2000 vs. 2001 Bordeaux

[Comte Flaneur]

Discuss

https://vinous.com/articles/looking-bac ... x-sep-2021

[JCNorthway]

I saw that Vinous review, but did not look closely. Personally I bought zero bottles of 2001 because I spent all my "allowance" on 2000 futures. I know many here have spoken positively about 2001's so I will be interested in any comments from those who have experience with both vintages.

[dstgolf]

I'll agree to disagree with the article conclusion that 2001 likely better than 2000. From my more limited experience and not drinking the lofty bottling described I'd say 2000 exceeds 2001 hands down. 2000 I went fairly deep with 10 mixed cases and 2001 was not reviewed initially prior to futures release by RMP etc and only bought 4 mixed cases that may have been drank too early all based on reviewers expectations of this being a lighter vintage which I agree and I can't remember a single bottle that moved me as much as the 2000 counterpart. The Lynch was head and shoulders above the 01. Gruaud, Lagrange, Lafon-Rochet, Cos, Leoville Barton, Smith Haut Lafite, Pontet Canet, GPL, Clos du Marquis, Pichon Baron & Longeville to me along with others that I can't currently ring off the top of my head were much better when I drank them (all in the last 5 yrs and prior) for 2000 than 2001 vintage. Today who knows as my 2001s are gone with a mixed case of 2000s left all of which were very good at last drink. The 2000 Mouton and Margaux that we drank last year were superb along with the Latour being one of my favourite all time Latours. I must say none of the 2000s have disappointed but not one of the 2001s that I've had have moved me or met expectations of what I expected from the pedigree. If 2001 is so great then why have the prices not risen and why do the Chateau still have stock left?? So much of what happens with Bordeaux is marketing and I suspect this is not entirely an unbiased review but maybe I'm wrong...again!

[Claudius2]

Folks
I was in Bordeaux for the 2000 harvest, including a nice stay at Ch Cordellian Bages, after watching the harvest earlier in Burgundy and the Rhone.
I arrived in Pauillac a few days prior to the Cabernet harvest, and from personal experience, I can say that the Cabernet grapes were very good quality - there was very little rot, mould or other problems with the grapes at the estates I visited. I was also lucky enough to be allowed into the chais in several cases, and the winemakers were pleased with what they saw.

The weather during the Cabernet harvest was not as uniform as some authors have written, and it was quite cold in the first week of October. By the end of that week, most of the classed growths were well into the Cabernet harvest, and most of the better estates had completed it. The lesser estates such as the Bas Medoc was not as advanced in maturity and as a result, more green/under-ripe characters may be evident.

Having said that, I still consider 2000 to be a top vintage but one that was not as consistent as initially cracked up to be.
I think the linked article by Neal Martin contains some half truths and at times, I think he exaggerates. The green characters he refers to were more apparent in less well placed estates and not the classed growths. I bought quite a lot of 2000's though only have a bottle or two left as I had little alternative but to progressively sell them off when I moved to Singapore. My plan to move them here was scuttled by the simple fact that the few I shipped over were largely destroyed by the heat.

As for 2001, the style that Martin talks of is somewhat dissimilar to my own experiences, and I still have a few broken lots of 2001s, such as LLC and PC, not to mention a few lesser wines like Haut Medoc CB's. I have tried PC and a few others side by side, and Poujeaux and Chasse Spleen, though have not side by side tasted many at the same time. Where I have directly compared them, I have no doubt that 2000 was better. That of course does not mean that every 2000 was better than every 2001, but the claim that 00 looks back and 01 looks forward (whatever that means) seems to be hyperbole.

Would I buy 2000 now? No I would not. These wines are now very expensive at retail and at auction, and partly due to the significance of the date. They were never as seductive as was 1982 for example, and some seem a bit angular, sometimes with too much acid. I did bid on a case of 00 Margaux at the last online auction here, but decided I really did not need it when the price rose fast. I am a bottom feeder at auctions, not a trophy hunter. Been to too many over the years to get carried away.

As for 2001, my initial response to a tasting when they hit Australia was that they were too tannic for the fruit concentration, and seemed like a modern 1975 or possibly a lesser 1986. I thought they would last well, but wondered if they would ever be great. In recent years, the few I have drunk were good rather than great, and that includes Pontet Canet (I rated 2002 as a better example than 2001 or for that matter, 2003) and to my surprise the 2001 Poujeaux - which I have drunk a full case of over the last few years - was a nice medium weight wine, though 2000 was better. Some Bretty characters always seem to be evident in this wine to me.

