Comments on: News from Bordeaux

By: larcis

larcis — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:53:04 +0000

[...] to re-taste the 2006s and the now bottled 2005s. The former have added a little weight now and arehttp://bbrblog.com/2007/10/08/news-from-bordeaux/Ch??teau Larcis-DucasseThe vineyard of larcis Ducasse is situated on one of the slopes renowned to [...]

By: Richard Jacobs

Richard Jacobs — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:35:05 +0000

Have to say I think Simon’s 15/20 for 2002 is rather mean. I’d say 17/20 for left-bank based on terrific bottles recently drunk of (eg) Poyferre, Calon, Tour Ht Brion, Lagrange etc (and very good and good value Duhart, Armailhac etc). The Poyferre I compared closely to the very good 04 and the 02 is certainly the more complete wine, a real classic – and the price is still good in the market!

Best -

Richard

By: Simon Staples

Simon Staples — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:10:54 +0000

@ Mark Pinsent

We did consider doing a BBR re-classification of Bordeaux while we were twiddling our thumbs waiting for the 2006 prices. Well, for about 30 seconds, then I considered never being invited to taste from the barrels again from our friends in Bordeaux and thought better of it. It definitely means far more to the owners than it does to us as Merchants and you the consumer. Perhaps a very well informed, independent journalist such as Jancis could put the proverbial chat amongst les pidgeons? I do think that even if a re-classification was drawn up – even for fun, perhaps we should leave it until the World Cup is a distant memory. It just wouldn’t be sporting now.

As for the scoring/points debate, many customers comment that they really appreciate the BBR Score (An average drawn from 6/10 experienced palates). They now triangulate not only the points but notes from a couple of merchants, maybe Jancis or Parker and make up their own minds rather than just going with one when they choose their En Primeur wines. Whichever way the consumer does choose, what is apparent to us is that following one “independent” writer and scores is far less popular now than 5 years ago.

By: Simon Staples

Simon Staples — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:52:16 +0000

The 2000’s are superb, amazingly sumptuous and forward, with probably only a handful of the Grand Vins not approachable now (and most petit Chateaux should be drunk up). They may well go the same way as the 1982’s i.e Drinking beautifully up to their 8/10th birthday and seemingly shutting down a little until their 20th.

I feel 2000 is closer to 1990 than 2005. It is rich and voluptuous but slightly lacks the cool inner core which most of the 2005’s boast. It’s a close call but what is great, if you have either vintage in your cellar, is that you are going to love them. If you are interested, my personal (and please note generalised) view on recent vintages is:

2006: 16/20 Left Bank.18/20 Right Bank.
2005: 20/20
2004: 17/20
2003: 16/20 General . 18/20 Northern Medoc
2002: 15/20
2001: 17/20
2000: 18/20
1999: 15/20
1998: 16/20 Left Bank. 18/20 Right Bank and Pessac
1997: 16/20
1996: 19/20 Medoc. 14/20 Right Bank.
1995: 17/20
1994: 14/20

By: billn

billn — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:17:39 +0000

I believe the 2005 vintage really will up there with 1982, 1961 and 1945 as one of the greatest ever. The other reason for our visit was to observe the harvest of the much talked about 2007.

Just out of interest, whatever happened to 2000?

By: Mark Pinsent

Mark Pinsent — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:13:51 +0000

In a slightly perverse way, I’m quietly pleased that 2007 is likely to be a great vintage, despite the very welcome Indian Summer we enjoyed down here. I’m no expert, but I’ve read that much of the newer technology employed in wine making has helped ‘flatten out’ the vintages…or at least made it easier to produce a decent wine in a less than decent year. Of course, the differences may be more apparent in the top quality wines (which I get to taste…well, never) but it’s nice to know that Mother Nature can still play a significant role.

But what chance, in your view, a reclassification in the next couple of decades? It’d be sticking your neck out, I’m sure, and I guess the chances of significantly revising the classification that’s been in place for more than 150 years (and within which there remains a huge vested interest) are slim. But with so many unclassified wine makers producing such exemplary wines these days, surely it will increasingly become redundant (as you point out).

At which juncture (if we haven’t already) we all become reliant on the points and scores from the well-known tasters and eliminate the inherent competitive advantage enjoyed by classed growths. Amen to that.