red Bordeaux between 15 and 35 years old. After 30 i don't buy often as a bit too risky for me as I don't have any in the cellar and need to buy on the market without knowing storage conditions.

I guess my sweet spot is between 20 and 25 years old.

But I'm with marcs, even small/medium vintages red Bordeaux can age easily 12-14 years normally.

I open a lot of Bordeaux younger than 15 years old, as I'm impatient to taste some wines, and believe it or not, I rarely have regrets. Even young, red Bordeaux are really something (I just have to think about the 2011 Calon Segur we had in Québec City a few years ago or the 2012 Léoville Las Case)...

Nic

[sdr]

1982 Bordeaux is great now, plenty of ripe fruit, most of the better ones in early to mid secondary stage, no tertiaries yet.

Stu

[Blanquito]

Indeed. The very top of the 82s — which I drink rarely I admit — seem almost primary to me still.

[robert goulet]

If there is one wine I would love to have more of it's the '04 SHL.

Good to see Jim testing out those kidneys, well done brother!!

[Bordhead2000]

1982 Bordeaux is great now, plenty of ripe fruit, most of the better ones in early to mid secondary stage, no tertiaries yet.

Stu

Agree 100%. I've had some great 1982's, and I pick them up when I can. I have also had a couple bottles of 1981 Chateau Haut-Bailly which are fabulous.

[Ambrose]

A couple of SHL 04’s have come up at auction here in oz. Anyone had one recently / think it’s worth a punt?

[Comte Flaneur]

A couple of SHL 04’s have come up at auction here in oz. Anyone had one recently / think it’s worth a punt?

Yes definitely Ambrose. It was BWE wine of the year in 2013. I have not had one for a few years but if I saw some at auction I would make a beeline for them.

The other two under-the-radar vintages of SHL to look out for are 2002 and 2006.

[JoelD]

A couple of SHL 04’s have come up at auction here in oz. Anyone had one recently / think it’s worth a punt?

Yes definitely Ambrose. It was BWE wine of the year in 2013. I have not had one for a few years but if I saw some at auction I would make a beeline for them.

The other two under-the-radar vintages of SHL to look out for are 2002 and 2006.

I would love to try the 02 and 04 so i'll have to seek them out. I'll also vouch for the 06. Wonderful wine. More approachable than some of the better, closed down 06's right now. Best as a PNP or slow ox if you have the time, or a short decant.

I know many aren't fans of SHL on here, but I really enjoy some of the less ripe/big vintages as well as their second wines. I am curious to try the one bottle of 05 that I have though, as it's supposed to be preposterous.

[AKR]

That is good to hear how their rouge is developing. I always liked the 1998 from house, but its been forever since I have had one.

[Ambrose]

Good feedback - appreciate that. 14 SHL was my favourite wine last year - haven’t tried any from the bigger / riper vintages yet.

Enjoying your blog comte - managed to scroll back a decade or so to some of the financial stuff - really interesting (albeit a bit over my head!).

[JimHow]

The question you always have to ask about 2014 Bordeaux, Ambrose, is whether it is the greatness of the vintage or the greatness of the estate.

in 2014, for example, I thought GPL performed superbly. In my opinion, however, I think that was more a function of the vintage than the otherwise under-performing property.

I can easily see, however, how SHL would have done well in 2014.

[barsacpinci]

1982 Bordeaux is great now, plenty of ripe fruit, most of the better ones in early to mid secondary stage, no tertiaries yet.

Stu

Agree 100%. I've had some great 1982's, and I pick them up when I can. I have also had a couple bottles of 1981 Chateau Haut-Bailly which are fabulous.

I'm hit or miss with the '82s. I bought a lot of them when they came out. Have some left. Recently the lesser Chateau have been pretty bad for me - '82 La Lagune we dumped most of it and the '82 Branaire was just so so. Although I did open an '82 Cheval Blanc about 2 years ago and it was sublime - wine of my lifetime. I've drank a lot when they were much younger and had much better performance overall - no duds.

I'm 64 and I even bought some 2019/2020 futures. But I do drink them young!

[robert goulet]

Orlando Bobby and I had the 2004 SHL recently....its just a lovely claret...I just grabbed a mag at auction...I'm a big fan

[s*d*r]

1982 Bordeaux is great now, plenty of ripe fruit, most of the better ones in early to mid secondary stage, no tertiaries yet.

Stu

I'm hit or miss with the '82s. I bought a lot of them when they came out. Have some left. Recently the lesser Chateau have been pretty bad for me - '82 La Lagune we dumped most of it and the '82 Branaire was just so so. Although I did open an '82 Cheval Blanc about 2 years ago and it was sublime - wine of my lifetime. I've drank a lot when they were much younger and had much better performance overall - no duds.

Yeah, only the most pedigreed ‘82s are still going strong. Most of what you pay for is ability to age; the difference is arguably less or non-existent at birth.

[Musigny 151]

I think the obvious inference here is know you’re palate. Unlike Marcs, who likes his wines between fifteen and twenty years, I prefer wines with more age. The 2005s are not ready, but 2000 and 1998 are right at the very beginning of their maturity. So one buys accordingly.