Would I buy 2001 now? Well, I have bought a few unloved examples over recent years at good prices. That includes LLC at one third the en primeur price of 2020 (as if that makes any sense) and a few odd bottles of Branaire Ducru and GL. Not opened the GL but the Branaire was a nice rather than very good. I have not opened the LLC simply as the estate itself says to hold. But I intend to pop one soon.

So what vintages would I buy now?
Well, I will not buy old vintages at retail or auction in Singapore.
Storage and handling are too big an issue here, so I am very cautious.
The only vintages I have bought at auction over the last year were 2005 and 2015, and I've bought various 15's retail when the airport duty free shop had to liquidate due to Covid. The airport is still running at only 3-4% capacity. I did not buy a single 15 on EP, and you cannot easily buy back vintages of Bordeaux here, at any price. I also have a LOT of 2009, 2010, 2016 and 2019 (not arrived yet) that are likely to outlive me in any case. I have smaller volumes of a few others such as 2006, 2008 and particularly 2014 (which is one of the few vintages I have backfilled). If I buy any more, 14 and 15 will be targets as they are now going for reasonable prices (particularly 14) and I have been impressed with both, despite different styles.

[greatbxfreak]

Mark,

I was in Bordeaux in 2000, and I remember that everybody was relaxed about picking time. Grapes were perfect, without any diseases, and there was no need to harvest before and after optimum ripeness. So I don't understand where Neal Martin has these green flavours from? Cabernet Franc? I don't think the 2001 vintage had better ripeness than 2000?

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Neal Martin with several things in his article, and in the long run, I believe 2000 will outlive 2001. Trotanoy 2000 and 2001 - 2000 was better last year in March when I had a vertical in 20+ vintages. And some of the 2001s tasted in recent years haven't convinced me that it's a better vintage. Even in Pomerol - I still prefer 2000 vintage.

Luckily, we don't need to compare 1990 to 1991 and 2010 to 2011!

[marcs]

In light of this thread, I will try to bring a 2000 Pichon Baron to the Saturday dinner as well, so we can compare the 2000 and 2001 PBs. I am also bringing the 2001 Pichon Lalande but I don't have a bottle of the 2000 Lalande, in case anyone else wants to bring that.

I generally have preferred 2000 to 2001, but I do think that 2000 has a crisp classical quality that can lead to some green notes. In fact that is one of the things I like about it. The near-disappearance of any green qualities from recent left bank Bordeaux is actually a problem in my mind.

[Nicklasss]

Me too I'm clearly in the camp of those that prefer the 2000.

For the reds i had in both vintage, which one i preferred for each vintage:

2000: Cantemerle, Pichon Baron, Léoville Poyferré, Léoville Barton, Duhart Milon, Branaire, Sociando Mallet, Lynch Bages, Armailhac, Cos d'Estournel, Pontet Canet.

2001: Pichon Lalande (had the 2000 just once and the green character was dominating in that bottle).

[marcs]

I would also note that with a few exceptions CT ratings are consistently significantly higher for 2000 than 2001. I do think vintage reputation/critical scores affect CT ratings so I wouldn't ascribe all of that difference to inherent quality, but I do think it says something.

[Musigny 151]

Me too I'm clearly in the camp of those that prefer the 2000.

For the reds i had in both vintage, which one i preferred for each vintage:

2000: Cantemerle, Pichon Baron, Léoville Poyferré, Léoville Barton, Duhart Milon, Branaire, Sociando Mallet, Lynch Bages, Armailhac, Cos d'Estournel, Pontet Canet.

2001: Pichon Lalande (had the 2000 just once and the green character was dominating in that bottle).

The green herb in Lalande 2000 is more muted now; still there but now an interesting undercurrent.
Not much to add; the 2001 Right Bank are very good, possibly on a par with 2000, but I have found 2000 much more compelling on the left bank.

[AlexR]

Hi,
It is so easy to jump on the bandwagon and say 2000 is better… The latter are certainly the richer, more upfront wines, ones that are easier to like.
And yet…
I bought 2001 en primeur and my American friends told me I was nuts, that I could still buy 2000s at that time even though the price had gone up. But I’ve never been a lemming!

I’m pretty happy with my 2001s. They are from what is called an “Atlantic vintage”, i.e. there was the cool and often wet weather typical of the Bordeaux climate. So, these wines are more classic in many ways than the 2000s.
Of course, we are comparing two different vintage profiles.

The notion of value for money must be introduced at some point here.
I don’t know how representative this is, but when I looked up 2001 Latour no Wine Searcher, it was selling for 6 to 700 euros a bottle, and 2000 Latour started (lowest price) at 1,000.
So, yes, 2000 Bordeaux great growths are rounder, richer, and more obviously fruity than 2001. If there were a shootout, 2000 would “win”. But 2001 is a fine vintage that did not have the hype, but is nevertheless very worthy of attention.

