The evaluations that are contained in this work are the result of extensive tastings conducted in Bordeaux and America. I have been visiting Bordeaux every year since 1970, and since 1978 I have gone to Bordeaux as a professional at least twice a year to conduct barrel tastings of the young wines, as well as to do comparative tastings of different wines and vintages that have been bottled and released for sale.
It is patently unfair to an estate to issue a final judgment about a wine after only tasting it one time. Consequently, when I do tastings of young Bordeaux, I try to taste them as many times as possible to get a clear, concise picture of the wine’s quality and potential. I have often equated the tasting of an infant, unbottled wine with that of taking a photograph of a long-distance runner at the beginning of a race. One look or tasting of such a wine is only a split-second glimpse of an object that is constantly changing and moving. To evaluate effectively the performance and quality in a given vintage, one must look at the wine time after time during its 16–24-month prebottling evolution and then evaluate it numerous times after bottling to see if the quality or expected potential is still present.
Obviously, some wines as well as general vintages are much easier to assess than others. For certain, tasting young wine requires total concentration and an extreme dedication to tasting the wine as many times as possible in its youth, both at the individual châteaux and in comparative tastings against its peers. This is the only valid method by which to obtain an accurate look at the quality and potential of the wine. For this reason, I visit Bordeaux at least twice a year, spending more than a month in the region visiting all the major châteaux in all of the principal appellations of the Médoc, Graves, Sauternes, St.-Emilion, and Pomerol.
The châteaux visits and interviews with the wine-makers are extremely important in accumulating the critical data about the growing season, the harvest dates, and the vinification of the château’s wines. Most of the wine-makers at the Bordeaux châteaux are remarkably straightforward and honest in their answers, whereas owners will go to great lengths to glorify the wine they have produced.
In addition to doing extensive visits to the specific Bordeaux châteaux in all appellations of Bordeaux in poor, good, and great vintages, I insist on comparative tastings of cask samples of these new vintages. For these tastings I call many of Bordeaux’s leading négociants to set up what most consumers would call massive comparative day-long tastings of 60–100 wines. In groups of 10–15 wines at a time, an entire vintage, from major classified growths to minor Crus Bourgeois, can be reviewed several times over a course of two weeks of extensive tastings. Such tastings corroborate or refute the quality I have found to exist when I have visited the specific château. Because I do these types of broad, all-inclusive tastings at least three times before the young Bordeaux wine is bottled, I am able to obtain numerous looks at the infant wine at 6, 9, and 18 months of age, which usually give a very clear picture of the quality.
Despite the fact that young Bordeaux wines are constantly changing during their evolution and aging process in the barrel, the great wines of a given vintage are usually apparent. It has also been my experience that some wines that ultimately turn out to be good or very good may be unimpressive or just dumb when tasted in their youth from the cask. But the true superstars of a great vintage are sensational, whether they are 6 months or 20 months old.
When I taste young Bordeaux from cask, I prefer to judge the wine after the final blend or assemblage has been completed. At this stage, the new wine has had only negligible aging in oak casks. For me, it is essential to look at a wine in this infant stage (normally in late March and early April following the vintage) because then most wines can be judged with only minimal influence of oak, which can mask fruit and impart additional tannin and aromas to the wine. What one sees at this stage is a naked wine that can be evaluated on the basis of its richness and ripeness of fruit, depth, concentration, body, acidity, and natural tannin content, unobscured by evidence of oak aging.
The most important components I look for in a young Bordeaux are fruit and balance. Great vintages, characterized by ample amounts of sunshine and warmth, result in grapes that are fully mature and that produce rich, ripe, deeply fruity wines with significant but velvety tannin. If the fruit is missing or unripe and green, the wine can never be great. In contrast, grapes that are allowed to stay on the vine too long in hot, humid weather become overripe and taste pruny and sometimes raisiny, and are also deficient in acidity. They too have little future. This is rarely a problem in Bordeaux. Throughout all appellations of Bordeaux, recent vintages that, in their youth, have been marked by the greatest ripeness, richness, and purity of fruit have been 2000, 1998, (for Graves, St.-Emilion, and Pomerol), 1996 (for the Médoc), 1995, 1990, 1989, 1986 (for the Médoc), 1985, and 1982—all high-quality vintages. Vintages that exhibited the least fruit and an annoying vegetal character have been 1984, 1977, and 1974, poor to mediocre vintages.
Later in the year, I return to Bordeaux to get another extensive look at the wines. By this time the wines have settled down completely, but are also marked by the scent of new oak barrels. The intense grapy character of their youth has begun to peel away, as the wines have now had at least 10–12 months of cask aging. If extensive tastings in March or April give a clear overall view of the vintage’s level of quality, comprehensive tastings 9–10 months later are always conclusive evidence of where the vintage stands in relation to other Bordeaux vintages and how specific wines relate in quality to one another.
With regard to vintages of Bordeaux in bottle, I prefer to taste these wines in what is called a “blind tasting.” A blind tasting can be either “single blind” or “double blind.” This does not mean one is actually blindfolded and served the wines, but rather that in a single-blind tasting, the taster knows the wines are from Bordeaux, but does not know the identities of the châteaux or the vintages. In a double-blind tasting, the taster knows nothing other than that several wines from anywhere in the world, in any order, from any vintage, are about to be served.
For bottled Bordeaux, I purchase the wines at retail, and usually conduct all my tastings under single-blind conditions—I do not know the identity of the wine, but since I prefer to taste in peer groups, I always taste wines from the same vintage. Additionally, I never mix Bordeaux with non-Bordeaux wines, simply because whether it be California or Australia Cabernet Sauvignons, the wines are distinctly different, and while comparative tastings of Bordeaux versus California may be fun and make interesting reading, the results are never very reliable or especially meaningful to the wine consumer who desires the most accurate information. Remember that whether one employs a 100-point rating system or a 20-point rating system, the objectives and aims of professional wine evaluations are the same—to assess the quality of the wine vis-à-vis its peers and to determine its relative value and importance in the international commercial world of wine.
