Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

Ready or Not, 2008 Médocs
By ERIC ASIMOV
IT’S been a rough few years for Bordeaux in the United States. While bottles of its highest-end wines have gone for record prices in Asia, many American consumers, particularly younger wine lovers, have largely turned their backs on what for centuries was the world’s best-known and most prestigious wine region.

I have mixed feelings about this. I love good Bordeaux. As with generations before me, I learned about fine wine in the 1980s by exploring Bordeaux. Most likely, my generation will be the last among Americans to take that journey through the classic growths. We had far fewer choices, and Bordeaux was more reasonably priced. Many other great wines are available today, wines that cost much less than good Bordeaux and are much more accessible.

Many of the best-known Bordeaux estates are vast, owned by corporations and treated like luxury goods and priced accordingly, with a largely impenetrable facade between the public and the mechanics of wine production. It’s a model that may appeal to status seekers, but the romance is lost on younger consumers who value what they see as a direct connection to the dirt in which grapevines are planted, and to the people who tend those vines.

Just as the big Champagne houses have had to reckon with the rising popularity in the last decade of Champagnes made by small farmers, so has big Château Bordeaux seen a new generation of American consumers turn its attention toward small family estates, not so much from Bordeaux, though, as from all over the rest of the world.

It’s a far deeper and more complicated story than that, of course. But sometimes lost in the discussion of connotations are the wines themselves, so the wine panel decided recently to take a closer look at Bordeaux, tasting 20 bottles from the 2008 vintage in a range of prices up to $100.

Two recent vintages, 2009 and 2010, have already been touted as among the greatest in history by tastemakers like Robert M. Parker Jr. They came fairly hard on the heels of other lauded years like 2005 and 2000. Often, a series of so-called great vintages can create opportunities for consumers in the merely good years that can fall through the cracks, like 2001 and, more recently, 2008.

By most reports the 2008 vintage was pretty good: classically styled, which, in Bordeaux parlance, means these were not of the ultra-ripe, extravagantly fruity persuasion but more medium-bodied, with the sort of acidity that can make the wines seem fresh and lively. Best of all, the 2008 wines were less expensive than those from many of the surrounding vintages, although (fair warning) we are talking about Bordeaux. Less-expensive Bordeaux is still very expensive wine.

We decided to focus on the wines of Médoc, the heart of classic cabernet sauvignon-based Bordeaux, which includes prestigious communes like Pauillac, St.-Julien, Margaux and St.-Éstèphe, along with lesser-known satellite regions. For the tasting, Florence Fabricant and I were joined by Aviram Turgeman, the beverage director for the Tour de France restaurant group, which includes Nice Matin, a destination restaurant for older Bordeaux, and Paul Grieco, an owner of Hearth as well as the mini-chain of Terroir wine bars.

Paul is better known for his advocacy of riesling than for his love of Bordeaux. But a few years ago, he lamented the fact that nobody visiting his wine bars wanted to order Bordeaux. “I’m a history guy,” he told me back then. “How can I not revere Bordeaux?”

So how did he feel about these ’08s? “Heartened and disheartened,” Paul said. “Heartened that the wines weren’t over-oaked, over-fruited or over-alcoholized, but disheartened that more wines weren’t drinkable now.”

Spoken like a true sommelier. Many restaurants face a quandary with Bordeaux, Barolo and other wines that require aging before they become really enjoyable. With little room for storage, and less inclination to invest in wines that won’t show a return for a few years, many restaurants must either forgo age-worthy wines or try to sell them when they are too young. Bordeaux does offer an out, though. Prices have shot up so fast in recent years that it’s possible to buy older vintages for less than what new vintages cost. In fact, Paul said, he’s looking for 2004s right now.

Personally, I thought that the wines showed well, even if, as Avi said, they needed time to achieve harmony. The best wines were fresh, graceful and intense, exactly the qualities that make Bordeaux great and the wines excellent partners with food. Yet I wouldn’t want to drink most of these wines for another five years. Right now, they are austere. Paul likened them to riding in a car without cushions or shocks.

