Community Tasting Note

• Motz wrote: 94 points

  August 9, 2019 - Tasted over two days. The same bottle previously tasted from Coravin. The finest 2016 vintage Bordeaux I have tasted, with no close second. Pontet-Canet excels at making the best wine from what nature provides each vintage. Deftly extracted, showing effusive blackberry fruit, accentuated by bramble, blackcurrant, blueberry potpourri, and graphite notes. Medium to medium plus body, quality finish, great balance. Like so many 2016 Left Bank Bordeaux, by Pontet-Canet standards, middle and bass substance disappoint. It might improve over the next decade. 94-95.
  
  Regardless of what many pros have written, with the exception of WS in several cases, whose lower than the pro average 2016 Bordeaux scores more accurately reflect vintage quality, this is not a top flight vintage. It cannot approach the 2010. It most reminded me of a somewhat prettier, though less rustic and structured 2006. Also, it showed similarly to a hypothetically equal parts blend of 2006 and 2014, with a splash of 2003.
  
  I do not understand the hype with this vintage. I can speculate that the ripe blackberry element common to this vintage, which is certainly appealing, has played a role. This would be a similar to trend to the ridiculously over-hyped 2009 vintage, which tended to show high pitched red fruits and berries. The common thread between these vintages is unbalanced ripeness. Neither vintage expresses place well, especially on the Left Bank. In sum, unbalanced ripeness, the telltale sign of which in 2009 was phenolic ripeness, many of the wines showing bitterness at the back, and in 2016 is manifested by the absence of middle and bass substance.
  
  Neither vintage was worth the tariff, and with both, after early sampling, I quit buying.

  13 people found this helpful 14,292 views

19 Comments

• thesternowl commented:

  8/9/19, 8:33 AM - MOTZ: as always, I appreciate your perspective and, in this case, your thoughts regarding the vintage overall. I have not personally drank a whole lot of 2016 yet but I've preferred them over the 2015's that I've had. Back when the 2010 vintage was released, prices for Bordeaux were still insane so I never really collected much but what I've had was awesome and reminded me of 2005 in some ways.

• Mark1npt commented:

  8/9/19, 9:16 AM - Thanks for the in depth notes, once again!

• Motz commented:

  8/12/19, 7:07 AM - Good morning thesternowl.
  
  Thank you for your note.
  
  The 2015 vintage is unique; I know of no other vintage with which it compares. The best wines feature exceptional class and charm, with some delivering Burgundy-like subtlety, which in my experience, some Bordeaux aficionados have found perplexing. I have had some disappointing 2015 wines, but so far, I have not preferred any 2016 vintage Left Bank Bordeaux over a 2015.
  
  I agree with your comparison of 2005 and 2010, whereas 2015 is the most unique vintage with which I am familiar, 2005 and 2010 are the purest and most traditional. I have found 1995, 1996, and 2000 to be very good, but generally overstated. I have no data points on 1990. For what it is worth, I have found 2001, 2004, 2006, and 2008 understated. Conversely, 2009 and 2016 are spectacularly overstated, more so than 2003.
  
  Yes, to good wine!

• thesternowl commented:

  8/12/19, 9:39 AM - Alright...sounds like a deeper dive into 2015 is warranted!

• Motz commented:

  8/12/19, 12:05 PM - May I recommend:
  
  Domaine de Chevalier, Pontet-Canet, Brane-Cantenac, Giscours, Rauzan-Segla, Lagrange, and Cantemerle?
  
  Cheers!

• thesternowl commented:

  8/13/19, 9:49 AM - Noted! Thanks Motz!

• vintage1949 commented:

  8/16/19, 6:41 AM - Ho Motz,
  What are your thoughts on the 2018 vintage? One source indicated to me if I was going to buy a couple bottles of first growth from either the 2016 vintage or 2018 to goi with 2018. Comments? Dave

• Motz commented:

  8/16/19, 7:06 AM - Dave,
  
  I know nothing about the 2018 vintage other than what I have read. One word that I have read in several places that concerns me, given the hype with that vintage, is 'ripe' (ripeness). I think many pro reviewers score vintages based on ripeness rather than balance, place, and ageability.

