Parker lui-même s'explique sur son forum, dans un post intitulé
THE ANATOMY OF A YOUNG BORDEAUX, ETC.
(1) I was unable to do extended aeration tests on several bottled 2000 Bordeaux because they didn't arrive to the United States prior to the publication of the April issue (#146). Tasting at the Château doesn't permit this approach. The most notable was the 2000 Cheval Blanc, which was closed and muted when tasted at the Château after bottling. My purchased bottles finally arrived, and the first thing I did was pull a cork on the 2000 Cheval Blanc. It's now day three ... and guess what? It is the most viscous, thick, off the charts Cheval I have ever tasted. After 12-24 hours of aeration, it behaves like I said it did in Spring, 2001, January, 2002, and Spring, 2002. In short, I have never tasted a Cheval Blanc this rich, intense, and with such amazing persistence. However, it took considerable aeration for the wine to shed its muted behavior.
(2) It is hard to accept the position of the poster about “underrating†2000 red Bordeaux. Forget today's ravings about the vintage's greatness. In April, 2001, no one was more enthusiastic about the consistency and overall quality of 2000 red Bordeaux (when future prices were released). In fact, my rhetoric on “60 Minutes II†and subsequently on the one-hour “Charlie Rose Show,†in addition to The Wine Advocate reviews, were frequently criticized as being over the top praise of the vintage as well as a leading contributor to the absurdly high prices that emerged.
That said, my barrel tastings are always on the conservative side. To do otherwise is, in my opinion, irresponsible. If a wine is potentially outstanding (90 points or better) from barrel, and it receives impeccable upbringing and a natural bottling, it SHOULD be vastly superior in bottle. This is why I have, for nearly 25 years, excoriated the food processing mentality of some producers who have great raw materials, but carelessly eviscerate their wines before and during bottling.
(3) Tasting very young wines, particularly Bordeaux and Cabernet/Merlot-based wines, is about balance, texture, and palate persistence. Aromatics are usually primary, but young Bordeaux / Cabernet Sauvignon / Merlot generally fall within two broad categories:
(a) Ripe, opulent fruit bombs - The issue when tasting vintages with these characteristics is not fruit quality/ripeness, but rather, do the wines possess adequate structure/definition and delineation? 1982 and 1990 Bordeaux were years where it was often difficult to see the wines' structure/tannin and definition at age six months because of the incredible wealth of fruit and glycerin. These flashy vintages often need years to reveal their definition and structure.
(b) Austere, tannic, backward vintages - Here the issue relates to how much fruit, fat, and flesh these wines will ultimately possess after bottling. Remember, no Bordeaux or Cabernet Sauvignon-based wine has EVER had a deficiency in tannin. They often end up with a shortfall of fruit, charm, and flesh. In fundamental terms, the evolutionary struggle between the fruit and the tannin in Bordeaux and Cabernet Sauvignons nearly always favors the tannin, which has a record almost as perfect as that of the Grim Reaper - it will usually win the war between fruit and tannin. Generally speaking, 1975, 1986, 1995, 1996, and 1998 were vintages that fall within these parameters.
2000 has a combination of both. In the 25 years I have been barrel tasting Bordeaux, it is the most consistent and flawless vintage I have ever tasted. In tasting through these wines over the last six months, it is apparent that at the classified growth and better estate level, no one made disappointing wines, and almost everyone appears to have performed at their highest level of quality to date. However, I made this very clear in print and video in April, 2001.
To reiterate once more, I would rather underestimate a young vintage than overrate it. The 2000 red Bordeaux, as the editorial in issue #146 stated, symbolizes the pinnacle of a winemaking revolution in Bordeaux that started well over three decades ago.
Lastly, I thought after bottling that I had overrated the 2000 Cheval Blanc, rather embarrassing since it was my pick as the wine of the vintage during its first year and a half of its evolution in cask. Its closed, dormant post-bottling state never revealed the multitude of things I had seen earlier. Now, with a bottle open for three days, it is clear that this is the most compelling Cheval Blanc made in the last 25 years as well as one of the vintage's most outstanding wines, and clearly in keeping with what I wrote about it prior to bottling.
And here's another prediction ... as spectacular as the 1990, 1982, and even 1998 appears to be, the 2000 Cheval Blanc is in a completely superior category of quality ... but that wouldn't have been apparent in May, 2003 without the extended aeration test.
Robert Parker
Auteur du sujet
