Dan's Papers - May 23, 2008 - 2005 Bordeaux: Buy, Sell Or Hold?

Both Great Wines And Blue Chip Stocks Are Good Investments, But There Is A Crucial Difference

In my lifetime there has been only one truly classic Bordeaux vintage, 1982, that compares to the legendary likes of 1870, 1928, 1945, 1959 and 1961. I have been lucky enough to taste wines from three of those vintages ('82, '61 and '59) and possibly a third, a very old bottle given to me by Mr. Bruce of Manhattan's '21' Club that no longer had a label and whose cork stamp had faded into oblivion. That wine (tasted in 2002 with a good friend) was still alive and amazing, so we determined that it had to be a first growth - a Lafite, Latour, or Haut-Brion - and from the type of glass the bottle was made of, older than 1910. To last that long, it had to be from an incredible, though forever unknown, vintage. Now we have two more milestone vintages, 2000 and the latest, 2005, which many critics put above both the vaunted 1982 and the 2000.

There are two ways to measure the quality of a vintage in Bordeaux: from the top down or from the bottom up. Clive Coates, a Master of Wine from Britain, and Steven Spurrier (of the famed 1976 Paris Tasting) agree that the greatest vintages are judged by the wines at the lower end of the quality spectrum. Spurrier always talks about buying lesser Chateaux in greater vintages and greater Chateaux in lesser vintages. Other experts, especially those who love numbers, talk about the top wines and how they scored with critics such as Robert Parker. Parker rated more than 60 wines 95 points or better in 2005 with five rated 99 or 100. In the 2000 vintage, less than 50 wines scored 95 or better, yet there were nine 100-point wines and one 99-pointer. So using Robert Parker's assessment, it looks like 2000 is the higher-scoring vintage. But using a view from below as Cotes and Spurrier do, 2005 comes out on top. (1982 also had 10 wines scoring 99 or 100 from Mr. Parker, but only 20 at 95 or better.)

I have heard from several vintners that 2005 was one of the easiest vintages to produce in Bordeaux. The grapes came into the winery in such great condition; many producers didn't feel it was necessary to sort through them as there was little to no fruit unsuitable for great winemaking. So they sent some of their workers home and saved money. Naturally this savings was passed along to the consumer (yeah, right). The 2003 vintage had lots of heat, so the wines are very rich and concentrated, but lack some finesse and acidity. The 2000 vintage was partly variable and half the growing season was almost perfect setting up wines with both concentration and balance. The 2005 vintage had weather that was as close to perfect as it could be for Bordeaux, dry but not overly hot, cool evenings and warm days for the whole growing season. This produced wines with perfect tannins, plenty of richness and great balance. Truly a perfect vintage, only the prices are a bit tough to swallow. How many of us can justify spending more than $1500 for a bottle of wine?

Many people often draw comparisons between investing in serious Bordeaux and blue chip stocks. Well, yes and no. Stocks and fine wines are bought as investments and fluctuate in price, true, but stocks don't get consumed. As the price of fine Bordeaux fluctuates, some also gets drunk - not everyone buying 2005 Lafite is patient. Hence supply is lowered, and the value of the wine (along with the price) go up. So patience, in this case, can be very well rewarded.

This last point brings us to the question of practicality: if you are my age or older, what's the point in buying a wine that won't be at it's best for another thirty or more years? I have heard this from several wine buyers who ask my advice, and I still recommend buying these wines for investment. For example, the futures price of 1982 Chateau Lafleur (a 100-point Pomerol) was $300 a case in 1983. In 1994 it sold for $250 a bottle, and today, if you can find it, a bottle will set you back about $5000! What a great way to fund your wine habit. I have done this and recommended it as well. It works out, but only if you can be patient. A good strategy, if you can afford it, might go something like this: buy a few cases of first growth 2005, a few more second growth and a hand-full of lesser wines (well, I can't afford this but I know there are some readers that can). I can't really justify drinking a 2005 Chateau Lafite-Rothschild now (currently about $1200, 96-plus points from Parker). But if you can afford it, buy a case now and in five years start to sell a few bottles to fund other wine purchases. Unless there is a world-wide economic disaster, the 2005 will be worth closer to $2000 a bottle by as soon as next summer.

The top Bordeaux vintages of this century, in my opinion and in descending order, are 2005, 2000, 2004, 2003, and 2006. (2006 is really too young to assess definitively yet, but it appears to have the potential to leap ahead of '03 and '04 eventually.) Great vintages, like 2005, are long lived, and the first growth wines will still be incredible in fifty years or more. But how does one decide about which wines to acquire for both investment and drinking pleasure?

In terms of cellaring for future consumption or for investment, the classified first growths, such as Lafite, Haut Brion and Latour, are the longest lived and also benefit the most from patience. The Bordeaux classification system limits the quantity of grapes that can be legally harvested from these vineyards, which creates wines with more tannins, acidity and concentration, all traits that allow wines to age for decades. So, in general, first growths take longer to mature than fifth growths or non-classified Chateaux. They are also considerably more expensive.

My personal buying strategy is to purchase a few great wines that I have some passion for or history with, the ones I always think of regardless of vintage or rating. These include the following Chateaux, along with Robert Parker's anticipated maturity dates (when available): Ducru-Beaucaillou (2018-2050), Leoville-Poyferre (the first Bordeaux I bought in quantity; 2015-2035), Beychevelle (I like an underdog and how it evolves; 2017-2030) Lafite (first growth; 2020-2050), Cos d'Estournel (across the street from Lafite and a fraction of the price; 2017-2040), Monbousquet (2015-2028), Cheval-Blanc (2017-2035), Certan de May (2017-2035), and Vieux Chateau Certan (I like a bit of Cabernet Franc with my Merlot; 2015-2035). Next I look for my favorite value wines, which can be enjoyed much sooner, such as Cantemerle (2012-2025), Teyssier, Faugeres (2010-2020), La Vieille Cure (2010-2020), Vrai Canon Bouche, and La Clotte (2010-2025). All are very good values (most are $25-55) and can be enjoyed, in my opinion, beginning 1-2 years from now. Chateaux Coutet and Camensac could be opened a bit sooner, though they would still benefit from more time. (Note: I offer Robert Parker's maturity dates here as general guidelines: my personal suggestions are based on my tasting experience of these Chateaux over decades.)

After this I would consider going back for a bit more of the 2004 as the vintage is quite good and still almost affordable, especially when compared to either 2005 or 2006.

Whatever strategy you adopt, remember that with Bordeaux, especially the first and second growth Chateaux, the sooner the wines are bought the better the price. With time, the prices escalate. Sometimes massively.

Christopher Miller is the Senior Wine Writer for Dan's Papers "Guide to Wine." Mr. Miller is a graduate of the Culinary Institute of America, an Advanced Sommelier with the Court of Master Sommeliers, a wine consultant for Sherry-Lehmann and wine educator. He is also the Education Director for Long Island's Sommelier Society of America, and has held the position of saucier chef at Schweizerhof in St. Moritz, Switzerland, and that of sommelier at Manhattan's '21' Club. He is teaching a Captain's Course at Stone Creek Inn in the fall. Visit noblewines.com or email csm@hamptonswineclub.com