Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

IIRC, It was very good but not memorable, Nic, with (D) coming closest.

'78 Ducru can be sublime, Ian! Good catch. And I agree completely with what you say about 78, 79, and 81 Pichon Lalancd.

Ian, I'll add a hearty second to your praise for the 1978 and 1979 Pichon Lalandes.

Stefan, this is interesting, as I thought it was glorious, and finally, one of my top 5 wine of the weekend...

So wine appreciation is something hard to explain or compare!

Nic

My favorite super second is the de facto super second, Lynch Bages.

Jim, maybe you would like the 2010 second wine of Château Lafon-Rochet better than the First wine?

Nic

The last Lafon Rochet I had before that 2010 was the 2003, which was one of my wines of the night at the Dallas convention a couple years ago.
Is the change in Lafon Rochet emblematic of the decline we are seeing in the winemaking of Bordeaux?

This is fun.

The sample set of CT users is very likely to have a high correlation to wine buyers at least exposed to critics scores and probably influenced by the same. The number of people influenced by Parker scores for Bordeaux is much, much larger than Bob's subscriber base - Parker is the de facto reviewer for any vendor trying to peddle Bordeaux. We can as the cognoscenti posit that RP's influence is waning but I've seen little in the marketplace to support this other than a subset of vendors who have chosen to always tout the highest score available regardless of source.

So I think the given a choice between two 92 point wines, one that costs X and one that costs more than X, the self-styled smart consumer buys the cheaper wine and is happy to have saved the money vis a vis the poor slob who buys the more expensive wine. At the same time, the self-styled insider might be more likely to buy the more expensive wine since either a) the wine is more expensive for a reason such as historical performance, or b) the wine is more expensive because of its rarity. To my mind the second set of buyers seem more likely to inflate their score based on their perception that their more expensive wine must be better than the cheaper wine.

So Gruaud Larose, with likely the largest production of any classified growth, will suffer in both regards -- pricing and lack of rarity -- versus the other super seconds. I think it's remarkable and entirely to GL's credit that it's included in the "Super Second" category given its long history of affordability.

As to the original question, I'm inclined to think of the 1980's as Bordeaux's "Golden Age" of QPR. On the whole, the 1960's and 70's weren't kind to Bordeaux, and in good vintages from the 1995's on there have always been cries that the wineswere too expensive relative to what collectors already had in their cellars. The wines may indeed be better now but in my opinion not sufficiently better to justify current pricing, Given my predilection for the 80's, the two Super Super Seconds of that decade were clearly Pichon Lalande and Leoville Las Cases. Between the two, I'll choose Pichon Lalande for more and better wines that have been or will be drinking at peak during my lifetime.

Interesting conjecture Tom.

Also G-L may have suffered because some people said it sucks.

Tom In DC wrote:This is fun.
.
.
.
So Gruaud Larose, with likely the largest production of any classified growth, will suffer in both regards -- pricing and lack of rarity -- versus the other super seconds. I think it's remarkable and entirely to GL's credit that it's included in the "Super Second" category given its long history of affordability.
.
.

Interesting Tom...I do not know the exact number of cases produced by GL, LLC or PL, but I thought they have similar sizes and production, with LLC a tad bit less than the others. So I am not sure about the rarity.

Regarding price, the other thing I was wondering was the consistency of GL vis a vis LLC and PL. I think lack of consistency affects the price even for well made wine in a good vintage. Wondering if frequent change of GL's ownership in 80s and 90s has something to do with consistency, thereby affecting quality and price...

Completely off the cuff, my other thinking is....
Unlike other communes, St Julien has too many second growths and may be the contention for supersecond in St Julien is tough. May be its easier for people to acknowledge one or two superseconds from a commune, and therefore chateaux like GL can get easily drowned by Leovilles and Ducru. And also may be lack of consistency is not helping GL either in terms of price or scores...

LLC

Ha ha as soon as I saw that RDD entered the conversation I knew the answer was going to be LLC.
I think the LLC of the 70s 80s and 90s is my favorite second growth, I don't think I've had any since the 2001 vintage.

Our first BWE dinner involved drinking LLC. 82/86/89/90 (others ?). Why mess with success?

Last night we had the 1988 LLC. It was magnificent. The nose and palate was classic LLC dominated by tobacco and earthiness - freshly tilled earth - the tannins are fully resolved, and it was smooth, refined and elegant on the mid-palate.

I would say this is probably one of the top three left banks in 1988, with Latour and Lafite. A superb example of fully resolved LLC at a reasonable price. The fruit was still there but in the background. So this is the perfect time to drink this.

Another magnificent super second drunk last week. This is really beginning to hit its stride. It is an elegant Ducru, but nothing lightweight about this 1999. It is a serious wine with an impressive mid-palate density.

I drank my 88 LLC years ago. It was very good.

