WTN: 2004 Bordeaux at Franks

A good group of eleven guys gathered at Frank's steakhouse last night for meat and a look at some 2004 Bordeaux. We didn't taste blind, and flights weren't totally tradtional as we had uneven representation from some communes, and were trying not to have too many flights. A good night, with some good wines, and a couple not so good ones.

White starters:

2004 Carbonnieux Blanc (Pessac-Leognan0
Sweet, apricot and apple fruit, a little grassy. Light oak. More Sauvignon-ish than its companion. B

2004 Plantiers du Haut-Brion (Pessac-Leognan)
Citric, but rounder than the Carbonnieux. I hurried through this one (reds were coming), but liked it. B

The reds
Flight One
2004 Clos Les Lunelles (Cotes de Castillon)
Low acid, thick, sweet. A little oaky, but impressively big for appelation. Very very modern, but well made. Just not my preferred style. B/B-

2004 Pavie Macquin (St Emilion)
Sweet black plum and berry fruit. Showing its tannins, but I like the fruit core and a graphite/mineral note. I probably liked more than others. I paid $38, and am happy with buy. B+

2004 Lascombes (Margaux)
A bit too much wood sticking out for me. Dense and extracted, but none of the floral/berry aromas I look for in Margaux. For such a dense wine surprisingly short. Maybe my least favorite of tasting. B-/C+

Flight Two
2004 Gazin (Pomerol)
A pleasant surprise, easily stands toe to toe with its more expensive flightmates. Tasty and rich, with some depth. Nice ripe Pomerol. B+

2004 L'Eglise Clinet (Pomerol)
Good length, but a hard core I didn't care for so much. Still, this may blossom with time. B

2004 Vieux Chateau Certan (Pomerol)
Good acidity, beautiful red fruit, length. Less lush and more Medoc-ish than flightmates, as expected. Fairly big tannins, but they seem smooth and ripe. Nice wine down the road, I'd bet. B+/A-

Flight Three
2004 Leoville Barton (St. Julien)
Some really disliked this (Jaouen was trying to fill in for Belden as chif anti-Bartonite), but I enjoyed a lot. Nice Bordeaux nose of cassis and cedar. Good ripe fruit, but a backbone of acidity and tannin. B+/A-

2004 Leoville Poyferre (St. Julien)
Very sweet fruit, a charred note. Very extracted. Others liked more than I did. B/B-

2004 Leoville Las Cases (St. Julien)
Surprisingly forward. Sweet fruit, both black and red. Easy-going. Not what I expect from LLC, but very tasty. B+/A-

Flight Four
2004 Ducru-Beaucaillou (St. Julien)
Rather floral nose, with big black fruit and a little vanilla. Almost Pomerol lushness, but there is enough acid to keep lively. I enjoy quite a bit. A-/B+

2004 Montrose (St. Estephe)
I found this hard and ungiving, others liked better. Oak and tannins, I find short. Maybe just shut down, but I paid $59, would not do again. B

2004 Cos d'Estournel (St. Estephe)
I was also surprised at how open this was. Cassis fruit and some spice, I like much better than the Montrose. A-/B+

Flight Five
2004 Lafite-Rothschild (Pauillac)
Call me a label whore, but my favorite of night. We were really lucky, first bottle was corked but Paul had brought backup. Full without being heavy, blackcurrant and black cherry fruit, lead pencil and earth. Really nice. A-

2004 Lynch Bages (Pauillac)
Ripe red fruit and easy, but short and lacking structure compared to its flightmates. B-

2004 Pichon Baron (Pauillac)
Outclassed by the Lafite, but one of the few wines that I thought maybe deserved a lookout from QPR standpoint. Medium to full bodied, bright dark fruit, some wood but reasonably integrated for this age. Nice wine. B+

Flight Six

2004 Pape Clement (Pessac-Leognan)
Others liked this better than I. I found the nose almost offensive, a weird coconut oil/sun tan lotion thing mixing with a lot of oak. Better on palate, ripe and full, but not a buy for me. B-

2004 Haut Bailly (Pessac-Leognan)
Unlike some others recently, I did not find this problematically oaky. Midweight Graves with red fruit and a little cigarbox. Not very exciting, but certainly not out of the realm of what I think of as normal young Bdx oakiness. B

2004 Palmer (Margaux)
I liked this far better than its flightmates. "Margauxberries", some tobacco and graphite. Smooth but strutured. B+

Straggler:
2004 Branaire-Ducru (St Julien).
Lots of oak, but nice sweet dark berry fruit. Better than last I tried. B/B+

and
1985 Ferreira Vintage Port
 Opened three hours, but not decanted. Only chance to take a quick sniff and taste, it seems a bit hot and volatile, but nice red fruit.

