Tag Archives: Wine Critics

Bordeaux Futures 2017 — Palmer, Valandraud, Fombrauge, Haut-Batailley

Amber LeBeau in Bordeaux, Shopping for Wine

Published on May 1, 2018

Email offers for the 2017 Bordeaux Futures are starting to flood my inbox so we are going to begin a series examine many of these offers. I’ll start by looking at four offers and sharing my thought process on whether I’m going to buy in on these wines or pass.

But first, let me explain my general approach to the 2017 vintage.

Value & Cellar Defenders

Personally, I don’t approach buying Bordeaux futures as a financial investment where I hopefully “buy low and sell high”. I’m not trying to make money off of these deals. While I may do some wine locker trading with friends down the road, in general, I approach these campaigns with the mindset of buying wines that I expect to drink myself.

Despite the positive spin that merchants and the Bordelais themselves are trying cast on 2017, I’m not convinced that it’s a great year. I think it is certainly better than 2011 and 2013 but this is not a vintage that I’m going to invest heavily in or pay a premium for. Instead, I’m going to be looking for value with prices less than 2016/2015 and more in the range of the 2014 vintage which I feel is the most apt comparison to 2017.

I bought fairly heavily in Bordeaux during the 2015 and 2016 campaigns so I will have a decent amount of great Bordeaux in my cellar that I won’t want to touch for another 10-15 years. As I learned the hard way with many of my 2009/2010 (and even 2005s), the temptation to open these bottles can be very seductive only to have my momentary pleasure give way to pangs of guilt as the wines reveal only a shadow of how good they could have been if only I had given them more time.

Therefore I place value in making sure I have wines that I call “Cellar Defenders”. These are wines from less highly acclaimed vintages that generally reach their peak drinking window earlier than wines from outstanding vintages. Plus with these wines usually having better price points, I can open up these “sacrificial lambs” with far less guilt even if they aren’t quite at their peak.

Wine critics tasting at one of the 2017 en primeur events in Bordeaux.

A Note About Scores

In my breakdown of the wines below I will include the barrel scores from several notable critics as well the Wine Searcher Average of critic scores for previous vintages. As I describe in my post on my own personal approach to scoring, I prefer to rate wines with my wallet and whether or not I think they deliver enough pleasure to merit the cost.

But I’m not going to get a chance to taste these wines anytime soon so I still see some value in using the opinions of professional critics as tools in my decision making on whether I want to invest in buying these wines. I don’t take any one critic’s opinion as gospel truth but rather look for a pattern to see where their opinions tend to overlap.

Now let’s look at some offers.

Ch. Palmer (Margaux)
Brief winery geekery: Third Growth estate owned by 22 shareholders, including the owners of the negociant firms BorieManoux and Sichel. Since 2004, Thomas Duroux has been the winemaker. Their second wine, Alter Ego de Palmer has been produced since 1998 with some critics (like The Wine Cellar Insider’s Jeff Leve) feeling the wine performs at the level of a 4th Growth. In 2017, the vineyards of Palmer were certified 100% Biodynamic. The 2017 is a blend of 54% Merlot, 42% Cabernet Sauvignon and 4% Petit Verdot making it a Merlot dominant Left Bank wine. Between 8,000 to 10,000 cases are produced each vintage.

Critic scores: 97-98 JS (James Suckling), 96-98 WA (Wine Advocate), 94-96 WE (Wine Enthusiast), 92-95 WS (Wine Spectator), 92-95 JD (Jeb Dunnuck), 96 JL (Jeff Leve)

Sample review:

… very deep purple-black in color and leaps from the glass with freshly macerated blue and black fruits: wild blueberries, blackberries and black cherries plus hints of licorice, rose hips, tilled soil and oolong tea with a waft of truffles. Medium-bodied, very finely crafted with exquisitely ripe and smooth yet firm tannins and sporting great mid-palate intensity and wonderful freshness, it finishes long and minerally. — Lisa Perrotti-Brown, Wine Advocate

2017 Wine Searcher Average $273
JJ Buckley $284.95 + shipping (no shipping if picked up at Oakland location)
Vinfolio $279 + shipping
Spectrum Wine Auctions $274.99 + shipping (no shipping if picked up in Tustin, CA)
Total Wine $284.99 (no shipping with all wines sent to a local store and only 50% down upfront)
K & L $279.99 + shipping (no shipping if picked up at K & L locations in California)

Previous vintages:
2016 — Wine Searcher Average $339 Average Critic Score: 94 pts
2015 — Wine Searcher Average $359 Average Critic Score: 96 pts
2014 — Wine Searcher Average $253 Average Critic Score: 94 pts
2013 — Wine Searcher Average $257 Average Critic Score: 92 pts

Buy or Pass?

