I miss the old Bordeaux

WINE TALK
21

Rich, your post intrigued me. I have been very critical of high alcohol, particularly Right Bank, Bordeaux in the last few years. The problem with high alcohol, beyond 14.5 especially, however balanced it may be by fruit, tannin, and acidity, is that it can glean more from new oak and thus dry out on the finish, and that drying out will get worse and more noticeable with time. It is also noticeable no matter what, and that sensation is something I do not seek in Bordeaux. Chateauneuf du Pape, perhaps.

So I do agree with you, perhaps, on the alcohol level, the “new balances” achieved in some Right Bank Bordeaux that remind me more of Zinfandel and port than … Bordeaux.

I must say also that 1982, for many wines I have tasted, is a great vintage. As Howard pointed out, the Ducru Beaucaillou 1982 is drinking very well, so is the 1986, both of which I tried, respectively, on 29 and 28 December 2011. Try a cru bourgeois like Meyney 1982, and you will see what I mean. Your picking on 1982 seems odd to me, because the greats of 1982 are wines of much higher yields and much lower alcohol than most Bordeaux today. The Leoville Barton 1982 is barely 12 degrees, if that much, while most are more like 12.5.

And thanks in large part to my wine loving friends in Washington DC and to my visits to Bordeaux, I have also had some marvelous wines from the 1970s that Parker may have underrated. And some greats from the 60s. Figeac 1961 comes to mind, as do a slew of 66s, because that is my birth year :slight_smile:.

But …

The higher alcohol however cannot be based on just one reason.

There are many, sometimes very justified reasons. Later picking and lower yields per se have been largely a positive development for Bordeaux. Have they gotten out of hand in some quarters? Sure. The notion of “Parkerized” wine has nothing to do with 1982, but rather with the later 1990s early 2000s when the Garage Movement was in its heyday and resulted in some pretty big wines. Again, that movement affected more the Right Bank than the left. And the pressure, particularly in St Emilion, to revise their classification every 10 years has led to some extent of a “who can be the biggest” contest… To an extent. And Merlot is far more susceptible to gargantuan alcohol levels resulting from climate change (another factor) than is Cabernet. Hence in 2009, I only bought six bottles of Right Bank en primeur.

Kevin Shin makes an excellent point overall. Wines being made in Bordeaux today are far cleaner than in the 60s and 70s.

Finally, wines on the Left Bank are witnessing a golden age. Not just because of China, ha ha ha. But also qualitatively. A wine like Leoville Las Cases 1996, 2000? Both are amazing, as is the 2005. Or take the 2009, which registered something like 13.4 alcohol, nearly the highest ever for that estate, which is nothing less than an amazing wine that was, yes, “welcoming” en primeur, but hardly limp or flabby. On the contrary, the balance was sublime, and there was not a touch of sweetness on the nose. It may well close down, but it will also very likely live a very long time too. Or Calon Segur 2009. High alcohol for that estate, but almost all Cabernet and not AT ALL overripe.

In any case, Robert Parker has been - on balance - more a force for positive change for Bordeaux than negative. Sure, the man likes some rather big wines that annoy my palate sometimes - and underrates wines that I feel are more subtle and more “traditional” in style. But that is more a question of subjective taste. Just look at how different the tasting notes of Neal Martin, who works for Parker, are.

In the end, today, you can find more traditional wines like Figeac or Canon or Brane Cantenac or Leoville Barton and you can find more modern wines like Pavie and Pavie Macquin and Lascombes and Cos (certainly their 2009 is modern, to me). Point is, there is a tremendous variety in style in Bordeaux, whereas in the 60s and 70s, things were more monotone. And not as clean.

Now, as for prices, that is another story…

22

I thought I was agreeing with you.

23

I think the tasting notes are on the Parker board (I cannot check). This was several years ago. I thought you were there.

24

What I miss most are the old Bordeaux price levels!

That said, there’s a whole lot of tasty petit chateaux on the market now – due in no small part to the changes made in winegrowing/winemaking.

25

Jay… What specific wines using Microoxygenation are worse today, than they were before they started using that technique?

26

Mr. Somerville,
I started my hobby relatively early in my life and was lucky enough to drink a lot of older wines. I still dismiss the most of the wines from 1965 to 1977 as poor and insipid, man I sound like Jeff Leve. The 61 Palmer is one of the greatest wines and during the 60s and 70s Palmer outshined Chateau Margaux. I don’t find the 61 Margaux all that compelling and that is the best Margaux until the 78. I have had multiple bottles of the 61 Pichon Baron and the 66, although aromatically compelling not great overall.

I believe the 82s and the 86s will age as well as the 59s and the 61s. I drank my fair of the 59 and the 82 Latours and the resemblance are uncanny. I also think that most of the 80s and the 90s Bordeauxs expresses the terroir very well based on my recent experiences.

27

And I thought I was agreeing with you. [cheers.gif]

28

Count me in as thinking Bordeaux is producing better wines on a more consistent basis than at any time in their history. Today, more producers from a wider range of terroir at all price levels are making great wine.

For romantics who consider the 60’s better, I do not get it. Very few producers were making great wine on those days. From time to time, depending on the vintage, some absolutely stunning wines were produced in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, but more often than not, the wines showed, green, rustic tendencies. 1982 is a great vintage. But the truth is, perhaps 2 dozen chateaux made sublime wine. The number of successful chateaux increased in 1990 and again in 2000 and even more producers made better wine in 2010! This rush to quality is not only at the top end. At least 100 small chateaux are making wines worth buying. This never took place in the past.

