A Disappointing Boozy Lunch: 2003 Saint Estephe

[Robert.A.Jr]

I just checked my stash. My only 2003 is Sociando, the base wine and Cuvee Jean Gautreau. The JG is quite nice.

[Mark_Golodetz]

Good try Mark. '03 is not really a luncheon Claret year.

It’s not breakfast or dinner claret either

[Michae1_P0wers]

Has anyone had the Lynch Bages recently? I think that’s the only ‘03 I have in my cellar. A bottle a few years back was not as ripe as I’d expected, but also not very expressive.

[Jurgen_Steinke]

Nothing new but I do not share the view of Mark that any 03 Bordeaux is bad or even undrinkable. It may be an atypical year for Bordeaux. But why not? Should every vintage be the same? Not in my opinion. I like 2003 Sociando Mallet and other Medocs. I even like some Right Bank wines. But it is true that a lot of 2003 are unbalanced. The biggest problem is unripe tannins due to water stress and a metallic aftertaste. Overripeness not so much. IMO. For tolerant people 2003 offers some fine wines.

[Markus_S]

Nothing new but I do not share the view of Mark that any 03 Bordeaux is bad or even undrinkable. It may be an atypical year for Bordeaux. But why not? Should every vintage be the same? Not in my opinion. I like 2003 Sociando Mallet and other Medocs. I even like some Right Bank wines. But it is true that a lot of 2003 are unbalanced. The biggest problem is unripe tannins due to water stress and a metallic aftertaste. Overripeness not so much. IMO. For tolerant people 2003 offers some fine wines.

Democracy is not always right, but in this case, the majority correctly has it.

[Pat_Martin]

I don’t care for most 03 wines from virtually anywhere (though some very good sauternes was made that year).

I still am a fan though of the 03 Sociando and Lanessan. Atypical for the House styles they are, but still very enjoyable, and as Jurgen says, a little diversity is a good thing.

I had an 03 Leoville Barton a few years ago in a big lineup and it was really fun and enjoyable. I doubt it will ever attain any profundity, but I’d love to try that one again.

[Paul_Jaouen]

Anyone try Latour or Haut Brion recently?

[Pat_Martin]

I had the 2003 PC a couple months ago. I did not like it at all, but some at my table that generally drink Napa Cabs, liked it very much. I have to admit, I did not much care for a recent 2004 or 2000, either, but they are both better than 2003.

Total thread drift, but… I was at the big Pontet Canet vertical in 2008 with about 15 winos from BWE in NYC that Alfred Tesseron attended. We had some vintages from the 70’s and up through 2004. Alfred was charming and engaging, but the arc of PC’s wines was quite evident: Phase 1 1990-and-older, old school and a little dull and lean but with a few good vintages (especially the 89); Phase 2, 1994-1998, a notable jump in intensity, interest and depth (with the 96 everyone’s fav), but still mostly a traditional claret profile; Phase 3, 1999-2003, riper, cleaner, and worst of all, glossier wines that were clearly much more modern and internationally styled than Phase 2, nearly everyone was unimpressed with this flight though we didn’t say much to be polite. But Alfred noticed and was clearly distraught at our reaction, telling us that these latest wines were the best he had ever made, right up until the 2005 which was “even better”, but which we didn’t taste. I would note that the 04 we tried was by far my least favorite wine, showing even more Napafied that the 99-03 flight.

At some point, Michel Rolland was hired at PC (maybe for the 05 vintage?), and Alfred was asked about this. He was gracious and told the room the Michel could not be pigeonholed and that at PC he was hired to help “in the vineyards”, not in the cellar or blending phases. Whatever his role, PC lost the thread as far as my palate is concerned, and I stopped buying entirely after the 03 vintage.

[Robert.A.Jr]

Anyone try Latour or Haut Brion recently?

Not that, but I have had Lafite twice over the last couple of years. Not sure how they pulled it off, but the ABV is sub-13. It’s a powerful wine by not a high alcohol wine. I liked it a lot but it does not have the refined elegance that Lafite normally shows, even that from another warm year like 2000. The 2000 is a beauty.

