Do you hate Bordeaux?

No, I love the stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The mistake the journalist makes is to see Bordeaux monolithically, whereas the variety is simply eye-popping.

I like Burgundy as well, but it is like playing Russian roulette, and far less reliable.

Furthermore, when you see the sales of top Bordeaux (whatever the price, it seems...), and the interest from around the world, it is apparent that the stuff is not being consumed only by a bunch of retrograde old farts.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Bordeaux is the wine region which first drew me deeper into this hobby/obsession, and as such, it is my first love and occupies a very special place in my heart.
I could never hate Bdx, not even as the prices of some of my favorites escalate beyond all reason.

Bordeaux was also my entry into winegeekery, and remains largest single part of my cellar. I do know quite a few Bdx- haters, and feel sorry for them.

I will say that while I own more Bdx than anything else, it's not on top for daily drinking. As with Asimov, that is to a large part a function of the food I eat. Also I think Bordeaux is a bit of a crapshoot below $30, though with some experience its not that hard to figure what to buy.

Such a statement reflects a palate raised on Sunny Delite and "Energy Drinks." I know there is no "right answer" when it comes to taste, in wine or anything else, but sometimes the conventional wisdom (i.e., Bordeaux is great) is conventional for a reason-it's true.

I think the one statement Mr. Asimove makes that is 110% true is this:

"Two weeks ago the wine panel took a look at what $50 could get you among 2004 Napa Valley cabernet sauvignons. In my column today, we follow up with what $50 buys among 2004 Médocs. The comparison in terms of value is not even close, as $50 buys you a lot more in Bordeaux than in Napa, at least among the 2004s."

I would generalize that even more to what $20 buys you. while you can (still) find good Napa Cabs in the 50s, I can count on one hand the number of good, or even acceptable, Napa Cabs in the $20 range! At least to my palate, the bone dry austere off-appellation 2004 Medocs and Haut Medocs are more enjoyable than, say, industrial plonk sourced from generic "Central Coast" or even worse, the Valley.

But then, I'm not a big fan of ripe big fruit in Bordeaux varietal wines (or excess oak). My fear is stories like this, along with global warming, will lead to more "California-ized" French wines like the 2003 Chateau Fourcas-Hostens Listrac Medoc (note, it was still "good" but very rich and fruity!)

Couple of comments on why some people dislike Bordeaux:

1) The first growths are ridiculously priced and the comment "consumed only by a bunch of retrograde old farts" is somewhat accurate and leaves a bad impression. So unless you are rich, which I am not, or you bought them years ago, which I did, most first growths are out of the price range. Regardless, as the article says, for $50 you get a better deal in Bordeaux than in CA, lots of $50 classified stuff and up and coming unclassified stuff.

2) To me the biggest drawback to Bordeaux is that is needs time, unless you get an RP goopy one. Many more people are drinking wine but very few cellar wine. Bordeaux takes time to evolve and hot weather, more upfront wines, do not.

3) Bordeaux, and cabernet in general, are not good food wines. It is much more enjoyable to drink an Oregon PN, Beaujolais or '05 Bourgogne with most foods.

Having said all of that, I personally love Bordeaux. Bordeaux is the largest part of my cellar and IMHO the most cerebral and rewarding wine to drink when it is in its drinking window. Another plus is the good stuff has the ability to last seemingly forever. When my wife and I want to open a really good wine it is almost always a Bordeaux.

Walt

Such a statement reflects a palate raised on Sunny Delite and "Energy Drinks."

Surely you aren't referring to the Bordeaux-Hater Mr. Young Lyle Fass quoted in the article?

If ever there were a lover of fruit-less battery acid wine, Lyle would be him.

3) Bordeaux, and cabernet in general, are not good food wines. It is much more enjoyable to drink an Oregon PN, Beaujolais or '05 Bourgogne with most foods.



Walt

I agree that Bordeaux, particularly left bank, is a poor match for a lot of modern, particularly Asiatic influenced sweet and sour, food. However, IMHO, it is still a perfect match for good plain European food, for classical French cooking of a less complicated kind and maybe, heresy, for some Italian dishes.

Such a statement reflects a palate raised on Sunny Delite and "Energy Drinks."

Surely you aren't referring to the Bordeaux-Hater Mr. Young Lyle Fass quoted in the article?

If ever there were a lover of fruit-less battery acid wine, Lyle would be him.

Nah... I was more generalzing.

What is interesting is introducing Bordeaux to people who are becoming interested in wine but have to date (here in Cali, at least) primarily drunk California (or Australian) fruitm bombs. Sometimes, they are amazed at how "different" and delicious a Bordeaux can be-even the cheapies. we finished off a bottle of Chateau Odesea 2005 the other week-definitely not a classed growth, probably a little raw (2005) but thoroughly enjoyable. I'm not sure I could say the same thing about many $20 Napa Merlots.

Bordeaux is often best matched with meat, and not just any meat but a strong one like lamb, duck, venison, etc., not the everyday stuff of any of us IMO.

