Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post Reply
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4889
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Last night ten of us assembled to mark the 20th anniversary of the 2003 vintage at Piccolinos behind Liverpool Street Station, in the City of London.

Some of these 2003s reminded me of that famous woman-in-the-bath-in-room-237 scene in the Stephen King’s The Shining.

The Gaston Chicquet 2008 magnum was a civilised way to start the proceedings. Bready, yeasty, with good palate presence, though short of outstanding 90

On to the first flight of St-Emilion. The Beausejour Duffau Lagarrosse, 13.5% abv, had an attractive mellow red fruited nose with hints of decay. That was the best bit, because it had a roasted quality too and the palate was a mess. It was coarse and astringent and short on the finish. An omen of things to come but by no means the worst wine last night 80

In this company the Tertre Roteboeuf was triumphant. It started with a really intense exotic red fruited nose which carried over into the palate, which was lush, smooth and round, in typically exuberant fashion. Really enjoyable but with 14.5% abv I am not sure if I could get through a whole bottle. But a terrific effort in a difficult vintage on the right bank and deservedly my and the group’s wine of the night 91

On to the miscellaneous left bank flight starting with Giscours. This had a red fruited nose but then literally nose-dived like a kamikaze pilot attacking Pearl Harbour. Horribly roasted and acerbic on the palate. A shocker! 75

The next two wines were a lot better. Ducru Beaucaillou fashioned an accomplished wine amid the challenges of the 2003 vintage. It is nicely balanced and has been drinking well for over a decade. It has become a bit soft now but still has decorum, with decent persistence. But put it next to the 2002 we had last July and the 2003 would be a long way behind. Still creditable, 90

The Sociando Mallet had a bit of a bretty volatile nose initially but that receded. Now there is nothing really smooth or refined about this - it is somewhat rustic - but it has an attractive chewiness and savouriness to it. It has a bit of grippy tannin left, cedar, cigar box and green pepper notes, with little of the odious roasted, bitter and acerbic traits that marred many of the other wines last night, especially the Pauillacs, the worst flight of all. In fact if I had to choose a wine from last night’s line up I would like to spend an evening with - perhaps on a Friday night with steak and chips in front of the tele - this would be the one 89

On to the Pauillac flight. The good news was that the ghastly, discombobulated Grand Puy Lacoste was not in the line up. The bad news was that the ones that did make the line up were just as bad as the GPL was last time. Batailley was even worse than I feared, really unpleasantly astringent. I won’t dwell further on its shortcomings, just flat out terrible 77

The Duhart Milon had an unpleasant roasted almost burnt quality. This is suppose to be the coolest micro climate in the left bank. It was very green and astringent on the palate. This was the problem in 2003, the grapes were burnt before they ripened; horrible 78

Pontet Canet is just getting worse as it ages. In a sense it is not actually aging because what hits you first is an intense burst of primary fruit. But it all goes horribly wrong on the palate which is highly astringent, bitter and unpleasant. The only thing you can say it was marginally the least awful wine in this desperately dismal flight 79

Fortunately things improved dramatically in the St. Estephe flight. Montrose 2003 is a bit of a legend, it is revered. Some bottles I have tried have been surprisingly evolved, while this one was rather backward and unyielding. Clearly Montrose was helped in 2003 by being right up close to the Gironde. It has a lot of ripeness, bordering on over ripeness, with walnut notes. It is recognisably claret but there is nothing particularly enjoyable about this wine. I think this is because it is starting to dry out. Not sure where this is going. Probably on a slow boat to China. It was better a decade ago 89

Cos D’Estournel I found a bit weird and I would not immediately recognise this as claret. It is characterised by dark chocolatey Bourneville notes. Like the Montrose very ripe, and I am not sure where this is going. Others rated this quite highly and clearly one of the better wines last night, but I would struggle to drink more than 2-3 glasses in one sitting 89

Lafon-Rochet showed well. It is ripe, intense and also has dark chocolate notes, allied to some exotic spices like cardamom which made it a little more interesting than its two flight mates. Like its flight mates it was not marred by roasted notes and had an inky intensity which I quite liked 89

I agree that the Rieussec has lost some of its youthful exuberance and vigour, but it was still a pleasure after most of what preceded it 90
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20223
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by JimHow »

Lol chuckling here on the beach.
2003 Duhart Milon was the cover story for Wine Spectator on the 2003 Bordeaux vintage.
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6243
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by stefan »

