Haut-Bailly with Veronique Saunders

[Comte Flaneur]

A virtual tasting this evening with Veronique Saunders, compered by Sarah Kemp. Of course we were down to visit Ch. Haut Bailey for lunch on 27 March before the coronavirus threw a spanner in the works, so this session assuaged that disappointment somewhat.

The line up was impressive: 2012, 2010, 2009, 2005, 1998 and 1989. But I would have preferred one which included 2019, 2018 and 2016. I had a half bottle of 2004 on the side as my Brucie Bonus.

Veronique, who reminds me of Madame Peignoir in Fawlty Towers, albeit in a good way, arrived on the scene in 1998, and she credits step improvements in quality at the estate first in the 2004 vintage and then again in 2008 vintage.

Haut-Bailly is a single block estate dating back to 1613 with the highest plot in the appellation, which peaks at 48 metres where 120 year old vines reside.

2012 - quite closed now and not showing very much on the nose, but you get some rocky mineral notes, and later some good ripe red berry fruit. A good wine which needs a few years to come out of its shell, it is fresh and nicely balanced, but lacks richness and concentration, which is not necessarily a bad thing. You could say that it is a classic Englishman’s claret. If I was to attach a score it would be around 90.

2010 - the needle moves around the dial in every aspect with this wine because it is bigger in every way, particularly in its constitution, structure, power, richness, ripeness and concentration. But although it tips the scales at 14.3% abv it is not over the top in anyway and maintains impeccable balance and decorum. It is like a large muscular world-beating thoroughbred. Just so impressive. I would say 97 points.

2009 - weighs in a bit lower at 13.8% abv and is more inviting on the nose than the 10; it is more opulent, exotic and rounder. It has a marvellous seamless and silky mid-palate and a finish that goes on and on - for well over a minute. I marginally prefer this to the 2010 but they are both epic wines. Veronique said the 2019 is a carbon copy of this 2009, which I would give 98 points.

2005 - we come down to earth with quite a clunk; the 2005 is notable for its rumbustious, burly, tannins, which means it is completely unready to drink, unless you want to be a ‘baby murderer’ (VS) - the step down from the previous two wines is palpable though beneath the aggressive tannins you have a rich powerful wine from a hot vintage, which maintains reasonable balance, but you could say it is over-extracted as is the case elsewhere in this vintage. You need to wait at least a decade to drink this, when it might be due an upgrade from its interim score of 89 points.

2004 - from half bottle this is still backward and still needs 3-5 years, though is a better bet to drink now than the 2005. It is strict wine, but refreshingly cool-fruited. If you have bottles of this try to hold off. It is similar to the 2012. 90 points.

1998 - also still quite strict and austere but with more tertiary tobacco notes. VS said the Merlot fruit was very fine in 1998 and two thirds of the wine was declassified to the Parde. It is still frankly too young and austere to drink now but has a pleasing energy, even electricity. 90 points.

1989 - a browner colour and a wine from a previous regime. It is pleasingly resolved and tertiary albeit somewhat shy and demure especially for the vintage. I got coffee and caramel tertiary notes and charcoal. After a while it grows on you and is an exquisite wine, albeit with an elegant and restrained, rather than exuberant, personality. An also ran in the context of this vintage. 91 points.

Regarding other vintages, as noted VS she is very excited by 2019 which she even compares favourably to 2009 (RMP 100); she is highly complimentary about her 2018; she thinks the 2016 is similar to the 2010 with ‘great structure and depth’, while the 2015 she considers a ‘sexy beast’. She reserves special praise for her 2008, which she considers to be worthy as being ranked as a triumvirate with the 09 and 10, which should be taken with a pinch of salt. The 2000 is 50/50 cab/Merlot and a ‘ying-yang’ vintage but she concedes it not at the same level as 2009 and 2010. Her favourite wines to pull out of the cellar now are 2001, a superb cab sav year, and 2006, which has emerged from a relatively closed period. Their accent now, as it is across Bordeaux, is to make less extracted wines.