When evaluating wines professionally, it goes without saying that proper glasses and the correct serving temperature of the wine must be prerequisites to any objective and meaningful tasting. The best glasses for critical tasting are made by Riedel and its rival, Spiegelau. Both companies offer a plethora of sizes and shapes, but I prefer a tulip-shaped glass no larger than 10–12 ounces. As for the temperature, 60–62°F is best for evaluating both red and white wines. Too warm a temperature and the bouquet becomes diffuse and the taste flat. Too cold a temperature and there is no discernible bouquet and the flavors are completely locked in by the overly chilling effect on the wine. Moreover, cold temperatures exaggerate a wine’s acidity and oak.
When I examine a wine critically, there is both a visual and physical examination. Against a white background, the wine is first given a visual exam for brilliance, richness, and intensity of color. A young Bordeaux wine that is light in color, hazy, or cloudy (or all three) has serious problems. For Bordeaux red wines, color is extremely important. Virtually all the great Bordeaux vintages have shared a very deep, rich, saturated purple color when young, whereas the poorer vintages often have weaker, less rich-looking colors because of poor weather and rain. Certainly, in 2000, 1996, 1995, 1990, 1989, 1986, 1985, and 1982 the general color of the red wines of Bordeaux has been very dark. In 1978 and 1975, it was dark but generally not so deep in color as the aforementioned vintages. In 1984, 1980, 1974, and 1973 the color was rather light.
In looking at an older wine, the rim of the wine next to the glass should be examined for amber, orange, rust, and brown colors. These are signs of maturity and are normal. When they appear in a good vintage of a wine less than 6–7 years old, something is awry. For example, young wines that have been sloppily made and exposed to unclean barrels or air will mature at an accelerated rate and take on the look of old wines when in fact they are still relatively young by Bordeaux standards.
In addition to looking at the color of the wines, I examine the “legs” of the wines. The legs are the tears or residue of the wine that run down the inside of the glass. Rich Bordeaux vintages tend to have “good legs” because the grapes are rich in glycerol and alcohol, giving the wine a viscosity that causes this “tearing” effect. Examples of Bordeaux vintages that produced wines with good to excellent legs would be 2000, 1998, 1996, 1995, 1990, 1989, 1986, 1985, and 1982.
After the visual examination is completed, the actual physical examination of the wine takes place. The physical exam is composed of two parts: the wine’s smell, which depends on the olfactory sense, and the wine’s taste, the gustatory sense, which is tested on the palate. After swirling a wine, one’s nose is placed into the glass (not the wine) to smell the aromas that issue from the wine. This is an extremely critical step because the aroma and odor of the wine will tell the examiner the ripeness and richness of the underlying fruit, the state of maturity, and whether there is anything unclean or suspicious about the wine. The smell of a wine, young or old, will tell a great deal about the wine’s quality and no responsible professional taster understates the significance of a wine’s odors and aromas, often called the “nose” or “bouquet.” Emile Peynaud, in his classic book on wine tasting, Le Goût du Vin (Bordas, 1983), states that there are nine principal categories of wine aromas.
1. Animal odors: smells of game, beef, venison
2. Balsamic odors: smells of pine trees, resin, vanilla
3. Woody odors: smells of the new wood of oak barrels
4. Chemical odors: smells of acetone, mercaptan, yeasts, hydrogen sulfide, acidity, and fermentation
5. Spicy odors: smells of pepper, cloves, cinnamon, nutmeg, ginger, truffles, anise, mint
6. Empyreumatic odors: smells of crème brûlée, smoke, toast, leather, coffee
7. Floral odors: smells of violets, roses, lilacs, jasmine
8. Fruity odors: smells of black currants, raspberries, cherries, plums, apricots, peaches, figs
9. Vegetal odors: smells of herbs, tea, mushrooms, vegetables
The presence or absence of some or all of these aromas, their intensity, their complexity, and their persistence all serve to create the bouquet or nose of a wine that can be said to be distinguished, complete, and interesting—or flawed and simple.
Once the wine’s aroma or bouquet has been examined thoroughly, the wine is tasted, sloshed, or chewed around on the palate while also inhaled, which releases the wine’s aromas. The weight, richness, depth, balance, and length of a wine are apparent from the tactile impression the wine leaves on the palate. Sweetness is experienced on the tip of the tongue, saltiness just behind the tongue’s tip, acidity on the sides, and bitterness at the back. Most professional tasters will spit the wine out, although some wine is swallowed in the process.
The finish or length of a wine, its ability to give off aromas and flavors even though it is no longer on the palate, is the major difference between a good young wine and a great young wine. When the flavor and the aroma of the wine seem to last and last on the palate, it is usually a great, rich wine. The great wines and great vintages are always characterized by a purity, opulence, richness, depth, and ripeness of the fruit from which the wines are made. When the wines have both sufficient tannin and acidity, the balance is struck. It is these qualities that separate a profound Bordeaux from a good one.
All of my tastings were done in peer-group conditions when possible (meaning that the same type of wines were tasted against one another), in my tasting room, in the cellars of the producers, or in the offices of major Bordeaux négociants. The ratings reflect an independent, critical look at the wines. Neither price nor the reputation of the producer/grower affects the rating in any manner. I spend a minimum of three months of every year tasting in vineyards. During the other nine months of the year, six- and sometimes seven-day work weeks are devoted solely to tasting and writing. I do not participate in wine judgings or trade tastings for many reasons, but principal among these are the following: 1. I prefer to taste from an entire bottle of wine. 2. I find it essential to have properly sized and cleaned professional tasting glasses. 3. The temperature of the wine must be correct. 4. I alone will determine the time allocated to the number of wines to be critiqued.
THE RATING SYSTEM
96–100 |
Extraordinary |
90–95 |
Outstanding |
80–89 |
Above average to very good |
70–79 |
Average |
50–69 |
Below average to poor |
The numerical rating given is a guide to what I think of the wine vis-à-vis its peer group. Certainly, wines rated above 85 are good to excellent, and any wine rated 90 or above will be outstanding for its particular type. While some have suggested that scoring is not well suited to a beverage that has been romantically extolled for centuries, wine is similar to other consumer products. There are specific standards of quality that full-time wine professionals recognize, and there are benchmark wines against which all others can be judged. I know of no one with three or four different glasses of wine in front of him or her, regardless of how good or bad the wines might be, who cannot say “I prefer this one to that one.” Scoring wines is simply taking a professional’s opinion and applying some sort of numerical system to it on a consistent basis. Scoring permits rapid communication of information to expert and novice alike. In essence, I strongly believe in a scoring system backed up by intelligent tasting notes. Scoring wine makes the critic accountable to both the wine consumer and winery. Each knows precisely where the critic stands vis-à-vis the wine, and they can calibrate their palate and judgment with that of the critic. I further believe scoring promotes higher- and higher-quality wine, as no winery is able to hide behind obtuse and meaningless 19th-century prose such as “fine; very fine; very, very fine; and very, very, very fine.”