A mere 20 bottles is hardly a complete look, and with a price cap of $100, many well-known producers did not qualify. This was simply a cross-section of what’s available. Still, our No. 1 bottle was both the most prestigious name in the tasting, Pichon-Longueville Baron, and the most expensive at $100. This was an elegant, complete wine, with long lingering flavors that will reward aging. But $100? Well, to each his own. Our No. 3 bottle, the Rauzan-Ségla, was also on the high end at $80, but impressed us with its classic flavors of cedar, fruit and herbs.

Prices were well distributed from $20 to $100, and several of the least expensive bottles did very well. Our No. 2 bottle, from Cantemerle in the Haut-Médoc, was already harmonious and complex, though fairly closed. It was our best value, at $28. Two $20 bottles also made our top 10: Clarke from Listrac-Médoc at No. 6, with a high percentage of merlot, which makes the wine more approachable now, and La Chapelle de Calon at No. 8, which had plenty of depth but also lots of oak.

La Chapelle de Calon is a second label of Calon-Ségur, made from grapes that for one reason or another don’t qualify for the top cuvée. They are always more reasonably priced though not always great values. Still, two other second labels made our top 10, including Blason d’Issan, a restrained, pure wine, and Zédé de Labégorce, tight and savory.

What does it all mean? Stripped of their symbolic value, the Médoc is still the Médoc, a standard-bearer for elegant, age-worthy cabernet-based wines. Figure in the prices, though, and their value will require some tough calculations.



Tasting Report

Pichon-Longueville Baron, $100, ***
Pauillac 2008
Fresh and balanced, with aromas of flowers, tobacco and minerals; elegant and complete. (Le Reine Importing, New York)

BEST VALUE
Cantemerle, $28, ***
Haut-Médoc 2008
Harmonious with complex, lingering flavors of herbs and ripe fruit. (The Premier Wine Company, Richmond, Calif.)

Rauzan-Ségla, $80, ***
Margaux 2008
Classic Médoc with aromas and flavors of cedar, herbs, earth and fruit. (BNP Distributing, New York)

Blason d'Issan, $48, ** ½
Margaux 2008
Harmonious, restrained and pure with aromas of violets and soft tannins. (Wineberry America, New York)

Zédé de Labégorce, $36, ** ½
Margaux 2008
Complex and savory, with bright acidity and ripe fruit flavors. (Admiral Imports, Cedar Grove, N.J.)

Clarke, $20, ** ½
Listrac-Médoc 2008
Pure, discreet and subtle with spicy, earthy flavors. (The Premier Wine Company)

Gruaud Larose, $55, **
St.-Julien 2008
Graceful and fresh with aromas of flowers, red fruit and herbs. (Young's Market Company, Tustin, Calif.)

La Chapelle de Calon, $20, **
St.-Éstèphe 2008
Rich, dark and tannic with intense flavors of fruit, flowers and oak. (The Premier Wine Company)

Léoville Poyferré, $80, **
St.-Julien 2008
Tight and tannic with flavors of licorice, sweet fruit and oak. (Atherton Wine Imports, San Jose, Calif.)

Giscours, $50, **
Margaux 2008
Dense and tight, with flavors of red fruit and oak. (Le Reine Importing)

At least he included the Leoville Poyferre in his top ten, if not number one. It's funny how the sommelier is disappointed that the wines aren't ready to drink yet. Huh? Also bizarre they choose to have so many 2nd wines. They're probably just interested for their own stash/current drinking. No Chasse-Spleen, either - bastards!

-Chasse

Bordeaux has a bad name in the States at present, and even articles like this one that actually *praise* the wines, *even* in terms of value for money end up being snide...

You can't win .

It's true that I took a beating on the Wine Berserkers board defending Bordeaux. That's because there are *so many* half-truths, and urban myths.

No trend is irreversible. Saying that future generations will not buy the stuff is very defeatist. Who can say with any certainty which way the market will go, or what the American economy will be like in ten years?