This one is tempting but ultimately it will be a pass for me. I actually find myself more interested in finding bottles of the 2014 Palmer as I see that vintage performing a similar “cellar defender” role at a little better price point.

This 2011 Valandraud I tasted when I visited the estate back in 2016 was drinking fantastic for something from such an underwhelming vintage like 2011.
This give me optimism that in a much better vintage like 2017 that Valandraud will produce a winner.

Ch. Valandraud (St. Emilion)

Brief winery geekery: Premier Grand Cru Classe founded in 1989 by Jean-Luc Thunevin as one of the first “garage wines”. Vineyards planted to 70 % Merlot, 20% Cabernet Franc, 5% Cabernet Sauvignon with the remaining 5% split between Malbec and Carmenere–making Valandraud one of the few St. Emilion estates to use 5 red Bordeaux grape varieties. Around 3,400 cases produced each vintage.

Critic scores: 95-97 WE, 94-97 JD, 93-96 WS, 94-95 JS, 93-95 WA, 94 JL

Sample review:

Lots of beautiful blueberry and blackberry fruits here. Medium to full body, round and very polished tannins and a flavorful finish. Wet-earth undertones. Velvety mouthfeel at the end. — James Suckling

Wine Searcher Average $141
JJ Buckley $159.94 + shipping
Vinfolio — No offer yet
Spectrum Wine Auctions $144.99 + shipping
Total Wine $149.97
K & L $149.99 + shipping

Previous vintages:
2016 — Wine Searcher Average $179 Average Critic Score: 93 pts
2015 — Wine Searcher Average $167 Average Critic Score: 94 pts
2014 — Wine Searcher Average $141 Average Critic Score: 93 pts
2013 — Wine Searcher Average $141 Average Critic Score: 92 pts

Buy or Pass?

While I’m not going to go crazy, this is a buy for me. Valandraud is one of my favorite Bordeaux estates, regularly producing wines that I would put on par with $200+ Napa Valley wines. It’s worth having a couple bottles in the cellar when I’m craving something bold and luscious but with enough complexity to still remind me it is a Bordeaux.

Ch. Fombrauge (St. Emilion)

Brief winery geekery: Grand Cru Classe that is one of the largest and oldest vineyards in St. Emilion with parcels neighboring Ch. Pavie. Since 1999, has been owned by Bernard Magrez who also owns Ch. Pape-Clement with Michel Rolland as a consultant. 2017 vintage is a blend of 93% Merlot and 7% Cabernet Franc. Around 14,000 cases produced each vintage.

Critic scores: 93-95 WE, 92-94 WA, 90-93 WS, 91-92 JS, 90 JL

Sample review:

Offers nice flesh, with a mix of black currant and plum fruit inlaid with subtle black tea, graphite and anise notes. Reveals a tobacco edge on the finish. Well done. — James Molesworth, Wine Spectator

Wine Searcher Average $25
JJ Buckley — No offer yet
Vinfolio — No offer yet
Spectrum Wine Auctions — 6 bottle minimum $149.94 + shipping
Total Wine $28.97
K & L — No offer yet

Previous vintages:
2016 — Wine Searcher Average $28 Average Critic Score: 89 points
2015 — Wine Searcher Average $33 Average Critic Score: 90 points
2014 — Wine Searcher Average $35 Average Critic Score: 90 points
2013 — Wine Searcher Average $29 Average Critic Score: 88 points

Buy or Pass?

This is a definite buy for me and pretty much exemplifies the value that I’m looking for in 2017. The Magrez/Rolland style tends to favor early drinkability with “New World-ish” fleshy fruit. These are wines that I expect to be drinking fine 5-10 years from vintage date, making them perfect cellar defenders to help protect my 2015/2016 from being opened too soon.

Photo by Christian Haase. Released on Wikimedia Commons under CC-BY-SA-3.0

Ch. Haut-Batailley (Pauillac)

Brief winery geekery: 5th growth estate that was previously owned by the Borie family of Ducru Beaucaillou fame and managed by Francois Xavier Borie (who also owns Grand Puy Lacoste). In 2017, the estate was sold to the Cazes family (of Lynch-Bages fame). The vineyard is currently planted to 61% Cabernet Sauvignon, 36% Merlot and 3% Cabernet Franc with the Cazes family planning on decreasing the amount of Cabernet planted and increasing the amount of Merlot. Vineyards divided among two parcels with one neighboring Ch. Latour and the other Lynch-Bages. Around 9000 cases a year produced.

