Léoville Barton & Langoa Barton from 98, 99, 01, 02

Jenise had a recent tasting note on the 99 Léoville-Barton here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18202

but I thought it made more sense to start a new thread on this broader topic.
Quite apart from the Barton vs. Barton battle we also had a sub-text of Parker vs Spectator – as we had the various ratings for each. And at the end we served the 95 Langoa Barton, which Parker scored lower (86) than all the above – and Spectator scored higher (93) than all!

And the overall conclusion? Snap up those 2002’s. This could be a sleeper vintage (although Clive Coates has always rated it highly).

Incidentally the 99 Léoville that Jenise wrote about was certainly not showing well. I rated it bottom (in the blind tasting) and one bottle (at least) was corked.

Maybe I don’t drink enough ‘young’ Bordeaux, but I was astonished at the very dark colour of all the wines – not seemingly showing any signs of age in the glass (but a different situation on the palate). And there was consistent concentrated sweet black fruit on the nose. However, almost without exception the wines seemed much lighter in the mouth, some showing vegetal components. But, of course, we weren’t trying the better regarded vintages.

With a group of 90+ people tasting blind, I think the results fairly show consumer preferences. The 2002 Léoville was a clear winner, with the 2001 Léoville just pipping the 2002 Langoa which, in turn, nudged out the 1999 Léoville and, similarly, the 2001 Langoa – which still showed well. Then a gap to the 1998 Léoville and bigger gaps to the 99 Langoa and the 98 Langoa (which were well adrift).

So certainly the Léoville Barton was a clear winner over the Langoa Barton in each vintage, but the star vintage was the 2002 (finishing 1st & 3rd overall).

So – do we trust the raters???? Well, we would expect a fairly good correlation – but I’m not sure we even got that. Parker performed not badly – but he certainly prefers the Léoville Barton (rated it higher in every vintage). That let him down in the 98 (in particular) which he scored 91 but finished 6th (out of . The correlation with WS scores was less impressive, particularly as they had the 2002’s in the lower half of their scores.

And for those of you (well not people reading this – but those others who rely on scores when buying wine) who only buy wines rated 90 or over, there were 3 in the tasting that BOTH Parker and Spectator rated 90 or over – and they finished 2nd, 3rd, and 6th!

And to underline this ‘reliability’ the 95 Langoa Barton – served separately (but not identified) split the group down the middle – roughly half would have rated it very high and half very low (as mentioned above, it got Parker’s lowest rating and the WS highest).

I too like both 2001 and 2002 Leoville Barton and, as I remember, almost in equal terms. The wines from this producer, imho, represent one of the few Bordeaux that were fairly valued during their release. As it’s been a while since I had either of these, your data point is useful to me.

It’s also been a few years since I dipped into my stashed bottles of the 1998 LB. While I remember to have been impressed with this vintage at the price point that I purchased them for, are there notes that you can share? I.e., drink now or later, decant, cook with, sell?

Thanks.

RC

I'm assuming you mean the 98 Léoville (not the Langoa) - the abbreviation could apply to both!
Colour: deep, almost black with some garnet in rim.
Nose: very sweet black fruit, almost syrupy - more California in style.
Taste: Still a bunch of tannin, with almost none of the sweet fruit found on the nose. main taste is vegetal, with pronounced leafiness. After an hour in the glass, it did seem to develop some fruit.
I rated this 7th out of 8 in the tasting. The group (around 90 people) had this 6th.

A general discussion (after the wines identities were revealed) felt this wine NEEDED food to dampen the tannins, which seemed out of balance.
Also, 1 of the bottles was corked (and replaced in the tasting). It could be that some of these off-flavours came from slight corkiness, which wasn't severe enough to be readily identified.

Incidentally the 98 Langoa didn't show the off flavours. It didn't have any complexity - just sat there and faded away!

Alan,

Thanks for the follow-up with the notes on the (yes!) 98 L Barton.
So, lot's of tannin and not much fruit. Hmmmm, I guess my primary recourse is just to hold on in storage and, perhaps, taste in a couple of years or so.

Ramon

[Jenise]

Jenise had a recent tasting note on the 99 Léoville-Barton here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18202

Alan, don't know how I missed this thread earlier. Great notes and interesting comparison of the two houses and current impressions vs. the critics. I'm curious, now that you've tasted the wine, do you think I described it fairly?

Interesting how well the 02's showed. I pretty much skipped that vintage, and mostly because I bought so much 01 and was less in the mood to purchase when the 02's came along. The wines I did want (LBarton was certainly one of them as, among others, David B. kept hollering about them) I couldn't seem to find at a price I was willing to pay and the bargains I hoped to eventually get never materialized. I've been afraid I would end up sorry, and today's the day.

[David M. Bueker]

Great thread that I missed while away on vacation. I am cellaring 98, 99, 01 and 02 Leoville Barton & love them all. The 99 is my "what can I drink from my cellar without commiting criminal infanticide" Bordeaux. The 98 is brooding, backward & in need of serious time. The 01 and 02 are both such great values (as is the 04 by the way), and drinkable now or definite cellar candidates.

I've never bought Langoa because Leoville was so fairly priced. Of course now both are out of range.