Haut-Bailly wines seem to be austere and take an awful long time to come around in cool vintages and therefore need food; I remember coming away with the same impression at a Haut-Bailly dinner in London several years ago. However this estate seems to excel in big vintages especially 2009 and 2010, though not in 2005, and the 2015, 16, 18 and 19 are probably close to the 2009 and 2010. One interesting theme from the three Bordeaux zoom sessions I have attended is how much better than 2005 are the 2009 and 2010 vintages, which have far better tannin management, and less emphasis on extraction. I own cases/half cases of 2006, 2008, 2015 and 2016 and a few odd bottles/halves in other vintages like 1998 and 2004.

[greatbxfreak]

Ian,

I would not say austere but mineral. Haut Bailly is one of the most minerally scented wines in Bordeaux, difficult to taste, it's been like that for many years, but I think they changed a bit the style since 2008 vintage.

2010, 2016 and 2018 are my favourites. 2019 will surely be that too when I get the chance to taste it.

[Comte Flaneur]

Yes Izak, you are right, the minerality, was pronounced.

I am still sipping on the 2004 half bottle and is only just now starting to come out of its shell with pleasing though shy red fruits, but It is still reserved.

[JimHow]

Great stuff as always, Ian.
These Zoom tastings are too much fun.
I gotta uncork one of my five remaining 2006s some time soon with a nice juicy steak.

[Comte Flaneur]

Jim
I know you like em young but is the 2006 the exception to the rule here and drinking now? I know Nic has drunk through is. I loved this wine ep and Veronique says she likes to open then now...but the 98 and 04 are so backward...

[JimHow]

Well, I bought a case of 2006 Haut Bailly on release, I absolutely loved the 7 bottles consumed so far, which were consumed young.
Then i placed them in that 20 bottle square in my cellar, 5 bottles each of 2006 Haut Bailly, 2005 d'Issan, 2005 Brane Cantenac, and 2005 Grand Mayne.
I haven't touched any of them since, lest I upset the symmetry.
Once I do, they will all soon be gone.

[Nicklasss]

Nice Zoom conference tasting again Comte.

It is interesting to learn that some step improvement in quality happened in 2004 and 2008. I guess they worked to increase the fruit flavors, as i never thought that Haut Bailly was an extremely fruity wine, but that was Haut Bailly signature, probably pleasing less some people, but surely not me. The 2009-2010 duo looks great! At the same time, i'm not believing you that the 2005 is so dull, or like you're saying maybe very closed/too extracted? I don't think Haut Bailly ever went to the "too extracted" side, but I might be wrong. I have few bottles of 2005 but I'm very sad i might have to wait 10 more years...

I agree that the 1998 and 2001 are really kinda mineral reserved style, very not "internationalized" flavors at all, tannic, earthy fruits.

And yes, I would like to have another 2006 right now! It is an excellent wine even young, and more complexity will probably come later, but it is giving very much even young

To the first BWE convention in Chicago in 2001, I brought two bottles of the 1990. In the pre-dinner tasting, I remember that the wine did not made a "great impression" right after opening, so less than a bottle have been sample by the attendees. But later that night, we had the second bottle with the dinner and it was great at that later moment. I remember JScott telling me it was his favorite Bordeaux that night with the dinner.

Nic

[JimHow]

Yes I started to post about those two 1990s earlier, Nicola, the first time I had this wine, in February 2001 in Chicago.
"A revelation."

[Musigny 151]

I am a fan of the chateau, and the minerality is what makes it so extraordinary. Of recent vintages, I have a fair amount of the 2008, which is still far from ready, but oh so promising. This is usually a 20 plus year wine, so before buying, consult your actuarial table.

[JoelD]

Great notes Ian,

I am a Haut Bailly fan for sure. I agreed with your assesment of the 04 but thought it was just slightly closer to ready to drink.

The 06 is an awesome young wine and I have been working on getting some more.

Just picked up a bottle each of 00,05,10.. looking forward to those but I guess I will have to wait on the 05 now. Thanks for the heads up!

[DavidG]

Great report Ian, thanks for sharing. Haut Bailly is one of my favorites. I usually get a nice dose of smoky, dusty, earthy gravel from them that I really love, and that minerality Izak mentions.

I agree that the 2009 is drinking so beautifully now despite its youth. Maybe the most enjoyable for drinking now of any Haut Bailly since the turn of the century? I had a bit of a scare when I read Neal Martin's report of oxidation in his report of the Farr 2009 Bordeaux ten years on tasting. I’ve seen no sign of that and suspect they had a flawed bottle.

