GPL dinner featuring five vintages

Post Reply
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

GPL dinner featuring five vintages

Post by Comte Flaneur »

I attended a GPL dinner in London on Thursday. The food was very mediocre after a fine lunch of Piedmont wines but this did not detract from the GPLs, which were mostly pleasing. But the tasting did throw a few surprises.


2011

A very good GPL in the mould of the 2006. It is an exuberant young wine. Ripe, round juicy and fruity with some earth and cedar to distinguish it from a new world wine. 91-93

2009

This wine has more extract and exuberance than the 2011; it is more full on and full-bodied on the palate, it is thick juicy and luxurious with only a cursory nod to its Pauillac roots. This pushes the envelope. I liked it but can understand why others wouldn't. There are other vintages of GPL which I prefer. 92-94

2005

There was something wrong with this. The finish was not good. I can't put my finger on what was wrong with it. I was expecting this to be the wine of the night. It wasn't. It is quite backward and primary. Others liked it, but it was among the also rans. NR.

2000

This is still very young, but a most promising wine. It is large framed, full-bodied, extracted and structured. It is clearly a wine for the long haul, which will challenge the 1995 and 1996 in the years to come. It is brooding with intent. For me it was the equal best wine of the night. 96++

1996

The 1996 has evolved beautifully and is in a very good place right now. It has all you could wish for in a Pauillac. It is poised, with a pleasing nervosity and tension, which is a nice counterweight to the other exuberant, flirtatious side if its character. Unlike the 2000 it is medium rather than full-bodied. It is also has some pleasing secondary Pauillac notes of cedar, lead pencil and graphite. It has an exquisite balance and a lingering finish. 96

1995

The 1995 felt awkward alongside the 1996. It is clearly not as resolved. The nose is shy and needs coaxing, and the wine is edgier and less refined on the palate. The tannins are not as smooth. This came across as a grumpy wine which skulked in the corner while the 1996 strutted its stuff on the dance floor. But stick with it and it is clear that this wine has all the ingredients to be a great wine. The fruit is bright and intense, if a little sharp. It is just going through - another - awkward phase I think. 92 on the night, potential for a better score. Not the time to give up on this.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: GPL dinner featuring five vintages

Post by JimHow »

I still say there was something wrong with the winemaking at GPL in 2005.
I think I scored this like 79 points.
Was this ghe wine that Jacques disliked as well?
User avatar
jal
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:30 pm
Contact:

Re: GPL dinner featuring five vintages

Post by jal »

No, I disliked the 2009.
I never tasted the 2005.
I liked but did not love the 2000 when I had it 5 years ago. But I always liked the 1996.

Grand Puy Lacoste has never been a favorite of mine, most of the ones I've had had this scorched roasted aroma that turns me off. Maybe it's just me. Others don't seem to have a problem with it.
Best

Jacques
User avatar
jal
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:30 pm
Contact:

Re: GPL dinner featuring five vintages

Post by jal »

Actually, the last GPL I really loved was the 1989
Best

Jacques
User avatar
marcs
Posts: 1850
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:51 am
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: GPL dinner featuring five vintages

Post by marcs »

I have had some spectacular 2005 GPLs. I actually think it is one of the best years for the chateau. Just a beautifully structured, balanced, powerful wine.

The latest 2005 I had was closed though, wasn't giving much at all. Just that scorched quality jal mentions. But that was an exception.

Agree with Flaneur's description of the 2009 but I was more negative on the same qualities he mentions - here's my CT review:

11/24/2013 - MarcS wrote: 88 Points

Rather disappointed in this wine. I love GPL for its classical style, but this was clumsy and excessively alcoholic. Pitch black color. Rich and heady scent that lacks nuance. Flavors of fig paste, leather, sweet jammy fruit, and alcohol. Very thick and black-fruited. Lacks balance and elegance. Also, the alcohol level is way higher than the label figure of 13.5 -- got to be flirting with 15. Definitely goes to your head. Doesn't handle its alcohol or volume as well as even some of the 'fruit bomb' right bank wines from 2009 that normally work in this kind of style. Perhaps the year got away from them.

I'm not sure this is the kind of issue that works itself out with aging. GPL is normally a wine I go long on and I have over half a case of this left, maybe I need to work out a way to sell or trade it. If you like this style you will like it better than I did -- my partner enjoys Amarone and Port and she appreciated this wine a lot more than I. But don't come to it expecting a graceful left bank Bordeaux.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: GPL dinner featuring five vintages

Post by JimHow »

As I have said before: The last great GPL was in 1995.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], PghMike and 12 guests