Home > Vintages and Regions > Bordeaux > Bordeaux 2002 > Tasting, February 2011
Bordeaux 2002
I normally begin to derive real pleasure from Bordeaux in most vintages when it hits twelve or more years of age, with guaranteed joy even more likely at fifteen. I know this is a massive and sweeping generalisation, and that it is bound to vary from one vintage to another, and from wine to wine, but it is a useful starting point for me. I know many others find ten years to be the moment when the first cork is pulled, and that seems fine, the wines are increasingly likely to be approachable at that age, and they will certainly give a good indication of what sort of pleasure they will be giving over the decade or two that follows. To set up a tasting of a Bordeaux vintage at little more than eight years, though, to me seems a little foolhardy. This is surely asking for trouble, isn't it? Why tackle the wines at a time when they are - in my experience - likely to be sullen, closed down and ungiving?
There is one simple explanation; both the 2002 and 2003 Bordeaux vintages are unusual, 2002 having been afflicted with a very mean summer, short on sunshine and heavy on rain and rot. Meanwhile 2003 sits at the other end of the spectrum, a hot, super-baked vintage with big, rich and sweet wines as a result. Both perhaps merit earlier inspection than is usual, to see if these rather distinctive vintages also have distinctive drinking windows. For 2002 this seems especially relevant in view of the published opinions of a number of critics. Take for example the words of Jancis Robinson, who wrote in her review of the vintage after a tasting held by Farr Vintners in October 2009, "The wines were never going to be particularly long lived, so many should be starting to drink well now".
And yet I do find this a curious concept; as I recounted in my vintage review in their early reviews of 2002 Bordeaux a number of critics pigeon-holed the vintage as lean and tannic, perhaps more along the lines of 1994, 1986 and 1996 (perhaps all rolled up into one) than any other year. And yet by contrast others wrote that the wines would drink well in "five to fifteen or more years' time" which, as I have stated above in my opening paragraph, suggests a drinking window which closes (save for that teasing "or more" added at the end) at just about the time I open my first bottle. So, confusingly, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the vintage. Is this a tannic and classically structured year that I should leave in the cellar until 2017, content with my fifteen-year starting point, or is it a light and early-drinking vintage to be broached sooner rather than later, before the wines all fall off their perch?
I decided the best solution to this minor controversy was, as always, to open a few bottles and explore for myself. And for you too, of course. Now this is no grand tasting intended to give a comprehensive overview of the region, like the aforementioned Farr Vintners tasting comments from which prompted me to open these bottles, because unfortunately I don't have a cellar stuffed with all the first growths and more (even if they were so favourably priced on release). Instead these notes on just eight 2002s reflect considered contemplation of the wines poured over the course of several evenings at home. Having said that, when you consider that the Farr Vintners tasting took in 120 wines in 4 and a half hours, as disclosed on their blog, giving the famous critics present a little over two minutes per wine, that might not be such a bad thing. I spent more than two hours over each of these wines, not two minutes; that might just be an advantage?
I kicked off with the white wine from Carbonnieux, which showed well although there was a streak of oxidation running in the back of the wine, although happily at a level which for me provided an extra frisson of interest rather than anything more sour. Then onto a duo from Pauillac, a somewhat reticent Grand-Puy-Lacoste, showing good purity but not a lot of excitement at this stage, and also a Pichon-Lalande (bottle number two, after number one was corked). If the Grand-Puy-Lacoste was reticent then Pichon-Lalande was backward to a Neanderthal level, a wine so strung up in its tannic and acidic structure that it barely had time to deal with me, the impudent invader who had dared to even consider pulling the cork.
Moving onto the main feature, five wines from St Julien, Talbot was a real joy, mainly because of low expectations. I tasted this wine back in 2004 (and 2007 too) and severely under-rated it - mainly because at the time it tasted fairly horrible. Happily it has blossomed somewhat, and indeed of all the wines assessed here this was the most approachable, and hence it gave some good drinking pleasure. Also impressive were Gruaud-Larose, putting in a good show especially considering I have marked this estate fairly low within the St Julien firmament in several recent vintages, and from a second growth we should expect a better performance than that. It is often outshone by the likes of Lagrange, which tried had to repeat that achievement here, although in the end I rated both wines on a par; nevertheless Lagrange, an under-rated St Julien property, showed some very fine character typical of the commune. Finally, a heavy-hitting pair comprising Léoville-Barton, easily the most impressive wine of this assessment, just brimming with potential with well over a decade of good drinking yet to come here, and also a somewhat less convincing Ducru-Beaucaillou, although this wine did convey a sense of adolescent awkwardness which I found reassuring; it will, I think, come good with time in the cellar.