I hope the 2005 comes around and isn’t one of those that always seems a Blanquito away from reaching its potential. Looks like I’ll keep hands off.

[Comte Flaneur]

I notice that Parker and Neal Martin and other professional tasters score the 2005 around 95 plus or minus. My impression based on last night was that if that is the case the 2009 and 2010 should score in excess of 100. It maybe that the 2005s are going through an awkward phase as was notably the case in the Leoville Barton and D’Issan verticals; but I was surprised how the shortcomings of the fives were so ruthlessly exposed by the altogether far more accomplished nines and tens in all three verticals. The fives were clumsy by comparison. That’s why it would have been interesting to have the 15, 16, 18 and 19 in the line up last night. In last night’s line up the best wine to drink now and in the future is the 2009, and I suspect the more recent vintages are of a similar ilk.

[JoelD]

I notice that Parker and Neal Martin and other professional tasters score the 2005 around 95 plus or minus. My impression based on last night was that if that is the case the 2009 and 2010 should score in excess of 100. It maybe that the 2005s are going through an awkward phase as was notably the case in the Leoville Barton and D’Issan verticals; but I was surprised how the shortcomings of the fives were so ruthlessly exposed by the altogether far more accomplished nines and tens in all three verticals. The fives were clumsy by comparison. That’s why it would have been interesting to have the 15, 16, 18 and 19 in the line up last night. In last night’s line up the best wine to drink now and in the future is the 2009, and I suspect the more recent vintages are of a similar ilk.

How much air were given to these 05's?

And have you had the 05 Pichon Baron recently? That needed a 2-3 hour decant but showed its amazing potential once it did.

[jckba]

Ian, great notes on another great zoom tasting.

[Chateau Vin]

Great notes, Ian. Keep them coming...

The sky high prices that HB is commanding these days are out of my comfort zone. But interesting to see how they will be priced in the middle of the pandemic and supposedly unenthusiastic buyers...

[Comte Flaneur]

I notice that Parker and Neal Martin and other professional tasters score the 2005 around 95 plus or minus. My impression based on last night was that if that is the case the 2009 and 2010 should score in excess of 100. It maybe that the 2005s are going through an awkward phase as was notably the case in the Leoville Barton and D’Issan verticals; but I was surprised how the shortcomings of the fives were so ruthlessly exposed by the altogether far more accomplished nines and tens in all three verticals. The fives were clumsy by comparison. That’s why it would have been interesting to have the 15, 16, 18 and 19 in the line up last night. In last night’s line up the best wine to drink now and in the future is the 2009, and I suspect the more recent vintages are of a similar ilk.

How much air were given to these 05's?

And have you had the 05 Pichon Baron recently? That needed a 2-3 hour decant but showed its amazing potential once it did.

AD606143-55C3-42CD-AF2B-12FBD3647005.jpeg (117.12 KiB) Viewed 1382 times

Joel all the wines got the same treatment and are posted in a foam wrapped package a week or so in advance into these twee little bottles. I am not sure how they get wine from bottle to these small containers, but I believed they are topped up with some inert gas.

I put these little bottles in the fridge then poured them an hour before the tasting. Each gets the same treatment. The wines tend to open well especially as they warm up.

As for the 2005 Baron i’ve not had it recently but I loved it when I tried it even though it was v backward.I would say it is the best 2005 I have ever tasted and own a case. Baron and Conseillante are my top two 2005s but have not tried most of the FGs.

[Comte Flaneur]

0228F76F-17B8-4804-BDE0-3FB634B2C5FB.jpeg (72.06 KiB) Viewed 1372 times

[Chateau Vin]

Probably the minerality of their wines might be something to do with their nearly 12 decade old vines, their roots digging deeper and deeper. And with low quantities of berries they produce, they must be highly flavorful imparting all that minerality... or otherwise maybe the terroir itself has that character....

Just a little story I have about H-B...

