TN: Is Bordeaux 2000 still going strong?

[J.Vizuete]

I haven’t had 2000 LLC for many years — but, based on the last bottle, I would think it needs at least another decade. LLC is always slow to come around. I remember the 1982 at age 20 was built like a brick sh*thouse.

I had heard the same for 82, 90, and that the 86 in particular would “never be ready”. I presume that to mean the wine is a mass of tannin, too chewy and austere to be enjoyable. I thought Otto’s take on the progress of a couple bottles from more modernized Chateaux was especially interesting; and while I would by no means consider LLC an example of that particular category, 2000 was a different era of winemaking than the 80s. Tasting it blind, this bottle (purchased on release) had a ways to go, and improved over 2 days, so still on its upward slope, and I think agreed with you exactly in my note, but I didn’t find it too tough to thoroughly enjoy now.

I think some of the choices being made in the cellars are leading toward wines that are a pleasure to drink sooner. Although I’m not opening my 16 LLCs any time soon…

[Pat_Martin]

… and would go so far as to say if you don’t have some green/herbal notes in a Cab that’s a problem.

I’ve heard Gilman say essentially the same thing.

[J_D_o_v_e]

… and would go so far as to say if you don’t have some green/herbal notes in a Cab that’s a problem.

I’ve heard Gilman say essentially the same thing.

And he is right. And it’s also why a lot of big blowzy cab based wines are boring / don’t age well. Strictly my opinion, of course.

[Andrew_K]

I just stocked up on another case of 2000 Ducru. It’s my go to BDX right now.

[Craig_G]

I’ve been sitting on all my 2000s but did open two in the past year. Pontet Canet was quite young but fairly open. It was a good showing. La Conseillante was surprisingly backward and not very showy. I had the 2005 several months before and it was equally structured but much more expressive and enjoyable.

I’m encouraged by the comments about 00 Pape Clement. I loved the 80’s versions and the 1990 and Parker raved about the early Magrez wines. It was a few years before it became clear that there was a real style change (perhaps cigar—>ashtray) rather than a shift in quality so I ended up with 98/99/00 before figuring that out. I figured I would just wait and see what happens (though I’ve drunk a number of 99s and like them quite a bit).

[Keith_Levenberg]

Well Keith’s correction of the abbreviation would still stand. He just committed a common sin of those who act the Mrs. Grundy with others, making errors while trying to be impressive by correcting the errors of others.

No error. An intentional colloquialism.

[Keith_Levenberg]

Thank you for that stunning review.
2000 vintage is (like 1996) one of last so called classic vintages. 2001 may be also included.

I have the same gut feeling but occasionally get trumped by people saying '81 was the last classic vintage… Regardless, I still see a dividing line between '00 and '05 (set aside '03 as climatically aberrational) and another even bolder dividing line between '05 and '09/'10, when the stylization got so extreme that some great chateaux actually managed to make wine that wasn’t even good.

[David_Bu3ker]

Thank you for that stunning review.
2000 vintage is (like 1996) one of last so called classic vintages. 2001 may be also included.

I have the same gut feeling but occasionally get trumped by people saying '81 was the last classic vintage… Regardless, I still see a dividing line between '00 and '05 (set aside '03 as climatically aberrational) and another even bolder dividing line between '05 and '09/'10, when the stylization got so extreme that some great chateaux actually managed to make wine that wasn’t even good.

I have thought of ‘04 as the last classic. ‘06 sometimes makes a case.

[Keith_Levenberg]

Thank you for that stunning review.
2000 vintage is (like 1996) one of last so called classic vintages. 2001 may be also included.

I have the same gut feeling but occasionally get trumped by people saying '81 was the last classic vintage… Regardless, I still see a dividing line between '00 and '05 (set aside '03 as climatically aberrational) and another even bolder dividing line between '05 and '09/'10, when the stylization got so extreme that some great chateaux actually managed to make wine that wasn’t even good.

I have thought of ‘04 as the last classic. ‘06 sometimes makes a case.

'14 gets my nod as the modern classic vintage I think.

[David_Bu3ker]

I can see that.