So what conclusions can be drawn? First, let's not get too contrary; this is a tiny assessment of just eight left bank wines, and we shouldn't extrapolate with any confidence to the entire vintage. Especially to the right bank where the wines, Merlot-based of course, a variety which did not fare well in 2002, are likely to be of a very different character. But looking at the wines tasted here, it seems clear to me that there is no rush to drink up. Only Talbot would I return to now for pleasure; the rest not only proved to me that they have yet more to give, but that in many cases - particularly Pichon-Lalande and Ducru-Beaucaillou - they are currently in the sullen stage that some wines exhibit before their tenth year (and sometimes beyond). It is wines like these that have led me to develop my 12-15 year rule; opening them now brings a strange mix of pain and pleasure, sometimes more of the former than the latter. In these cases, leave well alone. These are not early drinkers! My advice is, for the moment at least, save for exceptions - such as Talbot - to leave these wines to sleep in the cellar for now. (2/3/11)
Bordeaux 2002 - Tasting Notes
Tasted in February 2011. Click
to locate stockists.
Château Carbonnieux Blanc
(Pessac-Léognan) 2002: The only white wine included in this tasting. It is
approaching two years since I last tasted this wine, and this particular bottle
has a more golden appearance than I recall. Admittedly though, of my half-case,
every bottle now has a slightly different shade, and I have been pulling the
more golden looking bottles over those with a paler hue. On the nose today,
golden- dried fruits and a suggestion of baked honey and also elements of baked
red earth and orange peel and even a little dry toffee-sweetness. There is a
very faint hint of Madeirisation in the background, but it is extremely subtle,
adding warmth and complexity rather than detracting. The palate starts off very
firm, but with more air it develops a lovely opening texture, full but not over
the top, certainly well balanced, showing all the slightly truffly flavours
suggested by the nose. Defined, fresh, substantial and pleasing, and with a good
dried-orange intensity on the finish. 17/20
Château Grand-Puy-Lacoste
(Pauillac) 2002: This wine really needs four hours in the decanter before it
even deigned to show a mere hint of aroma. It has a clean, red-black hue without
so much a suggestion of maturity save for the fading of the glorious gloss of
youth, and on the nose, as my opening statement indicates, it is very tightly
closed down. Given time though there is certainly something here, an evolving
and very classic Pauillac style, at first releasing hints of red claretty fruit
mixed with graphite and flower petals, especially violets, before unfolding into
a layer of tea leaves and pencil shavings. It shows a darker style of fruit too,
tinged with black olive, although still perfumed with bright, crunchy,
sugar-coated violet petals. On the palate it shows a leaner flesh on entry, in
keeping with the vintage, but through the midpalate it does on some occasions
present a slightly more plump presence. Fresh, supple and crunchy in style
rather than sweet or fleshy, still with a backbone of nicely judged tannins and
fresh acidity. It all finishes very cleanly, leaving a coating of tannin which
fades a little more slowly than the crystalline fruit. A good wine which most
certainly has room for beneficial development in the cellar. This is on the cusp
of approachability though - I would advise leaving for just a few years yet. 16/20
Château Pichon-Lalande
(Pauillac) 2002: A remarkably dark hue in the decanter, deep and claretty,
certainly no suggestion of maturity from the colour at least. And this first
impression translates through onto the nose and palate, which is also painfully
youthful. On the nose it is tight and rather ungiving, showing a rather distant
pencil-lead fruit with the suggestion of a stony, violet perfume. Although the
wine 'feels' very dark, like peering into a gloomy cave, what nuances of fruit
it has does possess a rather lifted and chalky red-fruit character which
certainly holds some promise. But the palate is really where it slaps you in the
face. Moderate in body at best, coffee-tinged, with bright and acidic fruit,
this is a wine that looks upon you with disdain for even to daring to approach
it so soon. It will be very enjoyable one day I think, but for now this is one
to leave well alone to slumber in the cellar, for five years at least. And
sadly it took two bottles to discover this; the first was corked (and seemed
rather more open and advanced than this one behind the taint). Fine potential. 16-17/20
Château Talbot (St Julien)
2002: I recall tasting this back in 2004 when it was unmemorable, to put it
mildly. Subsequent tastings haven't been impressive, so I approached this bottle
with some trepidation. But this showed much better than expected - thank
heavens! Early maturity on inspection, and quite a nice depth of hue as well.