Critic scores: 94-95 JS, 89-92 WS, 94 JL

Sample review:

With a good depth of color, the wine shows a nice purity of juicy cassis while a leafy olive and pepper component keeps you interested throughout this full bodied, crunchy and classic experience. The tannins are a bit uncompromising right now but give the wine time, and it will prove to be worth the wait. This is the debut vintage from the new owners, the Cazes family. — Jeff Leve The Wine Cellar Insider

Wine Searcher Average $61
JJ Buckley — No offer yet
Vinfolio — No offer yet
Spectrum Wine Auctions $64.99 + shipping
Total Wine $64.97
K & L — No offer yet

Previous vintages:
2016 — Wine Searcher Average $57 Average Critic Score: NA
2015 — Wine Searcher Average $51 Average Critic Score: 92 points
2014 — Wine Searcher Average $44 Average Critic Score: 91 points
2013 — Wine Searcher Average $41 Average Critic Score: 89 points

Buy or Pass?

This is going to be a pass for me. Definitely not a compelling value compared to previous vintages. While I’m a huge fan of the Cazes family and can anticipate exciting things in the future for Haut-Batailley, I think it will be a few years before we really see their influence in the wine. I don’t see a reason to pay a premium over the $51 average that the 2015 vintage has just on the potential of the Cazes family’s involvement.

More Posts About the 2017 Bordeaux Futures Campaign

Why I Buy Bordeaux Futures

*Bordeaux Futures 2017 — Langoa Barton, La Lagune, Barde-Haut, Branaire-Ducru

*Bordeaux Futures 2017 — Pape Clément, Ormes de Pez, Marquis d’Alesme, Malartic-Lagraviere

*Bordeaux Futures 2017 — Lynch-Bages, d’Armailhac, Clerc-Milon and Duhart-Milon

*Bordeaux Futures 2017 — Clos de l’Oratoire, Monbousquet, Quinault l’Enclos, Fonplegade

*Bordeaux Futures 2017 — Cos d’Estournel, Les Pagodes des Cos, Phélan Ségur, Calon-Segur

*Bordeaux Futures 2017 — Clinet, Clos L’Eglise, L’Evangile, Nenin

*Bordeaux Futures 2017 — Malescot-St.-Exupéry, Prieuré-Lichine, Lascombes, Cantenac-Brown

*Bordeaux Futures 2017 — Domaine de Chevalier, Larrivet Haut-Brion, Les Carmes Haut-Brion, Smith Haut Lafitte

*Bordeaux Futures 2017 — Beychevelle, Talbot, Clos du Marquis, Gloria

*Bordeaux Futures 2017 — Beau-Séjour Bécot, Canon-la-Gaffelière, Canon, La Dominique

*Bordeaux Futures 2017 — Carruades de Lafite, Pedesclaux, Pichon Lalande, Reserve de la Comtesse de Lalande

*Bordeaux Futures 2017 — Vieux Chateau Certan, La Conseillante, La Violette, L’Eglise Clinet

*Bordeaux Futures 2017 — Montrose, La Dame de Montrose, Cantemerle, d’Aiguilhe

*Bordeaux Futures 2017 — Clos Fourtet, Larcis Ducasse, Pavie Macquin, Beauséjour Duffau-Lagarrosse

*Bordeaux Futures 2017 — Kirwan, d’Issan, Brane-Cantenac, Giscours

Subscribe to Spitbucket

Don’t Be a Jackass and Blindly Listen to Bloggers

Amber LeBeau in General, Shopping for Wine, Wine Tasting

Published on January 25, 2018

A very well loved and well-used tome.

Including yours truly.

Because frankly there is a lot of silly stuff everywhere. Case in point: Champagne Masters and their Bull Shit.

However, that doesn’t mean you should hide in a cave, clinging to your old worn out and marked up copy of The Oxford Companion to Wine. As with trying new wines, its always worth exploring different opinions and voices. But remember, just like with wine, you don’t have to swallow everything.

Sometimes it’s good to spit, like with some of the advice that Barri Segal is giving in their Cheat Sheet article titled “Things You Should Never Say at a Wine Tasting.”

The article starts with some good advice about using wine tasting events as a chance to try new things. It also includes helpful tidbits about not assuming that only women drink rosés, not chastising people for using spit buckets or trying to pour your own servings. Some of Segal’s advice is indeed worth swallowing. But there is also a lot worth spitting out.

So let’s grab a spit bucket and take a gander at Segal’s most “spittable advice.” I’m going to be using Segal’s numbering which gets a little weird with multiple #7s and #10s.

2. “Which type of barrel was this wine aged in?”

