Is 2016 TOO perfect?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:00 am

I’ve tried about a dozen wines from the vintage, from lesser and greater renowned estates.
The vintage is obviously profound.
But is there a disturbing “sameness” to the wines?
Are they TOO good? TOO perfect?
TOO perfectly made?
Has the winemaking, the pursuit of perfection, advanced too far?
Every single detail accounted for, not a thing out of place. Almost robotic.
I realize a dozen is a small anecdote.
I still need to try a lot more. And they are obviously very young, they need to be blanquitoed several times over.
But this far into the 2014 vintage I was finding a personality that was very engaging, very the-way-they-used-to-make-them.
Not so much here. These 2016s are great. But are they... “interesting”?

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:50 am

I had a post on the 2015 DDC that raised a similar issue. Is the sophistication of modern winemaking creating wines that are “good” by all traditional metrics but are also bland and lack distinctiveness? Even if there is no specific fault one can tag them with? Certainly the old reasons for downgrading wines like “not enough fruit”/“not enough depth”/“crude tannins” etc are out of date for classed growths in years with halfway decent weather. But the fact that most of your mid to higher end wines are now slick and polished and have surface appeal doesn’t necessarily mean they are great wines. I don’t think critics have caught up to this development and developed the necessary vocabulary for assessing these kinds of issues.

Also totally concur with Jim that 2014 is a vintage that had a very distinctive personality and character that I really enjoyed. We’ll have to see how aging treats 2014 as compared to the more celebrated but perhaps less distinctive vintages that followed.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:57 am

Jim, I share your concern. The 2016 lack soul, personality for my mileage.

Here are my notes from the UGC (emphasis added), where I tasted 40+ wines. Out impressions are similar:

The 2016 vintage is very pretty to be sure, with a modern display of pure, clean fruit but with plenty of freshness and amazingly tame tannins to underpin things... What's different now than 30+ year ago is the polished, even slick presentation of fruit that nearly 100% of these 2016s showed. The Napa-fication of Bordeaux continues even in a vintage of moderate conditions... Honestly, if you really like your Bordeaux in an old school style, I wonder if current vintages are where you put your money-- selective backfilling even as recently as 2004-2006 are more likely to be your style, because the modernist philosophy hadn't yet been fully embraced by virtually every major chateau in Bordeaux.

greatbxfreak · Post by **greatbxfreak** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:53 am

TOO Perfect???? C'mon guys!!!

2016 is very sophisticated, noble, stylish and refined vintage. Soul less and boring vintage?? You ain't seen nothing yet! Will live forever.

2018 is more powerful vintage a la 2005 and 2010

2019 will be a melange of 2016 and 2018.

2014 is a real Bx style cool climate vintage. However the ripeness of fruit and tannin doesn't match the ones of vintages above. One great thing about 2014 is the excellent acidity in wines, red, white dry and white sweet.

jal · Post by **jal** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:44 pm

I love 2016s! I find them perfectly balanced, perfectly harmonious. I am willing to bet they will stay that way for a long time, this vintage reminds me of 1990.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:24 pm

Perhaps this is just a manifestation of palate preferences for cooler vintages with less ripe fruit.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:26 pm

I could be wrong.

But yes. I too find them "perfectly balanced, perfectly harmonious."

Everything is perfect. Everything is just perfect, like a scene from the Stepford Wives or Rosemary's Baby...

I'm reminded of that scene in Annie Hall, Jacques.

Old school claret is like New York City: Dirty, grimy, ugly... but wonderfully alive.

New school Bordeaux is like an antisceptic healthfood restaurant on Sunset Boulevard....

Everything is "perfect."

EXT. A STREET IN FRONT OF THE COURT HOUSE - DAY
Policemen are walking up and down the courthouse steps as Alvy and Rob move out the door of the building, down the steps to the street.
ROB
Imagine my surprise when I got your
call, Max.
ALVY
(Carrying his jacket
over his shoulder)
Yeah. I had the feeling that I got
you at a bad moment. You know, I
heard high-pitched squealing.
They walk over to Rob's convertible and get in.
ROB
(Starting the car)
Twins, Max. Sixteen-year-olds. Can
you imagine the mathematical
possibilities?
ALVY
(Reacting)
You're an actor, Max. You should be
doing Shakespeare in the Park.
ROB
Oh, I did Shakespeare in the Park,
Max. I got mugged. I was playing
Richard the Second and two guys with
leather jackets stole my leotard.
He puts on an elaborate helmet and goggles.
ALVY
(Looking at Rob's
helmet)
Max, are we driving through plutonium?
ROB
Keeps out the alpha rays, Max. You
don't get old.

brodway · Post by **brodway** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:38 pm

Jim...believe the hype

When are you driving to NH to grab some cases? I've been stashing some reserves for the 10 cases of 2016's i plan on cellaring....only bought 3 of those so far....Waiting for your cue

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:45 pm

I already made my big 2016 purchase in NH a few weeks ago Emil, I bought about 120 bottles.

greatbxfreak · Post by **greatbxfreak** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 3:52 pm

JimHow,

If you think 2016 Bx vintage is too perfect, why then you purchase 120 bottles??

