I know, f*ck. Like a goober, I walked up to the mound and tossed the biggest, highest, slowest slow pitch that even Todder could knock it out of the park.
“Surprisingly” no call for 15 and 18.
16 favored all apellations perfectly. Easy call.
to be fair, 18 has only just gone into bottle.
Neither is 19. Will surpass 18 on terms of balance and finesse i suppose.
The little brother of 16.
That may be, but 2015 had some really delicious wines out of the gate, like DDC and Rauzan-Segla.
Not sure if tihs is a troll post or not 
Google ads are run based on your search history, their demographic data of you, etc. Reminds me of when a conservative politican publicly called out Twitter for ‘hosting’ lots of adverts to gay porn sites… Cant find the image now though.
OK my retelling wasnt quite accurate, but Gavin Barwell in 'date Arab girls' Twitter storm | Twitter | The Guardian
I am on your side and glad to own both and more. Big supporter of 15 vintage. Love Margaux and Pessac wines.
But 15 suffers in terms of top quality in all apellations i’m afraid.
Glad to see all these votes for 2000, which was underestimated for many years IMO
I’m with John Gilman in thinking 2010 quite overrated.
2005 for me, but I haven’t tasted enough to have an opinion on post-2015 vintages. 2010 a close second. 2014 or 2000 third.
I favor the earlier vintages. I think the jury is still out on the more recent. I actually loved 2004, more classic to my tastes, underrated, can find it for a fair price, and it ages well. 2005 was over-ripe and the more recent have been more hit and miss inconsistent for being over-done.
2000 is also exceptional, its a toss up for me but gave it to 04 for the pricing and availability. Things that I also consider on what makes a vintage great.
I like 2015 a lot also. Really tasty out of the gate. Bought quite a few 2014’s, but I suspect it is a good/ very good vs great vintage. RE: 2000 and 2005, I seem to recall RP calling both the greatest ever, at their release times. TV interview stuff. Nothing against RP here ( I always thought he was ok), but…so far, I find 2000’s to not quite have the stuffing I expected. I am kind of glad I auctioned a bunch off. I bought 2005 very light and kind of 3rd tier wines because I was offended by the prices at that time.
Interesting to see you say 2005 is over-ripe while simultaneously calling 2000 excellent.
in which universe does 2008 not get a single vote? One possible explanation is that anyone who’s considered 2008 picked 2016 instead.
2001 is best for drinking in the past few years, but by 2040… hmm… perhaps 2005, with 2008, 2012, 2016 not far behind.
But in 2021 we want to drink 1921s on their 100th anniversary, no?
You don’t say.
Terroir extraction from a glass of 2000 Bordeaux is a procedure I never attempt without local anesthetic.
2008 was overpriced for the quality. Pretty much every vintage since 2004 shares that fate. I will not live long enough to enjoy 2016 at maturity, so it’s quality is irrelevant.
For anyone over 50, Bordeaux lost its way in regards to price a long time ago. (2014 excepted)
Trouble deciding between 2000 and 2016 but can’t really cast a fully informed vote because the price bubble that started with the '05s and then got seriously stupid with the '09s and '10s kept me from tasting as many of them on release as I otherwise would have. Fortunately the price bubble coincided pretty closely with the Parkerization bubble and a lot of the wines I missed turned out to be better off missed. Hard to put any vintage in contention for vintage of the century when some properties that have no excuse for making less-than-magnificent wines made wines that are arguably bad. So '09 and '10 are out. '05 is a tougher call as it seemed less naturally vulnerable to cartoon wines and the peer pressure for cartoon winemaking wasn’t quite as fierce yet - whenever I’ve had one in a vertical, it’s been a standout vintage, no question. But I just don’t own enough to compare to 2000 and 2016, where I’ve tried most everything.
I haven’t tasted widely enough to cast an informed vote but I do chuckle when people say that as between 2009 and 2010, they prefer 2010 because it’s more “classic,” which is something you see people say a lot. It may be more tannic, but it’s arguably further away from classic than 2009 is.
Lol, I had a feeling that would stir some controversy.
I know, lots in common. Both had perfect growing conditions; just brilliant raw materials and heralded; etc… Yet I’m not trying to broad stroke a vintage, its subjective for my experiences and tastes. I was a huge St. Émilions fan for personal reasons; and other right banks. I felt that’s when the right banks first started breaking towards the so-called “modernist” route with 05 and onward; higher alcohol and extraction just seemed to go to 11 vs 2000 in my tasting experiences. Then I look at things I held in verticals. Cos, Gloria, Segla, and more. Many are a push, however I feel the 2000s are more up my alley than the 05s for finesse. Maybe I trend toward the 1b in the 1a vs 1b of heralded vintages in that given time period. And maybe I don’t like perfect vintages, I like ones that struggle. I like having odd tastes. Fair point though, its interesting.
Just my 2 cents.
Cool. Your explanation does go a long way in clearing-up my confusion. I need to do a better job of remembering that Bdx. has a right bank, as I am primarily a left bank drinker.
Do you like 2004 over 2001?