WTN: 2000 Chateau Marjosse, Bdx

2000 Marjosse. An offering to an 'end of summer' deck party for a group of non-geeks who drink white zinfandel. I was not hoping for much. I got what I expected. Smells of black fruit and a bit of cedar and tobacco - pretty nice actually. Strong start in the mouth, but fading pretty quickly, and actually a bit hollow mid palate. Simple - the nose was more complex than it eventually delivered. Low on acidity, with modest and well behaved tannins, and with a short, but not unpleasant finish. This seems a bit better balanced than a couple of years ago, probably because the fruit has faded a bit and is more in balance with the low acidity and modest tannins.
I grabbed this bottle because I thought it would be unoffensive and soft, which it was, and might appeal to non-geeks. I was also guessing that this modest Bdx 2000 would be ready to go - and it was. But it is hard to see how it could be called a "sleeper of the vintage." I don't think there is any danger of it dying completely in the next few years if stored at reasonable temps, but it is not likely to get much better either. I'm marking the (few) remaining bottles DU.

[Jenise]

OW, don't know if you saw my post on another 'sleeper' (thread title: Sucker Punch) but it's a phrase Parker apparently often uses. Do you know if there any criteria associated with that term--I mean, is there any limit on price or classification or # of so-called sleepers--or does he just use it willy-nilly (as it seems to me) to refer to wines that perform beyond expectation?

Jenise, used to read his WA, and his big books, and don't recall him ever saying what he meant by "sleeper of the vintage" but here's what I am guessing. I have seen his use of that term for a large number of wines, and all of them (that I remember) seem to be in the lower price category, so I interpret it to mean that he thinks it is a hell of a nice wine for the price. I really don't think he is saying that it is the equivalent of a first or top 3d or 4th growth, or the scores would be the same and they don't seem to be. I don't really recall what "points" he gave that wine, and I know he has scored some wine in the 80s and called them "sleeper."
So, I doubt that there is a definite criteria, but also doubt it is "willy nilly" either. In the end, it probably adds nothing to his notes and score.

[Jenise]

OW, considering our conversation and my calling your attention to my Sucker Punch post (in which I trash the 00 Beaulieu Comtes de Tastes), I was amused by this email offer received yesterday:

2003 Beaulieu Comtes De Tastes (Superiore) - $11.99 (WA89)(WS/NR) LIMITED 12/person
Parker: “Situated northwest of Libourne, this 37-acre vineyard, planted with 50% Merlot, 30% Cabernet Franc, and 20% Cabernet Sauvignon, has fashioned a sleepers of the vintage. Produced from 60% Merlot and 40% Cabernet Franc, the dense ruby/purple-hued 2003 exhibits an opulent black raspberry and cherry-scented bouquet offering hints of cedar, vanilla, and roasted herbs. Beautifully-textured, medium to full-bodied, with silky tannin, it can be enjoyed now and over the next 5-7 years. 89pts”

Don't buy, he lies! Run away!

There you have it.

"a sleeper of the vintage. ... an opulent black raspberry and cherry-scented bouquet offering hints of cedar, vanilla ....

Sleeper means over-extracted fruit bomb, over-oaked, with soft tannins and no mention of acidity at all, all for around $12. I think I'll pass.

[David M. Bueker]

Many bottles of 2000 Marjosse are totally dead. You were lucky.

And "sleeper" is used for wines that he likes at a good price. I've seen it applied to more traditional wines at times, as long as they were inexpensive for their quality.