Finding some excuses or .....?

jal · Post by **jal** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 3:56 pm

I love that scene in Annie Hall.
Then again, the only cultural advantage of California is that you can make a right turn at a red light

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64Iod_BMKUk

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:08 pm

One of my many favorite scenes in Annie Hall is the split screen of them each talking to their psychiatrists.

Ognik · Post by **Ognik** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:49 pm

No way. 14, 15 and 16 are a perfect trio until now. A kind of modern reincarnation of 88, 89 and 90....but much more better, we' ll see.
17, 18 and probably 19 will have to proof their potential to be competetiv.
16 is not overrated in any way. We will have so much fun with that vintage in upcoming 30 yrs +

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:54 pm

I think we have to recognise the progress that has been made, even though Parker bent the arc for a while, the arc has bent back some. The super refined tannins make these wines accessible.

We drank a 2010 Brane Cantenac the other day which was big and weird. There was a boat load of sunshine, and big soft cuddly oak and tannins which had not integrated - but it is a wine which I think will straighten itself overtime.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:14 pm

The initial discussion of 2016 Bordeaux reminds me of the highly touted 1997 Napa Cabernet Sauvignon. I tried a bunch early on and thought they all tasted basically the same.

jal · Post by **jal** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:24 pm

stefan wrote:The initial discussion of 2016 Bordeaux reminds me of the highly touted 1997 Napa Cabernet Sauvignon. I tried a bunch early on and thought they all tasted basically the same.

If that's the case, then let's all load up on Lanessan and forget the others LOL.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:35 pm

The initial discussion of 2016 Bordeaux reminds me of the highly touted 1997 Napa Cabernet Sauvignon. I tried a bunch early on and thought they all tasted basically the same.

I think that's kind of a good example of what I'm talking about, Stefan.
But... I'll admit my sample size is small.
From my small sample size it seems like 2016 has attained the height of internationalization.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:42 pm

jal wrote:
stefan wrote:The initial discussion of 2016 Bordeaux reminds me of the highly touted 1997 Napa Cabernet Sauvignon. I tried a bunch early on and thought they all tasted basically the same.
If that's the case, then let's all load up on Lanessan and forget the others LOL.

I concur. The 97 Napa cabs were wildly overrated and aged even worse. This was when Napa jumped the shark and it never looked back. There are many, many California wineries that I quite like or even outright love from 1996 and older — and only a handful from 1997-now.

I think bordeaux is a safer bet to age well, but the omens are bad.

brodway · Post by **brodway** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:15 pm

Jacques

That is a lucid, intelligent, well though out argument ....Overruled

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD-AXgYO0lo

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:20 pm

I have less 2016 than any of the 2014-16 trio. I only really went long on 2016 Pichon Baron, nine bottles (big purchase for me). That and some Leoville Barton. Got em both for solid prices. I have more 2014, where I got 4-6 bottles of Barton, Cos D’Estourbel, both Pichon, GPL, and more. And I got a bunch of mid-level 2015 Margaux.

OrlandoRobert · Post by **OrlandoRobert** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:23 pm

Apropos, I posted this on WB.com earlier today:

One would think from CT notes that the 2016 Chateau Canon was ready to go and was like the second coming of the wine Gods. I found it in a rather awkward place, but was at least pleased to see the weave of red fruits into a dark-fruit wine and firm acidic structure, even if stylistically this wine has moved modern. I’ll stock these away for 10+ years easy. I expected youth, but also decadent, which is why I brought it to a dinner party where most of the folks like big young Cabs. I should have brought the Les Carmes Haut Brion, far more approachable and actually damn enjoyable.

Take from it of you will. I’ve had a smattering of 2016s, and many parallel what you are saying. That Les Carmes does for sure. Damn tasty but I’ll take 2010 and 2000 over it any day of the week.

