Leoville Barton


Does anyone have an opinion as to whether the '03 is three times the
wine of the '04? They retail in the neighborhood of US$55 for the '04
and US$165 for the '03.
Jim
Reply to
Ronin
Don't know but I liked the 2004 better than the 2003 tasting both. My notes for the 2003 weren't very good. A bit thin. the 2004 was much richer.
Reply to
Lawrence Leichtman
The '04 Leoville-Barton has received a lot of praise recently, and is certainly one of the better wines of the vintage. '03s in general are a mixed lot, and the pricing has been driven up by the uncritical praise of Robert Parker, among others. So, while I have had neither bottle, I would be very surprised if I found the '03 much more appealing than the '04, but of course your tastes may vary considerably from my own.
Mark Lipton
Reply to
Mark Lipton
I've had both, and would pick the 2003 as the better wine in a heartbeat. The 2004 is very very good, the 2003 is on its way to greatness in my opinion. While 2003 isn't my favorite vintage overall, a few producers in northern Medoc seem to have hit real homeruns. And the Barton is best I've tasted (not had the Montrose or Cos, both supposed to be great).
That said, I'd personally prefer 3 2004s to 1 2003.
Reply to
DaleW
Did you taste the 2003 recently? My guess is its pretty shut down right now. But at release the ones I had were quite rich/lush.
As an aside, for some reason, this thread doesn't show on google groups. Something about Ronin's name, which doesn't show up at all (though I can see it and thread on motzarella). But if I search Google groups I can see responses. Weird.
Reply to
DaleW
In article ,
Have tasted it twice. To me it was more than shut down. I thought the flavor profile was thin on the '03 to begin with. The second tasting this year wasn't any better. There was no match to the '04.
Reply to
Lawrence Leichtman
Anyone try the 2002 Leoville Barton recently, I received a few bottles as a gift but have not tried.
Erobertparket says best after 2012 and WS says best after 2007.
Reply to
Richard Neidich
Slightly OT, but I can't help it. A recent bottle of 1970 Leoville Barton was quite wonderful, with a beautiful nose, a wonderful fruity softness, and without age related problems.
Kent
Reply to
Kent
How much longer do you think we can hold our 1970's?? Most of those we have had recently are pretty nice. They do taste "mature", if that's a correct word.
Kent
Reply to
Kent
Correct indeed.
How long? I haven't had any 1970 that wasn't mature (I haven't had Latour which might still be too young). I have de Pez, Gruaud, and Figeac; de Pez is only one I'm in hurry on. DDC and Ducru tasted last week still had decade + of life in them. Leo-Barton and P-Clement are mature, but I wouldn't hold more than 5 or 6 more years personally.
Of course by 37 there is a lot of bottle variation due to corks and storage. So others Bartons might be younger (or Ducrus more advanced). So little help!
Reply to
DaleW
Two years ago at the Garagiste blind 2002 Bdx tasting, the '02 Leoville Barton finished 6th overall out of 16 wines. It didn't make my top five.
My brief notes for that tasting say, "very light nose, no oak, closed, not much flavor, tannic."
There were about 100 people of all stripes tasting the wines. Top five finishers overall were:
1. Pape Clement 2. Mouton Rothschild 3. Latour 4. Osoyoos Larose (a ringer from B.C.) 5. Palmer
My top five:
1. Mouton Rothschild 2. Lynch Bages 3. Pichon Lalande 4. Pape Clement 5. Cheval Blanc just edged out Osoyoos Larose (it was a virtual tie)
JJ
Reply to
jj

Site Timeline Threads

  • Betsy made roast chicken, cumin carrot puree, squash, and caprese. Wine for our...
  • last posted in

    General Wine

  • Betsy made roast chicken, cumin carrot puree, squash, and caprese. Wine for our...
  • site's newest in

    General Wine

DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.