GPL dinner featuring five vintages
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 5:34 pm
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.
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.