[Craig_G]

Well Keith’s correction of the abbreviation would still stand. He just committed a common sin of those who act the Mrs. Grundy with others, making errors while trying to be impressive by correcting the errors of others.

No error. An intentional colloquialism.

“I meant to do that.”

[Craig_G]

I’m imagining a bunch of old guys in the 1950’s arguing that the last classic vintage was sometime in the 30’s, what with those grotesque wines made in ‘45, ‘47 and ‘49.

[Keith_Levenberg]

I’m imagining a bunch of old guys in the 1950’s arguing that the last classic vintage was sometime in the 30’s, what with those grotesque wines made in ‘45, ‘47 and ‘49.

No joke. Plenty of old texts saying nothing was ever the same after phylloxera.

[Robert.A.Jr]

I have the same gut feeling but occasionally get trumped by people saying '81 was the last classic vintage… Regardless, I still see a dividing line between '00 and '05 (set aside '03 as climatically aberrational) and another even bolder dividing line between '05 and '09/'10, when the stylization got so extreme that some great chateaux actually managed to make wine that wasn’t even good.

I have thought of ‘04 as the last classic. ‘06 sometimes makes a case.

'14 gets my nod as the modern classic vintage I think.

2014, 2008 and 2004.

[Ron_Erickson]

I have thought of ‘04 as the last classic. ‘06 sometimes makes a case.

'14 gets my nod as the modern classic vintage I think.

2014, 2008 and 2004.

2004 d’Armailhac was in perfect balance tonight with a steak and Portabella mushrooms. Smooth tannin’s; Nose and now secondary fruit in that really good place. There’s enough to hold longer, but why.

[ATaylor]

Bien-sur, why wouldn’t 2000 Bordeaux still be going strong? They’ll outlive us all!

La police française ici…bien sûr

[Otto_Forsberg]

Like Keith I raised my eyebrows at the title of this thread, since I think 2000 is a vintage that at the high end will go 50 years easy and some of the bigger wines are just starting to open up.

I hope you are familiar with the concept of “clickbait”?

I think it’s a great vintage and if anything is still underrated.

At least in our tasting I didn’t get the feeling that it was underrated. I mean, everybody was there because of the high esteem of the vintage! Of course this is a classic example of selection bias.

It is common now to assume that vintages like 2005 and 2010 are superior to 2000 but I think the jury is very much still out on that. I don’t think 2000 had the same level of issues with over-extraction/over-ripeness and excessive alcohol/Parkerization that those vintages did. It strikes me as a much more classically styled vintage, particularly on the right bank but really also on the left.

I fully concur with this one.

This is a great TN. It really captures the contrast between the 100 point nose for this wine and the palate, which is still somewhat tough and ornery. If you had been able to sit with just this wine over the whole night the palate might have opened up more.

Well, the wines were decanted well beforehand and I did take a small sample with me to home to taste the next day. It hadn’t really budged, to be honest. All the more testament to its aging potential.

Threads like this of course destroy my chance of ever sneaking in a lowball bid at auction on this wine, so thanks for that >

I guess you just need to hope that random people won’t manage to google this thread and no fellow berserkers are attending the same actions as you!

[Jurgen_Steinke]

I am not sure if I got things right but some people meant Bordeaux (Cabernets) have to be slightly green for being great (Gilman etc.?). I disagree. The greatest Left Bank Bordeaux I had showed no green aspects. In example 1961 and 1982 Latour or 1989/1990 Haut Brion and LMHB.

[Otto_Forsberg]

I am not sure if I got things right but some people meant Bordeaux (Cabernets) have to be slightly green for being great (Gilman etc.?). I disagree. The greatest Left Bank Bordeaux I had showed no green aspects. In example 1961 and 1982 Latour or 1989/1990 Haut Brion and LMHB.

I’m not entirely sure, but this might have something to do with personal preferences.

[Jonathan_Loesberg]

Well Keith’s correction of the abbreviation would still stand. He just committed a common sin of those who act the Mrs. Grundy with others, making errors while trying to be impressive by correcting the errors of others.

No error. An intentional colloquialism.

If your experience is that acronym is a common colloquialism for abbreviation, you live among different just folks than I do–not that I’ve been living among many folks of any kind at all this past year.