TN: 2005 Ch. Lascombes, Margaux - TERRIBLE

[OrlandoRobert]

The 05 Lascombes is terrible. I'm an open-minded Bordeaux guy, and even like some modern stuff like Pavie and Fleur Cardinale, but this wine has no resemblance to Bordeaux. Sludge, milkshake and an overkill of oak. Oak on the nose, wood on the palate, highly astringent woody finish. Terrible wine. Avoid. (sub-70 pts)

I recall buying a few of these on release following the hype on eBob. I never really was thrilled with the Margaux region, but the hype propelled me to buy. This estate has no soul. You need to look no further than it's own label: "Lascombes perfurmed nose of blackberry and licorice harmoniously combine with flavors of ripe fruit, smoke and oak to create an opulent indulgence".

Wish I had seen that before I bought!

[AlexR]

Fascinating - I checked Cellartracker and the consensus is different.

http://www.cellartracker.com/wine.asp?i ... c7c9432abf

This is NOT to say I disagree with you in the slightest.

Really makes me want to try the wine myself.

How might it taste in a few years, do you think?

Alex R.

[OrlandoRobert]

Fair point, Alex. I went through the same exercise and surprise after looking at CT.

I skimmed the 200 or so CT scores on this wine. Very high scores and a 92+ average. But if you read through many of these notes, you know what you are getting with this wine. Lots of reference to richness, ripeness, burntness, oak, mocha, espresso, concentration, etc. Lowest score is an 86. I'm also very skeptical of the earlier scores which are very very high (sorry, Jim!), as I believe CT scores have a tendency on release to score within the Parker range. I look at CT, but with a heavy filter.

I'm sub-70. This is just not a good bottle of wine. I cannot imagine the level of wood I experienced getting any better with time. The wine also had zero typicity, so candidly, why drink it?

My sister had popped the '09 Lanessan as I was walking in the door for dinner. Yesterday I finished the remainder of a 2001 Lanessan I popped the night before. Now that is a pretty wine with typicity.

[JimHow]

I can't figure out Lascombes. Do you think there's a chance it may integrate eventually Orlando?
I really liked the 2005 early on. I had the 2004 with the Brothers Martin, Alfred Tesseron, and a six foot model from Seattle at the Ritz in NYC a few years back, it was like drinking wood.

[robert goulet]

I've tasted this twice and I must say I have to disagree with my brethren...there must be some major bottle variation going on because I did not experience anything similar...my feelings were that it was well made but nowhere near the points awarded by hwsnbn.

[OrlandoRobert]

Bobby -

We can crack my next one together. Bring floss for the splinters . . . .

This was not a bad bottle, but a badly made wine, IMHO.

[pomilion]

I like some recent vintages of Lascombes, like the under-rated and nicely priced 2004, but both times I've tried the 2005 (at the UGC 2005 tasting and once a couple years ago) it was incredibly oaky, like chewing on a 2x4 and almost undrinkable. Maybe it's bottle variation to some extent though -- unlike JIm's note above, I've never had a bottle of the 04 I thought was radically oaky.

[Michael-P]

That damn Bob-P!

I bought some of the 05 based on his reviews, although I now see that most other professional critics called it crap like Orlando has. I also generally have love 05, so figured that would help too. But now I am thinking otherwise.

That's the problem with not being able to taste everything before you buy.

Michael-P

[DavidG]

I am loathe to open one of my '05 Lascombes at this awkward stage, but Robert your note has me tempted to check on my stash. I too bought the '05 based on Parker's score.

I also bought the '04 and I like it. It started life pretty oaky but that seems to have receded a bit. It doesn't really say "Margaux" to me and it remains a lush fruit-driven wine, so it loses points on typicity. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that some Margauxness might appear in another 5 years, but not holding my breath. Here are my notes on the baby and child '04:

2004 Lascombes, tasted 5/27/2013:

Temp controlled storage since release, perfect fill and cork. Pop and pour, consumed over 2 hours. Purple core, minimal lightening at rim. Dark fruits, berries, hints of smoke and flowers on the nose. Medium body, good balance, ripe fruit and fairly mellow tannins on the palate. No real "Margauxberries" or complexity yet but drinking nicely. Medium finish. Actually tightens up a bit after an hour. Likely to improve. Very good to excellent.