For this entry, Segal is referencing Kris Chislett’s post on Blog Your Wine titled Pretentious Things to Say at a Wine Tasting, Should You Want to , written as satire under the “Funny” category. But Segal takes the idea that you shouldn’t ask what kind of barrel is used to make wine because all that matters is if the wine tastes good.

Bull shit.

By Gerard Prins - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0,on Wikimedia Commons

Now if you start asking which particular forest the barrel wood came from…

The point of wine tasting is to learn what you like. One thing that is helpful is noticing patterns.

You may notice that you like wines with sweet vanilla and coconut flavors. Chances are those are wines were aged in American oak barrels.

You may see that you like more subtle baking spices like cinnamon, clove and nutmeg. Most likely those were wines aged in French oak barrels.

You may end up liking something that has only a little bit of those oak flavors. For you, knowing that the winemaker is just aging part of their wines in new oak (which gives the most intense flavors) and part in neutral oak barrels (barrels that have been used 3 or more times) is helpful knowledge.

And that is not even talking about wines aged in whiskey barrels which have very distinctive taste characteristics.

So ask away! Anyone representing a winery at these events should have this information available.

3. “What percentage malo is this wine?”

This entry was a segue from the last “faux pas” with the notation that it is “A totally idiotic question.”

Bull shit.

Segal also took this one from Chislett’s piece where Chislett notes:

“If someone at a wine tasting asks me “What percentage malo did this wine go through?”, I’ll normally respond with “Can’t you tell by tasting it?”

What?

Again, I know Chislett’s piece is satire but this is like hearing a song on the radio and asking who sings it only to be told: “Can’t you tell by hearing it?”

No, Karen. I can’t. At least not yet.

By U.S. Navy photo by Chief Warrant Officer 4 Seth Rossman. - http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=9384, Public Domain, on Wikimedia Commons

It’s Britney, bitch!
No, wait…I mean it’s 2/3 malo aged in new French oak with 1/3 kept apart in stainless steel.
Bitch.

The point of asking is to learn and just as you may eventually catch on and recognize a particular singer’s voice, you can also learn to taste malo in wine. While even Masters of Wine and Master Sommeliers probably can’t nail exact percentages of malolactic fermentation used in various buttery Chardonnays, after enough tasting you can start to get a sense if a wine was made fully malo or just partially.

It all comes back to finding patterns and learning about what you like. To do that, you need to ask questions and it is ridiculous when bloggers shame people into thinking that their questions are idiotic.

5. “I can taste the terroir in this wine.”

Alright, I’ll concede that this statement can come across in certain circumstances as pompous. But so is shaming people who may have just learned about the term terroir and are excited to explore how it relates to wine.

One of the most exhilarating moments in many people’s wine journey is that light bulb “Aha!” when you taste the differences between wines made from the same grape, by the same winemaker, in the same vintage but from two different vineyards.

On the surface, it seems like there is no logical reason why these two wines taste different but they do! And that difference is terroir! Having that light bulb go off often ignites a passion in wine lovers that encourages them to keep exploring, keep looking under the surface to figure out why these wines they adore taste the way they do.

It’s why Burgundy exists and why vineyard designated wines are often a winery’s top cuvee.

This “faux pas” also comes from Chrislett who I suspect is not being as satirical when he says:

Personally I believe that terrior plays a major role in the overall flavor of the grapes once they reach the winery, but from that point on it’s all in the hands of the winemaker. For that reason, you could also say: “…mmm, you can really taste the wine-maker in this wine!”

To which I would say, “Yes, Karen. I can. In the oak barrels they use and the amount of malo.”

7. “I’ll buy the bottle with the cool label” (or rather 7c)

Submitted without comment or judgment.

I know this chafes a lot of sommeliers and retailers to hear but, for me, as long as it doesn’t include the word “only” then I’m cool.

Let’s face it, standing in front of a literal wall of wine at a store is intimidating. There are so many choices. While you would hope that there is a knowledgeable wine steward nearby that could guide a consumer to a great bottle, sometimes there isn’t.

I would much rather have someone have a label catch their eye than nothing. It at least gives them a reason to try it rather than fall back to just drinking their same ole, same ole. If they take it home and it sucks (like, admittedly, many gimmicky labeled wines often do), then lesson learned. There is no reason to buy that wine again. They can move on to something new. If the wine shop they’re buying from is decent, they may be able to take that sucky wine back and exchange it for something else that catches their eye.

Bottom line, if you are always trying new things–regardless of the reason why the bottle interests you–then you are on the right path. I’m not going to shame you or make you feel bad for liking a cool label. But I will always encourage you to be open to trying things with sucky labels. Sometimes those are the best wines.

8. “What is Robert Parker’s rating for this wine?”

