Bordeaux heads up--maybe

[Jenise]

1.5 L Rauzan Gassies Margaux, 1996 vintage, $65 at JJ Buckley. I've never even had this producer that I can recall, so I have no particular opinion on it--isn't this one of those 2nd or 3rd growths that most people think overrated? Reports from 2011 and earlier on Cellartracker weren't all that complimentary, but a 2013 review (there were none in between) might suggest the wine's turned a corner and could actually be interesting at this price. Here's the review, and though it's in French the gist is quite clear:

"3/2/2013 - 90 Points Décanté, au restaurant. Bouteille magnifique avec high fill. Robe bordeaux foncé, bien brillante. Nez sur la mine de crayon, l'âtre froid, très pur, ensuite sur les fruits noirs. Bouche vive à l'attaque, bien structurée, élégante, avec de la réserve. Belle finale, moyennement longue."

Yes, R-Gassies is a 2nd, and generally it and Durfort-Vivens are the examples brought up by people pointing out how incorrect the 1855 classification is. Though I remember John Gilman saying they have much improved the last decade or so.

$65 for a mag isn't a huge gamble, might be worth it. But I think the last review means little. A quick search through that guy's Bdx notes shows his average Bdx rating is 89.x (and if you took out top and bottom 3 or 4 -those that score 95 and over or 80 and under- it would be above 90). Most of his notes seem reasonable (though shocked that 2002 Petit Village gets a 92) but hard to get a grip- he likes Canon and Magdelaine, but also 03 SHL. I'd be more inclined to buy based on Keith L's 85 (Well, not 2nd-growth quality, but somewhat satisfying just the same. Simple and restrained like a nice cru bourgeois)- I at least know his tastes.

Let us know what you think if you buy

"Avec high fill"??? Zut alors!

I remember the vintages in Bordeaux:

1980 - Fair. An improvement on the mid to late 1970s.
1981 - OK.
1982 - Ripe, forward, and concentrated. But overrated.
1983 - Excellent.
1984 - OK.
1985 - Forward, pleasing, and lasting a lot longer than anyone would have thought.
1986 - Excellent, but harsh and built for the long term.
1987 - OK.
1988, 1989, 1990 - Excellent
1991-1999 - Total crap compared to the previous 10 years. But priced as though it were the good stuff.

Given modern pricing for Cru Classe Bordeaux, $65 for a magnum is a decent price. But it is a lesser house from a lesser vintage. In the scheme of pricing these days, probably a bargain. But most likely a panic-discount sell on the part of the vendor. Not that that's a bad thing--you can sometimes get real bargains that way.

-Paul W.

I thought of '81 as a pretty classic Medoc vintage. Then '82 was way out there. '83 was supposed to be a bit better than '81, but I never had any (corresponding to going kosher-only). So I'm surprised that you put '81 just OK and '83 as excellent. The surprise is just based upon hearsay at the time, since it ceased to matter on a personal basis.

Craig,

My relative rating of '83 is based mainly on Chateau Margeaux (monumental), Pichon-Lalande, Cos D'Estournel, Palmer, and Lynch-Bages. I don't get (read: can't afford) broad personal experience with grands crus Bordeaux. Maybe I've over-praised the 1983s. Or underrated the 1981s.

I still have some 1983 Pichon-Lalande. High time to open one, and see how it's doing....

-Paul W.

1980 - Fair. An improvement on the mid to late 1970s.
1981 - OK.
1982 - Ripe, forward, and concentrated. But overrated.
1983 - Excellent.
1984 - OK.
1985 - Forward, pleasing, and lasting a lot longer than anyone would have thought.
1986 - Excellent, but harsh and built for the long term.
1987 - OK.
1988, 1989, 1990 - Excellent
1991-1999 - Total crap compared to the previous 10 years. But priced as though it were the good stuff..

A few quibbles (but I didn't start really drinking Bdx till early 90s, so I didn't taste much young pre1990)
You think 1980 is an improvement over 78 & 79? I've had multiple gorgeous bottles of both of the latter, never an 80 more than ok.
81s are often tiring, but I'd put ahead of 80, 84, 87
82 might be overrated (and certainly in Marguax 83 is better). But we did a round of 82 tastings last year for the 30 anniversary, and the thing that surprised me was how well even the lower end wines had lasted. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=44095&p=360681&hilit=1982+gloria#p360681
I own quite a few '88s (stepson's birthyear), and enjoy the vintage. But excellent is a stretch. It's good solid vintage IMHO opinion that has a distinct vintage character, but wines tend to not be elegant.
From 89/90 there were more and more "modern"/Parkerized producers, which can make comparisons hard. But I would strongly disagree that wines from traditional producers (my preferred style) made "total crap" in say 96 LB (although Margaux didn't do as well as northern Medoc- one reason I would be careful re the R-Gass) and 98 RB - 2 great vintages. 91 & 92 were pretty much a wash (though I'd had a couple that surprised me),93 is probably on level of 87, 94 is like a even more austere 88, 97s and 99s were ripe and forward, but mostly not to cellar. 95 is very good. Prices of course are another matter.
All just my opinion of course.
And Paul 83 P-Lalande is just great, enjoy.

I wd put 78 ahead of 80,81, 84 and 87, was never a big fan of the 80 or 81..the 84's and 87's were charming when young even if not built for the long haul .. 82's were quite nice, especially as Dale pointed out, along a broad range..the 83's i bought pretty mich mirror Paul's list and were quite good..I much preferred 85 to 86 and agree re the "harsh" comment..with 20/20 hindsight, wd not have bought as many 86's as I did..I agree that 88,89 and 90 were terrific and wd point out that the 88's have aged splendidly and did not get as much credit as they deserve..somewhat similar to the 88,89 and 90 scenario in CNDpapes where some lovely 88's were overshadowed by the spectacular 89 and 90 bottlings. I have been drinking bordeaux for 50 years tho I pretty much dropped out of the market following the 90 vintage as the run of wines 91 on were insipid and priced even worse. Also there were wonderful bottlings from California, Italy, the rhone and Oz to be had so I never returned to Bordeaux even after the turn of the century. I still have fond memories of wines like the 55 and 59 Lafitte and 61 Montrose and 78 Ch Margaux and Palmer and several charming vintages of Ch Gloria from the 60's..tho not from the disasters of 63, 65 and 68..

Having bought and experienced them all, this is my reading:

1980 - crap The only decent wines were Sauternes. I did a tasting of all the first growths in this vintage - when young they showed like a decent growth from a better year.

1981 - overlooked but very decent. Now in decline. Had my last bottles recently.

1982 - the 'Parker vintage' where RP made his reputation. Very good wines that have lasted quite well.

1983 - also a pretty good vintage with some wine, mostly still decent, some excellent. Not generally as good as 1982

1984 - poor. Nothing worth opening now.

1985 - what Paul said. Sorry I sized this up as an early drinking vintage and didn't buy them for the long haul - just about every one I've tasted has been delightful

1986 - hard vintage like 1975 but with the significant difference that the fruit is riper and the tannins rounder. Thought to need forever to come around, many wines are now surprisingly drinkable.

1987 - decent luncheon wines for awhile, but the time is long past.

1988,89, 90 - classic vintages all very good but quite different.

1991 - crap

1992 - crap

1993 - selected right bank wines pretty decent

1994 - selected wines from boitgh banks were pretty good - make great blind tasting wines now as no one ever gueses them

1995 - good vintage, many just coming into drinking window

1996 - some very good wines but many disappointing - be selective.

never ever liked the '82's.