TN: 2000 Sociando Mallet

[Blanquito]

Had the 2000 Sociando last night. Here are my impressions:
Smells of juniper, peppercorns, smoke, black tea, mint, bell pepper, chicle. Terrific bouquet. Smooth, bone dry, spicy, minty, graphite, good glycerin, a little rustic on the finish. Needs a steak right now. Nothing out of place here, this is a classic Sociando through and through. That all said, it lacks some of the charm of the 01 and the sugar of the 03, and it's borderline dilute in the middle. Not hard or closed, and it is good now, but could this just need more time to shine? I will say, this got better and better into the bottle and went down very easily. 90-91 pts.

If you like your wines a little lean, you'll be thrilled by this as is. I loved the bouquet but I prefer my wines a little deeper, a little richer. That could come out with further time to develop or maybe many of the 2000s aren't going to have that extra gear?

[stefan]

It sounds good, Patrick, but the dilute mid palate sets off alarms.

[Blanquito]

It sounds good, Patrick, but the dilute mid palate sets off alarms.

At least right now, definitely lighter/leaner than the 1996 and 2003. But the fruit can bloom when the tannins dissolve enough, right?

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

I often find hollow middles in immature trad BDX. Strong attack, strong finishing tannins can give the impression of light mid. But you know this. So maybe this is immature or maybe not.

[stefan]

Yes, Art, but 16 years is pubescent stage for SM. I don't expect to find mid palate weakness in a fine Bordeaux that is at that age. It might be out of balance, but a dilute mid palate is a warning sign for long term aging in my experience. That does not imply "drink up", but it does not augur well for extended aging.

[Jay Winton]

Patrick, how long did you decant the 2000?

[Blanquito]

Not decanted, but followed over 4 hours. It did get deeper lower in the bottle.

[Blanquito]

Thinking about this, I really hope this is just a phase for the 2000 S-M (I have 5 more bottles). I know some folks find S-M too green, but with enough age (at least 10 years +), I've never had that problem with it (I am green tolerant generally). It was very pleasant, but it was just deficient in fruit and body to be a great Sociando (like the 82, 90, 96, and I think the 03).

[Roel]

Based upon some so-so reviews earlier on, I have sold my enormous stash (3 bottles) of 2000 S-M.

[stefan]

The number of so-so 2000 Bordeaux gives me pause. Some estates that usually hit above their place in the market, such as Sociando-Mallet, La Lagune, and Meyney, made unimpressive wines in 2000.

[Blanquito]

The number of so-so 2000 Bordeaux gives me pause. Some estates that usually hit above their place in the market, such as Sociando-Mallet, La Lagune, and Meyney, made unimpressive wines in 2000.

I'd add Cantemerle and d'Armailhac to the list. At the very least, these two didn't age as well as they normally do.

[stefan]

The funny thing is that the experts said that 2000 was excellent across the board while in 2003 one should beware of the mid level classified growth quality estates. In my experience, the reverse is true.

EDIT after Arv's post: I am speaking about left bank wines only.

[AKR]

Well in 2000 good wines can be had in all of the AOC

2003 it's trickier. I did not care for the right banks. Perhaps they are better today though. Pavie is a notable exception though.

I'll pull some 2000 and 2003 s-m soon as I'm keen to try them.

[DavidG]

2000 was supposed to be a year in which a blind monkey throwing darts at a list of properties couldn't miss. I was a bit suspicious that the vintage was being over-hyped but I bought in to the tune of 10-11 cases. I ended up selling all my first growths and LLC when the market went nuts. I was still left with plenty of 2000s, most of which have been excellent to outstanding. Some are still on the upswing. I've been very happy with Canon la Gaffeliere, Giscours, Pontet Canet, Leoville Poyferre, Smith Haut Lafitte, Pichon Baron, Lynch Bages and more. Maybe I got lucky with my choices. As to the Sociando, I last had it 3 years ago and loved it:

2000 Sociando Mallet: Cellared since release, perfect cork and fill. Pop and pour. Dark red core, minimal lightening at rim. Forward nose of cassis, coffee, appealing green stemminess. Medium body, cassis and black cherry with underlying veggies adding a bit of complexity, nice balance, medium-long finish. Develops some additional complexity over a couple of hours. Should continue to drink well for a decade or more. Excellent-outstanding.

I thought the early word from the gurus on 2003 was that the right bank was cursed by heat and roasted flavors (the Pavie exception noted). On the left bank similar problems occurred but irregularly, and they didn't particularly respect the commune or the classification level of the producer. Some handled the heat better than others. I was very selective, with my only quantity purchase the 2003 Pontet Canet (thank you Jim!). That wine was fabulous on release, shut down for a while, and is just now starting to emerge. I'm waiting for more complexity, but it's never been roasted or otherwise showing signs of damage from an excessively hot growing season. The only other 2003 I've tried so far is Branaire Ducru, and it was shut down but not roasted about 3 months ago.

[DavidG]

Patrick's note got me to revisit the 2000 Sociando Mallet. Immediately after opening, still cool from the cellar, it's already got a great nose with most of the goodies Patrick described: smoke, black pepper, green pepper, tea. They carry through to the palate,where the wine is beautifully balanced and medium-bodied. Crunchy fruit, crisp acidity, no over-ripe sweetness. Doesn't really seem hollow in the middle to me, just medium-bodied. The classic Sociando greens are there, just in the right proportion for this wine.

Excellent already, but I'll give it some time in the glass and fire up the grill for a Flannery NY steak, then we'll see how it performs.

[DavidG]

This bottle rounded out a little fuller, keeping everything in proportion. No disappointment here. And a terrific match with the grilled NY strip.

[Blanquito]

This bottle rounded out a little fuller, keeping everything in proportion. No disappointment here. And a terrific match with the grilled NY strip.

Glad your bottle showed well, David. I imagine my note and comments conveyed my ambivalence about this vintage of S-M. Part of me really liked it, part of me found it a bit lean. I wonder how much of that was the vintage altering my expectations-- the 2000 was my first Sociando purchased as futures (my older stuff has been backfilled)-- and I was expecting it to show as well or better than the 1996. Instead, I slightly prefer the 2001, at least for current enjoyment.

At least our bottles didn't show excessively green!

[AKR]

Thinking about this, I really hope this is just a phase for the 2000 S-M (I have 5 more bottles). I know some folks find S-M too green, but with enough age (at least 10 years +), I've never had that problem with it (I am green tolerant generally). It was very pleasant, but it was just deficient in fruit and body to be a great Sociando (like the 82, 90, 96, and I think the 03).

It took a while to pull the bottles, and then even more time to sample them...but I think I'm in agreement with Blanquito here after the first glass from a case of 2000 purchased EP.

There's a lot of green and char here, and on the skinny side for fruit. This was just pop and poured, not always the best way to showcase serious wines, so maybe with some air, and the supper baking away, it'll be better.

2003 really is my favorite S-M at this point.

[Blanquito]

Interesting stuff, fun to re-read... as said, my hunch is the 2000 Sociando ends up pretty rather than profound, but we'll see. I'm guessing we'll know in another 5 years or so whither it goes. OMG, the bottle of the 82 S-M I had over the holidays was so good, goosebump-inducing. My best guess is that the 96, 03 or 05 has the best chance to b come the next 82 (or the closet thing to it).