The rating system I employ in my wine journal, The Wine Advocate, is the one I have utilized in this book. It is a 50–100-point scale: the most repugnant of all wines meriting 50 since that is the starting point of the scale, and the most glorious gustatory experience commanding 100. I prefer my system to the once widely quoted 20-point scale called the Davis Scale—of the University of California at Davis—because it permits much more flexibility in scoring. It is also easier to understand because the numbers correspond to the American grading system, and it avoids the compression of scores from which the Davis Scale suffers. It is not without problems, however, because readers will often wonder what the difference is between an 86 and 87, both very good wines. The only answer I can give is a simple one: When tasted side by side, I thought the 87-point wine slightly better than the 86-point wine.
The score given for a specific wine reflects the quality of the wine at its best. As I mentioned earlier, I often tell people that evaluating a wine and assigning a score to a beverage that will change and evolve in many cases for up to 10 or more years is analogous to taking a photograph of a marathon runner. Much can be ascertained but, like a picture of a moving object, the wine will also evolve and change. I retry wines from obviously badly corked or defective bottles, since a wine from such a single bad bottle does not indicate an entirely spoiled batch. Many of the wines reviewed here I have tasted many times, and the score represents a cumulative average of the wine’s performance in tastings to date. Scores do not tell the entire story of a wine. The written commentary that accompanies the ratings is often a better source of information regarding the wine’s style and personality, the relative quality level vis-à-vis its peers, the relative value, and its aging potential than any score could ever indicate.
Here then is a general guide to interpreting the numerical ratings:
A score of 90–100 is equivalent to an A and is given only for an outstanding or special effort. Wines in this category are the very best produced for their type and, like a three-star Michelin restaurant, merit the trouble to find and try. There is a big difference between a 90 and a 99, but both are top marks. As you will note throughout the text, there are few wines that actually make it into this top category simply because there are just not many truly great wines.
A score of 80–89 is equivalent to a B in school and such a wine, particularly in the 85–89 range, is very, very good; many of the wines that fall into this range are often great values as well. I would not hesitate to have any of these wines in my own personal collection.
A score of 70–79 represents a C, or an average mark, but obviously 79 is a much more desirable score than 70. Wines that receive scores between 75 and 79 are generally pleasant, straightforward wines that simply lack complexity, character, or depth. If inexpensive, they may be ideal for uncritical quaffing.
Below 70 is a D or an F, depending on where you went to school; for wine, too, it is a sign of an unbalanced, flawed, or terribly dull or diluted wine that will be of little interest to the knowledgeable wine consumer.
In terms of awarding points, my scoring system gives every wine a base of 50 points. The wine’s general color and appearance merit up to 5 points. Since most wines today are well made, thanks to modern technology and the increased use of professional oenologists, they tend to receive at least 4, often 5 points. The aroma and bouquet merit up to 15 points, depending on the intensity level and extract of the aroma and bouquet as well as the cleanliness of the wine. The flavor and finish merit up to 20 points, and again, intensity of flavor, balance, cleanliness, and depth and length on the palate are all important considerations when giving out points. Finally, the overall quality level or potential for further evolution and improvement—aging—merits up to 10 points.
Scores are important to let the reader gauge a professional critic’s overall qualitative placement of a wine vis-à-vis its peers. Anyone who scores a wine is accountable to the reader. Accountable for the score that is bestowed, but also accountable for justifying that score with an intelligent tasting note that analyzes the wine and lets the reader realize why it is scored the way it is. However, it is also vital to consider the description of the wine’s style, personality, and potential. No scoring system is perfectly objective, but a system that provides for flexibility in scores, if applied without prejudice, can quantify different levels of wine quality and provide the reader with a professional’s judgment. However, there can never be any substitute for your own palate, nor any better education than tasting the wine yourself.
Because of the number of inquiries I receive regarding when a given Bordeaux wine has reached the point in its evolution that it is said to be ready to drink, I have provided an estimated range of years over which the châteaux’s wines should be consumed for the specific vintage. I call this time frame the “anticipated maturity.” Before one takes my suggestions too literally, let me share with you the following points.
1. If you like the way a wine tastes when young, do not hesitate to enjoy it in spite of what the guidelines may say. There can never be any substitute for your own palate.
2. I have had to make several assumptions, the primary ones being that the wine was purchased in a healthy state and you are cellaring the wine in a cool, humid, odor-and vibration-free environment that does not exceed 65°F, especially in the summer.
3. The estimates are an educated guess based on how the wine normally ages, its quality, its balance, and the general depth of the vintage in question.
4. The estimates are conservative. I have assumed a maturity based on my own palate, which tends to prefer a wine that is fresher and more exuberant (younger) over one that has begun to fade, but one that may still be quite delicious and complex.
Consequently, if you have cool, ideal cellars, the beginning year in the estimated range of maturity may err in favor of drinking the wine on the young side. I presume most readers would prefer, given a choice, to open a bottle too early rather than too late. This philosophy has governed my projected maturity period for each wine. One of Bordeaux’s greatest virtues is its extraordinary longevity. The finest Bordeaux wines, if purchased in pristine condition and stored properly, are nearly immortal in terms of aging capacity. Given the sweeter, more velvety tannin that modern-day producers attain, these wines can be drunk young, but in top vintages they have 15–30+ years of positive evolution ahead of them.
EXAMPLES
Now. Totally mature; immediate drinking is suggested within several years of the “last tasted” date.
Now–may be in decline. Based on the age of the wine and knowledge of the château and the specific vintage, this designation is utilized where a fully mature wine discussed in the first edition (1985) has not been recently retasted and is believed to have passed its apogee and begun its decline.
Now–probably in serious decline. Based on the age of the wine and knowledge of the château and the specific vintage, this designation is utilized when a wine discussed in the first edition (1985) was at the end of its plateau of maturity and, while not recently retasted, is believed to be well past its plateau of maturity.