2004 Lascombes, tasted 3/21/2009:

Dark purple to rim. Nose is quite forward, dark fruits, berries, cassis, cherry and a lot of oak and vanilla on opening. Very full-bodied with layers of lush ripe dark berries and overt oak, finishes with nice tannic and acidic structure, even a hint of citrus, and good balance. First impression is of a "modern" oaky sweet wine, but after sitting in the glass for an hour or so, more interesting things start to happen. The oak and vanilla in the nose start to recede a bit but some tarry smoky notes come forward, with the fruit just roaring out of the glass. In the mouth, the wine remains full-bodied, lush, and ripe, with great balance, fine tannins, a freshness offered by some acidic backbone, and a long finish. No longer a sloppy drooling puppy, it looks like this could develop into a classic Bordeaux with some age. After another hour the wine starts to close down, with tannins coming forward and the fruit receding a bit. This appears to be in the blush of youth - will it go into hibernation or remain deliciously drinkable throughout its lifetime? Has the stuffing to go a couple of decades or more. Excellent-outstanding.

[Chasse-Spleen]

I really liked the '03 around the time of release. Anyone tried that lately? I don't think it was overtly woody but rather tannic and very dry.

[robert goulet]

I'll bring the '03 u crack the '05

[OrlandoRobert]

I'll bring the '03 u crack the '05

Sounds like an S&M party: Wood, coconut oil and alcohol!

At least bring the wives.....

[robert goulet]

I'll bring my pet beaver for the wood...the girls for the coconut oil...and the alcohol for me...should be memorable

[finner]

I would think that 8 years in on 2005 Bord's would be a bad time to be in love. Just sayin'. .

[Comte Flaneur]

Very sad they have to do this
But as finner says probably the worst time to drink this and you never know how it could turn out

[OrlandoRobert]

Very sad they have to do this
But as finner says probably the worst time to drink this and you never know how it could turn out

I was going to say this after Finner's comments, but passed on it: Respectfully, I think most Bordeaux afficionados on this Board can tell the difference between a poorly made wine and a well made wine at any stage of its evolution, whether that be in barrel, on release, during a so-called close period or when it enters or passes its drinking window. This Lascombes was not what I would call a "closed wine". I do not see the extreme prevalence of wood in this wine resolving. As I have more of this wine left, I hope to be dead wrong.

[DavidG]

That is likely to be true, Robert, but there are exceptions and I've been surprised more than once. Most notably, a few years ago, someone brought a 12-year-old Elderton Command Shiraz to a dinner of wine geeks. He was met with derision for showing up with a poster child for the overly-American-oaked and uber-ripe abomination that characterized a lot of Oz Shiraz imported into the US back in the '90s. (It wasn't me who brought it, I had given away my remaining stash because of it's sweet, over-ripe unbalanced oakiness). The group was stunned to discover that the oak had completely mellowed (though still present) and the wine was actually enjoyable. Made me reconsider the dictum that a wine, if not balanced in youth, would never be balanced. Then again, maybe these are the exceptions that prove the rule.

This unpredictability (either of the wines or my palate) has changed my approach. I now hang on to these wines until they are mature. If they still show poorly, there are any number of greater fools.. umm, I mean wine lovers who appreciate the style and who will be willing to pay for well-aged examples.

[OrlandoRobert]

You and I agree, David, on what to do with these wines. I have a boatload of 07 CDPs. I've come to the conclusion that I will not like the majority of these wines, but I will not sell them. I will open them with friends and family that enjoy this style, and will continue to allow the big boys like Pegau, Janasse VV, Clos de Papes, Vieux Telegraphe, etc., to mature and perhaps they evolve into something I can enjoy. Heck, I even have some Spanish monsters like Clio from 03/04. I have only sold one wine in my life, Dalla Valle Maya 1992/1993, and only because the price went crazy and I needed some cash back then.

[greatbxfreak]

OrlandoRobert,

Based on your TNs, your bottle was fried during transport to US.

[OrlandoRobert]

OrlandoRobert,

Based on your TNs, your bottle was fried during transport to US.

Are all my '07 Chateauneuf du Papes that are spoofilated, "fried" as well?

Come on guys, I think after 20+ years of drinking fine wines I know the difference between a bad wine and a fried wine. If you looked at a related thread on Wine Berserkers, you will se others with the same impression as mine. This bottle was in perfect condition, cork perfect, no signs of seepage, heat damage or what not.

[greatbxfreak]

You can't "see" heat damage, only taste it!

And I seriously doubt that your CdPs were in the same sending to US as Lascombes.

[OrlandoRobert]

You can't "see" heat damage, only taste it!

You are being pedantic. My first note was the "taste" part. My last comment was just a visual, which of course is an indication of storage and transit issue. A clean bottle and cork does not mean nothing happened in transit, but it certainly tells you perhaps transit was not an issue.

[greatbxfreak]

I only try to explain that heat damage may be the explanation.

