In the 80’s the most famous Bdx critic in the UK was Michael Broadbent, his encyclopedia on Bordeaux was excellent and cataloged every major release from the 50’s to the late 70’s.
Now Michael basically dismissed a lot of vintages as being total disasters with the wine by 1980 ish being a waste of effort, these are years like 63, 68,69, 72. Fast forward to 2019 and somehow you see these wines that were written off as faded and past it 40 years ago suddenly having value purely based on the label and how some people have said that ultra aged Bordeaux is cool, these bad vintages are somehow now revived with ideas of the wine have some charm and life left when I would be pretty sure its swill
Was Michael misguided all those years ago when he said the wines were past it ?
I do not think he was wrong, and in fact early in my wine tasting days I was a very outspoken critic of what I saw as his excessive support for Lafite and Margaux during their darker days. Now with nearly 25 years of experience I have come to believe that while Lafite and Margaux did have some quality issues in the 70s and late 60s, I think low quality corks and poor importation practices (exacerbating leakage and cork failure) may explain in part why many of those wines from better vintages show as poorly stateside as they do (though they were never great vintages.)
But back to your direct point- there are three things happening in the marketplace which have sustained and increased the demand and price for some of these dismal vintages, and for “lesser” vintages in general (and indeed for great vintages which are well past their prime.)
The Rudi effect. Despite the fact Rudi has been outed and prosecuted and imprisoned, the presence of his and other fake wines created a badly distorted notion of how long many top wines from top vintages can and do remain in their prime. 1969 Burgundies are a classic example. I had the famed Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze 1969 twenty years ago, and even back then it was starting to fade. And yet today it trades as though it were at its prime. 20-30 years ago, the auction price for DRC wines- even Romanee Conti- actually went down as the wines got to be more than about 30 years old. That is returning in some measure today, but even so many top vintages that are past their best are selling as though they were still in their glory days.
This same exaggerated notion of how long the great wines can last has trickled down into the lesser vintages for the more famous names.
Verticals. 20-30 years ago, in the final days of what had been a limited auction market for the resale of older wines, $3,000 was about the maximum price you would pay for something 1945 or later. And that would basically have been 1945 Mouton or 1945 and 1947 Petrus. However, on the very rare occasion they came available, bottles of 1946 Mouton (which was actually supposedly a pretty decent vintage for them) could sell for far more because people wanted to collect verticals. Back then, depending on your relative place in the “baller” world- there were 3 verticals that many collectors actively pursued. Mouton from 1945 onward was one- for the art labels. Marilyn Merlot next (no joke- early bottlings could sell for first growth prices), and then the Courvoisier Erte Series of cognacs.
These days, all of the Big Eight in Bordeaux are common targets for vertical collectors, along with a number of other wines. And that has had a significant impact on the value of the really dreadful vintages. I remember a time when The Chicago Wine Company would have end of bin auctions which often featured bad vintages of top wines selling for very low prices. I was an active buyer and drinker of those wines- great education and rare opportunity (more on that later.) Those days are over.
Brand name. One of the most singular aspects of the wine market boom of the past 7 years is that for the first time vintage has become secondary to brand in a number of instances. DRC is probably the best example. These days an Assortiment of 1992 or 1994 DRC does not sell for much less than an Assortiment of 1993, 1995 or 1996. Yet from a qualitative perspective, there should be an enormous difference. Same goes for Leroy and the first growths- notably Latour which has always been famed for, along with Petrus, being the most likely Bordeaux chateau to turn out a decent wine in a terrible vintage.
What amuses me about all of this is that the realities of what is in the bottle are quite different. And I have a lot of those mid to late 1990s tastings of bad vintage Bordeaux from TCWC and other sources to thank for a bit of knowledge that is not so easily obtained today.
Simply put- longevity and drinkability do not necessarily correlate perfectly with great and poor vintages. And when it comes to evaluating a vintage for its potential usefulness- even if very limited- the correlation declines even further.
Before I make this post way too long, let me just give you a good example. If you tomorrow gave me a case each of 1977, 1984 and 1989 Mouton, I would do the following,
I would send the case of 1977 to auction and let somebody else have it. Tried it 20 years ago, and there is no chance it has done anything remotely interesting since being one of the most unpleasant wines I have ever tasted (but an important experience to have just once.)
I would plan to drink the 1989 up within a decade. Lovely wine- I agree more with Broadbent than Parker on this one- but it is at its best and likely passing best by now.
I would check in on the 1984 and if it were where I am expecting it would be at this point, I would slowly enjoy it for the next 20+ years and bring out a bottle for the very specific purpose of pairing it with a very strong cheese course. It is a tough and angular wine- but with great length and developing very interesting and dry aromatics. As the 67s once were, it is the perfect red wine for a strong cheese course, and so it has a perfect purpose. And even though it was a poor vintage, it was not a flawed one nor was a light year like 1992. Instead it is a study in pure structure, allowing for a very unusual and persistent range of aromatics to develop with time. To put it another way, if 1984 Mouton had a ton of fruit to it- we would be looking at it as though it were another 1982 or 1945. Still, it has its merits- longevity and a purpose.