I had to scram, but nice night. Some opined they wouldn't really be in market for any of these. I think a good price on the Gazin, Cos, or Pichon Baron might tempt me; and I'm happy to own Leoville Barton and Pavie Macquin. My favorite wines included the Lafite, Ducru, LLC and VCC, but I can't see paying their prices.

Thanks to Matt for organizing, and to Arv for venue arrangements. I thought Frank's has a nice backroom and good service. I didn't love my escargots (shoulda have gone for tripe), shell steak was ok. Some of the sides were quite good.

Good night, with lots of enjoyable disagreement.

Grade disclaimer: I'm a very easy grader, basically A is an excellent wine, B a good wine, C mediocre. Anything below C means I wouldn't drink at a party where it was only choice. Furthermore, I offer no promises of objectivity, accuracy, and certainly not of consistency

Having just dropped a bundle on some '04s (in light of another post on the subject), I'm happy to read your post, Dale. Why do you think there were differences of opinion on the Leoville Barton - (wait, that's not a question that easy to answer, I suppose so how about this:) What did the others taste that you didn't?

Man..what is not to like on the 04 Leoville Barton? Rhetorical question, but its flavor profile is classic Bordeaux.

Richard

A very fun night of interesting wine comparison and intriguing conversation. Although many (most?) participants didn't think they were buyers of these wines at their current prices, I think several of them are decent buys in today's market. I think if you're not buying these, you are out of the Bordeaux market for the near future. I found it a good collection of wine. Most of the best are tragically overpriced, but some are relatively reasonable.

For me the Gazin and Leoville Barton are buys, the Montrose, Pavie Mac, Ducru, Cos and Pichon Baron possible buys.

2004 Clos Les Lunelles
Dense and rough with a dark streak. Some licorice. Dark, bitter finish. A bit high on the alcohol.
B/B-

2004 Château Pavie Macquin
Smooth, dark, silky, classy. Young and tannic, needs some time to mature. Sweet berry. Very nice, should blossom.
B/B+

2004 Château Lascombes
Very dark, oaky, disjointed with dry tannins. A little funky. My least favorite of the tasting.
B-


2004 Château Gazin
Smooth, silky, rich. Not a lot of tannin, drinking well now. Lots of purple fruit. Very nice.
B/B+

2004 Château L'Eglise-Clinet
Dense, sweet, not a lot of structure but nice smooth fruit. Nice core. A bit dry.
B

2004 Vieux Château Certan
Sweet and smooth. Rich with a bit of backbone. A nice wine, but very hard to justify the price.
B+


2004 Château Léoville Poyferré
Bright, high toned fruit and some tight tannins. Smooth, clean, a little sweet with some vanilla. Good, but perhaps a bit too sweet in style.
B/B+

2004 Château Léoville Barton
Deep, dark with some dense tannins. Licorice and burnt rubber with long finish. Stuffed. Very very good wine.
B+/A-

2004 Château Léoville Las Cases
Floral nose, sweet, bright, clean. Classy with a long finish. High toned, but lacks weight. Very pretty.
B++


2004 Château Ducru-Beaucaillou
Rich, sweet, complex. Beautiful. Very smooth. A bit high toned. Very nice.
B++

2004 Château Montrose
Dense and a bit flat. Has a dark streak. A little difficult to judge now, this seemed to be starting to shut down. Brawny.
B++

2004 Château Cos d'Estournel
Rich, smooth, dense. Very very nice.
B+/A-


2004 Château Pichon-Longueville Baron
Rich, round, full with purple fruit. Should be a wine for medium term aging. Some acidic tannins, but less structured and softer than some others of the tasting.
B+

2004 Château Lynch-Bages
Good fruit, but a bit angular and acidic. Not a lot of charm.
B/B-

2004 Château Lafite Rothschild
Beautiful nose. Rich, full with some herbal notes, tobacco, and a sweet core. Very complex and very Lafite. Needs some age. Wonderful wine, easily the WOTN.
A-