In my almost 30 years long wine'life, I did come across a couple of bottles, perfectly looking, which were damaged by heat.

[robertgoulet]

GBF..I do not think roberts tasting note speaks to any hints of a heat damaged wine....I think for the moment we should just temper our thoughts and just agree to disagree....in the meantime why don't the orlando bob's plan a near future sit down with another bottle of '05 lascombes to make a subsequent evaluation....there, thats better

[robert goulet]

David g....Elderton command is great stuff...one of the best Shiraz not labeled Clarendon hills...I still have one more bottle of the brilliant '01

[billfgrady]

Although I have not tasted the 2005, my experience with other vintages of Lascombes, particularly the 2003, is similiar to OrlandoRobert's. On multiple occasions, I found the 2003 to be an oaky, flabby, disjointed mess. The 2004 was better, but only slightly. On that basis, I have not purchased any subsequent vintages of Lascombes. I should add that I am a BIG fan of the Margaux appellation, and that I have found other wines, such as the 2004 Malescot and Palmer, to be infinitely better.

[robert goulet]

I will open an '03 with roberts '05 and our next rendezvous

[OrlandoRobert]

I will open an '03 with roberts '05 and our next rendezvous

I cannot say I'll enjoy that evening. Perhaps we can use the Lascombes for kindling wood and grill some nice steaks. Please have your wife wear that gown I like with the plunging neckline . . .

[robertgoulet]

we will dub the evening 'Got Wood'...... for u in more ways than one

I apologize to the board

banned??

[JimHow]

Banned? He'll, I'm thinking some sort of award!

[OrlandoRobert]

Banned? He'll, I'm thinking some sort of award!

Yea, no kidding! Remember Goulet, this Board has pictures of Nicklass with his pants down in semi-public and BdxFreak's website starts off, not with pictures of wine, grapes or Chateau, but with ladies . . . .

You guys are pigs!

[robert goulet]

True, but since this board specifically only appears to contain naked photos of men I wasn't sure how they would feel about women!!

[Comte Flaneur]

I had the 1981 tonight...some residual tobacco notes and some residual Margaux berries but a bit over the hill. Not the greatest 1981 - see blog below (shameless plug)

[OrlandoRobert]

Nice write-ups! Really enjoyed it, book-marked for further vintage reads.

BTW, I thought the '81 Mouton was damn lovely when I had it in Bordeaux during my 1996 honeymoon. Was hitting a nice stride at 15 years of age.

[greatbxfreak]

From my report on 2012 vintage - http://www.greatbordeauxwines.com/Bordeaux%202012.html

Lascombes - this property's 2012 was well-made with intense aromatic nose of black fruit, silky fruit and tannin with fine dosage of new oak, fine complexity, strong structure and very fine finish, smooth and fleshy. 92p. Fine effort for the vintage. We did also taste 2010, 2009, 2008, 2003 and 2001 Lascombes. 2010 Lascombes was tight, dense, very complex, fat on the palate with perfectly ripe black fruit and tannin, and great length. 94p. 2009 Lascombes had sweet fruit and tannin, complex with long and sweet finish. 93+p. 2008 Lascombes was more down to earth and more classic vintage than 2010 and 2009, but still with fine intensity, ripeness and complexity. 92p. 2003 Lascombes had a touch of warm fruit and tannin was a little bit dry. 89p. 2001 Lascombes was elegant, refined and very tasty. 91p. Second wine, Chevalier de Lascombes, had very nice fruit and good length in 2009 (90p) and in 2008 (88p).

Haven't tasted 2000 and 2005 Lascombes for a while.

[Outlier]

I sold five or six bottles of the '05 Lascombes recently, having drank about six or seven over the last few years. While I've enjoyed it, it didn't feel quite worth the going rate for the bottle vs. some other stuff I can get at the same price. On the other hand, I had the '03 Lascombes about ten days ago and found it to be utterly lovely. Perhaps it's unfair to judge the '05 at this point in its development - it may need a few more years to show what it has, whereas the '03 right now tasted complete to me.

[chris kissack]

Haven't tasted the 2005 Lascombes for four years but thought it great back then. I have found with other vintages that they can be all over the place on subsequent tastings though, e.g. I thought the 2004 was really good at two years of age, but two years later it seemed like a mess. I haven't had a chance to revisit it.

I recently returned to the 2001 though, about which there have also been concerns over the years. This is showing quite well now, a bit solid and clunky in my opinion, not really the elegance of a true Margaux, and still showing some wood, but decent wine. Can't remember how much I paid for it but it wasn't that much.