No, I don’t believe he was misguided or otherwise in error. I’ve had a decent amount of experience with older wine; and, when it comes to Bdx, unless the vintage is significant (say, in terms of the person I’m giving it to or opening it for as a gift), I will not buy ‘68, ‘69, ‘71, ‘72, ‘73, ‘74 or even ‘75.
I do, occasionally buy Bdx ‘64 because it is the birthyear of my wife and my brother. ‘67 only Sauternes. ‘66 I’ve had a few ok ones (e.g., Palmer); but see no reason to buy. ‘65, my own birthyear, I won’t bother. I’ve had a few ‘61 Pichon Lalandes (all ex-château - shared by my friend whose family used to own it), and, though they were in good enough shape, I don’t see any reason to pay its market price. The times I buy ‘70 Bdx (which isn’t often), I stick to the best of Pomerol and ignore the others. I’ve had some ‘74 Bdx (including Latour), and have found nothing that I’ve considered worth buying. I’ve only ever bought ‘72 Bdx twice; both top Sauternes, as birthyear/birthday gifts for a good friend. ‘75 I buy one almost every year as a birthyear/birthday gift for another good friend. Etc etc.
‘78 & ‘79 Bdx, I used to buy some; but not lately. ‘78 Pichon Lalande and Cheval Blanc are nice enough; but the last ones seemed to me to be tiring at an accelerated pace.
I’ve never had the pleasure of meeting Michael Broadbent, which is a pity since I am an admirer of his. Closest I got was being seated next to his son, Bart, during the 2007 Fête de la Fleur at Smith Haut Lafitte. Nice, down to earth fellow. I asked him to tell his father that I greatly admire his work. In all probability he didn’t (especially since it was the time his dad was getting quite a bit of flack); but, it’s all good.
I have tasted a great many Bordeaux from 1968, 1969, 1972, 1973, 1980, etc., and people can search for nice things to say, or they can just like that “old wine” smell, but the wines are not worth it. Not at all. There are a few 1973s and 1980s that still have a tiny bit of life, but the rest have been bad for a long while.
The only reason bad years have become cherished is that the good years are priced beyond reason.
Thanks for that excellent post, Tom, full of insight. The vertical logic in particular had never occurred to me before - it helps explain why people seem so keen to buy cork-tainted-era Ducrus.
“2. Verticals. 20-30 years ago, in the final days of what had been a limited auction market for the resale of older wines, $3,000 was about the maximum price you would pay for something 1945 or later. And that would basically have been 1945 Mouton or 1945 and 1947 Petrus. However, on the very rare occasion they came available, bottles of 1946 Mouton (which was actually supposedly a pretty decent vintage for them) could sell for far more because people wanted to collect verticals. Back then, depending on your relative place in the “baller” world- there were 3 verticals that many collectors actively pursued. Mouton from 1945 onward was one- for the art labels. Marilyn Merlot next (no joke- early bottlings could sell for first growth prices), and then the Courvoisier Erte Series of cognacs.”
I met Michael Broadbent at a party where somebody brought a double magnum of 71 La Tache. I didn t think it had been well stored. Or maybe that isn t the wine to bring to a party or maybe 1971 went to sleep and never same around.
That’s all I remember other than Jordan Mackay saying to him, ‘I’m a wine writer too…’ We all laughed.
1975 was supposed to have been another 1966. Did it turn out that way?? The wines were tannic young. '71 followed the famous '70s and some say there were some great wines in that vintage. I thought some of the wines were ok…Never saw another bottle so don t know. I had the 73 Mouton about ten years ago. I was surprised how well it was holding up. $11 price tag on the bottle.
Birth year wines are always in demand. I was born in 1946 so I feel for those of you born in years like 1963.
1975 still can boast of some very good wines – mostly Right Bank high-enders, but even decently stored Left Bankers as Pichon Lalande, Beychevelle and of course La Mission are very good still. A lot of others dried out.
Here is the way I look at this:
There are
1/vintages announced great that remain great… always a problem for those of us who forgot to get rich
2/vintages that are announced great but are spotty, like 1975…sometimes there are values later on
3/vintages that are overlooked or underappreciated that turn out well and sometimes there are bargains here, like 1981
4/vintages that we used to call wine merchants vintages because they were ready to drink and abundant. They oftentimes age well
5/vintages that were never good really, like 1968, 1972, 1974
I’ve always wondered about this. ‘Old’ for me is 1970’s - I haven’t had anything older excepting Ports and Madeiras. But I always pause a bit when I read a note about any wine with pedigree opened in the 60’s and prior described as ‘fresh’ and ‘young’, and the color is described as consistent with what one would expect from a more youthful wine. How typical is that - that wines that old still drink and appear as much younger?
Very true for the most part. As I was getting into wine I WANTED to taste the off vintages and I actively sought them out.