2004 Château Branaire (Duluc-Ducru)
Sweet and smooth. Easy drinking. Lacks body.
B


2004 Château Pape Clément
Bright and sweet, a bit overly much. Long cola finish. Clean.
B

2004 Château Palmer
Lots of stuffing, dense. Good complexity with a very nice warmth to it. Needs time to mature.
B++

2004 Château Haut-Bailly
A bit stiff, tannic. Lacks a bit of charm, but not a bad wine. Needs time.
B/B+


Votes for wine of each flight:
Lunelles 3
Pavie Mac 8
Lascombes 0

Gazin 2
L'Eglise Clinet 2
VCC 7

Poyferre 1
Barton 5
LLC 5

Ducru 6
Montrose 1
Cos 4

Baron 0
Lynch 0
Lafite 11

Pape 1
Palmer 8
Haut Bailly 0

WOTN was overwhelmingly (unanimously?) Lafite. There was discussion of runners up centering mostly around Ducru, Cos and Palmer I believe.

[David M. Bueker]

I know I am biased as I already have a case of '04 Barton, but I just love the stuff.

Dale wrote....Some opined they wouldn't really be in market for any of these.

Nice big selection there Dale, I had the same feeling after my `04 tasting last week! Big surprise the Barton was not that popular.

[Jenise]

Dale and Matt, thanks for the notes. Had some trouble putting your comments about pricing into perspective since I haven't been monitoring retail, so I went Winezapping and found, for instance, the Montrose averaging $80-90 and the VCC at $115. Compared to the nearly identically rated 02 Montrose which can still be had in the $45-60 range, I see your point.

Only one I've had is the Palmer, which was in clear A territory for me, but then I didn't enjoy it in a comparative tasting. I sometimes wonder if that really makes me more objective or just unneccessarily finicky.

Dale and Matt,

Thank you for the notes and so sorry to have missed the tasting. I'll catch you guys next time.

Matt, thanks for notes and for vote totals.

Jenise, don't know about Winezap, but Winesearcher shows 6-10 places with 2004 Montrose at under $60. And 2002 Montrose mostly in $50s (JJBuckley has for $45, but I worry about provenance at these dump houses). So not much difference. Except frankly, I thought the 2002 Montrose was worse than the mediocre 2004. So maybe not best example.

There were some good wines, but few good bargains. I thought there were more deals in 2002s at release (Cos, Lagrange, etc) but those are mostly gone.

Jacques, Matt started off the evening with a toast to you. You were missed. See you in November.

[Jenise]

So you gave it a B, which under most circumstances means above average, but it's "mediocre"?

[David M. Bueker]

Dale's not nearly as easy a grader as he says he is.

So you gave it a B, which under most circumstances means above average, but it's "mediocre"?

Jenise,while I explicitly make no claims of consistency, especially about grades, I'd say a look at my hundreds of notes on classified Bordeaux would put a B pretty squarely in the middle -mediocre. A B from me for a $12 Cotes du Rhone, $9 Muscadet, $10 NZ SB might be a buy again, but it wouldn't be a rush out to look for. But a B for a $59 Bordeaux is a definite no-buy for me (for Matt, who gave it B++ and typically is stingier than I am, maybe its a buy).

David, I think I am a pretty easy grader. But also most of my grades are Bs because mostly I buy things I think I might like. If I bought more random $8 Cal Cabs I'd have a lot more Cs. But 90+% of the wine I buy is either from a producer I've liked before, or on a rec from a friend (online or offline) whose tastes I find compatible.

[Jenise]

So your scale is actually a six point scale ranging from A+ to B-, wherein no truly average wines are in contention, and where because expectations are higher any B grade is actually just average or even less than average for this level of wine.

Hmmm. I shall read your TN's from here on out with a new eye. I guess what your system does, though, is guarantee that there is some consistency from TN to TN, event to event. I use a letter grade system too iwhen I take notes, but I don't publish them because I'm too concerned about inconsistency. My grades are strictly relative to the event, it's my way of ranking the wines in a sense, and I'm aware that a wine that made an A impression among lesser wines could become a B wine with stronger competition.