I totally agree and never have grilled lamb chops without opening a Bordeaux. The problem is how many times a month do we eat lamb, duck or venison. Bordeaux is by no means an impossible food match but as the world tends towards lighter fare I think Bordeaux is better enjoyed with a baguette or nice cheese rather than with food. Great Bordeaux takes thought, is cerebral, is complex, can be fantastic and as such I do not drink it with my seafood, pasta or chicken dishes.

Walt

I hated Bordeaux long before it was cool!

When it is on, it can be very nice. Other than that, it's rather boring and predictable.

Best,
Joe

While it was a Calif red that got me into wine (the 1984 Estancia) and my cellar has many west coast bottles, I will always like and respect Bdx. The main reason for this is that the most memorable wines I have had have been Bdxs, not Calif (1983 Ch. Margaux, for one of the best examples). There is no ignoring the history and impact of France but it's just one of several wine regions of the world now.

While it was a Calif red that got me into wine (the 1984 Estancia) and my cellar has many west coast bottles, I will always like and respect Bdx. The main reason for this is that the most memorable wines I have had have been Bdxs, not Calif (1983 Ch. Margaux, for one of the best examples). There is no ignoring the history and impact of France but it's just one of several wine regions of the world now.

I once had the '82 Margaux and the '83 Margaux side by side. Probably the best two wines tasted together in my wine drinking history. Both were fantastic.
Walt

Walt wrote:

>I totally agree and never have grilled lamb chops without opening a Bordeaux. The problem is how many times a month do >we eat lamb, duck or venison.

But don't Americans eat beef?
And what better drink with a roast of beef or good steak than claret, I ask you?

Joe wrote:

"rather boring and predictable"

Which is one hell of a virtue compared to Burgundy, for instance, which is up to expectations how many times out of 10?
I'll tell you, one hell of a lot less than Bordeaux!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Think of Bordeaux as your wife and Burgundy as your mistress (a famous saying, anyone know who said it first?).

Burgundy can be very seductive, but most frequently not for the long haul. It is volatile, unpredictible, and you have to open heaps and loads of bottles to find the magic....
OK, when it's there, it's awesome. But, is it worth the hassle, and expense?

If you find beauty in classical music or great literature, does that make you boring and predictable?

I think not. Bordeaux is the yardstick by which all red wines are judged, and generally holds its own.
OK, there's always Pinot Noir, but how often is that really *serious"?

Best regards,
Alex R.

Walt wrote:

>I totally agree and never have grilled lamb chops without opening a Bordeaux. The problem is how many times a month do >we eat lamb, duck or venison.

But don't Americans eat beef?
And what better drink with a roast of beef or good steak than claret, I ask you?

Alex,
I eat about one piece of beef a month plus maybe some beef in a stew or soup. Lamb is our red meat of choice. We don't eat horse over here but that would probably go good with a Bordeaux. I find beef boring and much prefer fresh seafood, chicken or pork with fresh herbs and seasoning. 30% of my cellar is Bordeaux going back to '70 and maybe 7-8% Burgundy, mostly village stuff. Regardless I think with most food we prepare, Burgs go better plus I am a fan of Oregon Pinot Noirs.
Walt

Which is one hell of a virtue compared to Burgundy, for instance, which is up to expectations how many times out of 10?

9/10. Bordeaux: 3/10. I love Bordeaux - when it is in that particular style that I happen to like, it is among my favourite wines alongside Musar and Ruwer & Saar Riesling. Sadly the style that I happen to like seems to be a figment of my imagination or then styles have changed over the five or so years that I have been a hard-core geek. Five years is a very short time, so I fully accept that my tastes have changed or the vintages have all been disadvantageous or any number of other possibilities, but my current hypothesis is that there is a stylistic convergence towards a more "modern" style in Bordeaux since the 1998 vintage. It seems that year to year, I can't trust properties that I liked before. I thought Haut-Bailly '03 surprisingly good and "traditional" for the year; yet '04 - despite what I read on-line - disappointingly oaky at the same stage and more "modern" in style. There have been so many such instances that I find Bordeaux much more of a minefield than Burgundy. Maybe many or even most of these wines will develop into such wines that I find I enjoy now, but even in my wildest imaginings I can't see how that could be possible. My imagination is obviously very limited. </end troll>

-Otto

Who said anything about Burgundy?

As it happens, I do like Burgundy, but I don't buy much anymore. Have you seen the prices lately? $175 for the 2005 Barthod Les Cras, $145 for d'Angerville Champans...

Traditional Rioja and Barolo are much more aromatic (I'd rather smell a wine than drink it) than Bordeaux.

Wines of the Northern Rhone typically have savory richness on the palate which I also prefer.

Most Bordeaux emphasizes rigidly structured wines. The tannin in Cab based Bordeaux distracts me, so I find the most enjoyment when the wines start to go over the hill.

Now, if you want to talk about white Bordeaux, I'll happily discuss the many merits of Ch. Fieuzal.

Best,
Joe

Who said anything about Burgundy?

As it happens, I do like Burgundy, but I don't buy much anymore. Have you seen the prices lately? $175 for the 2005 Barthod Les Cras, $145 for d'Angerville Champans...