The nose certainly has some appealing character, with bright, curranty, dried
cranberry fruit at first, an element that persists, joined by notes of graphite
and iron filings; it has that gritty substance and flavour of a wine that sits
between the primary fruit of youth and the softening of secondary development. A
nice flesh - more than I expected from previous tastings or from the vintage's
reputation. Not fleshy, but certainly not lean or thin. Balanced, slightly
chalky, with supple and almost completely resolved tannins. The finish is
slightly bitter, with more curranty fruit and pepper. An attractive claret,
approachable now, but still with room for improvement. And none of the Brett
that so many find in Talbot - not in this bottle, anyway. 15.5/20
Château Gruaud-Larose
(St Julien) 2002: A dark colour but showing just a little bricky-oxblood in
terms of hue, although still some good density and just a narrow fading rim
where this maturity shows; at its core it still has a nice red, claretty
appearance. The nose shows some appealing evolution with appropriate time in the
decanter, notes of black tea leaves, tobacco and black olives with some
sour-salty notes faintly suggestive of soy sauce and black bean. The palate
shows a moderate flesh at the very beginning, although there is some tangible
extract showing its face here and there so this is no lean and mean effort.
There is austerity though, a reserved character, a feeling bound up in some
grippy and lightly sooty tannins which appear in the core of the wine and come
to the fore at the finish. Quite long too. An attractive wine still with a
rather tight structure but showing some aromatic complexity which bodes well I
feel. This is all nicely held together; it needs a few years yet though. 16.5/20
Château Lagrange (St
Julien) 2002: A reassuring hue, red-black hue, still full of youthful
pigment, but certainly no suggestion of maturity either. A big blast of coffee
when the bottle was first opened, probably an oak-related aroma, but this is the
last I saw of this as the wine had been decanted for nearly two hours before
tasting (as was the case with all the wines in this assessment). Lovely hint of
austerity on the nose, a tight core of red cherry, the fruit character touching
on black at times, a restrained seam of cassis, but with a fine, earthy element
to it keeping it all well grounded. Later it showed some sooty black fruits and
a wave of sweet violets. Only a moderate weight on entry, showing a well defined
crispy-crunchy shell of fruit with a little high-toned edge. Sappy, quite punchy
in the finish, with sweet-sour fruit with a bite resembling that of the
just-ripe blackberry. There is a little cherry warmth to it, but it remains very
primary in terms of its development. Good length with a biting layer of tannin
lingering for simply ages. Overall, a lovely St Julien character. 16.5/20
Château Léoville-Barton
(St Julien) 2002: A really dark colour here, and with one of the more
youthful tones of all the wines here, a very bright red-black hue, still with a
crimson-red edge. And the nose remains vibrantly youthful as well, a melange of
smoky black fruits and violets, with just a little suggestion of black tea
coming in at the edge. Lovely breadth and flesh on the palate, restrained and in
keeping with the vintage, but by no means lean or thin. Substantial, with a
reserved character, communicated through a dry tannic structure, but there is
enough fruit to match this, and some fresh balancing acidity as well. Sappy,
mouth-watering finish, Great evolution here, very early on its path to maturity,
approachable although only with caution, there are still a lot of grippy tannins
running around the mouth on the finish. A lovely wine with easily 10-15 years of
good drinking to give yet, and perhaps much more than that. 17.5/20
Château Ducru-Beaucaillou
(St Julien) 2002: Still very dark and youthful, with a lean, dusty, claretty
rim. The nose kicks of with a blast of gamey fruit as soon as it hits the
decanter, then a wave of crunchy cherry and blackcurrant. With a little time in
the glass it opens up to show sooty and smoky fruit, with nuances of black olive
and crispy bacon, but it all still seems pretty tightly reined-in right now. The
palate has a moderate weight and flesh at the start, with a crunchy fruit base,
on top of which there is more of the sweet sootiness seen on the nose, with a
nice grip. There is a little disconnect right now between texture and structure,
and it has a rather soft and diffuse finish, but I am sure this will come
together with time. Notes of green olive and a stalky edge will put many off I
think, but I rather like these elements; they add a more austere and challenging
aspect to the palate. Nice coating of light tannins at the end. Should pick up
with time in the cellar. 15.5-16/20
