Your Most Disappointing Chateau

[Blanquito]

Leoville Las Cases.

My most disappointing Chateau.

What makes for disappointment? Some mixture of expectation, performance, price, context, and with Bordeaux, maturity.

I've had the 75, 81, 83, 86, 90, 96, and 1998 LLC. Each has either been a let down (81, 83, 90) or so broodingly tannic as to be inscrutable and austere. I had hoped the recent opening of the 1990 LLC would break the streak. My favorite is the 96, which I've had twice-- it will be grand someday, but that puppie needs 15+ years still. The 86 may turn into the 75, defined by it's tannins forevermore.

Or maybe this Chateau just needs 50 years to show its best?

Sounds like Leoville Barton may be Chasse's claret disappointment.

It's tough to be the top pretender to 1st Growth status with such high expectations, I guess. But for me, LLC has become my consistent Bordeaux let down.

What's yours?

[stefan]

Nice question, Patrick, and I also do not like LLC as much as most people do. For the same price I would always choose Ducru Beaucaillou.

My biggest disappointments came in my early Bordeaux drinking days, when I thought being a second growth meant something. Then I drank Lascombes...

[AlexR]

Subjective, knee-jerk answer (the kind I do best : La Gaffelière.

Lord knows I've tried...

The other de Malet Roquefort cru classé, Tertre Daugay, was downgraded in 2006 (then re-instated).

This was widely perceived as a warning shot for La Gaffelière. The owners have since had a miracle worker (Stéphane Derenencout) in to try to improve things.

I have a bottle each from the 98 and 01 vintages. Let's see how these fare, but I'm not widely over-optimistic.

Still, I like rooting for the underdog, and also enjoy unfashionable wines (Durfort Vivens is a good example).

All the best,
Alex R.

[Claudius2]

Blanquito
I don't agree that the LLC 75 was a tannic monster.
I drank several bottles of it from the early 90s to about 2000 or so, and it was never a tannic beast, rather, it was a powerful wine at 15 or so years and a quite nicely mature one later on.

Yet I do not buy it any more as it is too expensive. And I for one am too old to wait 50 year to drink the 2009....

Had you asked me the quesiton 20 years ago, I would have given you a long list of estates in Margaux, Pauillac and St Estephe, not to mention some dismal wines in the right bank. And I'd inlcude underperforming first growths (like the two Rothschilds) for many years as well.

Yet I think now there are few real failures.

[Comte Flaneur]

Monbousquet - a Sarah Palin of a wine (lipstick on a pig)

I can't agree with you Patrick on LLC, but I can see where you are coming from. Up until a few years ago the 1982 LLC was one of most bitterly disappointing wines I had tried until I tasted a pristine example, alongside a pristine example of 1986, and I understood what all the fuss was about.
Neither is remotely close tro being ready, however.

One criticism I have of LLC is the bottle variability - the 90 we had on Friday, while not faulty was broody and skulky, whereas the one a had a few weeks ago was a flashy extrovert and delicious. Of the more recent vintages the 2002 is brilliant and the 2004 v promising. The 1999 is delicious and ready to go. However the 2001 is painfully closed, while the 1989 is still very curmudgeonly. I really enjoyed the 1975 on Friday, but I agree it was well down the pecking order of wines we drank.

[Ramon_NYC]

Montrose.

Just like Alex, this is mostly knee-jerk reaction to Patrick’s question. But to my recollection, this chateau’s vintages from the 80’s onward have not wowed me on a consistent basis. Only the 1982 (a pleasant surprise to me given the relatively OK regards amidst the high praises bestowed to most peers in this vintage), the 1989 (imho, the best Montrose since 1980 when bottle is pristine) and the 2000 were the ones that gave me things to write about.

I had the 1990 twice this year and once last year, and I know that it was given a perfect 100 pts by Parker. While 2 of the bottles had suspect condition, the one very good condition bottle just about appealed to me, and I still came away wondering what my 100 pointer would taste like.

By the way, on the question of LLC, can anybody comment on where the 2000 stand?

Ramon

[Houndsong]

One criticism I have of LLC is the bottle variability

LLC is a Delon property? I tend to think that a different closure than cork would solve most of the bottle variability problems. No two corks are alike, and the process of inserting them contributes significantly to the amount of initial O2 going into the wine and how much is allowed in afterwards. On the other hand, it seems to me that Potensac, or at least the 1996, is ridiculous in this regard and it's also a Delon property, right?