What I discovered is that in some cases, 1977 or 1965 for example, the wines were really quite awful and flawed in ways that made them undrinkable.
On the other hand, 1992s were lovely and made fine luncheon wines for a time. 1984 and 1991 will, in certain cases, make unusual and worthwhile selections with a cheese course- as was the case with 1967s.
And sometimes you can get a pleasant surprise- 1960 Latour for example, even though it is not exactly a great wine.
What I find most interesting is to look back over the last 20 years and what people now consider to be off vintages not worthy of their time. I do not say this as a criticism because it is always difficult to find off vintage older wines, and these days too expensive to be worth it, but a great many of the newer collectors today really do not have any idea what an off vintage is.
To me, off vintages are fairly rare and include years like 1977, 1968, 1965 and 1963. Many vintages people consider off are perfectly fine and useful to some extent, but just not great years.
But it also bears remembering off vintages are as much a product of what investments chateaux were willing to make at the time relative to demand- both overall demand and specific consumer demand- as they were of the weather. The demand side is important in this too because for a very long time many consumers were buying pretty much on name and little else. There was no internet, there were not scores of critics. There was the 1855 Classification, period. Here in Texas I have seen a great many wine cellars accumulated in some of the finest families during the 60s and 70s that were full of hideous vintages- but the wines were all first growths. Wine was for the elite, there was very little guidance out there, and you basically bought in accordance with reputation- with little opportunity to widely share or read about any subsequent disappointments with a broad audience. Lacking this knowledge, many people drank these awful wines with age thinking that they were getting the experience they were supposed to get- with little notion of what they were missing.
Even without modern technology, I believe that if the combination of a vibrant economy for the upper classes and a much wider buying and more demanding/educated audience within those circles had existed in the early to mid 1970s as it does today- then we who have tasted many of those wines would not be looking back with the horror we do because they would have been made with a stricter selection of grapes, far better made overall, more carefully imported and better sealed with good cork.
For my part, I do not think we have had an off vintage in Bordeaux since 1991, even though 1993 and 1994 have not fared as well as I had initially hoped. The question remains whether the spoofier wines are going to evolve well- so far I am thinking absolutely not as I revisit many of them at 10-15 years of age, but I also do not foresee another 1977 with all the money that is invested in the winemaking process these days to appease an eager and demanding consumer base.
This. And I have both cleared my cellar, and adjusted my future buying, accordingly. That, plus I just do not like them, at all. These wines, IMHO, actually got worse over time. Alcohol, lavish oak, jam, none of it gets better with time, again IMHO.
The other question is how this next generation of Classified Growths that have not gone spoofy, but are still sporting alcohol contents 1-1.5% or more higher than classic vintages of the past, many of which have have aged into their 30s quite effortlessly. Think, 2010 and 2009 vintages. I still cannot believe how good certain simply made, balanced wines like a 1986 Chateau Meyney or 1986 La Lagune have matured, evolved and held up over the years. I’ve had quite a few of these wines this past year alone.
So, how about the non spoofed wines from the last 20-25 years? Will these age as well as the (good) wines from 1990-earlier did? And by age, I don’t mean suvive, but rather, developing that complexity only ‘old’ wines get.
I ask because I have my doubts about even the old school and middle of the road style wines made in Bordeaux from 1995-2005 (I have very little experience post-2005). Even these are more heavily extracted and oft times higher alcohol than the wines from before 1990. At the very least, they are aging/developing complexity more slowly than the wines from a previous era did. In 2010, I had a brilliant bottle of 1990 Montrose, a supposed behemoth of that era, and while it was sensational, it was medium bodied by today’s standards. Rather it wowed with complexity and seamlessness and balance.
In Bordeaux at least, there are still plenty of good to great wines from 70, 71, 75, 78, and 79 for my palate (and the 80 Pichon Lalande has been brilliant the times I’ve had it in the last few years, but they could do no wrong in that era). You need good provenance of course but with trusted palates on CT, I continue to backfill from these years with great success.
D Hein,
Thanks for your notes on the '75s. There was a lot of ballyhoo on this vintage and then it was forgotten. I don’t think I’ve had one since 1979 or so. Prices went up with this vintage as it was the first decent one since 1970. This reminds me of a story: supposdely there was a wine merchant in SF who sold first growths and a storage package to coke dealers. The idea was is they got busted, their assets got seized and they went to jail, they would have a stash of '75 Latour etc waiting for them.
Pat Martin, this is a good question about many wines made in the past fifteen years, even the non spoofed ones. Cabernet etc is now made differently, with an eye for early consumption, smoother tannins, and riper fruit. In the most cases, time will tell. Don’t forget that many in Bordeaux look back at the '60s and early 70s as a time of difficulty: no triage, no second label to put the lesser wines into, little new oak, simple fermentation cellars etc. Everyone was very vintage dependent, I just opened a '93 Colgin, a wine some would say was spoofed, and it was terrific. I don’t think it was spoofed…less than 14% alc…perhaps a bit like 90 Montrose.