[Jeff_Leve]

2003 is not a consistent Bordeaux vintage. But I think Montrose, which is a bit better than Cos, are both beautiful wines. Saint Estephe was quite successful IMO. As you travel south, the wines are less interesting, with Pomerol and Pessac Leognan as the most challenged appellations.

[Ian_A]

It is pretty much a write off as a vintage in my opinion. Last year a 2003 Cos, a wine I considered wotv material, was similarly dysfunctional. To be fair Montrose is consistently good, but the two biggest hopes for the 2003 vintage - Latour and Lafite - by some accounts do not seem to be turning out so well. A friend of mine here in London was decidedly underwhelmed by a 2003 Latour recently. I suspect the estate to own is Sociando as Patrick notes. I have 12 bottles of 2003 Pontet Canet with one on death row. Judging by Julian’s note my expectations have been pared down.

[jordan_jacobs]

The QPR of the vintage, and one that drank great young and more so today; Smith Haut Lafite

[Rauno_E_NZ]

Paul, Haut Brion last year was “good” but no better. Less good than ‘01 and ‘02.

[Julian_Marshall]

I loathed 2003 early on, wading through dozens of really horrible wines I’d bought using RMP’s notes, then selling the remainder in fury. Personally, I think Margaux is the worst appellation of all.

However, having bought back and tasted a few of what are supposed to be the best in the last few years, I’m a little less scathing. PC disappointed me last time, but I did enjoy it before, Duhart has been very good each time and Sociando is very good too. I need to taste another one, but I really enjoyed Léo-P as well, which was not at all what I expected.

I think the jury’s verdict on 2003 is clear and has been for a while now - a dozen or so decent wines, which you either like or not according to individual taste, but that’s it. Even the best will never have the universal appeal of top wines from more normal vintages.

To be honest, I’m more worried now about 2005.

[Ramon_C]

I loathed 2003 early on, wading through dozens of really horrible wines I’d bought using RMP’s notes, then selling the remainder in fury. Personally, I think Margaux is the worst appellation of all.

However, having bought back and tasted a few of what are supposed to be the best in the last few years, I’m a little less scathing. PC disappointed me last time, but I did enjoy it before, Duhart has been very good each time and Sociando is very good too. I need to taste another one, but I really enjoyed Léo-P as well, which was not at all what I expected.

I think the jury’s verdict on 2003 is clear and has been for a while now - a dozen or so decent wines, which you either like or not according to individual taste, but that’s it. Even the best will never have the universal appeal of top wines from more normal vintages.

To be honest, I’m more worried now about 2005.

Just as one of the post above had mentioned, the majority had less than flattering things to say about the vintage 2003. Btw, Leoville Poyferre, to me is the poster child of the vintage gone bad, so bad.

What’s wrong with 2005? What have you had that worried you?

[Julian_Marshall]

I’ve already drifted here more than I should have so I’ll come back to this in another thread!

[Ian_A]

I had the 2003 PC a couple months ago. I did not like it at all, but some at my table that generally drink Napa Cabs, liked it very much. I have to admit, I did not much care for a recent 2004 or 2000, either, but they are both better than 2003.

Total thread drift, but… I was at the big Pontet Canet vertical in 2008 with about 15 winos from BWE in NYC that Alfred Tesseron attended. We had some vintages from the 70’s and up through 2004. Alfred was charming and engaging, but the arc of PC’s wines was quite evident: Phase 1 1990-and-older, old school and a little dull and lean but with a few good vintages (especially the 89); Phase 2, 1994-1998, a notable jump in intensity, interest and depth (with the 96 everyone’s fav), but still mostly a traditional claret profile; Phase 3, 1999-2003, riper, cleaner, and worst of all, glossier wines that were clearly much more modern and internationally styled than Phase 2, nearly everyone was unimpressed with this flight though we didn’t say much to be polite. But Alfred noticed and was clearly distraught at our reaction, telling us that these latest wines were the best he had ever made, right up until the 2005 which was “even better”, but which we didn’t taste. I would note that the 04 we tried was by far my least favorite wine, showing even more Napafied that the 99-03 flight.

At some point, Michel Rolland was hired at PC (maybe for the 05 vintage?), and Alfred was asked about this. He was gracious and told the room the Michel could not be pigeonholed and that at PC he was hired to help “in the vineyards”, not in the cellar or blending phases. Whatever his role, PC lost the thread as far as my palate is concerned, and I stopped buying entirely after the 03 vintage.