I found the comment about "big Champagne houses losing ground to small producers" fatuous (where are the figures to back this up?), and the amazing reveleation that Bordeaux needs time to strut its stuff pretty naive..

Best regards,
Alex R.

By most reports the 2008 vintage was pretty good: classically styled, which, in Bordeaux parlance, means these were not of the ultra-ripe, extravagantly fruity persuasion but more medium-bodied, with the sort of acidity that can make the wines seem fresh and lively. Best of all, the 2008 wines were less expensive than those from many of the surrounding vintages, although (fair warning) we are talking about Bordeaux. Less-expensive Bordeaux is still very expensive wine.

This sounds like my definition of a great vintage!
As I recognized after drinking my forst 2008 or two, this vintage is 2002L-like!

I find this interesting, mainly for the wrong reasons, which does not detract from the many valid points.

Context is everything. As in, who are the intended audience of the article, and to what extent is that aligned to "wine drinkers" generally?

That's important, because on an absolute, categorical basis, as the article notes, Bordeaux is "expensive." There's a ton of wine out there (of all types, including "good") that costs less than the lowest-priced of these wines, and as Asimov notes, this is from an unheralded vintage. All if this other wine is completely serviceable, and a lot of it costs $10 a bottle, half of what the least expensive wine in this sample costs. And that's what a lot of "wine drinkers" drink. So Bdx has priced itself out of this larger market.

On the other hand though, for the 1%ers and even the 2%ers, these wines are affordable, if costing a lot more that they did just 10 years ago - and being from an unheralded vintage at that.

Thirdly, who reads this? Anyone who is interested in Bordeaux has assimilated all this information over the past year at least. Anyone who is not, like the younger consumers reefed in the article, doesn't care. It's amazing how outmoded some forms of journalism/reportage have become.

There remains the big problem of style, in terms of when to consume. It's hard to lament that these wines aren't drinkable now, if you know what they're about in the first place.

I'm sure I've forgotten some other observations that I made in reading this.

Just one other thing. Alex, you do carry a peculiar baggage train when it comes to defending Bordeaux. Your idea that Asimov is "defeatist" shows this. Asimov is not the standard-bearer for Bordeaux, and it's not like it's 1917 and he's refused to go into the line. He could be wrong, and I'm not aware of any statistical surveys about trends and behaviors of consumers of wine, but we've heard for a while now about Americans, particularly younger ones, deserting Bordeaux, or not having any particular affinity for it that other generations supposedly did. These could both be urban myths and maybe the muckrakers in the wine journalism (being half facetious here as I believe there are a few muckrakers out there, as evidenced by the last WA scandal) biz need to get after it. But again, I don't see where it's Asimov's job to shill for the brand.

Alex, I found the discussion over on the Berserkers to be a bit contradictory. On the one hand everyone decried the high prices of Bdx. (Let me add my voice to that, by the way, as I, like anyone else I'm sure, wish the stuff would come down in price.) On the other hand, more than a couple posters declared Bdx no longer relevant, or on the way down in prestige, or that it was on its last legs as a commercially viable product. The problem I have with that take on things is the very fact that Bdx still sells, and well apparently, despite the really high prices of 2010. The recent issue of Decanter magazine contains an article on the successes and failures of the 2010 vintage. While chateaux like Lascombes and Rauzan-Segla didn't sell very well, all first growths -- i.e., the really expensive stuff -- sold through! Other chateaux that did well were outfits like Ducru Beaucaillou, which dropped the price of its 2010 offerings, and the large number of petit chateaux that released their product before the first growths and at what is considered a more reasonable price. To me that says that those that did well were those that were able to judge what the market could bear, and those that did poorly were those that over-estimated what the market was willing to pay for their product. To me that's just the way business works. I don't see it as a sign that Bdx is on its last legs. It's just a reminder to outfits like Lascombes, R-S, and SHL that they are not first growths and shouldn't push their prices too far in that direction! I have no doubt there are some wine drinkers who will (almost) never drink Bdx. So what. I'm also sure there are a group of drinkers who will avoid Barrosa shiraz (some of them might be right here on this BB). Will an entire generation of Americans ignore or be deprived of Bdx because of the high pricing, thereby threatening the product's overall market penetration, a problem that will come back to haunt the Bordelais when the Chinese move on from Bdx? Don't know to be honest. I suppose that will depend on the marketing strategy employed by the industry, and the continued pricing of the product, and the economy in North America. The same issue of Decanter suggests Bdx prices are starting to fall. It will be interesting to see how 2011 is priced.