Now–2020. The wine has entered its plateau of maturity where it should be expected to remain until 2020, at which time it may begin to slowly decline. The “now” dates from the time of the last tasted note.
2005–2015. This is the estimated range of years during which I believe the wine will be in its plateau period—the years over which it will be at its best for drinking. Please keep in mind that Bordeaux wines from top vintages tend to decline slowly (just the opposite of Burgundy) and that a wine from an excellent vintage may take another 10–15 years to lose its fruit and freshness after the last year in the stated plateau period.
This book has been divided into the major geographical regions of Bordeaux. Within each region, the famous châteaux and many minor châteaux deserving recognition are reviewed. The emphasis, for obvious reasons, is on the major Bordeaux estates that are widely available and well known in this country. The quality of these wines over the last quarter-century has been examined closely. For lesser known châteaux, the selection process has been based on two factors, quality and recognition. High-quality, lesser known estates are reviewed, as well as those estates that have gotten distribution into the export markets, regardless of quality. I have made every effort during the last 25 years to discover and learn about the underpublicized châteaux in Bordeaux. Because older vintages of these wines are virtually impossible to find, plus the fact that the majority of the Crus Bourgeois wines must be drunk within 5–7 years of the vintage, the focus for most of these lesser known Crus Bourgeois wines is on what they have accomplished recently. I feel the châteaux that are reviewed are the best of these lesser known estates, but to err is human, and it would be foolish for both you and me to believe that there is not some little estate making exquisite wine that I have omitted altogether.
At the beginning of each chapter on the Bordeaux appellations is my classification of the wines from that appellation. This analysis is based on their overall quality vis-à-vis one another. This is not a book that will shroud quality differences behind skillfully worded euphemisms. Within each appellation the châteaux are reviewed in alphabetical order. For those who love lists, my overall classification of the top 182 wine-producing estates of Bordeaux may be found beginning here.
With respect to the specific vintages covered, tasting emphasis has generally been given to only the most renowned vintages. Vintages such as 1993, 1992, 1991, 1977, 1972, 1968, 1965, and 1963 are generally not reviewed because they were very poor years, and few Bordeaux châteaux made acceptable quality wine in those years. Furthermore, such vintages are not commercially available. As for the actual tasting notes, the “anticipated maturity” refers to the time period at which I believe the wine will be at its apogee. This is the time period during which the wine will be fully mature and should ideally be drunk. These estimates as to anticipated maturity are conservative and are based upon the assumption that the wine has been purchased in a sound, healthy condition and has been kept in a vibration-free, dark, odor-free, relatively cool (below 65°F) storage area. For the wine-tasting terms I employ and for the proper methods of cellaring Bordeaux wines, see Chapter 6, “A User’s Guide to Bordeaux” and Chapter 8, “A Glossary of Wine Terms.”
When a book such as this is revised, difficult decisions must be made regarding the retention of tasting notes on wines that have not been reevaluated in the years that have lapsed since I wrote the previous edition. As readers will discover, many of the finest wines in top vintages have been retasted since the last edition and the changes in text and ratings, where warranted, have been made. Because a serious tasting note is the professional’s photograph of a wine during its life, and, moreover, since all the tasting notes in this book are dated, I have opted to leave some of the original tasting critiques in the book as part of the history of that property’s record of wine quality, especially when the note relates to a famous vintage.
I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of rare and fine wine that is sold today, either at retail or through one of the numerous wine auctions, involves legitimate bottles. Yet I have accumulated enough evidence to suggest that some warning flags need to be raised before this insidious disease becomes a vinous ebola. Shrewd buyers, reputable merchants, and auction companies that specialize in top vintages take considerable measures to authenticate bottles of wine that may cost thousands of dollars. In fact, the top auction houses, aware of the growing evidence of phony bottles, are actually going to great lengths to authenticate the legitimacy of each wine they sell. Nevertheless, a con artist can easily reproduce a bottle (the finest Bordeaux châteaux choose to use glass bottles that are among the cheapest and easiest to obtain in the world), a label, a cork, and a capsule, deceiving even the most astute purchaser. Think it over: high quality, limited production—rare wine may be the only luxury-priced commodity in the world that does not come with a guarantee of authenticity, save for the label and cork, and the former can be easily duplicated, particularly with one of today’s high-tech scanners.
The wine marketplace has witnessed obscene speculation for such modern-day vintages as 1990, certain 1989s, and, of course, 1982. The appearance of dishonest segments of society with only one objective, to take full advantage of the enormous opportunity that exists to make a quick buck by selling bogus wines, is not that shocking. This has always been a problem, but based on the number of letters and telephone calls I have received from victims who have been the recipients of suspiciously labeled wines, with even more unusual contents, it is a subject that needs to be addressed.
It was nearly 25 years ago that I saw my first fraudulent bottles of fine wine. Cases of 1975 Mouton Rothschild were being sold in New York for below their market value. Furthermore, the wine was packed in shabby cardboard cases with washed-out labels. In addition to those warning signs, the bottles had the words “made in Canada” on the bottom and the capsules had no embossed printing, a characteristic of Mouton. Blatant recklessness and slipshod work of the criminal made the fraud easy to detect.
Many producers of these limited production, rare wines are aware of the frauds perpetuated with their products, but they have largely chosen to maintain a low profile for fear that widespread dissemination of potentially inflammatory information will unsettle (to put it mildly) the fine-wine marketplace. No doubt the news that a hundred or so phony cases of Château ABC floating around in the world marketplace would suppress the value of the wine. Lamentably, those estates that make the world’s most cherished wines (and we all know who they are) need to develop a better system for guaranteeing the authenticity of their product, but to date few have been so inclined. Four of the elite Bordeaux châteaux do make it more difficult for counterfeiting pirates. Pétrus has, since the 1988 vintage, utilized a special label that when viewed under a specific type of light, reveals a code not apparent under normal lighting conditions. In 1996, Pétrus went further, instituting an engraved bottle with the word “Pétrus” etched in the glass. Château d’Yquem incorporates a watermark in their label to discourage bogus imitators. Haut-Brion was among the first to utilize a custom embossed bottle in 1957. In 1996, Lafite Rothschild also launched an anti-fraud engraved bottle. More recently, Château Margaux and Château Latour have inserted special codes in the print of each bottle or in the glass itself. Whether creating more sophisticated labels that are not as easy to reproduce (with serial numbers, watermarks, etc.), engraved bottles, or employing a fraud squad devoted to tracking down the provenance of these phony bottles—something must be done.