The 2014 vintage is my kind of vintage, and my purchases show it. I did not buy heavy in 2009 or 2010 either. My last “big” vintage - measured by spending - was 2005. Wish that I had bought more 2008.

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:25 pm

Comte Flaneur wrote:I think we have to recognise the progress that has been made, even though Parker bent the arc for a while, the arc has bent back some. The super refined tannins make these wines accessible.

We drank a 2010 Brane Cantenac the other day which was big and weird. There was a boat load of sunshine, and big soft cuddly oak and tannins which had not integrated - but it is a wine which I think will straighten itself overtime.

“Big and weird” is one of the better descriptions I have heard of the 2010 vintage. It has a ton of everything and frequently not in balance. This is most in evidence on the right bank (as usual) but I have my suspicions on left bank as well. Hopefully it is just in that typical 5-10 year old awkward phase, because in tastings the 2010s tend to stand out as big and clumsy.

jal · Post by **jal** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:41 pm

brodway wrote:Jacques

That is a lucid, intelligent, well though out argument ....Overruled

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD-AXgYO0lo

LOL. No way are we limiting ourselves to Lanessan! I prefer young 2016 to all Bordeaux vintages I've had since the 1990 vintage! There, I said it!

jal · Post by **jal** » Sat Nov 30, 2019 12:54 am

Oh, and I thought 1997 Napa cabs were the devil's punishment for the winemakers selling their soul to his envoy Parker. No comparison imo.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:16 am

High praise, Jal. Which 16s are you really digging?

CJD · Post by **CJD** » Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:50 pm

The recent decade of big bdx years produced wines that are heavy, formulaic and indistinguishable from each other. I like to be able to select a Margaux that tastes like it came from Arsac or somewhere along the D2 unlike a recent d’angludet 2016 that might as well have been from Howell mountain.
For me the lesser years increasingly offer a sweet spot in Bordeaux. They still offer typicity, AOC distinctiveness & food friendliness.
Happy to let those who enjoy 14% & 15% abv bordeaux extol how wonderful they are......Alas this decades ‘great’ vintages no longer produce the best food friendly wines in the world.

greatbxfreak · Post by **greatbxfreak** » Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:55 pm

The recent decade of big bdx years produced wines that are heavy, formulaic and indistinguishable from each other. I like to be able to select a Margaux that tastes like it came from Arsac or somewhere along the D2 unlike a recent d’angludet 2016 that might as well have been from Howell mountain.
For me the lesser years increasingly offer a sweet spot in Bordeaux. They still offer typicity, AOC distinctiveness & food friendliness.
Happy to let those who enjoy 14% & 15% abv bordeaux extol how wonderful they are......Alas this decades ‘great’ vintages no longer produce the best food friendly wines in the world.

Here we have some wise words from an expert who's tasted many Bordeaux wines since 1920 wines. Not. Sorry, but I've to react.

Imho, CJD doesn't have a clue - I wonder if he's going to BWE Bordeaux 2020 to taste these overripe, sweet, heavy Bx wines which resembles California wines.

Rarely, I've to read such a piece of c.... It's my personal opinion, please remember that.

greatbxfreak · Post by **greatbxfreak** » Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:07 pm

Same style??

Bourgneuf versus Trotanoy

La Lagune versus Meyney

Haut Marbuzet versus Cantemerle

Les Carmes Haut Brion versus Seguin

Phelan Segur versus Lafon Rochet

Pichon Comtesse versus Pichon Baron

Cos d'Estornel versus Montrose

Tertre Roteboeuf versus Ausone

Cheval Blanc versus Figeac

Heavy and overripe? Bull....! Not drinking well with food? Bull....! Sweetness of fruit - it's natural because of perfect ripeness.

brodway · Post by **brodway** » Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:17 pm

This calls for an ultimate showdown challenge....We've done this in NYC for the 2000 vintage....For me the Palmer won that challenge.

2016 needs to be tasted on a grander scale...With 20-40 wines from different regions...hoping they aren't shutting down yet

CJD · Post by **CJD** » Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:59 am

Hey greatbx
In many ways you are right. I’m not a big taster. Prefer to enjoy the greatest wine regions bounty by the bottle at home shared with friends & family mostly around the table with food - been doing it since the late 1970’s.
France Bwe 2020.......I wish!!!! I’m fairly new to this group. I would have loved to go. Jim quite rightly pointed out to me that it was a trip for the long contributing members of the group. I was gutted but accept that and respect the protocol though I’m green with envy having just seen the to die for schedule!
In a nutshell I believe higher octane Bordeaux is becoming less food friendly. A bottle shared over food seems like heavy going a bit like Napa with food - a bit laborious.
Don’t get me wrong, the top 50 or so in Bordeaux still produce the best wines in the world. All Bordeaux in the Big vintages are just quite different from what they have been.
Other wine regions like Washington state, burgundy, Alsace , alto aldiage and indeed cru Beaujolais are what the worlds best chefs see as food friendly these days.
For me a 2002 Gruaud Larose or 2014 Beychevelle with Game , lamb, or steak works perfectly. A recent 2010 du glana - less so.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:06 am