In round numbers there was a $20-$25 difference between the Langoa and the Léoville. I'd certainly spring the extra $20. But the 2002 were the cheapest!
On the Léoville-Barton (in order):
The 1998 still has plenty of tannin (which theoretically will repay keeping). HOWEVER, the fruit is already fading and it is developing some vegetal characteristics, so I would try a bottle now - with food preferably. Incidentally, one bottle of this was corked and its possible the others are exhibiting this to a lesser extent. After a 'severely' corked bottle the others seemed OK (in comparison), but reviewing my notes in hindsight, corkiness could explain this lack of fruit and the vegetal notes I found.
The 1999 was just simple and lacked complexity. Probably fully developed (which would fit with your notes Jenise). Drink up.
The 2001 was classic 'Californian Cab' on nose - blackcurrant leapt out. But the taste wasn't as concentrated. All the components were there but it lacked complexity. I guessed it was in its dumb phase.
The 2002 was brighter all round. A bit more acid giving it more elegance and a longer finish. Drink now or keep.

[David M. Bueker]

Let's just say that my experiences are different. I last tasted the '98-'02 (all 4) about 18 months ago, and they were all very young.

The '01 was already shut down back then, so your thoughts on that make sense to me.

The '02 is holding open surprisingly longer than I would have expected. It's such a classic Bordeaux vintage that I would have thought it might clam up even harder than the 2001.

The '99 was quite drinkable at the tasting. Was it a profound Barton? No. Was it delicious, fruity and very young (from my cellar by the way)? Yes. I see no reason to drink it up, other than I don't have much other Barton I am willing to sacrifice.

The '98 (also from my cellar) was dense and tannic, begging for 5+ more years in the cellar.

In closing I will say that for whatever reason I often find that bottles from my cellar are not just less advanced, but significantly less advanced that the bottles I hear about on line. This is not the first time that I have heard "drink up" used for a wine that I thought was too young to be approachable.

[Jenise]

In closing I will say that for whatever reason I often find that bottles from my cellar are not just less advanced, but significantly less advanced that the bottles I hear about on line. This is not the first time that I have heard "drink up" used for a wine that I thought was too young to be approachable.

I would be one who has had that conversation with you. Which compels me to add that my 99's were acquired second hand.

Just a comment on storage.
These were shipped direct from the chateau last year and kept in cool storage until earlier this year when they were moved to a basement over which I have no control. However it is air-conditioned and this has been a relatively cool summer.

All LOOKED very young in the glass - all were darker than I expected in appearance - I wouldn't have picked any of them as Bordeaux, based on appearance, so I was expecting them to taste young. That was the shock for all of them, as only the 98 was showing any tannin (but, to be fair, I generally 'feel' rather than 'taste' tannin, so my palate is often used to taste young Bordeaux as I can determine what is behind the harsher tannins).

And to reiterate - a group of around 90 people had the 02 Leoville way out front, and the 01 second, with the 02 Langoa Barton close behind in 3rd place, with 3 of the 98/99's occupying the bottom 3 places (the 99 Leoville finishing 4th). And all the wines were acquired, shipped and stored together and served blind. And I did the scoring and there were no obvious diferences between bottles. Ratings were fairly consistent throughout the room (e.g. the first place wine was never rated lower than 5th (once and 4th once) and the last place never higher than 5th. And the 98 Leoville did receive one 1st place vote, and several 2nds (but multiple 7th and 8th). Certainly divergencies on this wine - probably more than any other.

Of course, I would never argue with your (or anyone else's) taste.

[James Roscoe]

Alan, didn't we taste some of these at MoCool? My memory is hazy to say the least.

alan, wonderful stuff here. it was good meeting you at mocool. i have a reservation at treadwell for oct 2 and am looking forward to it. thanks for the reco.

Not sure how I missed these threads on the Leoville Barton, one of my favorite producers, for lots of reasons. I have enjoyed the '99 multiple times, though not recently. I suppose it is time to re-visit. For recent vintages, I've preferred to '01 to the '99 followed by the '97 and then the '79 and '94 at about the same pleasure level. I have found the '00 to be quite tight the couple of times I've tried it and have not been particularly impressed. I have not yet opened any of my '02s or '04s, and I have an '82 and a '67 that I will likely pop before the year is out.

[David M. Bueker]

Jim,

I opened a bottle of the 2000 shortly after release & it was just amazing. A friend opened one of his (from the same OWC) a few months later & it had already clamped down hard as a rock. The same thing has happened with the fabulous 2003 Barton. I would expect the same result from the 2005 if I could afford it.

Alan, didn't we taste some of these at MoCool? My memory is hazy to say the least.

No not a hazy memory (unless mine is also). I don't recall having any there!

David, no '05s here either, for the same reason. The pricing got crazy, something that I have liked about LB. They, or the market, have held the line on super-premium prices (well, 2000 was no real bargain, nor was '03) for the most part but '05.. yikes!!.

[Jenise]

Not sure how I missed these threads on the Leoville Barton, one of my favorite producers, for lots of reasons.

One of mine, too. You know, it really is a shame I moved away--now that your palate's settled down, we could have some real fun.

You know, it really is a shame I moved away--now that your palate's settled down, we could have some real fun.

Phone drinking??

[Jenise]

I'm there....[voice lowers an octave]....what are you wearing?

I'm there....[voice lowers an octave]....what are you wearing?

Where's that dump bucket.. ok.. too many insider jokes here for the washed and unwashed masses.. but I knew you'd be on my wave length in the blink of an eye.. or is that a flutter??