I think Rolland was brought in before the 2005 vintage Patrick, but not sure exactly when.

I wasn’t at that dinner but was part of the BWE group that had lunch with Alfred at the chateau in 2015 - we were supposed to go back on March 26 this year but our tour was a victim of the virus. Before lunch we tried the 11, 12, 13 and 14, which were clean and modern but showed very well esp. the 11. For lunch Alfred served the 2000, the 03, the 05 and the 09. The 2005 was outstanding, closely followed by the 2000 and 2009, which was very young, while the 2003 was a distant fourth. Maureen thought it was poor but I think it simply suffered next to much better wines. I really did t like the 2004 Pontet Canet and stopped out early but recently bought a case of 2001, which I think is excellent and close in quality to the 2000, and fwiw both are much better than the rustic by comparison 1996 imho. I will be trying the 2003 tonight with a barbecue.

[Ramon_C]

I had the 2003 PC a couple months ago. I did not like it at all, but some at my table that generally drink Napa Cabs, liked it very much. I have to admit, I did not much care for a recent 2004 or 2000, either, but they are both better than 2003.

Total thread drift, but… I was at the big Pontet Canet vertical in 2008 with about 15 winos from BWE in NYC that Alfred Tesseron attended. We had some vintages from the 70’s and up through 2004. Alfred was charming and engaging, but the arc of PC’s wines was quite evident: Phase 1 1990-and-older, old school and a little dull and lean but with a few good vintages (especially the 89); Phase 2, 1994-1998, a notable jump in intensity, interest and depth (with the 96 everyone’s fav), but still mostly a traditional claret profile; Phase 3, 1999-2003, riper, cleaner, and worst of all, glossier wines that were clearly much more modern and internationally styled than Phase 2, nearly everyone was unimpressed with this flight though we didn’t say much to be polite. But Alfred noticed and was clearly distraught at our reaction, telling us that these latest wines were the best he had ever made, right up until the 2005 which was “even better”, but which we didn’t taste. I would note that the 04 we tried was by far my least favorite wine, showing even more Napafied that the 99-03 flight.

At some point, Michel Rolland was hired at PC (maybe for the 05 vintage?), and Alfred was asked about this. He was gracious and told the room the Michel could not be pigeonholed and that at PC he was hired to help “in the vineyards”, not in the cellar or blending phases. Whatever his role, PC lost the thread as far as my palate is concerned, and I stopped buying entirely after the 03 vintage.

I think Rolland was brought in before the 2005 vintage Patrick, but not sure exactly when.

I wasn’t at that dinner but was part of the BWE group that had lunch with Alfred at the chateau in 2015 - we were supposed to go back on March 26 this year but our tour was a victim of the virus. Before lunch we tried the 11, 12, 13 and 14, which were clean and modern but showed very well esp. the 11. For lunch Alfred served the 2000, the 03, the 05 and the 09. The 2005 was outstanding, closely followed by the 2000 and 2009, which was very young, while the 2003 was a distant fourth. Maureen thought it was poor but I think it simply suffered next to much better wines. I really did t like the 2004 Pontet Canet and stopped out early but recently bought a case of 2001, which I think is excellent and close in quality to the 2000, and fwiw both are much better than the rustic by comparison 1996 imho. I will be trying the 2003 tonight with a barbecue.

Well, I was at the NYC-Alfred Tesseron dinner that Pat mentioned and agree that the 94 - 96 vintages were the standout vintages. The older vintages were not as exciting, but they were not as glossy/modern in style as the post-1999 ones. I remember Alfred being very proud and gushing about the 1994 which he claimed was the first time he had a direct hand in the vineyard and wine-making.

I also had the 2005 PC in a separate dinner, at one of Matt Richman’s Bordeaux release try-outs. While I was impressed with the general wines, definitely vin-de -gard, the 2005 PC showcased the combined power and completeness that was characteristic of the vintage. I only thought the PC was already just too expensive, then, even for the high quality.