When I was plotting the maps of Bordeaux chateaux (maps trying to show down to the chateaux vineyard parcels), I contacted H-B asking for information about their 120 yr old vine parcels. Some people know the general area, but I wanted information about exact parcel, down to the row. H-B, understandably was hesitant to give that information and were worried for the safety of their prized vines. I met VS before in NY during our b-school competition, so I sent a letter as a written assurance that I will not label them publicly, will not mention or give any presentation showing them (other than just mention that H-B has 120 yr old vines) or transmit that information to anyone either electronically or otherwise. And H-B, to their kindness, sent that information to me. I am thankful for their generosity...

[Musigny 151]

I notice that Parker and Neal Martin and other professional tasters score the 2005 around 95 plus or minus. My impression based on last night was that if that is the case the 2009 and 2010 should score in excess of 100. It maybe that the 2005s are going through an awkward phase as was notably the case in the Leoville Barton and D’Issan verticals; but I was surprised how the shortcomings of the fives were so ruthlessly exposed by the altogether far more accomplished nines and tens in all three verticals. The fives were clumsy by comparison. That’s why it would have been interesting to have the 15, 16, 18 and 19 in the line up last night. In last night’s line up the best wine to drink now and in the future is the 2009, and I suspect the more recent vintages are of a similar ilk.

How much air were given to these 05's?

And have you had the 05 Pichon Baron recently? That needed a 2-3 hour decant but showed its amazing potential once it did.

Outside of the First Growths, my favorites were Pichon Baron and VCC. I was planning to buy First Growths, but they were released between two and three times what I had expected, so loaded up on the two.

[Blanquito]

The status of 2005 Bordeaux probably needs its own thread. That said, these are clearly not ready except at the cru bourgeois level where some are now showing well. But even if closed down, we can still get a strong sense of the vintage signature.

For me, the PROS of the 05s are that while these are very tannic wines, the tannins are obviously ripe and fleshy. Even more important, the wines possess great density of fruit and extract without being heavy (like some 10s) or boozy (like some 09s) at least on the Left Bank, and the fruit has a cooler year profile that I like. And somehow, despite the ripeness and fruit, the 05s have great acids (for Bordeaux). We've all read the vintage reports which try to explain these unusual combination of characteristics -- hot but not exceptionally hot days, cool nights (retaining the acids), that 2005 was more a drought year than a hot year and it had a very long, essentially perfect growing season from start to finish. It was like 1982 in that way, as very little vineyard intervention and management was needed to harvest perfect fruit.

But the CONs are there, at least so far. Ian said "clumsy", and that is exactly what I haven't liked to date about many 05s, these lack a refinement and elegance on the palate. And for sure, many chateau over-extracted the juice. Arguably, the 2005 vintage was the peak of Parker's influence on the style vignerons were aiming for and many wines suffered for it as a consequence. and for my palate, St Emilion, with a few notable exceptions, is basically a shit-show in 2005.

If one avoids the modernist chateau in their 2005 cellar selections, I remain optimistic they'll come around, but 2005 is always likely to be a vin garde in style that takes a long while to attain maturity. It will probably never have the sexy, upfront appeal of 2009. 2010 is a better comparison and it will be fun to taste these side by side in another 10 years or so.

As we know, Gilman is quite high on the 2005s and I respect his palate and experience a lot. He's not always 'right' for my preferences outside of Bordeaux, but for claret he is usually spot on. Here's what he said about the 2005 Vintage:
"Of the recent, highly-praised vintages in Bordeaux- 2000, 2005, 2009 and 2010, only the 2005 vintage stands out for me as a truly great vintage on the Gironde, with the others masquerading power and overripe fruit as if it were true greatness in the making. However, 2005 is a completely different animal and this is really and truly a great year, but one that is built for the very long haul. It is very rare for a Bordeaux vintage to offer outstanding acidity and excellent ripeness in the same vintage (unless it is a pruney drought year like 2010, which is okay if one wants Amarone, rather than claret).."

[Chateau Vin]

.
.
.

"Of the recent, highly-praised vintages in Bordeaux- 2000, 2005, 2009 and 2010, only the 2005 vintage stands out for me as a truly great vintage on the Gironde, with the others masquerading power and overripe fruit as if it were true greatness in the making. However, 2005 is a completely different animal and this is really and truly a great year, but one that is built for the very long haul. It is very rare for a Bordeaux vintage to offer outstanding acidity and excellent ripeness in the same vintage (unless it is a pruney drought year like 2010, which is okay if one wants Amarone, rather than claret).."

