Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

Few can dispute that this wine had a great decade in the 1980s.
But then again, so did most properties in Bordeaux (except Latour, which under-performed).
Nonetheless, this wine has been pretty weak both before that decade and since.
It has been Grand-Puy-Lacoste-like in its decline in quality and propensity for producing thin, mediocre efforts since 1989.
(The 1990 is overrated, the 1996 and 2000 are good but not other-worldly, an I'll admit I haven't tried the 2010 yet.)
And to top it all off, prices have skyrocketed as its focus seems to have turned east.
Few can dispute that it has "sold out," its property Disney-fied, its marketing Kalifornian.
It was stunningly obvious the degree to which Pichon Baron has its act together over rival Lynch.
The properties seem light years away from where they were respectively back in 1989.
Does it still deserve to be ranked with the august wines of the Medoc from the 1855 classification?
Or is a downgrade to cru bourgeois status perhaps more in order?

You are kidding, right?

Wow! All the way from kissing the hallowed ground to turning the place into cru bourgeois. I don't think that Lynch has excelled like many in the region with taking advantage of all the modern tools of the trade they have before them or not. If someone can produce great wine with horses,donkeys,buried horns and voodoo then I don't get how someone else can take so many steps backward and LB is not unique on this one. I think this may have something to do with vision and attention to detail at the top. Yes it looks like they've sold out to capitalism and I'm not sure what they are thinking because the product in the bottle is what sells great Bordeaux over the long term and living on their laurels won't cut it for too much longer. We'll see what happens but you are 100% right that the price no where relates to quality with this estate since at least 1989.

Certainly when factoring in QPR, Lynch does not belong anywhere near the Big Boys.

Bottles of the 1990 Lynch Bages that I've drunk have been outstanding, at times rivaling the 1989. But they were pretty approachable early, while the 1989 was still brooding.

As to Jim's suggestion about deserving demotion to cru bourgeois status, I think that is in part driven by what is in the bottle, in part by your recent less-than-anticipated treatment during your recent visit, and in part by the simple country lawyer in Jim. I would say that Lynch is likely performing at 5th or 4th growth level, a far cry from the time it was competing with super seconds.

I think the consensus view has long been that it should be promoted to a second growth. I think it was a second in Parker's alternative classification.

I never subscribed to that view. I thought that at best it should be upped to a third. Based on my recent encounters I would agree with David: fifth or fourth would be appropriate.

As I pointed out in Alex's thread, in the Uk it is still priced like a super second, in fact consistently higher than Leoville-Barton which is a far superior wine these days, and even on average a tad higher than the Pichons, which is absurd.

Jim I see where you are coming from but downgrading to Cru bourgeois seems a trifle harsh!

What's wrong with Grand-Puy-Lacoste?
If you but GPL in the right years (82,90,95,96,00,05,09,10), you have a miracle in the glass. I still own a few 82s and I just love that vintage.
OT: Lynch-Bages is a 5th growth and I guess it is performing like it should based upon recent reviews and ratings. Maybe prices could drop though.

I agree that GPL was great from 1982 through 1996, Roel, but I thought the 2000 and 2005 were weak. And some of the other vintages, like 1999 and 2003, were downright putrid. I have not had the 2009 and 2010.

Damned! I made the mistake to buy the 2006. Is it any good? When should I start opening?

Lynch Bages should be sold off as private labeled wines for 3 star restaurants.....jk

What's wrong with Cru Bourgeois status? Maybe Lynch Bages have decide to perform as well as the other
Pauillac on the Bages plateau...

As long as you don't downgrade it to Napa Cab...

Nic

At the next convention we should do a blind tasting between Lynch Bages and Pibran.

I agree that Lynch is overrated and overpriced.

GPL could be another thread, but I think the 2005 GPL is a brilliant wine, possibly a modern legend in the making. The 2000 was underwhelming when I had it 9 years ago, but it could have been too young. I was surprised how ripe the 2009 GPL was when tried it on release, but I haven't given up on it (I have a 6-pack, so time will tell if it just needs to a few decades to settle down). Not had the 2010, but the reports are all-around glowing.

And unlike Lynch Bages, GPL remains one of the most fairly priced great growths in Bordeaux.

How about a different kind of blind tasting at BWE 2016? We could taste a horizontal of 5th growth Pauillacs from a good year. The 1996 vintage would be appropriate.