[Mark_Golodetz]

Nothing new but I do not share the view of Mark that any 03 Bordeaux is bad or even undrinkable. It may be an atypical year for Bordeaux. But why not? Should every vintage be the same? Not in my opinion. I like 2003 Sociando Mallet and other Medocs. I even like some Right Bank wines. But it is true that a lot of 2003 are unbalanced. The biggest problem is unripe tannins due to water stress and a metallic aftertaste. Overripeness not so much. IMO. For tolerant people 2003 offers some fine wines.

I totally agree that if Bordeaux faced similar conditions every year, and the wines were variations, it could become boring very quickly. The problem for me was that both wines seemed very unBordeauxish, and while the Cos, as a wine, was just a total disaster, the Montrose will be enjoyed by many, especially those who love that style of wine. For those who enjoy more classic wines, this is so extreme that it might be an ok wine but not an ok Montrose, which tends to have a very distinct signature.

[Pat_Martin]

Total thread drift, but… I was at the big Pontet Canet vertical in 2008 with about 15 winos from BWE in NYC that Alfred Tesseron attended. We had some vintages from the 70’s and up through 2004. Alfred was charming and engaging, but the arc of PC’s wines was quite evident: Phase 1 1990-and-older, old school and a little dull and lean but with a few good vintages (especially the 89); Phase 2, 1994-1998, a notable jump in intensity, interest and depth (with the 96 everyone’s fav), but still mostly a traditional claret profile; Phase 3, 1999-2003, riper, cleaner, and worst of all, glossier wines that were clearly much more modern and internationally styled than Phase 2, nearly everyone was unimpressed with this flight though we didn’t say much to be polite. But Alfred noticed and was clearly distraught at our reaction, telling us that these latest wines were the best he had ever made, right up until the 2005 which was “even better”, but which we didn’t taste. I would note that the 04 we tried was by far my least favorite wine, showing even more Napafied that the 99-03 flight.

At some point, Michel Rolland was hired at PC (maybe for the 05 vintage?), and Alfred was asked about this. He was gracious and told the room the Michel could not be pigeonholed and that at PC he was hired to help “in the vineyards”, not in the cellar or blending phases. Whatever his role, PC lost the thread as far as my palate is concerned, and I stopped buying entirely after the 03 vintage.

I think Rolland was brought in before the 2005 vintage Patrick, but not sure exactly when.

I wasn’t at that dinner but was part of the BWE group that had lunch with Alfred at the chateau in 2015 - we were supposed to go back on March 26 this year but our tour was a victim of the virus. Before lunch we tried the 11, 12, 13 and 14, which were clean and modern but showed very well esp. the 11. For lunch Alfred served the 2000, the 03, the 05 and the 09. The 2005 was outstanding, closely followed by the 2000 and 2009, which was very young, while the 2003 was a distant fourth. Maureen thought it was poor but I think it simply suffered next to much better wines. I really did t like the 2004 Pontet Canet and stopped out early but recently bought a case of 2001, which I think is excellent and close in quality to the 2000, and fwiw both are much better than the rustic by comparison 1996 imho. I will be trying the 2003 tonight with a barbecue.

Well, I was at the NYC-Alfred Tesseron dinner that Pat mentioned and agree that the 94 - 96 vintages were the standout vintages. The older vintages were not as exciting, but they were not as glossy/modern in style as the post-1999 ones. I remember Alfred being very proud and gushing about the 1994 which he claimed was the first time he had a direct hand in the vineyard and wine-making.

I also had the 2005 PC in a separate dinner, at one of Matt Richman’s Bordeaux release try-outs. While I was impressed with the general wines, definitely vin-de -gard, the 2005 PC showcased the combined power and completeness that was characteristic of the vintage. I only thought the PC was already just too expensive, then, even for the high quality.

That was a fun night, Ramon. To be fair, we all acknowledged that the more recent vintages might just need more time, at least compared to the 94-96 trio which were really the highlight of the night.

Good to hear that the 2000 has come around, Ian. Somehow I ended up with 3 or 4 bottles of that, and a bunch of the 03 due JimHow’s steady endorsements (plus it was $44 on release, cheap but current norms).

I would give the 2005-2016 vintages a whirl, but PC’s pricing these days has turned me off. I was really looking forward to trying some more recent vintages with Alfred Tesseron last month, maybe next year!