Poll: Top Red Bordeaux vintage of the Century

[Jayson_Cohen]

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.

Is that the (retired) lawyer talking or the Wine Board Guru? I’d say the standard here is the pleading standard. Plausibility. But maybe we don’t even get there. Motion to dismiss territory?

[Robert.A.Jr]

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.

Is that the (retired) lawyer talking or the Wine Board Guru? I’d say the standard here is the pleading standard. Plausibility. But maybe we don’t even get there. Motion to dismiss territory?

And the funny thing is, Neal is one of the Bordeaux 1%’ers on this Board to make the subjective call! He’s just being a professorial pedant! A real trial lawyer would make the call! I did, and apparently am all alone. I don’t have the gift of being professorial.

[Pavel_Tchichikov]

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.

I usually agree with Jayson, but what is it that I am agreeing with?

I am surprised the elephant in the room has received no mention, one that I struggled with when weighing the pros and cons of 2005 vs 2012/2014/2016. While in time '05 may prove superior in its raw material and ultimate upside, it also arrived at the height of proliferation of spoof in Bordeaux - one that has thankfully seen a considerable decline over the last decade. This is not a negligible factor, even if it doesn’t change your vote.

[Neal.Mollen]

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.

Is that the (retired) lawyer talking or the Wine Board Guru? I’d say the standard here is the pleading standard. Plausibility. But maybe we don’t even get there. Motion to dismiss territory?

And the funny thing is, Neal is one of the Bordeaux 1%’ers on this Board to make the subjective call! He’s just being a professorial pedant! A real trial lawyer would make the call! I did, and apparently am all alone. I don’t have the gift of being professorial.

I am a guru of nothing. My house has but one kitchen, I’ve never had an Ovid, and I’ve enjoyed an SQN before. Obviously I have no platform to offer such an opinion.

[Robert.A.Jr]

Is that the (retired) lawyer talking or the Wine Board Guru? I’d say the standard here is the pleading standard. Plausibility. But maybe we don’t even get there. Motion to dismiss territory?

And the funny thing is, Neal is one of the Bordeaux 1%’ers on this Board to make the subjective call! He’s just being a professorial pedant! A real trial lawyer would make the call! I did, and apparently am all alone. I don’t have the gift of being professorial.

I am a guru of nothing. My house has but one kitchen, I’ve never had an Ovid, and I’ve enjoyed an SQN before. Obviously I have no platform to offer such an opinion.

Humbleness is so unbecoming!

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

Having tasted the 2016s listed below, my out-of-the-blocks impression about '16s thus far is that they’re not massive wines:

Reserve de la Comtesse (this was the heaviest of the group)
Cantemerle
Malescot St. Exupery
d’Armailhac
Senejac
Sociando-Mallet

Yes, I acknowledge that is a grand total of 6 wines, and, yes, I acknowledge they’re not exactly the “biggest” wines, but still, relatively speaking, my takeaway thus far is that the 2016 are not huge wines.

[Howard_Cooper]

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.

You drink a lot more Bordeaux than I do so I would greatly value your opinion.

My judgments are based on what I drink plus a series of vertical tastings I have been doing about once a year like this one: TN: Chateau Montrose with Mr. Herve Berland - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers I admit that most of these have been left bank wines (both what I drink and what verticals I have attended). Certainly, no vintage has stood out as being the best each and every time I have been at one of these verticals, but the 2005s, for me, have been among my favorites in most tastings so I picked it.

The only vintage that came out on top in every vertical where I tasted a wine from the vintage was 2016. I did not pick it because I only have attended one vertical where I had a 2016 (a Pichon Lalande tasting).

I don’t view these types of polls as being an effort to come up with the absolute true answer (I don’t believe in objectively correct answers to these types of questions) but rather as an exercise for me (and hopefully others) to learn more. I get to see if my impressions are more or less consistent with those of others and learn vintages to try again, etc. Not surprisingly, I was more with the consensus regarding Burgundy vintages than Bordeaux vintages. This, of course, makes the Bordeaux thread one where I am learning more, although I have learned a good bit about 2017 Burgundies on that thread as I am seeing others have a similar impression of 2017 as I do. Unfortunately, that thread is making me want to buy more 2017 burgundies.

One interesting things I am learning in this thread is that Bordeaux lovers are saying almost the same thing about the 2005 vintage here as Burgundy lovers have said about the 2005 vintage in a number of threads. Fascinating.

[Howard_Cooper]

Is that the (retired) lawyer talking or the Wine Board Guru? I’d say the standard here is the pleading standard. Plausibility. But maybe we don’t even get there. Motion to dismiss territory?