Gpl for me is very good...I have tasted 4 different vintages and liked them all

You are giving short shrift to the 2000 at least. It was in the same class as the likes of 1999 Margaux and 1995 Cheval Blanc and certainly on that night above the level of the 100-pt 1996 Lafite. Now I can understand if there is a consensus it currently is underperforming its potential. Apparently its reputation for overperforming 5th growth status is what made it so popular-and priced accordingly. I don't think that popularity is a terribly recent (i.e. Chinese) phenomenon. It was fondly called Lunch-Bags for a long time, right?

Maybe, Hound, but a good effort every 15 years or so doesn't cut it for continued inclusion in the Classification of 1855.
And when you factor in price….
Goodbye, Lynch "The New Lafite" Bages, we hate to see you go.

And what of famed philanderer, umm, I mean philanthropist Jimmy "LB" How? What has become of him? Enquiring minds need to know!

Indeed, DavidG, the internationally renowned lawyer and philanthropist Jimmy L.B. How was seen arriving at JFK following a peace-keeping effort in Africa, but he exited into a small motorcade without comment.

JimHow wrote:I agree that GPL was great from 1982 through 1996, Roel, but I thought the 2000 and 2005 were weak. And some of the other vintages, like 1999 and 2003, were downright putrid. I have not had the 2009 and 2010.

You are dead wrong about the 2005.

I heard Jimmy LB How muttering something about a transcription error on his birth certificate, DavidG -- his mother said "Leoville Barton" to the underpaid civil servant at the register of births.

Those Kenyan birth registrars are just not dependable.

DavidG wrote:Those Kenyan birth registrars are just not dependable.

For sure. They also reported he was born in the Canal Zone, which we all know makes one love tropically-styled wine and disqualifies him from running for president. Oh wait...

marcs wrote:

JimHow wrote:I agree that GPL was great from 1982 through 1996, Roel, but I thought the 2000 and 2005 were weak. And some of the other vintages, like 1999 and 2003, were downright putrid. I have not had the 2009 and 2010.

You are dead wrong about the 2005.

I like the 03 GPL and have it often. Its matured earlier than the bigger years.

People had hopes it would be like the 1990 because of the weather, but alas, not so.

But its still quite solid.

Not as big as their best years.

GPL does incredible in the best years. It's tradition since decades. Must say the 2000 Lynch-Bages I once had was a great promise (too young), never had more recent work. Maybe Pédesclaux is the new Lynch Bages ? Read good reports on their shiny new vintages, cellars and buildings. Or Lynch-Moussas? The 2007 I had blind was a solid 90-pointer. Très Pauillac.

I generally really like GPL, and see it as a good honest Pauillac punching well above its weight.

In my opinion it should be at least a super third.

But I disagree with Arvind about the 2003 because I think GPL got bar-b-q-ed in that vintage. I think the sun was beating down particularly brutally in that little patch of Pauillac in Aug 03.

And the 2009? I remember Jacques slating it here. It is pretty sweet. Also at a tasting last October the 2005 seemed a bit out of sorts, but that was probably because the sommelier was a substance abuser and got the vintages mixed up.

The 2000 showed really and as usual the 1996. The 2000 was a thicker version of the 1996.

But GPL cannot compete with Pontet Canet which I really do think should be a super second. The 2009 PC kind of passed me by -I just found it a tad alcoholic but I defer to others' better judgement.

GPL can't compete with Pontet, but Jim compared Lynch Bages to GPL, so it's a different comparison. I consider GPL to be much better than Lynch B is I look at recent reports. GPL 2009 may be sweet, as I found many 2009's to be sweet. That's why I prefer 2010 as a vintage. Still, the hedonistic and naughty part of me loves some good ole sweet reds, so I ended up buying GPL 2009 anyway.
Pontet Canet is a way of life, a special item, luxury brand, a produce from a man with a mission. Most Pauillac GCC's (3rd-5th) are just good wines.
Re: Lynch Bages. They made incredible wines in the past. Terroir is much better than Cru Bourgeois, but they have to work their lazy asses again.

The 1995 GPL, tried for the first time last month, was one of the better "young" bottles of claret I've had in a long time. A substantial step up from the 96 GPL actually, unless the 96 was still shut down when I tried it in 2012.

Yes I agree, the 95 GPL is MUCH better than the 96.