I thought I compare the Clerc Milon mentioned in my last post with another wine from the Pauillac subregion, the 2002 Chateau Pontet-Canet. Pontet-Canet has jumped on the Robert Parker bandwagon perhaps more than any other Bordeaux winery. Their detractors see them as an exponent of the 'Bordeaux on steroids' movement. The 2002 vintage was much cooler than 2003, so this could be an interesting comparison.
It turned out to be quite remarkable, actually. The colour was still very dark. On the nose and palate, the wine was astonishingly similar to the Clerc Milon: perhaps a little more elegant, perhaps a little leaner, but essentially the same, with a firm tannin structure on the finish. Pauillac very obvious in both wines.
What is the lesson here? It might be a good idea to buy a wine from a leading exponent of 'bigger is better' and 'strong tannins' from a cooler and generally less well regarded vintage. This would be much cheaper and give you a well made, mainstream wine. Also, you could actually drink such a wine after 10 years.