This is another thing that, admittedly, does make wine professionals inwardly (and sometimes outwardly) roll their eyes. That is because the number one mantra in the wine industry is that taste is personal. Just because a wine critic loves or loathes something doesn’t mean it’s going to match your opinion. And, really, in the end, all that matters is your opinion because you are the one who is putting it in your mouth.

The Wine-Twitteracy in still life.

But what these eye-rolling wine pros often forget is that Robert Parker, like Jamie Goode, is a tool–especially for newbie wine drinkers who are still learning what their taste is. It’s helpful to hear an expert’s opinion on a wine. But the key is to make sure that the newbie drinker knows that it is perfectly fine to disagree with the experts.

The ideal approach for those newbies is to notice how their tastes calibrate with the experts with certain wines. They may find that they jive with Parker’s opinions on Rhone-style wines but find his views on Napa Cabs completely off from theirs. That’s fantastic and it sharpens the effectiveness of using that tool.

But just as our tool boxes at home aren’t limited to only a single screwdriver, so too, should we be open to the usefulness of having a variety of tools and opinions at our disposal. You might find that Jancis Robinson’s ideas on Napa Cabernets fit your taste more. Even better, you might find the tastes of your local wine shop employee and yours go hand in hand.

Indeed the best advice that any wine lover can take to heart is to keep tasting and to keep asking questions. There are no rules or right way or wrong way to go about it. It’s your time, your money, your mouth. So own that and take your own path.

But you are entirely welcome to spit all that I just said right into the bucket. In fact, I couldn’t be more proud if you did.

Subscribe to Spitbucket

A Magnitude of Triviality

Amber LeBeau in Wine critics

Published on September 7, 2016

I greatly respect Matt Kramer of Wine Spectator. I love his writing style, particularly his Making Sense series of books, where he makes frequent use of anecdote and relatable metaphors to explain wine concepts. It’s a plain spoken style that I often try to emulate in my own writings and teachings on wine. But Matt Kramer is also a wine critic and as such is prone to the same navel-gazing and self justification for their existence that all critics indulge themselves in from time to time. The most recent example comes from his explanation of the difference between professional wine critics like him and mere wine loving folks. For Kramer, it was about differences in magnitude.

Think of it this way. You’ve seen a certain movie a dozen times, then two dozen times. You know it intimately. You begin to notice things you missed the first time or two. Then, after the tenth time, small elements begin to loom ever larger. By the twentieth time, that effect gets magnified yet more.

This is the critic’s perspective. After tasting 200 or 500 Cabernets from a single vintage, it’s not that you’re bored (although that’s surely possible). Rather, it’s that, often unconsciously, what to anyone else seems a very small difference is precisely what captures your attention and excites you.

I sincerely apologize if this post causes you to spend several minutes of your life wondering if Matt Kramer has a navel piercing.

The shorthand summary of this quote and the article is that wine critics are important because they taste so much and therefore can pick out the minute differences in wine that most people often do not. While this is undoubtedly true and Kramer’s logic is quite sound, it does beg the question that if the “magnitude of difference” between a 95 point wine and a 94 point wine is derived from these minute differences that only become apparent when awash in a sea of peers–then what’s the value of that to regular consumers? If they’re not going to be able to pick up on these subtle differences, then why would they care if those notes are in a 95 point wine but not a 94 points wine?

The point where a “magnitude of difference” become a “magnitude of triviality”

It’s okay to look at wine scores as a reference point. When you are a consumer, looking at a literal wall of wine in front of you, it can be comforting seeing a sign that says “95 points! Wine Spectator” or “94 points! Beverage Dynamics”. It’s easy to fall into the habit of thinking that because someone thinks this highly rated wine is good it must be a “good wine.” But you have to remember that while it may be a “good bottle”, that doesn’t mean that it is a “good wine” for you.

It’s important to understand that Kramer’s “Magnitude of Difference” between a critic and someone like you cuts both ways. All the knowledge that he’s acquired, all the bottles that he’s tasted has shaped his palate to where it is. Yes, he will certainly taste and pick up on things in the wine that you won’t but that also means that you will taste things and focus on aspects of the wine in ways that he won’t. Your “magnitude of triviality” is different and that matters a lot when you consider that you are the one that is ultimately consuming (after likely paying for) the wine.

This is why you should always fall back on yourself, your palate and what gives you pleasure as the final arbitrator of what is “good”. I don’t care if someone is telling you this is one of the greatest bottles of all time, from an amazing vintage and a prestigious estate with critics falling over themselves to award it 100 points. If that bottle doesn’t give you pleasure then, for you, its not really a “good wine”.

It’s just a wine that other people liked.