Even though I thought the 03 Potensac tasted like a junior Pontet Canet (and not junior by much) my experiences with the 1996 and 2000 of this property would make it a disappointment or at least one I'm not interested in having more of, and not quite understanding why it gets generally favorable press. And when it comes to one-offs, the 2002 Lafite tasted a whole lot like the 2002 Gloria, which is not to say I didn't like it or the Gloria. I wasn't expecting to be trasnported to a different land and so it was only mildly disappointing. I know, wait, etc., but I wouldn't hestitate to trade that one for 5 cases of something(s) else.

[Nicklasss]

I must say Petrus. I never had a Petrus from a ''great vintage'', but the 1967, 1974 and 1997 I have tasted in the past, were nothing special (maybe the 1967 was a bit something, but hey, what do you expect from Petrus...).

I'll start a thread on exactly the opposite.

Nic

[jal]

Leoville Barton. I don't know what it is with this estate, but I never opened a bottle that I liked.

[Harry C.]

Palmer. I have never "gotten" this wine. And I have had many vintages back to 1970-and even eaten at the Chateau.

[Chasse-Spleen]

This is a great thread. It's like a "confessions" of the wine obsessive. I especially like the last two or three before mine. But I really can't say that I have a Bordeaux that I find consistently disappointing. Blanquito mentioned my experiences with Barton, which are true but I only had it a few times. Part of the problem is the expectation factor. I'll have to think about it some more.

[JimHow]

I think we are going to need to do a Leoville Barton vertical pretty soon, this "it's a witch" mob mentality is getting out of control.

You guys are mad. You are madmen.

Are you guys kidding me??? Leoville Barton is one of the great wines of Bordeaux!!

[JCNorthway]

Jim,

I would love to test out the Leoville Barton hypothesis. I think I have the 1996, 1999 and 2000, all of which are probably way too young to be showing their best. But I would offer one up to the wine tasting gods as a sacrifice.

Jon

[Blanquito]

Bring it on, Jim! I'd really enjoy a LB vertical.

I've only ever had the '82 (corked), the '86 (corked), the 98 (corked), and the 96 (broodingly tannic back in 2005).

Not a good personal track record with LB!

[tim]

Beychevelle. Never had one that I found particularly interesting.

[DavidG]

Hmm. Beychevelle might be the one.

[JimHow]

The 1982 Beychevelle achieved greatness.

[DavidG]

Have to agree, the '82 Beychevelle was excellent. The exception that proves the rule?

[JimHow]

HWSRN seems to be thinking they are producing better wines this past decade or so.
You would think that their location near the river in the middle of all these great properties would provide great terroir.

[JimHow]

A bottle of the 1996 Beychevelle I picked up at the chateau in mid-September 2000.
It's supposed to be a good vintage for Beychevelle.

[tim]

Never had an 82 Beychevelle, would be interesting to try....

[Chasse-Spleen]

Blanquito,
That's exactly what I'm saying - I think LB has a poor track record (at least with me and you) for corked bottles. Two out of three that I've tasted have been corked. Don't they make the wine at Langoa Barton? Maybe that's the culprit.
-Chasse

[stefan]

Interesting about the corked bottles. Off hand I don't recall ever having a corked bottle of Barton.

[Chasse-Spleen]

RE the 2000 Beychevelle, we had it at the BWE St. Julien tasting about five years ago, and it was really good. Seems like one of those wines that never closes down, and just gets better and better with age.
-Chasse

[Nicklasss]

i had the 1989 Beychevelles this weekend. I will report soon. But it was just really good, even glorious...

Nic

[DavidG]

'83, '85, '86, '88, '89, and '90 Beychevelle didn't do much for me and I haven't bought or tried any younger than those. They weren't all terrible, just disappointing compared to expectations. I've since lowered my expectations. YMMV...

[stefan]

Comments about Beycheville induced me to open our last bottle of the 1982 to drink with left over grilled quail, taboulie (to get rid of parsley, says Lucie), and our last garden tomato. It had a lovely nose and taste to match. There were black cherries, cassis, and a touch of tar. The fruit was very sweet. stefan 91. Lucie 91.

[Winona Chief]

Well, I really liked the 1985, 1986 and 1989 Beycheville. Also really liked the 1970, 1971 and 1978 Beycheville back in the day. Not much experience with more recent vintages.

Chris Bublitz

[DavidG]

Looks like I'm clearly outvoted on Beychevelle. More for you guys!

[Houndsong]

Looks like I'm clearly outvoted on Beychevelle. More for you guys!

Funny you should say that. I bought a case of the 1988 over the weekend. More or less I was relying on recent Cellartracker notes describing the wine and pegging it at 89 points (my favorite score), and disregarding a certain expert's decade-old note rating it an 84 (and putting it past its drinking window by now). I'll give the definitive and conclusive opinion on this wine after it's been shipped in and has had time to rest.