Yeah right, pruney, ehhh?? My A$$... I wonder what he is talking about...

As far as I am concerned, his take on bordeaux never impressed me, and I roll my eyes just as I do when I see LPB's writings, which are off-the-cuff more than often...

[Blanquito]

I've had very few 2010s and bought very few as well, so I am more of an interested bystander. I have had quite a few 2009s and I enjoy them a lot, but a number of have been marked with heat and booze, even from traditional estates. Maybe that integrates with time, but it was really the first time I've gotten overt heat on a claret (Chateauneuf is a different story).

Maybe Gilman's negativity on 2010 isn't the point as much as how high he is on 2005...

[Nicklasss]

I still have lot of faith in the 2005 Haut Bailly, and other 2005. From my perspective, when i taste many less great terroir or regional 2005 Bordeaux some years ago, it was clear they were great, and they could take 10 to 15 years of age easily, while normally you would drink them within their first 5 years. So the Crus Classés needs minimum 18 years I guess, maybe a bit more. Can 2005 be an improved 1986?

Back to Haut Bailly, the only wine from that Pessac Léognan that let me a bit down and was unusual, has been the 2003! Even if they controlled thing to keep 12.5 %, the wine was tasting heated stuff (rocks, prunes...).

Nic

[Comte Flaneur]

I think John G is a bit off base with his comments...maybe he is trying too hard to be the Anti-Parker...I don’t know when he wrote that stuff but surely he must be assuaged by 1. Parker disappearing into the sunset and 2. The accent throughout Bordeaux towards less extraction, a point Veronique emphasised

[Chateau Vin]

It’s quite common for JG to pass meaningless comments like that. I think we had that discussion before about him on this site. He says things like that and sometimes scores wines ridiculously not to give any meaningful insights, but seems to seek attention. Sure, one can compare vintages, but need not put down a vintage (nevermind about a vintage that is highly regarded not just by critics, but just about everyone else, and not to mention by almost all of the members on this forum) to shed good light on the vintage he likes... Jeez, gimme break...

[Blanquito]

I’ve met John 3 times at Dale’s house, and he seems sincere. He might be wrong subjectively or objectively even, but I didn’t get the sense at all that he’d do something like write off a whole vintage just to get attention (“stunt” scoring could be a different story).

I discussed the 2009 and 2010 vintages with him the last time I dined with him, and he has real reservations about the balance on the 2010s and to a lesser degree the 2009s. He could be wrong, and I give far more weight to the opinions on this site in part because we all know each other’s palates well at this point, but it’s an interesting point of view.

[JimHow]

I can't remember if it was the 2009 GPL or the 2010 GPL....
Marcus, can you refresh my memory. I think it was the 2009, but it could have been the 2010.
I was sitting next to Marcus at DC convention a few years ago, and he pulled out the 2009 (or '10?) GPL....
It was undrinkable. Not corked or shocked or damaged in any way, just totally undrinkable. Like, swill.
I think both Marcus and I would have rated it 69 points that night. I certainly would have.
Others, I think, rate it very high.... It is the mystery of wine.
Some even think it is the blood of Christ himself.. during the "transubstantiation" during the Mass, when it like literally becomes Christ's blood...
That's what the nuns used to tell us, anyway...

[stefan]

Great notes, as usual, Ian. I wonder if the 1998 Haut-Bailly will ever become an excellent wine.

I like the 1999 Haut-Bailly. I wonder if it is still going strong. I bought it mainly to drink while waiting for the 1998 to come around. Now my 1999 is gone and I am still waiting on the 1998.

Jim, I always wondered whether the Protestant Revolt (what the nuns called the Reformation) came about in part because some objected to one of the basic tenets of Catholicism: you must be a cannibal to get to heaven.

[Comte Flaneur]

Great notes, as usual, Ian. I wonder if the 1998 Haut-Bailly will ever become an excellent wine.

I like the 1999 Haut-Bailly. I wonder if it is still going strong. I bought it mainly to drink while waiting for the 1998 to come around. Now my 1999 is gone and I am still waiting on the 1998.