So your scale is actually a six point scale ranging from A+ to B-, wherein no truly average wines are in contention, and where because expectations are higher any B grade is actually just average or even less than average for this level of wine.

Hmmm. I shall read your TN's from here on out with a new eye. I guess what your system does, though, is guarantee that there is some consistency from TN to TN, event to event. I use a letter grade system too iwhen I take notes, but I don't publish them because I'm too concerned about inconsistency. My grades are strictly relative to the event, it's my way of ranking the wines in a sense, and I'm aware that a wine that made an A impression among lesser wines could become a B wine with stronger competition.

Wow, as I've said before, this is a seat of the pants grading system, and I make NO claims of consistency (or objectivity or accuracy). I'd say there were more than 6 points, as I have given a few Ds (and a couple Fs, for wines that had truly fatal flaws), and a lot of Cs. But yes, the majority of my notes are probably in B range, because I buy wines I hope are good (well, I hope are great, but usually happy with good if not too pricey).

A C is what I'd tend to give the average wine you'd get at some non-geek reception, or house wine in a non-wine oriented tavern. C- means I just wouldn't drink it, period. A B I'd call a good wine (in the general category of wine). An A is a great wine. If I'm going to spend more than $40-50 I'd like to hope it might reach A level.

I make no claims that a B on Monday is the same as a B on Wednesday, though I'd hope I was at least in same ballpark. And I have more than once posted a disclaimer "note, due to great lineup, tougher grading than usual." after especially great lineups.

I'm sorry if this is confusing to you. It makes sense to me. I mostly put grades on my notes so I can get a general sense of what I preferred on a given night. Beyond that my notes are more useful to me than the grades. But, yes, as the Montrose was for me a B, and it costs $59, it is a no-buy. Since there are 2004 Bdx like du Tertre, Lagrange, Issan that were $25 and got B+s.

Here is how I generally think of my wine scale (courtesy of Jay Miller):

A - This wine is great!
     +Oh my god!  Nothing can be this good!  But it is!
      Magnificent, complete, glorious
     -This is all I can ask for in a wine
B - This wine is good!
     +This wine is really good!
      This wine is quite good!
     -This wine is pretty good
C - This is wine!
     +This wine is ok
      This wine is drinkable
     -This wine is flawed
D - Is this wine?!
     +Wow, did they mean it to taste like this?
      They couldn't possibly have meant it to taste like this
     -Ick, yuck, phooey!
 

You will rarely see me rate a wine below C+ because
a) I try not to drink those wines
b) I usually won't bother posting on such wines

I also tend to split hairs with "++" or "B/B+" even though it drives Jacques crazy.


I think, Jenise, that it is unfortunate if you don't post notes because you are unsure of your consistency. I think none of us are perfect and I certainly don't think my notes are always fully consistent, but I post because I think people might be interested and I assume that all notes (including those from Parker, Tanzer, Robinson et al) are to be taken with a grain of salt. In reality, though, I take notes for my own sake.

Matt, Jenise regularly posts excellent notes, she was just saying she doesn't include grades because of consistency worries. I'm probably even less consistent, but figure if I put a disclaimer no one can blame me!

Jay's scale is a better and funnier explanation than mine. I wish he still posted here regularly, but apparently the "wine" in the site name bans it from his work computer.

Thanks for the notes, Dale and Matt.

I enjoyed the company and the usual spirited, and fun, exchanges of views and banters during the dinner.

As for the wines, I was quite under-whelmed by vintage, or at least by those that we drank, as I agree with most of the tasters that the costs that they currently go for in the market do not justify the quality. BTW, I found most of the wines to be accessible and provide good drinking today, even as we just popped-and-poured.

In this tasting, I liked the Right Bank wines more than those from the Medoc. I’m glad to have gotten in on some early good prices on the Pomerols that we tasted. I thought their Merlot characteristics showed just the right level of fruit ripeness in balance with their respective overall structure. Other than the Pavie Macquin and the Palmer (if it gets significantly discounted), it doesn’t look like I will be chasing down any of the other wines in the flights.

In regards to the divided opinion on the Leoville Barton, even as I am a big fan of this estate with more vintages of this stashed away than any other producer, I was not impressed with this bottling at this stage. With a few bottles waiting for cool weather delivery, I hope they improve with bottle age.

It was good tasting with the guys again.

Ramon