• Mark1npt commented:

  8/16/19, 7:41 AM - Dave + Motz.....I have not had any BDX '18s yet but have read a lot of the challenges they faced in that growing season, from rain/hail, to mildew to rot to 50-80% crop loss, to heat and yet the 'experts' are propping up the vintage with glorious 'once in a lifetime prose' in some places. I myself remain quite skeptical as I do with the '17 vintage coming out of Napa right now. That was a very challenging year with flooding, record heat and fires in CA.

• vintage1949 commented:

  8/16/19, 3:03 PM - To Mark and Motz,
  Thanks to the both of you for your comments. Dave

• Portland Seth commented:

  8/29/19, 2:14 AM - Motz, I have not tasted any of my '16 Bdxs, but the '16 S. Rhones are spectacular with exuberant fruit and no loss of precision. I know they are 500 km apart, but it gives me some hope.

• vintage1949 commented:

  8/29/19, 7:19 PM - Another comment: I will keep buying wine down the road even though I am 70 (in about 24 days) this September. The only last purchases of first growth will be 2018 Mouton and Lafite as they do require aging. Not to make you jealous but hopefully down the road they taste as good as the 1959-yes-1959 versions of both tasted back in 1983. Talk about WOW wines.
  
  So now I am buying anything not considering my age (except for the two above) as I think I will make it until maturity. Family longevity is on my side.
  
  So I am buying Bordeaux, although it is hard to determine what are the best vintages as illustrated in the above discussions. Trying to make the best possible decisions. Also buying California Cabs. Hey when my last years on earth finally come around—-I want damn good wine every night touching my lips:) Dave

• Motz commented:

  9/4/19, 10:55 AM - PortlandSeth,
  
  I agree on the 2016 Rhones. I do not think that 2016 is as good as 2005 or 2010 there, but I would rate it 'Excellent' overall. Rhone varieties thrive in warm vintages (within reason (2003, and perhaps 2007 and 2009, were arguably too warm)), whereas Bordeaux varieties require balanced growing seasons. I think many pro reviewers now equate warm vintage to great vintage in Bordeaux. A mistake. And, to play devil's advocate, 1997 and 2007 very excellent or better vintages in the Rhone, and generally regarded as bad in Bordeaux.
  
  Cheers!

• Mark1npt commented:

  9/4/19, 11:21 AM - Dave, I can't disagree with your strategy one bit! Mark

• Mark1npt commented:

  9/4/19, 11:23 AM - Motz, I agree with you 100% on the temps....'03 in BDX was panned because of the heat, yet many of the '03s have turned out to be drinking pretty darn well. I don't know that the 'experts' can tell how much heat is too much heat, however.

• thesternowl commented:

  9/4/19, 12:34 PM - For the sake of differing perspectives, I actually think that the 2016 Southern Rhone wines remind me more of the young 2010's (prodigious structure/fruit) while the 2015's remind me more of the 2009's (prodigious fruit/structure). Ultimately, I think that 2015's will prove to be better than the 2009's but I could be wrong. One thing's for sure, there was no shortage of fruit in either vintage and while I'm waiting for the 2015's and 2016's to come into their own, the 2014's are drinking AMAZING...but they're firmly more Burgundian.

• vintage1949 commented:

  9/4/19, 2:22 PM - Greetings Thesternowl,
  Great comments. Love it when people have different viewpoints. Keep on posting. Dave

• Motz commented:

  5/29/20, 9:40 PM - thenesterowl: I have also enjoyed many 2016 Rhone offerings, as much or more than their 2015 counterparts. I think many sport slightly higher acid in the latter vintage.

• srh commented:

  12/12/20, 1:13 PM - I *very* much enjoyed reading your perspective on this, Motz! THANK you so VERY much for your thoughts/time in entering BOTH your TNs here! 🙂

Add a Comment