LLC is one of my favorite seconds along with Cos. Am I alone in my adoration of Rausan Segla? Specifically vintages prior to 95 as I have not tasted more recent vintages although I do have some 2000 in the cellar.

I also loved the 1988 Château Léoville Las Cases, I've had in the past. And when you think about it, 1988 was a very excellent Classic red Bordeaux vintage. I don't think I had a 1988 I did not liked, and I had: Bon Pasteur, Tertre Roteboeuf, Talbot, Lynch Bages, Léoville Las Cases, Pape Clément, Haut-Brion, Gruaud Larose, Pichon Lalande, Pichon Baron, Lagrange, La Lagune, and Beau-Sejour Bécot.

Nic

To put the discussion about super seconds into a wider context if you read R. Parker Jr.'s Bordeaux tome, and the last one I have was written in 2003, he lists the wines he believes to be of first growth quality (p1157). His riposte to the 1855 classification if you like, based on his assessment of performance from 1961 to 2001, with more weight on the 1982-2001period.

As you would expect the Big Eight are in there - FGs plus Ausone, Cheval Blanc and Petrus, then of course the likes of La Mission, Lafleur and Le Pin. And of course Angelus and Pavie.

Also included were Cos D'Estournel, Ducru Beaucaillou, LLC, Montrose and Palmer. Neither of the Pichons made it, but I would imagine that would have been a close call, especially for Comtessa.

Getting to the point, these 'nearly first growths' - aka 'super seconds' - are surely the sort of wines to seek out if you subscribe to the view that there is not a lot of clear blue water between the firsts and seconds.

I was struck by a comment by one of our flock on another board - Musigny 151 - who after tasting Pichon Lalande 1989 said other 1989 first growth Medocs don't come close. While those of us who attended the BWE 1989 horizontal at Fabios in NYC in 2009 might take issue with that, given that Ch. Lafite 1989, stole our hearts and stole the show, even eclipsing Haut Brion and La Mission, Mark surely has a point.

Pichon Lalande was in the last flight of a big line up, so while it didn't make a big splash, it may have been because of its location in the line up. Even if he is half right Pichon Lalande 1989 could well be a bargain, for those looking for for first growth quality mature claret.

I understand that right bank Bordeaux technically doesn't qualify as a 'super second' per se, but assuming the interest is in looking at favorite Bordeaux at less-than-first-growth-prices, my vote would go to Ch. Trotanoy. Though, it sometimes can look like it's priced closer to first-growth levels I've only had the '90 (twice) and the 81 (twice), but they've stuck in my mind as utterly ethereal. I got the '81's for about $60, about two years ago, if you can believe it. Perhaps '81 lives in the shadow of '82 so was priced nicely, but it was still absolutely stunning - so delicate and yet so expressive.

For left-bank, I'm pretty partial to Leoville Poyferre - more opulent and sumptuous than some of the other heavy-hitters.

Another up and comer for me would be Haut Bailly - so classy.

For you LLC lovers, this offer from JJ Buckley just arrived in my in-box. I am usually leery of buying mature wines due to provenance concerns, but this sounds like a "library release" direct from the Chateau.

PRIVATE CLIENT OFFER
France⇢Bordeaux⇢Left Bank⇢St. Julien
1985 Chateau Leoville Las Cases
2nd Growth
$285 per bottle (Pre-Arrival)
12-Bottle Original Wooden Case Price: $3,420

"A fabulous wine; one of the first great Las Cases."
- 98 Points, Wine Spectator, 1998

"A brilliant, fully mature yet beautifully elegant wine of first-growth quality, the 1985 Léoville Las-Cases."
- 95 Points, Robert Parker, 2005

This is the commemorative 30th Anniversary release
of one of Leoville Las Cases' most legendary vintages, complete with a unique, re-release strip. Absolute perfect provenance!



To order simply reply to this email or call me direct at 510.903.5924

A worthy subject for debate and a fascinating thread to read!

My favorite is Pichon Lalande, in a pretty easy call for me. Maybe it's because I've drunk many more vintages of this property than any of the others and have just developed a consistent sense that I'll probably like any given decent vintage based on style and personal taste. I always hesitate to profess much love for either LLC or Leoville Barton. Yet, I just took a quick cruise through some of my tasting notes over the past several years, and I've had plenty of outstanding wines from each. I guess it's just a lingering sense based on a few key bottles over the years that failed to inspire, maybe? More research is the only solution...

-Michael

Pichon Lalande for me too. I am assuming that La Mission is a First Growth,which of course, in everything but name, it is.
Pichon Lalande has been remarkably consistent across many vintages and is always my go too wine,other than Firsts. In fact,looking at my cellar,I see that this Chateau rates number three in my Bordeaux cellar after Haut Brion and La Mission.