Consider the following instances of fraudulent bottles, all of which I have carefully documented.
A longtime friend of mine, fearing the worst (he is also extremely knowledgeable about fine wine), asked if I could come to his house and take a look at some wines he had purchased, including the 1992 Domaine Leflaive Montrachet. After examining the bottle, it was clear the wine was a fraud. Domaine Leflaive brands each cork with the vintage and vineyard, but in this case the only words on the cork were “Domaine Leflaive.” No vintage or vineyard designation was shown. Someone had easily affixed the Domaine Leflaive label and the 1992 neck label. My friend had spent $600 (this wine usually sells for $750–950) for what was probably a generic white burgundy worth no more than $15. The retailer was shocked and was totally cooperative in refunding my friend’s money.
In another shipment, this same person had acquired a case of one of my favorite wines, the 1990 Rayas. When I saw the suspicious bottle of Leflaive, I carefully scrutinized the Rayas. It appeared to have a legitimate label. Until the late nineties, the Rayas cork never indicated the estate’s name or vintage. However, when I held the bottle in front of an incandescent light, the color appeared disturbingly light. Furthermore, I noticed that there was no sediment. Coincidentally, I had drunk the 1990 Rayas several days earlier while vacationing in Colorado. That bottle had considerable sediment and a dense ruby/purple color. I asked if I could take the bottle home to compare it to the 1990 Rayas in my cellar. The wine was another fraud. Further comparison with bottles from my cellar revealed two other glaring discrepancies. First and foremost, all Château Rayas wines have a red capsule with the words “Château Rayas” and a coat of arms embossed on the top of the capsule. The phony bottle had a red capsule that was identical in color, but nothing embossed on the top. Secondly, in the lower left hand corner of the label on authentic bottles of 1990 Rayas are the words “Proprietaire J. Reynaud.” In 1992 Reynaud became the French equivalent of a corporation, and all vintages from 1992 carry the words “S.C.E.A. Château Rayas.” These corporate words appeared on the label of the phony bottle of 1990.
Another well-informed wine buyer called to tell me that he was worried about his magnums of Domaine Leflaive 1992 Bâtard- and Chevalier-Montrachet, purchased through the “gray market” (wines purchased by American retailers outside the authorized distribution system, from independent brokers in Europe). An expansive definition of the gray market includes all those who purchase wine directly from producers, private consumers, restaurants, and even retailers (all in Europe) for resale to America, Central America, and Asia. The gray market vendors I know are honest and respected professionals, but this nebulous group obviously has some dishonest interlopers.
The European economic community now requires that virtually all beverages show an “L” followed by a serial number, a result of the Perrier fiasco several years ago when some tainted Perrier was released into the marketplace. This friend’s questionable 1992 Domaine Leflaive displayed a lot number ending with the numbers “91.” All legitimate 1992 Domaine Leflaive wines have a lot number that ends with the numbers “92.” Other bottles had no lot numbers. Moreover, a number of these magnums had no vineyard name or vintage stamped on the cork, further confirming that these wines were not the 1992 Chevalier or 1992 Bâtard-Montrachets, as Domaine Leflaive brands all of its premiers and grands crus with the vineyard name and vintage.
I should point out that in the case of Domaine Leflaive, none of the questionable bottles came through the authorized American importer, Frederick Wildman and Sons.
As for the Château Rayas, someone had printed Rayas’s principal American importer, Martine’s Wines of Novato, California, on the label. A call to Martine Saunier established that her last sale of 1990 Rayas had occurred in the fall of 1993. This was supported by the owner of Rayas, the late Jacques Reynaud, who, along with Martine Saunier, was adamant about this story being made public. Reynaud informed me that 100 cases of his 1993 Côtes du Rhône-La Pialade had been stolen from the winery in 1995, and that in all likelihood these wines had been relabeled with a bogus 1990 Rayas label. In tasting the phony 1990 Rayas, the wine did seem like a product of Reynaud given its ripe, jammy, cherry fruit, but it lacked intensity, concentration, and body, suggesting it was from a rain-plagued harvest (1993 or 1992 for example). As a result of this, in 1995, Rayas began stamping the vintage on the corks of all Château Rayas Châteauneuf-du-Pape.
If these had been the only instances of fraud I ran across, I would have hesitated about discussing them. However, another merchant called me about a suspicious case of magnums of 1947 Cheval Blanc purchased in Europe by an American merchant. Incredulous, I asked if he would send me a bottle by overnight delivery, which I would inspect and return. The bottle had a label that looked as if it had been produced by a copier or scanner. The capsule had been meticulously slit with a razor blade. Under the capsule was a brand new cork with the words “Cheval Blanc—Rébouché 1988.” Where the vintage date would normally appear, someone had taken an instrument and scratched it out. The wine had a fill in the upper neck (not surprising if in fact this was a legitimately recorked 1947, done at the château), but the light ruby color and small quantity of sediment (this wine possesses heavy sediment and is extremely dense in color) made me suspicious. At more than $20,000 a magnum, I was not going to taste it, but I am 90% sure this wine was anything but 1947 Cheval Blanc.
Two further instances of fraud require mentioning. Another source, concerned about the authenticity of his 1945 Vieux Château Certan and 1989 Le Pin, shipped me a bottle of each to inspect and taste. The 1945 Vieux Château Certan’s label was unusually wrinkled, as if it had been removed from another bottle and reset on this bottle. The pink capsule was sitting loosely on the neck. Although the château’s name was on the cork, the cork was too new for a 51-year-old wine, and where the vintage should have been, there were only scratch marks. What did the wine taste like? Surprisingly, it was fully mature, delicious, and I believe, a legitimate VCC, but not from the 1945 vintage. It was much lighter, so perhaps it was a 1971, 1967, or 1962, but who will ever know? With respect to the 1989 Le Pin, I pulled a bottle from my cellar with which to compare the questionable bottle. The label for the latter bottle was scanner reproduced as the distinctive copper print of Le Pin’s label was closer to a blue. The corks were identical except that the suspicious bottle’s cork had a slightly different print size. When tasted, I was sure the suspicious bottle was Le Pin, but probably from the 1987 vintage. It was not nearly rich enough to be a 1989.
