How would we judge 1982 Bordeaux in the market today

[Musigny 151]

Based on exactly what was in the bottle with no adjustments for technology, yields or ripeness.

This is following on from the thread on 2015 Canon.

[William P]

Not sure of the scope of the question. Are you asking us to evaluate and rate all Bordeaux vintages from 1982? If so I would so, I would rate 1982 in the top two. If I had to pick, I'd say 82, 10 and I'm very impressed with 16. Though I do admit a certain favoritism with the vintage.

[stefan]

For vintages 1960-2009, I rate 1982 #1 and 1961 #2.

[SF Ed]

I interpret the question as "if 1982 Bordeaux were released today, how would consumers and wine critics evaluate it?"

I think people would say that it is a wonderful combination of fully ripe fruit balancing acid and tannins, and that it would taste great now and for a very long time. I think the market would not particularly value it and not acclaim it as a very top vintage, as it doesn't have the size/richness/alcohol people expect from a great vintage of Bordeaux these days. It would be the perfect BWE vintage.

SF Ed

[DavidG]

I interpret the question as "if 1982 Bordeaux were released today, how would consumers and wine critics evaluate it?"

I think people would say that it is a wonderful combination of fully ripe fruit balancing acid and tannins, and that it would taste great now and for a very long time. I think the market would not particularly value it and not acclaim it as a very top vintage, as it doesn't have the size/richness/alcohol people expect from a great vintage of Bordeaux these days. It would be the perfect BWE vintage.

SF Ed

My take is very similar, particularly Ed's first sentence that I bolded.

I don't think the vintage would lose too many points for lack of size/richness/alcohol because there now seems to be greater appreciation for balanced wines, among both drinkers and critics, than in Parker's heyday, I do think the vintage would lose some points for lack of consistency, as there were fewer properties, particularly among the lesser and non-classified growths, that had the means to be as selective in the vineyard or apply some of the modern techniques (talking cleanliness, not spoof) that are more widespread today.

[marcs]

I kind of regret passing on a case of 1982 Beychevelle at the HDH auction. I bid but dropped out when the price got really steep -- it went for $220 a bottle, just too expensive for me, but that might be my last chance to own a good 1982 in decent condition for any price below my "super-expensive" line

if Covid passes on, perhaps I will get the chance to taste some 1982s at the 2022 BWE dinner (we're having one right?)

[JimHow]

At the recent Zoom tasting on New Year's Eve there was talk of a BWE convention in October 2021, Marcus!

[Comte Flaneur]

I would say, based on quite recent experience exploring this question, that 1982 is clearly the top vintage in the decade of the 1980s, up to an including 1990 and better than anything in the 1990s to up to and including 2000. Whether it is superior to 1961 it is difficult to say as I have only tried a dozen or so of them, but what I have tried has been generally mightily impressive and I have not tried Latour or Palmer.

Relative to the trophy vintages of the 2000s, 1982 is on average higher in yield and lower in alcohol I would imagine, it would probably not show as well at a very young age as modern vintages, though I am old enough to remember a 1982 FG tasting in 1990 and they were all singing. It is a good question and difficult to say. My position has been that 2016 sets the new benchmark.

[marcs]

I find some modern vintages are less charming because they are so big. Like Bigfoot in your mouth. I enjoy grace and balance early on.

[s*d*r]

I am a FanBoi of the ‘82 vintage. Much of my backfilling is still for them. While some of the lesser ones have moved beyond the pale, a lot of them are in their prime. But what seemed exuberant and flashy back in the eighties would probably seem too shy and modest for the new generation palate.

I’m still not sure how I would rate comparatively the two best vintages post 1945. Both ‘61 and ‘82 are great. Surely though there were more outstanding wines produced in ‘82 but the concentration of the top ‘61s was amazing. And a few of the ‘61s are still remarkable, proving that Bordeaux ages more gracefully than any other wine in the world.