I wonder too stefan. I dug out some notes from an Haut-Bailly dinner we organised in October 2016 with older vintages and I remember being underwhelmed.

Flight one

1970 Château Haut-Bailly

Taut, lean, stern and austere, a modicum of dark fruits, earth and tobacco notes. Old school. Still very much a going concern, but will not reward keeping. 88

1978 Château Haut-Bailly

Tobacco and weed with some menthol notes. It is a little more generous than the 1970 but still resolutely old school. A bit high-toned but nicely resolved and finishes well. 89

1985 Château Haut-Bailly

I have read rave reviews about this wine, so I suspect this bottle was below par. It was austere and curmudgeonly especially for a 1985. 87

No fireworks in this flight

Flight two

1988 Château Haut-Bailly

This is more like it. More rounded and giving than any of the first flight, more density and power on the mid-palate and a medium finish. A very satisfying claret but not quite out of the very top drawer when it comes to 1988s. 92

1995 Château Haut-Bailly - France, Bordeaux, Graves, Pessac-Léognan

Quite austere initially but wonderful trademark gravelly notes with a dense and powerful mid-palate. Good fruit and texture. This is drinking very well and should continue to do so for another couple of decades. 93

1996 Château Haut-Bailly

Similar to the 1995, perhaps a little more exuberant fruit, but without quite the same persistence. 91

Flight three

1998 Château Haut-Bailly

This bottle looked and tasted young and primary with its inky opaque hue. On this showing could use more time. 91+

2000 Château Haut-Bailly

Not showing much now, dense and powerful. Revisit in a decade. 91 ++

2001 Château Haut-Bailly

A little bit more accessible than the 2000 and a bit of heat too. Not in a great place right now. 90+

2004 Château Haut-Bailly

This also tastes surprisingly young for a wine than has given great pleasure on the couple of previous occasions I have tried it. Notes of piped tobacco, rocky minerality, dense and long. Wine of the flight. 93+

[Blanquito]

Two of the better fully mature wines I’ve had were the ‘66 Haut Bailly that Chris B brought to Denver 2019 and the 1979 Haut Bailly which I’ve had twice at offlines in NYC. I really loved both of these vintages.

[Comte Flaneur]

Yes well remembered Patrick. That 1966 Haut-Bailly in Denver was exceptional, a stand out in a weekend of truly memorable wines.

[robert goulet]

Nice to hear Blanquito...I have the '79...looking forward to it...interesting vintage, massive crop, I believe largest since '34...wines reported as a bit dilute. There is always a solid wine in every supposed poor vintage...In face last week we had the '91 Mouton...a nice classic styled old school claret, gorgeous aromatics...not the greatest Mouton by any means, but very good, plenty of that Pauillac charm.

[Blanquito]

Nice to hear Blanquito...I have the '79...looking forward to it...interesting vintage, massive crop, I believe largest since '34...wines reported as a bit dilute. There is always a solid wine in every supposed poor vintage...In face last week we had the '91 Mouton...a nice classic styled old school claret, gorgeous aromatics...not the greatest Mouton by any means, but very good, plenty of that Pauillac charm.

Some of the NYC wine crowd figured out which are the good 79s long ago and scooped lots of it up for a song. I was a beneficiary of their wisdom. Gilman is also a fan of the year and says they aged on their acids rather than tannins which is unusual in bordeaux. In addition to the Haut Bailly, I’ve really enjoyed from 1979 the Pichon Lalande, du Tertre, Domaine de Chevalier rouge, La Tour Haut Brion (a sensational and now pricey wine), Lagune, Cos, Lynch Bages, and Giscours. Of course, provenance is key and bottle variation is high and these are at or nearing the end of peak drinking, but I’ve had great luck with them for years.

I didn’t know 79 was such a big crop! If dilute, they’ll probably really appeal to Alfert’s Chinon loving palate.

[JimHow]

The 1979 Gruard Larose that Tom brought to Fortress How a couple years ago was sublime.

[robert goulet]

Blanquito...Senor Leve has a nice little write up on his site regarding the '79 vintage

https://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/wi ... ying-tips/

Once I knew Leve wasn't a fan I went all in ...lololol

[AKR]

nice notes, the owner was always one of the great bankers of his time