Other reports of phony bottles have come in with surprising frequency. These reports have been confirmed in conversations with retailers, both in this country and in England. They have told me of fraudulent cases of 1989 and 1982 Le Pin, 1982 Pétrus, 1982 Lafleur, 1975 Lafleur, 1947 Cheval Blanc, 1928 Latour, and 1900 Margaux, with non-branded blank corks and photocopied labels! With respect to the 1928 Latour, the merchant, suspecting he had been duped, opened it and told me he was sure it was a young California Pinot Noir.
A wine buyer from one of this country’s most prominent restaurants recently told me about some of the problems he had encountered when opening expensive bottles for his clients. All of these wines had been purchased from a reputable merchant who had bought the wine from a gray marketeer selling private cellars in Europe. Corks of 1961 Haut-Brion and 1970 Latour were either illegible or the vintage was intentionally scratched off. Since this buyer had vast tasting experience with these wines, detection of the fraud was relatively easy. He was convinced that the 1961 Haut-Brion was fraudulent, as it tasted like a much lighter vintage of Haut-Brion (he suspected it to be the 1967). In the case of the 1970 Latour, the cork had been badly altered to resemble the 1970, but closer inspection revealed it to be the 1978 Latour. In these cases, only a person who knows the wine well would suspect that the contents were bogus. One major American merchant, outraged at being sold phony wine, attempted to contact the European seller, only to find out he had moved, with no forwarding address from his office in Paris. The seller hasn’t been found to this day.
What is so surprising is that most fraudulent efforts to date appear to be the work of kindergarten criminals, as indicated by the washed-out, photocopied labels that were attached to many of the 1982s. However, with the technology available today, authentic-looking bottles, capsules, corks, and labels can be easily duplicated. In these cases, only a person who knows the taste of the wine could tell if the contents were bogus.
SAFETY GUIDELINES
DEALING WITH THE GRAY MARKET
To date, almost all the fraudulent bottles have come from wines purchased in the so-called “gray market.” This means the wines have not gone through the normal distribution channel, where a contractual relationship exists between the producer and the vendor. Bottles of French wines with the green French tax stamps on the top of the capsule have obviously been purchased in France and then resold to gray market operators. I do not want to denigrate the best of the gray market operators, because those that I know (I am a frequent purchaser from these sources) are legitimate, serious, and professional about what they buy. Nevertheless, it is an irrefutable fact that most of the suspicious wines showing up in these quarters are from rogue gray market operators.
LABEL AWARENESS
Wine bottles that have easily removable neck labels that indicate the vintage are especially prone to tampering. It is easy to replace a neck label from a poor vintage with one from a great vintage. Sadly, almost all Burgundies fall into this category, as well as some Rhône Valley wines. Many of the top Burgundy producers have begun to brand the cork with the appropriate vintage and vineyard, particularly if it is a premier or grand cru. However, this is a relatively recent practice, largely implemented in the late 1980s by top estates and négociants. The only way a buyer can make sure the cork matches the neck and bottle labels is to remove the capsule. Any purchaser who is the least bit uneasy about the provenance of a wine should not hesitate to pull off the capsule. Irregular, asymmetrical labels with tears and smears of glue are a sign that someone may have tampered with the bottle. Perhaps the trend (now widely employed by California wineries such as Robert Mondavi and Kendall-Jackson) to discontinue the use of capsules should be considered by top estates in France, Italy, and Spain. An alternative would be to design a capsule with a window slot, permitting the purchaser a view of the cork’s vintage and vineyard name. A more practical as well as inexpensive alternative would be to print the name of the vineyard and vintage on the capsule, in addition to the cork.
Badly faded, washed-out labels (or a photocopied label) should be viewed with sheer horror! However, readers should realize that moldy or deteriorated labels that are the result of storage in a damp, cold cellar are not signs of fraudulent wines, but rather, superb cellaring conditions. I have had great success at auctions buying old vintages that have moldy, tattered labels. Most speculators shy away from such wines because their priority is investing, not consumption.
KNOW THE MARKET VALUE
Most purchasers of expensive rare wines are extremely knowledgeable about the market value of these wines. If the wine is being offered at a significantly lower price than fair market value, it would seem incumbent for the purchaser to ask why he or she is the beneficiary of such a great deal. Remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
ORIGIN VERIFICATION
For both rare, old vintages and young wines, demanding a guarantee as to the provenance of the wine that is being purchased is a prudent step to take. As a corollary, it is imperative that readers deal with reputable merchants who will stand behind the products they sell. If a merchant refuses to provide details of the origin of where the wine was purchased, take your business elsewhere, even if it means laying out more money for the same wine.
LOT NUMBERS
Because of the tainted Perrier water a few years ago, the European community now requires most potable beverages to carry a lot number (but only for beverages sold to member nations, thus excluding the United States). This is usually a tiny number located somewhere on the label that begins with the letter “L” followed by a serial number that can range from several digits to as many as eight or more. Most producers use the vintage as part of the lot number. In the case of Domaine Leflaive, the vintage year is indicated by the last two digits of the lot number. However, in some instances (i.e., Comte Lafon), the first two numbers provide the vintage year. And for Lynch-Bages or Pichon-Longueville-Baron, the vintage appears in the middle of the lot number. But be advised, many tiny growers do not use lot numbers on those wines sold to non-ECC countries (the United States, for example). Virtually all the Bordeaux châteaux have used lot numbers since the 1989 vintage.
NO SEDIMENT IN OLDER WINES
In wines more than 10–15 years old, lack of sediment and fill levels that reach the bottom of the cork should always be viewed with suspicion. Several Burgundian négociants sell “reconditioned” bottles of ancient vintages that have fills to the cork and lack sediment. I have always been skeptical of this practice, but those négociants claim they have a special process for siphoning off the sediment. Certainly no Bordeaux château utilizes such an unusual and debatable method. Wines that have been recorked at a Bordeaux château will indicate that either on the cork or on both the label and the cork. The year in which the wine was recorked will usually be indicated. Among the most illustrious estates of Bordeaux, only Pétrus refuses to recork bottles because so many suspicious bottles have been brought to them for recorking. Both Cheval Blanc and Latour indicate on both the cork and the label the date and year of recorking. In these cases, the authentic bottles will have very good fills as the wine has been topped off, but older vintages still display considerable sediment.