Something else to consider, during the 60’s and 70’s, Bordeaux enjoyed 2-3 strong vintages per decade, and that was when they got lucky! Today, due to better vineyard techniques and a willingness to sort and declassify, good wines can be produced in every vintage. Tannins are riper, fruit is fresher and the wines offer more complexity and a better textural experience. As for the ability to age, I do not get that argument. Did the modern age begin in 1982? The top wines remain fresh and 30 years of age. 1989 and 1990 are still young. 2000 is in its youth as well.

I recognize taste is nothing more than personal opinion. And some tasters prefer yesterday over today. But I do not see it that way.

29

Sure but it also depends when you drank them too and their condition, apart from our different palates. [basic-smile.gif]

I can see now that I should’ve titled this thread, ’ I miss the old Bordeaux…sometimes’…

30

Jay,

I have to agree with you on micro-oxygenation, but many of the swords technology bring can cut both ways.
It’s no secret that many, or most of the top Chateau have, are, or at least experimented with using Reverse Osmosis &/or Entropy (low temp/vacuum concentrators). To good effect, I think, & I would even venture, enhancing overall quality, & even ageability.

These are just some of the things going on in the cellar. There have also been many improvements in viticulture - some even coming from the new world (OMG!) [wink.gif]

To Lovers of old school Bordeaux >>> Obviously there’s nothing wrong with preferring wines with astringent, green tannins, funky bacterial-ridden old oak, & thin(er) palate presence & flavor, but to me, THIS is the Golden Age of Bordeaux - absolutely no doubt about it.

[cheers.gif]

31

From my standpoint, Panos nailed it.

Trends in stylistic changes are a pendulum, bringing needed improvements in the 80’s, and taking things too far by the early '00’s (especially on the Right Bank). I don’t consider wines like the 2004 Lascombes or 2001/03/05 Smith Haut Lafite to be improvements, no matter how bad the wine used to be at those chateau (the 1975 Lascombes was lovely for the last 15 years, by the way).

I love 80’s Bordeaux, loving many terrific wines from '82, '83, '85, '86, '88, '89 and '90 (I’ve had very little pre-1982 Bordeaux, a few cases all told). These '80’s wines have brought far greater viniferious joy than any other wines I’ve had. Alas, I have my doubts that in general the Bordeaux of the '00’s will develop as well as these (I don’t care about the speed of development, as long as the finished product is as good). I think in some cases Parker’s influence was the cause, as some estates chased points, made wines to be flashy in big tastings while young, etc. The irony is Parker is an incredibly reliable barometer for the 80’s and even the 90’s in Bordeaux (and beyond as well), for my palate.

I hope I’m wrong, as I have a lot of 2000, 2002, 2003, and most of all, 2005 Bordeaux in my cellar. I have little doubt these later Bordeaux will turn out good, but will they develop the complexity, nuance, character and power of the 80’s wines (where much of the power comes from the rustic tannins now mellowed with age)? I hear the same discussion/concerns about '80’s vs. '90’s Cali Cab, where the early returns don’t look promising (in my limited experience).

32

I remember thinking about the changes in Bordeaux in the early '90s and drinking some of the mid '80s wines; they were, in the main, fruit driven, high extract and relatively attractive when young - '85 Lynch B comes to mind. '86 was very tightly structured, tannic and generally unapproachable - you could tell it had been hot down there! I think it was around 2000 that I opened a bottle of GPL '86; wow what a wine it proved to be - this is how I like my claret! It’s dimensions, perfume and length screamed of something much bigger; if it had a little more weight throughout I’d have guessed Latour maybe.

I now have '95s, some '97s(underated in my humble opinion) some 2000s, 2005s and 2009s to look forward to drink in the future. [cheers.gif]

33

I am now totally confused. [truce.gif] Was this post and post 1 written by the same person? [scratch.gif]

34

Why not?

If you look at my post I said I miss old style Bordeaux; where did I say that precluded me from enjoying more recent vintages but for different reasons? [head-bang.gif] How many times do I have to say it - I’m not against recent claret just pointing out some differences between then and now, some good, some not so in my view. deadhorse

35

I think I could replace Bordeaux with just about any region and this post would still ring true to me. [cheers.gif]

36

If you word this as “high quality wine in the style they are making” then I think just about everyone here will agree. There is no question that many techniques and consistency have greatly improved. The question is really about style: When a winery makes a good wine in the style they are making in 200x, will I like that wine as much, and will it age as well as wines I liked from earlier decades?

A troublesome aspect of this is that many wines have changed style, yet you cannot tell that from most of the critics’ notes, Gilman excepted. Some wines like Cos get a lot of attention in this respect but I suspect a lot are flying under the radar and consumers have no idea if the 200x vintages will turn out anything like older ones they liked, though they may be very good in their style.

37

Thanks Graig [cheers.gif] - at last one or two of you seem to understand what I’m getting at. [thumbs-up.gif]

38

Well folks some interesting responses to my thread which I had a feeling would stir up mixed emotions, my own included; it’s a subject that’ll long be debated by wine drinkers around the world and hopefully long into the future. Lets give the 2005/09s a twenty year head start though before looking at the subject a again. [wink.gif]