Aww I'm not sure I quite said that CJD, I'll have to go back and check.
I think i said our schedule was going to be set after consulting longer term members.
We have a short waiting list if you'd like to be put on it, all though we are already overbooked at 20.
I do agree that 2002 and 2014 I am finding generally more interesting than the 2015 and 2016 vintages.

Nicklasss · Post by **Nicklasss** » Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:46 am

Hi all.

I will surely not complaint about 2016 being too perfect. To me, it is really a mix of two great vintages, 1996 and 2009. I like the 2016 I have opened, small regional wines or Grands Crus Classés.

About the comment that all 2016 look similar, well I guess that Bordeaux lovers here have enough experience to figure out that the wines are still very very young at 3 years old. It is like when you look at many newborns: they look quite similar, but with time they will become all different.

Nic

P.s. And no, La Lagune wasn't too similar to Capbern,

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:37 am

The 2016 Lafon Rochet and Brane Cantenac seem impeccably made -- "perfect" -- but they seem soulless, just not "interesting."

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:34 pm

There are all kinds of technological methods to spit-shine and polish a wine to make it seem "perfect" early in its life. Not saying that has occurred in 2016 or other recent vintages, but if it did, how would we know? I wish critics focused more on winemaking technique and technology and its effect on the style of the final product. But of course it's not like producers share that info with them either. I don't think they even ask though, or would know what to do with the info if they got it -- technical knowledge of winemaking is not at all a precondition for being a "professional" critic.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:09 pm

Make no mistake about it.
I think 2016 is profound.
I think it’s a “10.”
I’m happy to have 120 bottles in my cellar.
I’m happy to have some 2016 Leoville Barton in my cellar.
And Giscours. And Brane Cantenac. And numerous others.
The fruit is perfect. The acidity, the tannins, the alcohol, are all “perfect.”
Everything is perfect.
It’s like the 1961 Latour is perfect, but I like the less than perfect ‘59 better.
A dozen or so bottles in, I find other vintages like 2014 to have more personality than 2016.

jal · Post by **jal** » Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:23 pm

This is a strange argument.
Bottom line:
What would you buy now if you went to the store and prices were similar? For me, it's simple: 2016 before anything else.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:33 pm

Remember, I used the word "perfect" in the title to my thread.
Is "perfection" everything?
Beauty, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.
I wonder what Huxley would say.
To answer your question, Jacques, if "prices were similar," the decision, at least in some cases, would be even easier.
I got greater enjoyment out of the 2014 Lafon Rochet over the 2016. And the 2014 is like half the price.
I got greater enjoyment out of the 2014 Brane Cantenac over the 2016. Likewise, the 2014 is like half the price.
Pricing will always be a part of the equation in Bordeaux, at least for me.
And these 2016s aren't cheap.

Ognik · Post by **Ognik** » Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:35 pm

It’s like the 1961 Latour is perfect, but I like the less than perfect ‘59 better.
A dozen or so bottles in, I find other vintages like 2014 to have more personality than 2016.

So what does this tell us about your preference?
Do you like to kiss the ugly frog or the beauty queen? Common

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:39 pm

What can I say?
I like the 2014 Lafon Rochet better than the oterwise "perfect" '16.
Should I just otherwise say I like the 2016 to make the cellartracker crowd happy?

Okay...

I loooove the 2016 Lafon Rochet.
It comes from a brilliant, spectacular, vintage....

I love it a million times better than the '14.

And that splendiferous, magnificent, jaw dropping 2016 Brane Cantenac.
Miles and miles better than the '14, I tell you.

I'll post my notes in cellartracker and I'm sure i will gain many new friends.

Sincerely,
Winston S. How

Ognik · Post by **Ognik** » Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:46 pm

Though i don't buy Lafon Rochet regulary.....96 Lafon is the real deal right now....have no experience with contemporary stuff....did buy Meyney in 14 and 16....and what can i say....14 is probably better now.
If you'll visit northern germany...don't hesitate to visit us in Varel. We'll have lots of fun. Best.