UNMARKED CARDBOARD CASES
Wines that have been packaged in unlabeled cardboard boxes are always suspicious, particularly since every domaine uses its own customized cardboard box with the name of the estate as well as the importer’s name printed on the box. Almost all the prominent Bordeaux châteaux use wooden boxes with the name of the château as well as the vintage branded into the wood. To complicate matters, readers should realize that wines from private cellars consigned to auction houses must usually be repackaged in unmarked cardboard boxes since they had been stored in bins in the private cellar.
RARE, MATURE VINTAGES IN LARGE FORMATS
Great wines from ancient rare vintages such as 1950, 1949, 1947, 1945, 1929, 1928, 1926, 1921, and 1900 (especially the Pomerols) that are offered in large formats, particularly double-magnums, jeroboams, Imperials, and the extremely rare Marie-Jeanne (a three-bottle size) should be scrutinized with the utmost care. Christian Moueix told me that a European vendor had offered rare vintages of Pétrus in Marie-Jeanne formats. To the best of Moueix’s knowledge, Pétrus never used Marie-Jeanne bottles! Large formats of rare, old vintages were used very sparingly at most top châteaux, so if anyone is contemplating purchasing an Imperial of 1900 Margaux, be sure to verify the wine’s authenticity.
COMMON SENSE
The need to develop a relationship with experienced and reputable merchants is obvious, but too often consumers are seduced by the lowest price. If it is an $8 Corbières, that’s fine, but a prized vintage of a first-growth Bordeaux is not likely to be sold cheaply . . . think about it.
I hope the industry will address these issues in a more forthright manner and begin to take more action to protect its members and consumers. Additionally, I urge those renowned estates that benefit from glowing reviews to recognize that it is only in their long-term interest to relentlessly seek a solution to this problem and combine their efforts and resources to track down those who are responsible for fabricating fraudulent bottles of expensive wine. Surely the time has come for the use of more sophisticated labels (with serial numbers and watermarks), designer bottles that are less easy to replicate, and capsules with vintages and vineyard names. An open avenue of communication with the wine buyer, where these frauds can be identified, confirmed, and the commercial and consumer marketplace fully apprised of the problem, is essential to preserving the authenticity of the world’s finest wines, as well as the integrity and security of purchasing fine wine.
WHAT CONSTITUTES A GREAT WINE?
What is a great wine? One of the most controversial subjects of the vinous world, isn’t greatness in wine much like a profound expression of art or music, something very personal and subjective? As much as I agree that the appreciation and enjoyment of art, music, or wine is indeed personal, high quality in wine, as in art and music, does tend to be subject to widespread agreement. Except for the occasional contrarian, greatness in art, music, or wine, if difficult to precisely define, enjoys a broad consensus. I would even argue that the appreciation of fine art and music is even more subjective than the enjoyment of fine wine. However, few art aficionados would disagree with the fact that Picasso, Rembrandt, Bacon, Matisse, Van Gogh, or Michelangelo were extraordinary artists. The same is true with music. Certainly some dissenters can be found regarding the merits of composers such as Chopin, Mozart, Beethoven, or Brahms or, in the modern era, such musicians/song writers as Bob Dylan, the Beatles, or the Rolling Stones, but the majority opinion is that exceptional music emanated from them.
It is no different with wine. Many of the most legendary wines of our time—1945 Mouton Rothschild, 1945 Haut-Brion, 1947 Cheval Blanc, 1947 Pétrus, 1961 Latour, 1982 Mouton Rothschild, 1982 Lafleur, 1982 Le Pin, 1986 Léoville-Las Cases, 1989 Haut-Brion, 1990 Margaux, 1990 Pétrus, 1998 Pétrus, 2000 Pavie, 2000 Margaux, 2000 Lafite Rothschild, 2000 Cheval Blanc, 2000 Lafleur, and 2000 Pétrus, to name some of the most renowned red Bordeaux, are profoundly riveting wines, even though an occasional discordant view about them may surface. Tasting is indeed subjective, but like most of the finest things in life, there is considerable agreement as to what represents high quality, yet no one should feel forced to feign fondness for a work from Picasso or Beethoven, much less a bottle of 1961 Latour.
One issue about the world’s finest wines that is subject to little controversy relates to how such wines originate. Frankly, there are no secrets to the origin and production of the world’s finest wines. Great wines emanate from well-placed vineyards with microclimates favorable to the specific types of grapes grown. Profound wines, whether they are from France, Italy, Spain, California, or Australia, are also the product of conservative viticultural practices that emphasize low yields and physiologically rather than analytically ripe fruit. After 25 years spent tasting more than 250,000 wines, I have never tasted a superb wine that was made from underripe fruit. Does anyone enjoy the flavors present when biting into an underripe orange, peach, apricot, or cherry? Low yields and ripe fruit are essential for the production of extraordinary wines, yet it is amazing how many wineries never seem to understand this fundamental principle.
In addition to the common sense approach of harvesting mature (ripe) fruit and discouraging, in a viticultural sense, the vine from overproducing, the philosophy employed by a winery in making wine is of paramount importance. Exceptional wines (whether they be red, white, or sparkling) emerge from a similar philosophy, which includes the following: 1. permit the vineyard’s terroir (soil, microclimate, distinctiveness) to express itself, 2. allow the purity and characteristics of the grape varietal or blend of varietals to be faithfully represented in the wine, 3. produce a wine without distorting the personality and character of a particular vintage by excessive manipulation, 4. follow an uncompromising, non-interventionalistic winemaking philosophy that eschews the food-processing, industrial mindset of high-tech winemaking—in short, to give the wine a chance to make itself naturally without the human element attempting to sculpture or alter the wine’s intrinsic character, and 5. follow a policy of minimal handling, clarification, and treatment of the wine so that what is placed in the bottle represents as natural an expression of the vineyard, varietal, and vintage as is possible. In keeping with this overall philosophy, wine-makers who attempt to reduce such traumatic clarification procedures as fining and filtration, while also lowering sulphur levels (which can dry out a wine’s fruit, bleach color from a wine, and exacerbate the tannin’s sharpness), produce wines with far more aromatics and flavors, as well as more enthralling textures. In short, these are wines that offer consumers their most compelling and rewarding drinking experiences.
Assuming there is a relatively broad consensus as to how the world’s finest wines originate, what follows is my working definition of an exceptional wine. In short—what are the characteristics of a great wine?
