Home > Wine Features > Tannins and 2003

Tannins and 2003

A couple of wines I have opened in the past few days, including one in front of me as I write this, have forced my mind back to the Union des Grands Crus de Bordeaux 2003 tasting which I attended last month.

One of the most noticeable characteristics of the wines that I tasted there was that of incongruous tannins. This surprised me a little at the tasting, as I was expecting low acidity to be the major problem with the 2003 Bordeaux vintage. Indeed, I found this to be the case with the white wines, which were flabby and unfocused as a result. I felt these were wines to be avoided. They reminded me of most (not all) of the 2003 Burgundy I have tasted (limited sample size I accept - Burgundy is not a forte of this website), which have generally had a similarly low acid profile; the only exception might be a William Fèvre generic Chablis (although even here the acidity was lower than usual), and it may be that the lesser vineyards which normally struggle to achieve ripening, such as Petit Chablis (and even Chablis?) are the ones that perform well in a hot vintage like 2003.

But onto the reds, my thoughts on which have been prompted by the wine in front of me as I type this. I'm sipping a Château du Trignon 'Lou Gigous' Gigondas 2003, recently picked up for about £9. And here we have a palate so reminiscent of some of those 2003 Bordeaux; lovely ripe fruit flavour - although obviously reflecting Grenache rather than Cabernet Sauvignon - backed up, some might say overwhelmed, by a wall of tannin. This is the problem in the red wines; not acidity, but tannin. Now all red wines (OK, almost all) need tannin, but this seems to have it in excess. On the midpalate and finish it sits uneasily with the rest of the wine. It also sits a little uneasily with my cheeks and gums, which are sticking together there is so much meaty ripe tannin here. And crikey - as an aside I've just looked at the ABV....this is a meaty 15%. I didn't sense this on the palate, as I think it is well covered by ripe fruit, decent texture and all that tannin. But it's another problem; from super-hot vintages we get super-ripe grapes, and end up with super-alcoholic wines as a result.

Now don't get me wrong; I think there are many very good Bordeaux 2003, and probably many good 2003 Southern Rhônes as well. I bought a little of each (often just to keep essential verticals going - Léoville Barton, Beaucastel, Clos des Papes for instance) and I think I will enjoy drinking them, in the same way I enjoyed 1986 Bordeaux (and I don't think the tannins of 2003 are anywhere near as incongruous as those of 1986). But this isn't a vintage, in Bordeaux, and perhaps in the Rhône, that those who admire filigree-finesse should be purchasing I think. As for Burgundy I can't comment - I bought a tiny allocation of Grands Crus (as an experiment I think, or perhaps I was under the influence at the time), together with some quaffers from minor appellations (following on from my Chablis & Petit Chablis theory), and we shall just have to wait and see how these turn out. I suspect, however, that they will be the same. And this is remarkable; I do not ever recall a vintage where the wines across all France were so clearly marked in the same way by the character of the vintage. I suppose 1990, where success was near-universal, is the closest in recent years.

And one other thing before I sign off. I've seen plenty of reports that suggest the wines of 2003 will fall apart very quickly; some writers and critics have suggested drinking windows of less than ten years for these wines, despite them being rich in tannin, alcohol and flavour. I think this is absolute and utter nonsense. I can't vouch for the style that these wines will display in the future - whether they will integrate and cover the tannins in a serene fashion, or whether they will continue to stick out like a sore thumb (somewhere between the two is probably what will happen) - but I am willing to say this; these wines will not just fall apart eight to ten years hence. They will keep going, buoyed along by tannins, surprisingly acceptable acidity in many of them, 14-15ish% alcohol and an adequate presence of fruit. For those naysayers, may I just remind them that although many Bordeaux gets popped at ten years of age (I myself am guilty of this at times - witness my forthcoming 1995 Ten Year On Tasting) as a rule they are much better at fifteen years, if not twenty. And may I also point out that the worst vintage of the past decade, 1997, frequently described by Bordeaux apologists as an "early-drinking" vintage, produced many wines which are just in their drinking window now, at about eight years of age. Yes, I appreciate the 1997 vintage had a very different set of problems, but one cannot seriously suggest the 2003 vintage has less potential than the scrawny weaklings of 1997? Somehow, come 2011, I don't think I'll be looking at a pile of Bordeaux 2003 that's past it's sell-by date. (18/11/05)