One good thing about a night like you had is that you can write a very entertaining recounting of your experience.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20223
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by JimHow »

Yeah, no matter how much I’ve been trying to rationalize the 2003 Pontet Canet the past decade or so, it basically sucks. Man, it was thrilling upon release though. I have one last 3L left, we’ll have to officially put this former BWE wine of the year to rest at some convention in the near future.
User avatar
SF Ed
Posts: 712
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by SF Ed »

JimHow wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2023 2:27 pm Yeah, no matter how much I’ve been trying to rationalize the 2003 Pontet Canet the past decade or so, it basically sucks. Man, it was thrilling upon release though.
Couldn't agree more. I was surprised how much I liked the 2003 Pontet Canet in its youth, but more recent showings have had a giant hole in the middle.

SF Ed
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6426
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by Nicklasss »

Thank you for your sacrifice. Me too, never really liked the 2003, even if some were drinkable in their first years.

You need to try the 2003 Péby Faugères, that would beat all these, as the biggest clown of the show! Kind of Penny Wise clown...
User avatar
jal
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by jal »

That is the vintage that, to me, showed wine critics have no credibility. They all tried to sell us a limping mule disguised as a race horse.

Very amusing report Professor Amstad.
Best

Jacques
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6243
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by stefan »

I thought that most of the 2003s that I liked were better younger. Sociando is still going strong, although IIRC one bottle did have that bretty nose that Ian mentions.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4889
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by Comte Flaneur »

SF Ed wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2023 2:32 pm
JimHow wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2023 2:27 pm Yeah, no matter how much I’ve been trying to rationalize the 2003 Pontet Canet the past decade or so, it basically sucks. Man, it was thrilling upon release though.
Couldn't agree more. I was surprised how much I liked the 2003 Pontet Canet in its youth, but more recent showings have had a giant hole in the middle.

SF Ed
It showed well I thought when Alfred Tesseron visited in 2017. Someone - no doubt with purely honourable intentions - just reminded me of that because I awarded it 93 points at the time.

But as someone else, who is in the business noted, a lot of the 2003s have gone down hill rapidly to the point of undrinkability in some cases as the wines have dried out.
User avatar
jal
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by jal »

Comte Flaneur wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2023 3:06 pm But as someone else, who is in the business noted, a lot of the 2003s have gone down hill rapidly to the point of undrinkability in some cases as the wines have dried out.
Yes but most have always had a roasted quality. Even the Pontet Canet
Best

Jacques
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6243
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by stefan »

>>
Yes but most have always had a roasted quality.
>>

I agree. In contrast, many 1990s have also had a roasted quality, but they have held up very well.
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6426
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by Nicklasss »

I remember that i brought a 2003 Pontet Canet at Jal's pool party in 2006, that was very good. But i also brought that day a 1990 La Conseillante, that made us forget the 2003 quickly.

And for the fish/shell seafood over the top platter that Jal served us for lunch, i brought a 1997 Domaine Leflaive Bâtard-Montrachet... these were the good old days...
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8293
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by DavidG »

Ian, wishing you a speedy recovery from that abuse. What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger? I prescribe a hefty dose of 80s-era Bordeaux.

I bought a case of 2003 Pontet Canet based on Jim’s enthusiasm. The first few were rambunctiously delicious. After that, the next few were a learning experience. The last few were a character building experience.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4889
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Very good David! I can imagine Peggy sitting next to you, holding your arm reassuringly, saying: ‘Don’t worry David, you can get through this’
User avatar
jal
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by jal »

Nicklasss wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2023 5:54 pm I remember that i brought a 2003 Pontet Canet at Jal's pool party in 2006, that was very good. But i also brought that day a 1990 La Conseillante, that made us forget the 2003 quickly.
That 1990 Conseillante was amazing!
Best

Jacques
User avatar
dstgolf
Posts: 2088
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by dstgolf »

Kudos in taking one for the team Ian. certainly a controversial vintage that has been a bit of a mine field with some hits and misses along the way. I believe I may have two 03 bottles left in the cellar Trolong Mondot and a Pontet Canet the latter were mostly enjoyed early on and we had no issues feeling we likely drank the 03s too early. From you report looks like we didn't for the wrong reasons....these were touted to be early drinkers and so we did just that with few to no complaints along the way. Kinda like children ...you gotta find love in there somewhere no matter how crazy they may make you!!
Danny
User avatar
greatbxfreak
Posts: 916
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:09 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by greatbxfreak »

Ian,

I agree with you.