Alex R.

[DavidG]

In light of this thread, I will try to bring a 2000 Pichon Baron to the Saturday dinner as well, so we can compare the 2000 and 2001 PBs. I am also bringing the 2001 Pichon Lalande but I don't have a bottle of the 2000 Lalande, in case anyone else wants to bring that.

I generally have preferred 2000 to 2001, but I do think that 2000 has a crisp classical quality that can lead to some green notes. In fact that is one of the things I like about it. The near-disappearance of any green qualities from recent left bank Bordeaux is actually a problem in my mind.

This has been my take as well, but I haven’t had nearly the number of 2001s as 2000s. Haven’t found excessive green notes in the 2000s… I like a touch of it.

The Pichon Baron comparison will be fun. I’ll bring a 2000 Haut Brion and La Miss Saturday but I don’t have matching 2001s.

[OrlandoRobert]

Hi,
It is so easy to jump on the bandwagon and say 2000 is better… The latter are certainly the richer, more upfront wines, ones that are easier to like.
And yet…
I bought 2001 en primeur and my American friends told me I was nuts, that I could still buy 2000s at that time even though the price had gone up. But I’ve never been a lemming!

I’m pretty happy with my 2001s. They are from what is called an “Atlantic vintage”, i.e. there was the cool and often wet weather typical of the Bordeaux climate. So, these wines are more classic in many ways than the 2000s.
Of course, we are comparing two different vintage profiles.

The notion of value for money must be introduced at some point here.
I don’t know how representative this is, but when I looked up 2001 Latour no Wine Searcher, it was selling for 6 to 700 euros a bottle, and 2000 Latour started (lowest price) at 1,000.
So, yes, 2000 Bordeaux great growths are rounder, richer, and more obviously fruity than 2001. If there were a shootout, 2000 would “win”. But 2001 is a fine vintage that did not have the hype, but is nevertheless very worthy of attention.

Alex R.

This.

I very much love 2001.

[DavidG]

No law says you can’t like both.

[Musigny 151]

While I have long felt that 2001 on the Right Bank was an excellent vintage, the left bank has always been far less exciting.

The 2000s have evolved reasonably and the wines have shown the richness of the vintage, but also it came at a time when chateaux made wines to suit the Parker palate.

[Blanquito]

…but also it came at a time when chateaux made wines to suit the Parker palate.

Interesting. I don’t drink many new vintages/young wines, although I did try a good sample of 00/03/05/09/16 on or near release. In my limited experience, 2000 was no worse and often better in terms of Parkerization amongst these years. 2016 did seem notably less extracted than the others but there was also a real polish to the tannins, which didn’t really exist at all, say, in pre-1999 claret. These are my limited impressions.

Mark, you and others here try way more young bordeaux than I. Did you see a clear inflection where many chateau dialed things back? Did it start in 2014?

[marcs]

It always seemed to me that 2000 had a nice classical tension to it. But it was kind of my first big vintage so I am implicitly comparing it to later vintages, not earlier ones

[Claudius2]

Guys
The more I think about it, Martin has got it the wrong way round.
I think 2001 looks back to the more medium bodied and quite tannic vintages in the past that will keep well but never be outstanding (I mean the overall vintage not any specific wine). And I would say that they will be ready earlier - certainly most would be well and truly ready now.

My personal experience was that for the classed growths, 2000 is neither a modern nor old fashioned vintage and to say is is looking backward is hyperbole. The vintage is richer and fruitier than 2001 and of course a few 01s will be better but the winemakers had an easier job in 2000.

[Nicklasss]

Personally, i would never considers 2000 or 2001 like "Parkerized" vintage. None of them has many wines with the high "Parker points", so a lower Parker points. Also, 2000 mystified a bit lot of people as for a long time, many though the wines were shut or weird or would not age well or overscore because of the millenia effect.

I think 2000 is an excellent classic vintage, from what i have sample, and if you can try the Léoville Poyferré/Clos Fourtet duo, you'll understand easily what i mean as even these 2 wines had some restrained classic character in 2000, let say compared to more modern vintages.

I would also agree that 2001 on the Right Bank are excellent, but hard to say so on the Left Bank. Made around the same era, i clearly prefer 1998 or 2002 Left bank to 2001 Left Bank.

[robert goulet]

I really enjoyed 2001 pessac over the 2000's I've had...in general 2001 comes across very classic for me...something the warmer vintages are less to divulge... Within the last year I've had 2001 Latour and HB...for me two stunning wines...just this week I popped the 2001 D'issan...it's another classic margaux beauty...the '01 vintage just really speaks to me, it just reinforces that, to make great bordeaux you do not need great weather, in fact maybe its better if you do not...I have been drinking a few '93 and '92 bordeaux recently and I tell u this...I fuqn luv them. This debate is just starting and will be a fun thread to keep revisiting.

