TN: 1996 Grand Puy Lacoste

[JCNorthway]

I have been staring at my meager collection of 1996 GPL for several years, trying to decide when it was time to sample the first of what I hoped would be several very special bottles, if served at the right time in their evolution.

Well, my timing appears to have been good. This past Saturday, forced to entertain myself alone (while Paula was off to Paris for 4 days of fun), I decided that I deserved to see what was up with the 1996 GPL. Let me say by way of summary, there is a lot up with this wine. First, it is still very young; I opened this 6 hours before pouring, and it still had significant structure and tannins when I drank it. This wine has a great balance of structure/tannins, fruit, acidity, and terroir. I don't claim to be great at recognizing Bordeaux terroirs, but if ever there was a classic Pauillac, this was it.

While still very youthful, this was an extremely pleasurable wine to drink along side a prime ribeye steak. Based on this bottle on this night, I would say you can enjoy this wine now - with decanting. But you can still in enjoy it over the next 10-20 years if properly cellared. This bottle was a stark reminder of why I am a Bordeaux Wine Enthusiast - 95 points from JN!

[AlexR]

Thanks for sharing your notes!

GPL is a favorite of the wine trade, a bit like Léoville Barton.

One of the best QPRs among the great growths.

Bordeaux is so wonderful, but so frustrating: could you imagine a California wine this young at age 17 ?

[johnz]

I haven't had this wine, but there are still very few '96s that I like to drink today. I've found Branaire to be good and Pape Clement to be very good, but Lagrange (St. Julien) is still tooth drying and puckery. I think the terrific '96 Pichon Lalande was drinking better 6-8 years ago then it is currently. They are going to test everybody's patience . . .

--Gary Rust

[JimHow]

The 1996 GPL is a B+ wine but the 1995 is a solid A.

[Nicklasss]

I did not have the 1996 GPL lately (last time being several years ago) but the 3 or 4 times i had it, i always thought it was a great wine of Bordeaux. Each time I had it, I always thought it would be a great contestant against any other 1996 Médoc Cru Classé.

I confess, I never had the 1995, but the 1996 was better than a B+ wine, each time I had it.

So I believe JCNorthway latest tasting experience.

Nic

[JimHow]

1996... The last quality GPL.

[Jeff Leve]

1996... The last quality GPL.

Jim... I like 96 GPL too. But I'm curious as to how you can say it's the last quality GPL. As much as I like 96 GPL, I might prefer 00, 05, 09 & 10.

[JimHow]

We've had this controversial discussion here before.
Some of us think there was a palpable style shift in GPL starting in the late 90s.
The post 1996 GPLs seem different than the pre 1996 GPLs, lighter styled, more modern, less classic Pauillac than the GPLs of yore. Kind of like Lynch.
I found the 2009 GPL a major disappointment, and I've never been able to coax any excitement out of the 2000.
I think the '03 is a flawed wine, a la '90 Pichon Lalande.
The '99 GPL, like the '99 Lynch, is one notch above supermarket level, and the '08 is some sort of internationalized swill that I might pay $15.99 for at the local Shop n Save.
I haven't had the 2010 yet.

[OrlandoRobert]

I bought 09 and 10. Hate to say this Jimbo, but I hope Leve is more right than you! I have always adored this estate, but have not had anything more recent than 05. A recent 82 I popped was wonderful.

[JimHow]

Oh I wish I were wrong OR. Oh how I wish I were wrong.
I think Jacques had an '09 recently that was a disappointment.
Those GPLs from 82, 85, 86, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96 were glorious Pauillacs.
(I never liked the 89 that much.)

[JimHow]

I found Jacques's note on the 2009 GPL:

Vanilla, oak, jammy hot and sweet. Absolutely disgusting. Where are the high ratings coming from? This wine is modern, resembles in no way the great GPLs of old. Awful. 75 pts.

[David K]

John,
thanks for the note on the 96 GPL. We went through a bunch of 375's, each time thinking it's only going to get better. Now we only have a few 750's and like you, wonder when to start to open them.
I too hope Jim is wrong about some of the other vintages, esp 2000. GPL can be pretty backward so I hope time will turn these into something on par with 96, 82 etc.


David

[Jeff Leve]

I found the 2009 GPL a major disappointment, and I've never been able to coax any excitement out of the 2000.
I think the '03 is a flawed wine, a la '90 Pichon Lalande. The '99 GPL, like the '99 Lynch, is one notch above supermarket level, and the '08 is some sort of internationalized swill that I might pay $15.99 for at the local Shop n Save.
I haven't had the 2010 yet.

If you do not like 00 or 09 GPL, that is fine. I get that. Although I wonder what you'd think if you tasted them blind. As for 99, 03 or 08, all three vintages were not succressful for GPL. To compare 96, you need to look at years like 00, (which you say you do not like,) 05, 09 & 2010. 2010 IMO could be the best of them all.

[Chateau Vin]

Last year I had 03 GPL with about over an hour of decanting, and I thought that it was good although nothing extraordinary. It was good with tar, cassis and smoky meat. A month back I had the same 03, and I did not like it. This bottle had a candy flavor. Most often for me, candy flavor reminds me of a cheap Beaujoulais, and I do not generally like that flavor in my wine...May be provenance before I purchased at a retailer played a part, but nonetheless was a disappointment compared to my earlier experience...

For my 2 cents worth regarding Jacques notes about 09 GPL, I disagree.

I can see why some people do not like 09, but his notes was way over the top. May be he got a bad bottle, but nonetheless when I first saw his notes my reaction was 'What was he tasting?' It was nothing at all when I had tasted it at UGC. At UGC, for me it tasted well, and placed right behind other Pauillacs Pichon Baron, LB and Pichon Comtesse...Needless to say, I got 09 GPL....

[Comte Flaneur]

I have had the 95 and 96 GPL recently and both are simply brilliant wines. The 1995 won a Bdx horizontal in December. But right now I think 1996 has a slight edge. Both are drinking well, but both are only just entering their long plateaus of maturity.

Regarding other vintages I found the 2009 crazily exuberant and I really enjoyed the sip. The 2010 is also very good but I prefer the 09. But why buy these when you can have the 95 and 96?

Of other vintages I have tried recently the 03 was just ok, and a bit overcooked. The 01 was surprisingly curmudgeonly, when so many other 01s are starting to drink very well, while the 06 I like very much.

[robert goulet]

I've tasted both '95 and '96 in the last yr...'96 was real good, but '95 trumped it

[marcs]

The 2005 is the best GPL I have ever had. That wine has that true Paulliac authority and power within a perfectly tailored structure. Just tremendous. I think it's still underpriced on the market, it's probably comparable to first growths in a typical vintage.

Been a while since I had the 96 but although I enjoyed I don't remember being as impressed with it as with the 2005.