THE ABILITY TO PLEASE BOTH THE PALATE AND THE INTELLECT
Great wines offer satisfaction on both a hedonistic level of enjoyment as well as the intellectual level. The world offers many delicious wines that are purely hedonistic, but not complex. The ability to satisfy the intellect is a more subjective issue. Wines that experts call “complex” are those that offer multiple dimensions in both their aromatic and flavor profiles and have more going for them than simply ripe fruit and a satisfying, pleasurable, yet one-dimensional quality.
CLASSIC EXAMPLES
1982 Latour (Pauillac)
1990 Montrose (St.-Estèphe)
1990 Troplong Mondot (St.-Emilion)
1989 La Conseillante (Pomerol)
2000 Cheval Blanc (St.-Emilion)
2000 Pavie (St.-Emilion)
THE ABILITY TO HOLD THE TASTER’S INTEREST
I have often remarked that the greatest wines I have ever tasted could be easily recognized by bouquet alone. They are wines that could never be called monochromatic or simple. Profound wines hold the taster’s interest, not only providing the initial tantalizing tease, but possessing a magnetic attraction because of their aromatic intensity and nuance-filled layers of flavors.
CLASSIC EXAMPLES
1989 Haut-Brion (Graves)
1998 L’Evangile (Pomerol)
1982 Pichon-Lalande (Pauillac)
1982 Le Pin (Pomerol)
1998 Clos l’Église (Pomerol)
2000 Haut-Bergey (Graves)
THE ABILITY OF A WINE TO OFFER INTENSE AROMAS AND FLAVORS WITHOUT HEAVINESS
An analogy can be made to eating in the finest restaurants. Extraordinary cooking is characterized by its purity, intensity, balance, texture, and compelling aromas and flavors. What separates exceptional cuisine from merely good cooking, as well as great wines from good wines, is their ability to offer extraordinary intensity of flavor without heaviness. It has been easy in the New World (especially in Australia and California) to produce wines that are oversized, bold, big, and rich—but heavy. Europe’s finest wineries, with many centuries more experience, have mastered the ability to obtain intense flavors without heaviness. However, New World viticultural areas (particularly in California) are quickly catching up, as evidenced by the succession of remarkable wines produced during the decade of the 1990s in Napa, Sonoma, and elsewhere in the Golden State. Many of California’s greatest wines of the 1990s have sacrificed none of their power and richness, but no longer possess the rustic tannin and oafish feel on the palate that characterized so many of their predecessors of 10 and 20 years ago. Yet for the world’s most elegant yet authoritatively flavored wines, Bordeaux has no equal.
CLASSIC EXAMPLES
1961 Haut-Brion (Graves)
1966 Palmer (Margaux)
1990 Cheval Blanc (St.-Emilion)
1986 Léoville-Las Cases (St.-Julien)
THE ABILITY OF A WINE TO TASTE BETTER WITH EACH SIP
Most of the finest wines I have ever drunk were better with the last sip than the first, revealing more nuances and more complex aromas and flavors as the wine unfolded in the glass. Do readers ever wonder why the most interesting and satisfying glass of wine is often the one that finishes the bottle?
CLASSIC EXAMPLES
2000 Lafleur (Pomerol)
1996 Mouton Rothschild (Pauillac)
1996 Château Léoville-Las Cases (St.-Julien)
1998 Château L’Eglise-Clinet (Pomerol)
1990 Haut-Brion (Graves)
1990 Troplong Mondot (St.-Emilion)
THE ABILITY OF A WINE TO IMPROVE WITH AGE
This is, for better or worse, an indisputable characteristic of great wines. One of the unhealthy legacies of the British wine writers (who dominated wine writing until the last decade) is the belief that in order for a wine to be exceptional when mature, it had to be nasty when young. My experience has revealed just the opposite—wines that are acidic, astringent, and generally fruitless and charmless when young become even nastier and less drinkable when old. With that being said, new vintages of top wines are often unformed and in need of 10 or 12 years of cellaring (in the case of top California Cabernets, Bordeaux, and Rhône wines), but those wines should always possess a certain accessibility so that even inexperienced wine tasters can tell that the wine is—at the minimum—made from very ripe fruit. If a wine does not exhibit ripeness and richness of fruit when young, it will not develop nuances with aging. Great wines unquestionably improve with age. I define “improvement” as the ability of a wine to become significantly more enjoyable and interesting in the bottle, offering more pleasure old than when it was young. Many wineries (especially in the New World) produce wines they claim “will age,” but this is nothing more than a public relations ploy. What they should really say is “will survive.” They can endure 10–20 years of bottle age, but they were actually more enjoyable in their exuberant youthfulness.
CLASSIC EXAMPLES
1982 Château Latour (Pauillac)
1959 Haut-Brion (Graves)
1990 Château Climens (Barsac/Sauternes)
1994 Laville Haut-Brion (Graves)
1961 Pétrus (Pomerol)
1975 La Mission Haut-Brion (Graves)
1959 Mouton Rothschild (Pauillac)
THE ABILITY OF A WINE TO OFFER A SINGULAR PERSONALITY
When one considers the greatest wines produced, it is their singular personalities that set them apart. It is the same with the greatest vintages. The abused usage of a description such as “classic vintage” has become nothing more than a reference to what a viticultural region does in a typical (normal) year. Exceptional wines from exceptional vintages stand far above the norm, and they can always be defined by their singular qualities—both aromatically and in their flavors and textures. The opulent, sumptuous qualities of the 1990 and 1982 red Bordeaux; the rugged tannin and immense ageability of the 1986 red Bordeaux; the seamless, perfectly balanced 1994 Napa and Sonoma Cabernet Sauvignons and proprietary blends; and the plush, sweet fruit, high alcohol, and glycerin of the 1990 Barolos and Barbarescos are all examples of vintage individuality.
CLASSIC EXAMPLES
1990 Château Le Tertre-Roteboeuf (St.-Emilion)
1990 Yquem (Sauternes)
1989 Château Clinet (Pomerol)
1982 Le Pin (Pomerol)
1982 Mouton Rothschild (Pauillac)
1986 Château Margaux (Margaux)
1996 Lafite Rothschild (Pauillac)
2000 Magrez-Fombrauge (St.-Emilion)
2000 Ausone (St.-Emilion)