Parker and Gruaud Larose

[Winesense]

Hi,

I know there was some kind of fight. Some recent GL did not get a rated. Can somebody tell what is going on here?

[Comte Flaneur]

I have not researched this but I think this relates to a change in ownership in the late 1990s and a change in direction to a more nuanced style, apparently an anathema to some commentators...so essentially what G-L did was the reverse of what some other estates did (e.g., Poyferre in St-J), suffered the consequences and was de facto downgraded from its 'super-second' status.

That is not to say that G-L was 'spoofulated' - that concept barely existed in Bordeaux 10-12 years ago - but it is arguably true that G-L has become more anonymous and has lost some of its rusticity and brawniness. However, arguably market prices have over-compensated for the change in style - see Richard's note on the 2006. I opened my case of 1996 G-L 18 months ago and I thought it was terrific.

[JonB]

From what I see, RP has reviewed Gruaud Larose every vintage from 2008 back to 1970 (except for '72 and '77). He calls the '08 the finest since '00.

[rjsussex]

I heard about a major bust-up between the owners and Parker. They apparently won't have him on the premises.

Perhaps we should instigate a BWE plaque for such properties to display. Gonzague Lurton at Durfort Vivens is another and - what a surprise - this wonderful Margaux always gets derisory Parker points.

Richard

[William P]

I don't know if there was some disagreement between Parker and the owner. I can say that most commentators agree that GL has not been producing the wines that it can. Parker's rating seem consistent with others except for 2006.

http://www.bordoverview.com/?wine=Gruaud-Larose. I hope this link works.

[Tom In DC]

Never let the facts get in the way of a well-nurtured opinion...

[Winesense]

Rp on the 2004:
This estate continues to under perform, particularly in view of what the previous owners accomplished. Nothing made today resembles the great vintages of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, or even the top-flight 2000. Nearly every St.-Julien chateau is making better wine, and Gruaud Larose needs a wake-up call. A stricter selection might be a place to start. The dark ruby/garnet-colored 2004 reveals an herbal nose displaying hints of dirty saddle leather intermixed with roasted herbs, spice, black cherries, currants, and a green pepper-like character. It is a lightweight effort with medium body, superficial depth, crisp acidity, and sharp tannins in the finish. While it will keep for 10-15 years, and may become slightly more complex, it remains a major disappointment.

[William P]

I remember discussions on this board two or three years ago bemoaning the slippage of GL and that the 00 was excellent but not much before or after. (Was it Jim and Stefan?) So is Parker leading the charge against GL or is he merely stating what is common knowledge.

[Winesense]

I for my part rate the opion of Swiss wine critic Rene Gabriel pretty high. I publishes in German. Most people can not read his text. That he is still one of the worlds most influential wine critics show his qualities I suppose.
He is a professional, not a journalist.
His ratings for GL were :

2006 18
2005 19
2004 18
2003 19
2002 18
2001 18
2000 18

Now to understand a Gabriel rating we have to know that Mr. Gabriel rates though. He always rounds down, never up.
Mathematicly 18 is 90 Points, which could mean anthing between 87.5 and 92.4 based on rounding.
For Mr. Gabriel 18 is the minimum the wine must hold to deserve the mark.
In other words 18 means 90-94 and 19 is 95-99. My personal opinion falls quite in line with Mr Gabriels
You might also check out cellartracker and see if the rating really falls short compared with the 1980s as RP writes.
I believe however, that the vintages after 2000 are still to early to try.

Gruaud Larose is not following the main stream, that does not make it a bad wine.
I am wondering if sentences like 'Nearly every St.-Julien chateau is making better wine' should be part of a wine critic.

JimHow, are you quoted correctly in the previous post?

Finally Mr. Gabriel on the 2004:

Mittleres Granat, feiner rubiner Rand aussen. Elegantes, nobles Bouquet, feine Zederntöne, Backpflaumen, Lakritze und eine schöne Süsse darüber zeigend. Im Gaumen delikat, tänzerisch, sehr fein und elegant, tolles Lakritzearoma im feinherben Finale. Ein eleganter Klassiker, leicht zu unterschätzen.

Middle garent red, shightly ruby on the edge. Elegant, noble bouquet, notes of cedar wood, tried plums, liquorice and nice sweetness on the surface. The palate is delicate, aerial, very fine and elegant, great taste of liquorice in a sligthly austere finish. A elegant classic, easily understimated.

[stefan]

>>
I remember discussions on this board two or three years ago bemoaning the slippage of GL and that the 00 was excellent but not much before or after. (Was it Jim and Stefan?)
>>

Certainly it was not I who said that. I have not tasted any post 1995 Gruaud and I like many from the 1980s. For example, I once rated the '83 at 93 pts and the '88 at '90+pts, while the '86 is probably the best from the 1980s that I have tasted.

stefan

[Winesense]

Actually 1999 is trinking pretty well right now.