I usually agree with Pavel, who has inexplicably gone Berserk. But I think Br1an is right. We won’t know for a long time.
I do think stars aligned in 2016. The wines are bigger than I prefer, but our grandchildren (literally or in wine geekdom) may well be taking about them with glee in 30-50 years.
Yes. Keith is buying.
Good question, and partially shit answer coming on my part. Still take 04 as my 1a and 1b is 2K, then following that is 2001. I’ll be candid I have not had many 01s but from what I have had it was another under-appreciated vintage exhibiting great balance and super value. I don’t have any in my cellar right now, I drank them all lol. I should have more as its kinda in my ballpark so it does speaks to a buying opportunity.
Reflecting, I wish I bought more back in time as they were overshadowed by 2K and right-bank really excelled; they were cheap and I could have cleaned up. But that was back when I was getting in to wine. And the personal reason I alluded to for my right-bank affinity… the night my daughter was born I stopped at a LWS on the way home from the hospital and picked out a nice bottle of wine to indulge in take in the fact I was scared shitless before going back the next day. It was a 1996 Haut Corbin from St. Émilion. Still have the bottle on a shelf. That changed everything. Then the right bank (mostly) changed. Nothing is forever.
I asked because I think 2001 and 2004 are somewhat similar styled vintages but with 2001 to me being a bit stronger of a vintage. But, then again, I think mostly Medoc and don’t buy that much right bank wines. If I thought more right bank, my view of vintages might be different.
totally agree, I thought I was the only 2004 buff in existence. It’s just a very charming vintage. Without question I have had more good experiences with 2004 so far than with 2005. There is something about the ease of expression and light but substantial nature of the fruit that is just wonderful. It kind of reminds me of 2002 in Burgundy. It also opened up fairly early (at a little over 10 years old) but isn’t falling off with age at all. 2004 is the best of the so-called “off vintages” that I’ve had. Especially on the left bank, 2001 and 2008 have harder, stiffer fruit somehow, don’t have quite the same charm, and took longer to come around. With that said, 2001 was very nice on the right bank.
I also think 2000 is great and glad to see it getting credit. Unlike 2005 and 2010 it combined classical vin de garde structure with a certain lightness of touch, and the right bank train wrecks we saw in 05/10 are nowhere to be found in 2000.
I think with time 2009 will be seen as great and better than 2010. Yes it’s a warm rich “Napa” vintage but it’s still very Bordeaux and that will become more and more evident with age. It reminds me of 1990.
I’ve found alcohol noticeable enough in 2009, especially on the right bank, that I am concerned about them ever coming into balance. Even Magdelaine. We will see.
I am much more of a left bank drinker and have really liked some of the more classical wines in 2009. I also think it has been wonderful down the hierarchy - that may be 2009’s calling card. 2016 may prove to be the best vintage, and 2019 could prove to be greater than 2009, but it is too early for me to tell.
I am not a huge fan of either 2009 or 2010 but I think 2009 will always be hit or miss. You may be correct that there will be some great 2009s, but for me a number of producers seem to have picked too late and the fruit in these wines is not fresh. Leoville Poyferre for me is a prime example of this.
Ha, funny you should mention Poyferre as I also thought the 2009 Poyferre was pretty bad. But I think that is more about Poyferre than 2009 – they always overdo their wines and try to make a right bank wine on the left bank. I usually find them overrated.
I agree with them being overrated and that is a shame because there are some really wonderful old wines by them. I had the 1970 a few years ago and it was wonderful.
But, while I thought the 2009 LP was just flawed (others thought the opposite TN: Chateau Leoville Poyferre vertical with Sarah Cuvelier - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers ) I have had similar concerns (but not as pronounced) from some other 2009s I have had. I guess time will tell but not for me as I did not buy any 2009s or 2010s.
I voted 2005, thinking mostly of the left bank. My threshold for over-ripe and over-extracted has decreased over the years, but it remains higher than some here. 2000 is a close second.
2016 may challenge for the top spot but it’s still too early for me to tell. I made a (possibly foolish) bet on 2019, hoping that they’ll also turn out really well and that I’ll be around to find out. I did that based on other people’s notes, haven’t had a single one.
ok … who voted for 2007?
I voted for 2000; as others have said it’s rich & ripe and pre-dates the peak of Parker-mania of 2009/2010. The 2005s I’ve had have been good, but in a particular 2005-ish way that just doesn’t move me. 2014 and on are too young for me to comment, but I hope the 2015s are good as I bought heavily in Pomerol
Hear hear! Today, I would say 2005 is what I am drinking the most if I am drinking something post-2000, but you could make a strong case for 2010 and 2016. They may turn out to be better than 2005, but who knows. The 2005 is just so generous and plush right now. Yum!
Even Toddler? I might suck at basketball…but I can slay homers in baseball, buddy!
I, too, think it’s too early to know, but 2000 was my vote thus far. 2005 is a crazy, cryptic beast that COULD end up the best of the vintages listed, but I’m starting to doubt it
We must assume it was a vote for 2007 Chateauneuf du Pape.
Evidently two votes now. I assume it is Uncle Bob and Cambie.
Reasonable conclusion.
There are 61 classified growths x 20 years = 1220 bottles. How many of those, and at what stage of development, would one have to drink – full bottles, not 1 oz pours at a a UGC event` – would one have to drink to answer the question posed? I drink more bordeaux than any other red wine, by far, and I would have zero basis to answer it.