Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

03 Grand Puy Lacoste [Pauillac] From a split, cellared since release. Too warm initially at 70F, chilled down to 58Fish. Light red, no bricking at the rims, almost no sediment. Nose isn't very generous even after being open a few hours, and I think I can still smell some vanilla/oak here. Palate has a 20 second finish, some drying tannins at the end. Some flesh to this wine, like many 2003's, so it may be more enjoyable by itself than at the dinner table. Feels chubbier than its stated 13% abv. We had mushroom/goat cheese crepes for supper and the SO passed on this, preferring a lemony Cote de Gascogne instead. More for me! But I can understand that since it's not a bright wine. In the main, I've enjoyed the wines from this vintage, especially the St Estephes and appellations nearby, but do acknowledge the concerns of those fret about the lack of balance. A solid, but not great GPL. It gets a B. It will be interesting to see how it ages. It's hanging in there fine now, and I have some optimism that maybe it ends up like the chunky 78.

I've been meaning to weigh in on this one. I've had it twice since I got back and frankly love this. I acknowledge my opinion is out of step with the mainstream of GPL lovers and probably also the mainstream of classical Bdx lovers, and certainly acknowledge that when I tasted this first maybe four years ago it seemed grapey, simple and a tad short. But it seems far more complex now. The only other thing I'll note at this time is it seems fairly well-advanced in evolution - at least my bottles, at least to me. This bothers me not at all since I'm short on mature-tasting clarets.

Had another bottle of this tonight with cold beef and shrimp. It doesn't have much structure, and tastes more evolved than a 12 year old GPL would, given the very hot vintage. I get some sandalwood on the nose, and a 20 second or so finish. I popped and poured this, a shade too warm, at 72F. Not much sediment at all and an orange red hue to the wine, but no bricking yet. While its not the 90, 95, 96 or 00 its a solid, straightforward GPL. For some reasons I keep thinking of the 78 and this wine, even though vintage conditions were much different.

While I had much higher hopes for this, if it ends up like the 78 over a long lifespan, I won't complain.

I was given a case of this wine as a birthday present (yeah, from a pretty good friend).

So I have followed it for years.

It was drinking well early on and I tend to think of it as a solid, foresquare wine with a "B" score like Arv.

However, it may play a trick on me and reveal unsuspected qualities as time goes on.
It has happened before...

Alex R.

You know my views on this, I think 2003 GPL is a flawed wine and I think there has not been a successful GPL since 1996 (although I have not had the 2010).

Parker downgraded the 2005 GPL, from 95 to 92 pts. FWIW. But looks like he agrees more with your assessment of the 05 than mine, Jim.

That said, Neal Martin loves the 05 GPL, giving it 97 pts as recently as February of this year and saying "Is it the best 2005 of the vintage? Not quite, but it belongs in the top tier. And factor in value for money, I would be happy sitting on a big pile of this in my cellar to drink over the rest of my lifetime and the afterlife if that exists too."

We'll need to do some GPL blind tastings at a future BWE convention to get to the truth of the matter.

I got rid of my 90 a few years ago. It was either shut down hard or just not engaging.

GPL has really only produced two or three decent vintages in the past 35 years. The '82 was excellent, the '96 was also excellent, and the '95 was superb, perhaps the best GPL ever. The '89 GPL, like the '90, was very mediocre. I think the '94, of all vintages, was actually decent, an 88-89 point wine. The '97, 98, 99, like the 03, were almost undrinkable. I've maintained that the 2000 is very weak but some people think it's the cat's meow.

JimHow wrote:GPL has really only produced two or three decent vintages in the past 35 years. The '82 was excellent, the '96 was also excellent, and the '95 was superb, perhaps the best GPL ever. The '89 GPL, like the '90, was very mediocre. I think the '94, of all vintages, was actually decent, an 88-89 point wine. The '97, 98, 99, like the 03, were almost undrinkable. I've maintained that the 2000 is very weak but some people think it's the cat's meow.

I bet you, without looking, that every one of those GPL vintages was rated "excellent" to "outstanding." Remember, there hasn't been a single below average year in Pauillac since at least 1975.

Hmmm, I've got one or two 99 GPLs left. Its been a while since I had one but remember thinking it just ok but quaffable.

And the 2001 GPL is weak too. I don't recall the 2002, which speaks volumes in that otherwise stellar Medoc vintage.

2010 gpl is the real deal....even little lacoste borie is smokin'

Well, 2010 being the greatest Bordeaux vintage ever produced, I would hope a wine up there in the northern Medoc could produce something decent, even GPL.

HWSRN rates it 95. In five years he'll give it 91, maybe 92.

JimHow wrote:HWSRN rates it 95. In five years he'll give it 91, maybe 92.

After most of it has sold through...

Which raises Alex's existential question: If He Who Shall Remain Nameless rates a wine 95 points, then reduces it by 5 points, does He exist?

If no one pays attention to the points, does He exist?

I remember reading that GPL used to be Michael Broadbent's house claret, presumably back when it was cheaper.

'nuff said.

Ok, time for a GPL vertical ("What is this GPL?", asked Alfred).

Ha that's right I forgot he said that.
He also said something else about the state of GPL, I can't remember what.

Blanquito wrote:Ok, time for a GPL vertical ("What is this GPL?", asked Alfred).

We did one maybe a decade or so ago, but it seems like no one has chimed in.

All my electronic notes from that era have been lost, unf.

I seem to remember that nothing we had going back to maybe 66 or 70 was truly over the hill.