A lot has already been written about the three Léoville-Châteaux, also by me in "Drunken". Actually, (almost) everything has been said. Also by the guild of wine critics, who regularly crowned the winery with many points. Parker from 1997 until today: 86, 91, 88, 95, 92, 92, 96, 92+, 94?, 91+, 89+, 92, 93+, 96, 88+, 90-92, 90-92 out of a hundred points. A proud balance, but it also generally reflects the level of the respective vintage. Clearly, the 1997 vintage - the one we are talking about here - was the weakest, the already legendary "century vintages" (2009 and 2010) the best - however, not to advance into the range of 100 points, which were generously awarded in these two years. Well, Pétrus is located on the other side of the Gironde (Pomerol) and is almost a pure Merlot wine. Léoville Barton, on the other hand, is Cabernet Sauvignon dominated(about 70%), with only 20% Merlot and some Cabernet Franc. Due to the weather situation (Merlot ripens relatively early, Cabernet late) there can be considerable differences in the wines (right bank-left bank). But I'm interested: is this '97 Barton really that much worse than other vintages. I don't get involved in an expert argument anymore anyway; actually, I just trust my own sensibilities. Yes, I should have drunk it long ago, like all Bordeaux 1997's. Parker says "old!" not "mature". What can I still do with this "old" Château Barton? Quite a lot! A great deal It is dense, expressive, it is supple, harmonious, has sweetness and a good amount of freshness. The Vinaria wine magazine gave it 17.5/20 points in 2007 ("Ten years on it") and wrote: "...bursting with power, in the context of the vintage a Schwarzenegger, very individual, but still great..." I can agree with that and confirm: seven years later - my well aged and cellared Léoville Barton has saved the honor. Because of its good bottle ageing? I rather mean: because of the dubiousness of (almost) any kind of vintage generalization in the Bordelais.