Traditional Rioja and Barolo are much more aromatic (I'd rather smell a wine than drink it) than Bordeaux.

Wines of the Northern Rhone typically have savory richness on the palate which I also prefer.

Most Bordeaux emphasizes rigidly structured wines. The tannin in Cab based Bordeaux distracts me, so I find the most enjoyment when the wines start to go over the hill.

Now, if you want to talk about white Bordeaux, I'll happily discuss the many merits of Ch. Fieuzal.

Best,
Joe

Joe,
Have you considered a palate and nose replacement? I am a fan of Rioja but as far as aromatics the nose of an old Bordeaux cannot be surpassed.
Walt

Every time I read one of Alex's diatribes I like Bordeaux a little less.

I'd say my disappointment level is about the same for Bordeaux and Burgundy, about 10-15%. Knowing what producers one likes makes disappointments reasonably few and far between.

If the comparison is just red Bdx vs. red Burg, I'd take Bdx with lamb, beef, venison*,goose* and pheasant*; but Burg with chicken, pork, duck, quail*, salmon, rabbit*, mushrooms, and many other foods (of course preparation makes a difference -Burg with boeuf bourg.). But reality is that we drink about equally white and red, and reds are split between Burg, Bdx, Piedmont, Loire, Rhone, Tuscany,CA, Rioja, etc etc etc. So Bordeaux for dinner is maybe once every two weeks, max.

*1-5 time a year foods, most common meats are probably chicken, duck,beef, pork and lamb in our house

I am a fan of Rioja but as far as aromatics the nose of an old Bordeaux cannot be surpassed.
Walt

You must be joking! They can, have and continue to be surpassed.

The most memorable wines that I've tasted have been from Burgundy, but the most consistently excellent wines I've had have been from Bordeaux. I actually find alot of quality at the low end, $40 and less, which is almost never the case with Burgs.

I actually find alot of quality at the low end, $40 and less, which is almost never the case with Burgs

That's a rather expensive "low end".

$40 can buy you a mighty nice Spätlese from the Mosel or Nahe, or a mighty nice Grüner or Riesling from the Wachau.

Wake me up when Bordeaux can deliver consistent satisfaction in the $9.99 to $14.99 range.

Wake me up when Bordeaux can deliver consistent satisfaction in the $9.99 to $14.99 range.

There is a lot of good Bordeaux in this price bracket (at least, good enough for me). I wrote notes about a couple in last month's "value" Wine Focus. The difficulty consists in unearthing them amongst a lot of dross, which means that I experiment on solid recommendation only. Robin had promised us a Wine Focus on budget Bordeaux so let us see what that turns up; I may for once try the lucky dip in the supermarkets.

I am a fan of Rioja but as far as aromatics the nose of an old Bordeaux cannot be surpassed.
Walt

You must be joking! They can, have and continue to be surpassed.

Have you ever tried Château Palmer 1961, Joe? And there are many other great Bordeaux with an ethereally beautiful nose. It is a matter of taste whether one prefers, say, superb Bordeaux, burgundy or German riesling (or, say, the music of Beethoven, Mozart or Bach), but I would not put any Rioja which has come my way in quite that league of distinction (say, the equivalent of Schumann or Berlioz).

Fine Bordeaux is about class.

If you prefer easier-to-understand wines, with power and up-front fruit, yes, some of the other regions are very nice indeed. I even have a few bottles of them in my cellar

But, as been pointed out, you have to be kidding if you think any wine from, let's say, Châteauneuf-du-Pape has the sheer elegance of a 1961 Palmer!

Tim, you are dead right about how good inexpensive Bordeaux can be. It's a pity so little of it seems to reach the US. I am delighted with a 2000 Ch. Côte Montpezat, Côtes de Castillon bought last week at Carrefour for under 6 euros a bottle. I'm sure anyone on this board would acknowledge its quality. It is a mystery why these wines don't seem to get the market they deserve outside Europe.
I think it's because so many people confuse Bordeaux and classified growths - which amount to less than 5% of production!

As for Bordeaux and food, it is such a mistake to say that rabbit takes this appellation and pork takes this appellation, etc.! I can align 10 Bordeaux that are radically different from one another and that go with almost any red wine dish!!!
Therefore, relegating such and such a wine to such and such a dish only makes sense if we are talking about specific wines, rather than whole swathes of thousands of châteaux.
It's a bit like saying all the Chinese look alike!

Tannin? Yes, a good Médoc has plenty of it. And most people's lifestyle and pocketbook does not allow for proper aging. I Can accept that this is a drawback. However, roll a lucious, melt-in-your-mouth Pomerol over your palate, and the charge about "tannnic Bordeaux" seems totally unfounded...

Someone (sorry, hard to go back and check who) wrote:

"The most memorable wines that I've tasted have been from Burgundy, but the most consistently excellent wines I've had have been from Bordeaux".

That seems a pretty fair thing to say to me. I've had Burgundy to die for too. But it's unfortunately as rare as hen's teeth and paying a lot is, alas, no guarantee of quality.

Best regards,
Alex R.