My thoughts from the UGCB tasting in New York…
First, I will say that I have never been terribly excited by young Bordeaux and rarely understand when people gush effusively about a new release Bordeaux. I enjoy Napa cabs as well, but even there, I typically prefer them with some age. Overall, it’s a well balanced vintage. I didn’t find the wines to be super showy and big, but more restrained yet with excellent concentration. The wines I didn’t like were definitely an exception than the rule.
Yet, the flip side is the pricing. And I really don’t find the wines to be so incredible that I’m rushing out to buy at these prices, especially the ones inflated beyond EP prices. But, as I said, I’m not one who gets excited by young Bordeaux. I’m likely going to be waiting on the next vintage with 2014 pricing to buy deep, with the exception of some value wines. Disclosure: I bought a little bit of Beychevelle, Calon-Segur, and Leoville-Barton on EP. Double Disclosure: I don’t know diddly-poo what I’m talking about
The tasting
A couple asides: I really focused on the reds, though I did like Doisy Daene the most of the Sauternes I tasted. Also, the Chanel people - not the most generous pouring lot.
Pessac/Graves
Somehow I missed Carmes Haut Brion. I thought Haut-Bailly was the class of the appellation. It had very promising length with nice stony notes on the nose. Nothing showy about it, but H-B just felt very complete. Domaine de Chevalier was more open and fruit forward, and had a more delicious factor to it for current consumption. Pape-Clement was also really excellent. Perhaps a touch cleaner in feel than the others. Smith Haut Lafite almost felt tropical. Not a big fan, especially for the price tag.
Pomerol
For me, Gazin was by far my favorite from Pomerol. It was a little burlier and structured side, but super balanced/reserved yet with excellent concentration and length. Clinet I just found hard to get a bead on, but I did get a little more feral/funk which I liked. The others were just not for me. Beauregard was quite fruity, Le Bon Pasteur rather bitter and unpleasant, Rouget was hot, and La Cabanne was actually not bad for the price/appellation, but ultimately left me unexcited.
Moulis
My favorite wines for the money came from here: As you’d guess, Poujeaux and Chasse-Spleen. I think I prefer Poujeaux here as it showed more structure and depth, plus a little more of that wet stoniness on the palate. Comparatively, the Chasse-Spleen was more open and fruit-forward on the nose and palate, but still really well balanced. I will be picking some up when they land.
Haut-Medoc
I was most excited by La Lagune, but also very confused. It has a wonderfully fresh bouquet on the nose, a little herbaceousness that I enjoy. Excellent balance and structure. But on a second tasting later on, I started getting some bitterness which I strongly dislike. So, basically, this is a wine you’ve got to taste and spend time with before going deep on it, I think. Cantemerle was structured, but noticeably light in body and color.
Margaux
Brane-Cantenac was the class of the appellation in my opinion. Fine depth and balance, good structure. Dunno if it’s got that “Margaux perfume”, but as a general wine in this Bordeaux tasting, I thought it was really good. Cantenac-Brown, which I tasted next to Brane-Cantenac, had a little much of that sweet oak. Giscours is another property that I think did really well. It was probably the most open of all the Margaux, and had wonderful balance to it, maybe in a slightly more forward style. Kirwan was little too oaked for me, and lacked depth. Lascombes had a slight bitterness on the finish. Rauzan-Segla was elegant and clean, but maybe that’s because I had so little wine in my glass.
St. Julien
St. Julien as a whole I thought was pretty solid across the board. Beychevelle was my favorite of the tasting. It was also just so open on the nose, it had by far the most exciting aromas of the tasting. Really explosive. On the palate it was very elegant yet also very layered in a way that many of the others weren’t. It might be just a luck of the draw thing when it comes to how well a wine shows, as I don’t know if it’s necessarily a “better” wine than the others, or it just had a good day. But bad wines can’t show this well, right? ![[shrug.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/48636ebda2a440a43ad8d24c83be20ac20c53420.gif "shrug")
Gloria was just ok, Branaire-Ducru, Lagrange, and Gruard Larose were solid to very good. Langoa Barton I thought showed better to me than the Leoville-Barton. The Barton was more impressive in scale, perhaps was the “biggest” of the St. Julien. A lot going on but also with some new oak showing as well. I assume it needs time to settle in, but I’m a little more mixed on the Barton than most it seems. I actually preferred the Poyferre here, which was one of the bigger St. Julien, but felt better integrated.
Pauillac
These felt a little more closed to me, so I don’t get all the hype as to how well these showed at other tastings. None of these were exciting to drink right now. That said, The quality of both Pichons and the Lynch Bages were quite evident in their structure, depth, and relative complexity. I think the Baron showed best. This is where I think the vintage has gotten a little overhyped, though I don’t have the tasting experience. Based on what little i’ve tasted of 2010, I think I’d rather have the 2010s compared to what pricing I’m seeing now for the 2016s.
Anyways, GPL was good, but like Cantemerle, was quite light in body. I’m all for elegance, but it just felt light, rather than elegant. Silly enough, I may have mixed up Clerc Milon and d’Armailhac notes. I think I really like D’Armailhac and thought the Clerc Milon was a little simple… but thinking back, I’m not so sure.
St. Estephe
Heard good things about this commune in 2016, but the UGCB doesn’t really have all that much to offer. Wasn’t impressed by any of these. Phelan Segur was oaked and slightly astringent. Not about to pay $50 to see if I was wrong.
St. Emilion
I like Valandraud, though a bit clean. Pavie Macquin had a weird sweetness to the fruit, almost like cherry cough syrup. Found it hard to coax much of a nose from the meager Canon pour, though it did seem like it had really nice tannins and length. The tannins seem really super fine, almost powdery, and super elegant. That profile seems to be a hallmark of Nicholas Audebert, as I got the same feeling from the Rauzan-Segla. We’ll see what the wines are like when they age. In general, the wines from this commune I liked the most were also absurdly expensive and quite frankly, not offering much value (to me).
The bottom line (for me): Really good, balanced, low alcohol vintage. A lot to like here, but I don’t understand how it’s gotten 2010 level hype. This may be just my palate speaking, but I’ve been more impressed by the 2010s, so I don’t see myself paying close to 2010 prices. Plus, I thought everyone agreed that 2010 pricing was an abomination? It almost feels like everyone has been clamoring for so long for “restraint” and “low-alcohol”, that suddenly we’re awarding an extra 4-5 points just for not being big, monstrous wines.