WTN: 1997 La Mission Haut Brion

[Jenise]

We had a milestone to celebrate, so I opened the last of the case of 97 LMHB's I found mispriced at $40 back in the day at a Whole Foods Market. More than half the case died young because they were just so good then and they hadn't cost me enough to make me careful. Anyway, this was a very good bottle within the context of 97's--lighter bodied and early maturing with plum, dried fruit and tea notes on the palate, resolved tannins, and a positively ethereal perfumed nose of violets and leather. It reminded me again of how, though I understand any year is considered a poor year that doesn't produce a 20-30 wine in this category of Growths, 97 was a great year for giving people like me a wine that delivers a lot of what we love about 20-30 year old wines in just 12.

Jenise
Indeed I'm sure the wine world has got too carried away on vintages. Ok there are still some shockers out there in poor vintages, but I'm happy to go for off-vintages on the secondary market as the value can be impressive.

regards

Ian

Thanks for note.
As we've discussed before, '97 certainly wasn't a bad vintage in the sense of say '91 RB. Lots of pleasant wines, especially for younger drinking. The main problem was they came out at quite inflated prices. I've bought some as prices became more reasonable (Lagrange at $16, Lafleur at $45).

[Jenise]

Jenise
Indeed I'm sure the wine world has got too carried away on vintages. Ok there are still some shockers out there in poor vintages, but I'm happy to go for off-vintages on the secondary market as the value can be impressive.

regards

Ian

Sure has, especially on this side of the pond. Btw, I've recently signed up for subscription to Decanter and am totally enjoying it. I'm so used to the rock-star Spectator style adulation for both the product and the people who make it, that it's quite refreshing to read material that seems to be written in complete disregard for who it might piss off.

[Jenise]

Thanks for note.
As we've discussed before, '97 certainly wasn't a bad vintage in the sense of say '91 RB. Lots of pleasant wines, especially for younger drinking. The main problem was they came out at quite inflated prices. I've bought some as prices became more reasonable (Lagrange at $16, Lafleur at $45).

Nice! I believe I now have only two others left, Montrose and Cos. This bottle suggests it's probably time to drink both in a better-late-than-too-late kind of way.

certainly wasn't a bad vintage in the sense of say '91 RB.

If you thought that was bad, have you ever heard of a '65? We lived in Nancy at the time. Brrrrrrrrrrr!

Jenise
Indeed I'm sure the wine world has got too carried away on vintages. Ok there are still some shockers out there in poor vintages, but I'm happy to go for off-vintages on the secondary market as the value can be impressive.

regards

Ian

Sure has, especially on this side of the pond. Btw, I've recently signed up for subscription to Decanter and am totally enjoying it. I'm so used to the rock-star Spectator style adulation for both the product and the people who make it, that it's quite refreshing to read material that seems to be written in complete disregard for who it might piss off.

Sounds like Decanter has improved since I last read it (I have heard the odd good comment). So difficult to publish a magazine that has mass appeal, generates good revenue/profit, yet also retains credibility.

regards

Ian

[Jenise]

Or maybe it hasn't, Ian, but it just sounds refreshing to me because I'm used to a much more fauning style of wine journalism. I'll let you know in about a year.

Thanks, Jenise.

I drank my last bottle of '97 GPL last weekend. I don't want to argue utility with Dale, Ian, or anybody else, but from my own personal standpoint, these wines were a delight, from the moment they came out (when they were at their best, in my opinion), to their graceful signing-off. They didn't improve with time, like bottles from vindegard (sp?) years, but they retained their beautiful identity. I would no more call 1997 Bordeaux a product of a poor or an off year, than I would call a child born brunette off when the world prefers blondes. In my limited experience there was no other vintage that was so true to its last, or itself, than 1997. How can you call something beautiful poor or off?

Covert

Thanks for note.
As we've discussed before, '97 certainly wasn't a bad vintage in the sense of say '91 RB. Lots of pleasant wines, especially for younger drinking. The main problem was they came out at quite inflated prices. I've bought some as prices became more reasonable (Lagrange at $16, Lafleur at $45).

Nice! I believe I now have only two others left, Montrose and Cos. This bottle suggests it's probably time to drink both in a better-late-than-too-late kind of way.

Still hanging on to a couple of bottles of '90 Montrose.

Thanks, Jenise.

I drank my last bottle of '97 GPL last weekend. I don't want to argue utility with Dale, Ian, or anybody else, but from my own personal standpoint, these wines were a delight, from the moment they came out (when they were at their best, in my opinion), to their graceful signing-off. They didn't improve with time, like bottles from vindegard (sp?) years, but they retained their beautiful identity. I would no more call 1997 Bordeaux a product of a poor or an off year, than I would call a child born brunette off when the world prefers blondes. In my limited experience there was no other vintage that was so true to its last, or itself, than 1997. How can you call something beautiful poor or off?

Covert

Covert
No argument from me - the terms weak/poor/off for vintages have generally been used too literally, just as the great/perfect/vintage of the century comments are made too liberally and taken too literally.

Indeed 1997 in Bordeaux has suffered an awful reputation, not for the quality per se, but for the release prices. What price 2007/2008/2009 suffering a similar fate?

regards

Ian

No argument from me - the terms weak/poor/off for vintages have generally been used too literally, just as the great/perfect/vintage of the century comments are made too liberally and taken too literally.

Indeed 1997 in Bordeaux has suffered an awful reputation, not for the quality per se, but for the release prices. What price 2007/2008/2009 suffering a similar fate?

Ian,

Re release prices: Dale mentioned that. My take is, having actually bought them en première, that they were one of the grand bargains of my life. I bought many cases of mostly classed growths; and, as I remember, many cost in the $30s and $40s. The First Growths were the most expensive, at $135, or something like that. But they were absolutely lovely upon release, with a special magic, in my opinion. So when they were the most expensive, they were at their best, which is fitting; but they weren’t all that expensive in any case. And when you consider the time value of money while waiting a decade for your wines to mature, the 1997s were a terrific bargain – again, in my opinion.

I think I read somewhere that the 2008s might be similar. Might have been 2007, but I think 2008. Can't wait to find out.

Best,

Covert