I hate to do it but I'm on the Pichon Lalande band wagon much for the same reasons as Michael. I've had the 75,78,79,82,83,86,88,89,95 and 96. I'm looking forward to enjoying the more recent vintages in the years to come as they age. In my experience there is a consistency in their winemaking, no matter the vintage, which assures me that I'm going to enjoy what's in the bottle. Enjoying the 78 and 79's were some of my most memorable wine experiences and a recent magnum of 88" shared with friends was outstanding and totally delivered beyond my expectations. One vintage that nags at me is the 1990. I have never had the opportunity to try and judge for myself since it's reputation is somewhat of a disappointment while some have really enjoyed it.

Gerry M. wrote:..... Enjoying the 78 and 79's were some of my most memorable wine experiences and a recent magnum of 88" shared with friends was outstanding and totally delivered beyond my expectations. One vintage that nags at me is the 1990. I have never had the opportunity to try and judge for myself since it's reputation is somewhat of a disappointment while some have really enjoyed it.

Had 90 PLL couple of years ago and it was epic with the paired food...

The greatest PLL ever is the 1986.

Nope. Best PLL ever is the 1982.

I had them side by side about 12 years ago and it was no contest.

Second best ever Pichon Lalande? Now that's an interesting question.

I think it is between the 1978, 1979, 1981, 1985, 1989 and 1996

I've been fortunate to have the 1982 PLL three different times and it is a really great wine. But I'm actually in Jim's camp on the 1986. In fact, Jim, I think that we drank that wine together at a PLL offline in the suburbs of Chicago.

I was thinking about that night as well, Jon, we had two bottles of the 1986 there that night, they were both spectacular, the WOTN.

well if price is any indication,the 82 is the winner hands down !! the 86 can be bought in London for £1250 IB and the cheapest case price for the 82 is over £5000 !!!

I've never had them side by side that I can recall, but the '82 has blown me away all 4 times I've had it. The '86 was outstanding the 4 times I've had it but it just doesn't have that extra gear...

I have tried the 1982 PIchon Lalande four times. On the first three occasions it was spectacular, thrilling. The last bottle I tried in 2012 at my 30th anniversary 1982 Bordeaux tasting it didn't shine, and tasted a bit flat and tired. It was even bettered by Gruaud Larose and Leoville Lascases as well as all the first growths.

Has anyone else tasted a tired 1982 Pichon Lalande? The last 1983 I tried about three years ago was cracking up a bit. On the other hand the last time I tried the 1978, 1979 and 1981 they were magnificent. I had a taste of the 1985 the other day at the Sampler and it was a similarly brilliant wine.

The last time I tried the 1986 IIRC was at the BWE 1986 horizontal in NYC in 2008. IIRC it was pretty tough sledding and hard as nails. I still have ten bottles of this but am disinclined to open another one for a while. I am pretty optimistic about this wine but when it comes to approachability and longevity I would put it in the same category as 1986s from Leoville Lascases, Chateau Margaux and Mouton - the only four that are still not ready to drink.

I haven't had an '82 Pichon Lalande that recently, Ian, so can't comment on whether it may be in decline or if your birthday bottle just wasn't representative of the best that it can be. At 30 years, as they say, no great wines, only great bottles.

Yes very true David.

Opened the first bottle of a case of Mouton 86 a couple of weeks ago,and the guests invited(who included a number of distinguished wine professionals)thought it one of the best bottles of this wine they had tried. It is a wine, just like many other from this vintage,that never seems to be ready,but this bottle was singing,if still very primary. Am tempted to buy a case of the 86 PL at £1250 if it is anywhere near as good as the Mouton!!!

I had the 82 PL within the last three months. It was singing.
It has been in my cellar since 88 (?) so has pretty good provenance.
I think there's some more stashed in there.

I've had the 1986 Mouton twice, Keith, and both times I rated it a very rare 100 points.
One bottle I rated 100+ points.
The finish on the bottle that Mr. Vino brought to a dinner in Napa went on for seemingly minutes.

Yeah, it was hard to choose between the '86 & '82 Moutons at that dinner, Jim. The '82 was more evolved but not qualitatively better IMO.

Jimhow is my favorite "super second", just behind his sibling: James Suckling...

Nic

This is what we drank tonight.

Old fashioned Ducru with earth/soil, cedar, lead pencil, dark chocolates, leather and lingering dusty tannins, the fruit was disappearing into the shimmering sunset. A dignified Ducru it would not hold a candle to the 1996 but a pleasure to drink.

The 86 Mouton may be the best wine I've ever had, but the 82 PLL -- that Stuart served blind at one of the DC Conventions -- was probably the best "fully mature" wine I've ever had. The 86 PLL was sullen, even in a funk, that night at Fabio's in 2008.

I don't think the 83 PLL gets enough love, every bottle I've had (except one sourced at auction) has been truly thrilling over the last 10 years, including one with Chris B in Colorado a few years ago along with a sensational-- and young-- 89 PLL.