And the funny thing is, Neal is one of the Bordeaux 1%’ers on this Board to make the subjective call! He’s just being a professorial pedant! A real trial lawyer would make the call! I did, and apparently am all alone. I don’t have the gift of being professorial.

I am a guru of nothing. My house has but one kitchen, I’ve never had an Ovid, and I’ve enjoyed an SQN before. Obviously I have no platform to offer such an opinion.

Never having had an Ovid would make your opinion even more valuable, but with the SQN comment, I must say, “never mind.”

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

The idea that folks are writing-off the structured 2005s after a mere 15 years in the cellar (absolutely perfect storage conditions for most here, I would bet) strikes me as absurd and silly. We all knew when we bought them that they would need many years to come around, so what gives with all the “They haven’t come around! Oh me, oh my, will they ever come around!??!” worries? This development (or lack thereof) should. not. be. surprising. Nor should it be scary. Hell, even off vintages are not typically at peak at 15 yo, and many aren’t even in the front end of their drinking window yet, either.

I will happily get folks their money back on all those 2005 Bdx they don’t want.

[Vince_T]

Having tasted the 2016s listed below, my out-of-the-blocks impression about '16s thus far is that they’re not massive wines:

Reserve de la Comtesse (this was the heaviest of the group)
Cantemerle
Malescot St. Exupery
d’Armailhac
Senejac
Sociando-Mallet

Yes, I acknowledge that is a grand total of 6 wines, and, yes, I acknowledge they’re not exactly the “biggest” wines, but still, relatively speaking, my takeaway thus far is that the 2016 are not huge wines.

I’ve had a couple dozen 2016s now, and am convinced it’ll be better than 2000 and 2010. None have been massive wines. I’ve had a couple clunky Pomerols, but nearly every left bank I’ve had has been excellent - lots of structure, fine tannins, and superb balance.

[O.G_Nikolai]

For that unclassified stuff there is just one answer:

Sociando Mallet.

Incredible quality just not for last 20 years only…but for years to come.
Another value:

Meyney

Stay by the one you love.

[Keith_Levenberg]

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.

I usually agree with Jayson, but what is it that I am agreeing with?

I am surprised the elephant in the room has received no mention, one that I struggled with when weighing the pros and cons of 2005 vs 2012/2014/2016. While in time '05 may prove superior in its raw material and ultimate upside, it also arrived at the height of proliferation of spoof in Bordeaux - one that has thankfully seen a considerable decline over the last decade. This is not a negligible factor, even if it doesn’t change your vote.

Hey, I pointed out the elephant on page 1. But I put the peak at 2009-2010.

[John_Bashford]

I have voted for 2005 which at 15 years shows many of the features of a great year : richness of fruit, deeply textured flavours and a firm backbone of mature, fine tannins and acidity plus a certain extra sense of beauty, purity and balance that also exists in 61 and 82. That certain makers particularly in St Emilion overcooked their wines does not detract from the overall judgement but does provide a sadness that a great opportunity was missed. Equally it remains that many wines particularly the 1st growths are predictably closed and need a lot of coaxing on opening to reveal their best.

Of course its an opinion at one point in time with the competitors such as 09, 10 and 16 still to fully define themselves. I loved them all young but do have slight reservations about each at this point. 2000 has many fabulous wines but does perhaps often lack the excitement of the very best. 2016 is so young that I don’t think we can easily place it as the best but certainly its a contender !

What is sure is that we have been blessed with many excellent wines since 2000 with many personal favourites in the less favoured years eg 02 Leoville Barton and Latour, 04 Pichon Baron and L’Evangile, 06 PLL and many 2012s. A great time to drink Bordeaux !

[O.G_Nikolai]

A great time to drink Bordeaux !

[Dav1d_Sawyer]

Glad to see so many votes for 2016. Maybe my cynicism about the annual hype machine made me underrate it as simply a consistent, very good to excellent year. I went long as it was my wedding year but I suspected 2000 and possibly 2005/2010 were generally regarded as superior.

For my palate, the 2016s are truly excellent but don’t have the monster structure and deep core fruit that the 2000s do. I suspect that in 50 years we’ll still be enjoying the best 2000s whereas many of these other vintages will be well past peak.

[Charlie_Carnes]

Well, I haven’t drunk hardly anything that is 15 years old or younger, so it’s hard to say.

Also, many of my friends have told me to buy 2016. I have not bought a single bottle, I guess I should?

I own a bunch of 2000 and 2005 but I am waiting on those. Also, isn’t 2000 the last year of the 20th century?