[OrlandoRobert]

I really enjoyed 2001 pessac over the 2000's I've had...in general 2001 comes across very classic for me...something the warmer vintages are less to divulge... Within the last year I've had 2001 Latour and HB...for me two stunning wines...just this week I popped the 2001 D'issan...it's another classic margaux beauty...the '01 vintage just really speaks to me, it just reinforces that, to make great bordeaux you do not need great weather, in fact maybe its better if you do not...I have been drinking a few '93 and '92 bordeaux recently and I tell u this...I fuqn luv them. This debate is just starting and will be a fun thread to keep revisiting.

I agree with you on the quality of 2001, but let’s be clear, 2001 was a very very good vintage, it just happened to come on the heals of a more highly-acclaimed vintage by the critics and the market. The 2001 vintage was not at all marred by bad or less-than-great weather.

[robert goulet]

I really enjoyed 2001 pessac over the 2000's I've had...in general 2001 comes across very classic for me...something the warmer vintages are less to divulge... Within the last year I've had 2001 Latour and HB...for me two stunning wines...just this week I popped the 2001 D'issan...it's another classic margaux beauty...the '01 vintage just really speaks to me, it just reinforces that, to make great bordeaux you do not need great weather, in fact maybe its better if you do not...I have been drinking a few '93 and '92 bordeaux recently and I tell u this...I fuqn luv them. This debate is just starting and will be a fun thread to keep revisiting.

I agree with you on the quality of 2001, but let’s be clear, 2001 was a very very good vintage, it just happened to come on the heals of a more highly-acclaimed vintage by the critics and the market. The 2001 vintage was not at all marred by bad or less-than-great weather.

According to Neel the 2001 'July witnessed a fortnight of cold and rainy weather that only served to dampen spirits, since rain was not required following such a wet winter. Some areas saw 91% more rain than usual'...then weather continued to be variable(less than ideal)...but it was that September that saved it...steady consistent weather dialed it all in

[AKR]

I didn't buy much of the dry reds in 2001 at all, but it was a great year for Sauternes.

Of course buying those EP never made any financial sense, as those can still - inflation/storage costs adjusted - be had for basically the same price as EP/release maybe except for one or two names.

Thanks for sharing the initial link.

[Musigny 151]

…but also it came at a time when chateaux made wines to suit the Parker palate.

Interesting. I don’t drink many new vintages/young wines, although I did try a good sample of 00/03/05/09/16 on or near release. In my limited experience, 2000 was no worse and often better in terms of Parkerization amongst these years. 2016 did seem notably less extracted than the others but there was also a real polish to the tannins, which didn’t really exist at all, say, in pre-1999 claret. These are my limited impressions.

Mark, you and others here try way more young bordeaux than I. Did you see a clear inflection where many chateau dialed things back? Did it start in 2014?

I have not been to Bordeaux in some years, so I have not tasted anything in depth post 2016. Hard to generalize, but from notes from two favorite vintages 2014 and 2016, there is certainly a better understanding that you can’t push extraction in slightly less ripe years. I look forward to tasting some of the newer wines at UGC tastings.

[AKR]

Over 3 nights I finished a tedious bottle of the 2001 Sociando Mallet [Haut Medoc] This was from a case that had been split with (dormant?) BWE'er brodway en primeur. For my tastes this charry, pyrazine inflected wine has always been underwhelming. Part of the reason for S-M's value is that vineyard practices, vat selection and so forth aren't generally 'max score oriented'. (Typically those reduce output and drive up costs) That means that there is more variability in the taste, since there is greater potential for vintage/weather character to get expressed. It's a double edged sword, since all that nuance can be a good aspect, and one which makes verticals more interesting. But for those who generally favor solar years, it means this is a house to be circumspect about loading up without knowing the vintage style. There's still fruit here, and acid, with tannin mostly resolved but the wine is more for the Loire rouge fan, than me. Maybe it's a B or B- on my scale today.

The color seems more ruby to me than garnet, suggesting that even at a couple of decades of age, it will keep on going, even if it never turns out to be charming. I much prefer 2000 to the 2001 for this property.

[William P]

Personally, I was underwhelmed by the 2001. I admit that I have had few aged 2001s. Regarding 2000, I bought heavily and have no regrets. I also agree with Arv, the 2001 Sociando M. for my tastes is not pleasant whereas other vintages are winners for this property.

Bill