If I recall correctly, the industry defines wines above $7 per bottle as premium, and above $15 per 750 as super-premium (or maybe those price points are super- and ultra-premium?), so wine discussion groups pretty much never talk about anything that the vast majority consider reasonably priced wines. The sommelier is looking for "restaurant wines" when the vintage is priced right (from a restaurant's perspective), and like BWE's beloved 2002-L'ers, the 2008's are going to need too much cellar time to be very useful here. Other years among the less-heralded recent vintages have been more approachable on release - I'm thinking 2006, 2004, and 2001 -- but after the sky-high pricing of 2007 (relative to quality), 2009, and 2010, I figure restaurants were hoping to reload the Bordeaux section of their lists with 08'ers.

Being only a bit facetious, I predict we'll see good value again with the 2012 vintage. Consider Bordeaux's ten-year cycle: wildly overpriced whenever the vintage ends in a seven (1977, 1987, 1997, 2007), more reasonable as a better, classic vintage follows (1978, 1988, 1998, 2008), mostly good or better wines -- and priced accordingly -- during the "ends in nine or zero" years, reverting to too expensive for the quality in "ends in one" years, and the "ends in two" years end up priced fairly (although no price could have been fair for 1972 or 1992!)

The 10-year cycle works for me somehow. I like left bank 88s and 98s, go figure (although they did come in with vintage scores close to the magic 89 points). I also thought the 08 Langoa had some promise.

Alex,
I did not read the WB thread, sometimes they get way too long and boring. Suffice it to say, I can pick up the Cantemerle for $28.95 a bottle here in Westchester NY, and let them sleep if need be. It is my go to wine in Bordeaux, and my son's birth year.

Mike

Tom
A $7 wine is premium??
Bloody hell, no wonder they think $28 for Cantermerle is expensive.
have to laugh that they expect 08s to be ready.
I also do NOT think 04s are anywhere near ready (an undervalued vintage too) having tried a few over the last year.

Claudius, I do not think that the 2008 are ready either. The UGC is in NYC at the end of this month, I know that the 2009's will be poured and I will place good odds that some 2008's will also be open as well.

Mike

From a economical point of view it is better if the wines can be sold and drunk young. From a hedonistic point of view there is so much taste you loose.
Sad that so few people know about it.

Mike
I've done two tastings recently of left and right bank 08s (separately) and the righ bankers are at least appraochable though obviously primary.
Don't know what a sommelier would expect left bank wines to be ready at such a young age.
The left bank wines are not quite as uniform as the left bank - I think it is a very good right bank year - though St Julien did very well.
Unfortunately did not try the Poyferre but the Barton was very good and I bought a case.
Also liked some Haut Medoc wines (La lagune, Sociando Mallet etc) and Pauillac and St Estephe did well but not as consistently as St Julien.

Well one of my resolutions, good or bad, is to participate more.
A Sommelier is looking for wines that pair well with dinner and do not upset the chef by getting more attention then the cuisine.
Thus they are always on the hunt for moderatley priced wines that are accessible and don't take forever to age and esculate in price tothe point they are unafforable for most diners (carrying costs as wells as market speculation).

I think Asimov's main point is that we are the last generation that had the opportunity to afford and accumalate cellar worthy Bordeaux to enjoy at the height of proper maturity.
We should consider ourselves lucky and stewards of some of the best wines in the world.

RDD
If sommeliers want moderately priced wines that are acessible, forget 2008 Bordeaux.
So that is not a criticism of the wines at all.

I would also think that for some dishes, sommeliers would want sublime wines not just moderate ones.