Stu

[Claudius2]

Guys
Obviously 1982 was a very important year for Bordeaux (and even for RPJnr) and I think some reviewers and critics were a little taken aback by the fruitiness of the wines when young.
I recall drinking young some classed growths like Branaire, Ducru B and Leoville Barton and was quite taken aback by how ripe, fruity and almost chocolaty they were.
I have never tried another vintage of Bdx that gave me that chocolate character - at least to the degree is was evident in young 82's.
I cannot ever think of a Bordeaux vintage that tasted so good young, and I wasn't old enough to try 1961 at such an age!
I also have to admit that after spending a lot of cash (well, what seemed like a lot at the time) I was very keen to drink some of them and with few exceptions, they were delicious, expressive wines at only 4-5 years of age.
I did not try the 1ers Crus at the same age, being advised that they will take a long time to show well, but I did have Margaux at about 7-8 years and despite firm tannins, the fruit jumped out of the glass.
Compared to the few other vintages of Margaux that I'd tried by that time (I think they were 78, 79 and 81) is was wonderful.
I was glad I bought some of these wines en primeur as I think to date, they were the most enjoyable young wines I had ever had, and this vintage converted me to a Bdx lover overall.
And I do not regret gulping them down young. Rather, I regret not buying a few pallet loads.

It is worth considering the winemaking. In 1982, there was less emphasis on technology as well as different views of what the wines should actually taste like.
Vineyard management was also rather different, and that was the case pretty well everywhere.
I did some consulting work for the Aust Wine Research Institute in the 90's and their views had changed considerably regarding what constitutes "good" wine and recommended vineyard management.
And the staff there had in some cases direct experience working in Bordeaux and felt that wine making paradigms had shifted.

So if you drank 1982 alongside (say) 2015, I mean theoretically at the same age, I would guess that 2015 would show more intense and sweeter fruit, but the 1982's would show more complexity, more focus and arguably more interest.
I would certainly suggest that the right bank wines were less successful overall than the left bank - and that does not mean they were crap, it is just that the left bank wines were more consistent.
Can I also suggest that in 1982, many RB producers were NOT flushed with cash and could not throw buckets of it at the wines.

I cannot say if 2015 (for example) will age like 1982, but there have been numerous vintages that were hard to assess for some years. For example 1975 was all tannins young and ended up producing some excellent wines for those patient enough to wait. What does worry me a little about the more recent vintages is that the structure is sometimes a bit loose, and as I have argued before, that does not necessarily mean poor ageing potential but it does make me wonder.

Given a choice, what would I take?
Of the vintages of Bordeaux that I have drunk enough of to make sense of, my favourite of all time is 1982.
I would also give some praise to other 80's vintages - 83 (but less consistent), 85, 86, 88, 89 and 90.
In short, it was a great decade overall but that does not mean every wine was great and I have tried some complete failures from 82 as well.
Given a choice between 1982 and any young vintage, I'd take 82 but to be fair, we do not know how well the younger wines will turn out, but I am actually hopeful that they will largely be very good.

[NoahR]

As a relatively recent collecter and taster of Bdx compared to many of you, my experience with 82 is limited, but of the bottles I’ve had in the past 3-4 years, which included many well regarded estates but no first growths, I have found them to be less pleasurable as the comparable 86’s. Maybe I need top wines for comparison, but the general feeling around the table has been that the 82’s are getting a bit long in the tooth. Any others with this experience?

[Blanquito]

On this board, I’m a basically a rookie with 82s as well, but there are 5-6 relatively affordable chateau (eg Beychevelle, Dominique, Magdelaine) from that year that I zeroed in on about 10 years ago to load up on and which I’ve had regularly in the years since. And yes, several of these are seemingly just past peak at this point.

[Claudius2]

Noah
The 86s were more tannic than the 82’s when young and that structure incl acidity gives them staying power.
To be fair the 82’s are closing in on 40 years now and that is in itself a long time. The tannins in 82 were really fine and chalky and smoothed out well yet the tannins packed a punch in 86.
My most recent 82 was Leovile Barton and it wasn’t a great bottle and was nothing like the case I swilled down 20 or so years earlier.
I’d also say that 86 was not nearly as good on the right bank and did best in the Medoc. 82 was consistently better across the region though of course some wines were better in 86 incl many of the second growths. But stylistically they differ.
I for one am not buying any 82s as they are a risk at that age and storage is an issue.

[stefan]

Noah, one problem with 1982s is that the fame of the vintage has led to them being flipped a lot, so one encounters more variability with 1982s than 1986s. There are some fantastic 1986s, but overall I rate the vintage below 1989 and 1990, both of which I rank below 1982.