I didn't buy one single red wine in 2003 vintage but a considerable amount of sweet wines

Reds in 2003 are not worthy of anything, but I had better examples of Montrose, Cos, and Ducru Beaucaillou than you. Other wines have roasted/burned character with licorice taste dominating.

Sweet ones, on the contrary, are great, and in most cases, they shed the sugary scent, and the acidity came much forward.
User avatar
Musigny 151
Posts: 1258
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by Musigny 151 »

Izak, I think the world has stopped turning. I agree with you 100%; I hated the vintage en primeur, and it is even uglier with age.
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6426
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by Nicklasss »

And from what i know from Tertre Roteboeuf owner, he is used to pick up grape late.

I guess he was more ready for an unusual vintage like 2003, to make a more than decent Saint Émilion.

Yes, sweet wines in 2003 are the exception, Yquem being... Yquem in that vintage.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by Blanquito »

Nothing to add here, you all summed it up perfectly for my experience.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20223
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by JimHow »

We had a great 2003 dinner in NYC Patrick, when was that, 2008?
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by Blanquito »

JimHow wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2023 11:37 pm We had a great 2003 dinner in NYC Patrick, when was that, 2008?
2009, I checked… That was a ton of fun.

https://www.cellartracker.com/classic/e ... vent=19024
User avatar
robert goulet
Posts: 1269
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:18 am
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by robert goulet »

Oh No...I recently purchased an '03 Calon 🙏 to the classic gods that this isn't a travesty in the making...as far as 2003 Pontet, has it ever been good?....I do enjoy 2003 Sociando quite a bit...and '03 D'issan had a elegant palate and a perfume that slayed...the 2003 Cos I had recently was pretty nice, more in the 90-92 range if u need a score, def. ripe, but not over the top...2003 Lafite was quite lovely, not seemingly reflective of the vintage....some def. good '03's but I'm kinda glad I never loaded up on this vintage....Did I read somewhere that 2006 was even warner???
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6426
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by Nicklasss »

At the Saturday night diner in London, should we do 2003 vs 2013? I guess this is a way to confirm that 2013 isn't too bad...
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by Blanquito »

Nicklasss wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:42 pm At the Saturday night diner in London, should we do 2003 vs 2013? I guess this is a way to confirm that 2013 isn't too bad...
I’ll not be sitting at Nic’s table! Put me with the 82 and 02 group, please.
User avatar
jal
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by jal »

If I were coming, Nicolas would be organizing a Grand Puy Lacoste retrospective :D
Best

Jacques
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by Blanquito »

Anyone got a ‘93 Batailley handy?!
User avatar
robert goulet
Posts: 1269
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:18 am
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by robert goulet »

Yesss....Let's all start drinking these '93's..I need more!! ....that is the birth year of the girl I'm dating...I only have a '93 Grand Puy Ducasse for her...I'm eyeballing some bigger better options...all suggestions are welcome
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6426
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by Nicklasss »

jal wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:33 pm If I were coming, Nicolas would be organizing a Grand Puy Lacoste retrospective :D
I thougth it was a done deal that you would be there.

Now that GPL is back in Jim favors, we could organize a vertical...
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6426
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by Nicklasss »

Blanquito wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:23 pm
Nicklasss wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:42 pm At the Saturday night diner in London, should we do 2003 vs 2013? I guess this is a way to confirm that 2013 isn't too bad...
I’ll not be sitting at Nic’s table! Put me with the 82 and 02 group, please.
Ok Patrick. Who wants to come at my table, to compare those 2003 vs 2013 :

Lafite
Latour
Mouton
Margaux
Haut Brion Mission Haut Brion
Petrus
Lafleur
Le Pin
Ausone
Cheval Blanc

All these will be tasted after a Pre-single bling Tasting of Grand-Puy Lacoste, Lynch Bages and... Batailley!
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6426
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Chamber of horrors - the sequel: 2003s revisited

Post by Nicklasss »

Seriously Patrick, a few days ago, i found a single bottle of the 1990 Sociando Mallet in London, that i wanted to buy to enjoy in your company. But someone snag it before i could... 😭
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests