2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

User avatar
dstgolf
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:00 am
Contact:

2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by dstgolf »

Some have a love hate relationship with GPL but this 2000 was simply superb. Medium weight with everything in harmony. Fabulous bouquet open classic cassis,smoke and spice. Smooth round and delicious going down with ripe evolving but still present tannins with good length. Lovely mouthfeel with classic lead pencil,cedar and smoky cassis. Loved this wine. Great now but has a good life ahead. For all those GPL ambivalent followers this is one to look for.
Danny
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by Comte Flaneur »

I agree Danny. It was excellent in Oct 2014, and slightly out pointed the 1996 on the night - more heft.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by DavidG »

Glad to hear it has entered its drinking window.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by Blanquito »

Thanks Danny, very encouraging report. I've got a few of this in the cellar.

Overall I am a big fan of GPL, but of course we all know how it can fumble the ball at the one yard line in a great vintage. My other quibble is it can seem to lack concentration sometimes to really go to that next highest level (though I wonder if this will resolve itself with more age, as the 96 has seemed much deeper in the last 2 years or so than 5-8 years ago), but it sounds like this is not an issue with the 2000.
User avatar
dstgolf
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by dstgolf »

Patrick,

A lot of life yet ahead in this GPL but if you have a few then you may want to try one over the next 6-12 months as the bottle I just had was in a sweet spot. I'd rather drink them at this stage then wait too long and be disappointed. Love them older but always afraid of waiting too long!!
Danny
User avatar
sdr
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:20 pm
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by sdr »

Blanquito wrote:Overall I am a big fan of GPL, but of course we all know how it can fumble the ball at the one yard line in a great vintage. My other quibble is it can seem to lack concentration sometimes to really go to that next highest level (though I wonder if this will resolve itself with more age
Since we didn't get to your bottle when you were in Florida, I opened an '82 GPL a couple of days ago. It was very good and lively but not spectacular. What vintages have you found disappointing?

Stu
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by Blanquito »

sdr wrote:
Blanquito wrote:Overall I am a big fan of GPL, but of course we all know how it can fumble the ball at the one yard line in a great vintage. My other quibble is it can seem to lack concentration sometimes to really go to that next highest level (though I wonder if this will resolve itself with more age
Since we didn't get to your bottle when you were in Florida, I opened an '82 GPL a couple of days ago. It was very good and lively but not spectacular. What vintages have you found disappointing?

Stu
Good to know, Stuart. I've had the 82 GPL twice, once it was sensational, the second time it was merely very good.

For variable vintages, I've found the 96 a bit underwhelming especially on the midpalate (though it seems to be improving in the last year or two), and the 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 01 and 03 are all subpar for the vintage in my experience. That said, the 82, 90, 95, 00 and 05 all are (or will be) terrific with the 1990 perhaps the best of the bunch. 2009 might mark a style change to more modern winemaking (http://www.bordeauxwineenthusiasts.com/ ... ena#p34182) or maybe it is just a really ripe year... only time will tell.
User avatar
marcs
Posts: 1850
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:51 am
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by marcs »

I think GPL takes a long time to come around. I have four untouched bottles of the 2000 I've been sitting on forever, and I've been watching the tasting notes get more and more favorable over the years. Re 2005, I had some bottles of that early and it was fantastic but it has been shut down for a while now.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by JimHow »

I think Grand Puy Lacoste may be the single most overrated Pauillac.
The 1995 was very good, bordering on excellent.
There were 1982s that were good, but it was very erratic. For example, in our epic Chicago 2001 blind tasting, it came in 6th place out of 6 wines.
Nic's 1985 is eh, decent. Far outclassed by the '86 Leo Barton. It was "tired" when we had it in Nashville this past spring.
As Blanquito states, the 1996 GPL is a big disappointment after some early excitement.
The 98, 99, 01, 02, 03, were embarrassments, the 03 in particular, a wine that was not even supermarket-level quality.
I won't get into the discussion about how bad the 2000, 2005, and 2009 have been, the views of Jacques and I are well documented here.
The 2012, which goes for $50-60, is so soft and light that I don't think I would pay $5-6 for it.

Basically, GPL sucks. It sucks the wad. It is extremely overrated. It is in the past 30 years what Lynch has become in the past 15 years.
Bad. Very bad.
User avatar
marcs
Posts: 1850
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:51 am
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by marcs »

You really think 2005 was bad? 2005 is good, I have had a number of excellent bottles.

2009 is weirdly modern-styled but it has real substance.
User avatar
jckba
Posts: 1808
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Sparkill, NY
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by jckba »

Ha, try the 2010 then as it has more of the girth that I think you are looking / longing for ...
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by JimHow »

Jacques! Where are you! Help me! Help me educate these young men on how wrong they are about GPL... The single most overrated of the Pauillacs. It is Lynch 30 years before Lynch became "Lynch," the fraud it had become since 96, with the exception of 2000.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by JimHow »

I've tried the 2010 jckba. It was putrid. And I have witnesses.
User avatar
AKR
Posts: 5234
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:33 am
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by AKR »

I think people simply have different palate preferences, and thusly, different reactions to GPL.

It's been a long time since I've had one but the 78 GPL was one of the better wines of the vintage and lasted a long time. If someone needed a birthyear wine, that's worth a flyer I bet still.
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by stefan »

Gosh, my data base tells me that I have a case of 2000 GPL. I don't remember buying it and have no idea why I chose it over e.g. d'Armailhac or Clerc-Milon.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by JimHow »

I'd put my money on the 78 GPL being brown and stewed and mushroomy.
I mean, even that fraud Lynch, which was good for like ten years, like the American space program, produced something interesting (not good, mind you, but at least not dead), from vintages like 70 and 61. I mean, who has ever heard of a good GPL from before 82? Isn't that supposed to be the hallmark of a great Bordeaux, that they age forever? Right? Like, we have other great Pauillacs from the olden days, Mouton, Lafite, Latour, other great St. Juliens, Graves, Margauxs, etc., from up and down the Medoc, but you don't hear anything about the "epic" 61 or 59 or 45 or 28 GPLs. That's because the terroir is just not there. GPL is a myth. It basically sucks. It is a supermarket-level wine, like one of those Mondavi bottlings you find for $20 at the local grocer. They just market GPL into something more mysterious and wonderful, and everyone falls for it. If GPL is so great, where are all the great ancient vintages?
User avatar
Chateau Vin
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by Chateau Vin »

In recent times, I've had GPL vintages 96 and 03. When I had 96 an year ago, I thought it was very good although not outstanding. I've had 03 twice and thought they shiould have sold the grapes in bulk rather than make a crappy grand vin.

But Jim, with regards to Lynch in recent vintages, 2009 was right behind Pichon Baron of the same vintage.
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

Tsk, tsk. I have four 86 in sto at JJB. Should I not bother with the airfreight?
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by JimHow »

I had the 2009 and 2010 GPL side by side at the last BWE convention in DC, two bottles brought by Marcus. The 2010 was undrinkably bad. The 2009 was tolerable in the way a $20 Mondavi from the supermarket would be. The 2012, the first time I had it I tried to convince myself that I liked it. I tried again twice afterwards to see if I wanted to buy more. It is embarrassingly light, watery, flaccid.... Again, supermarket level quality. The '86 has no taste as I recall Hound, no fruit, but it has been years.
User avatar
marcs
Posts: 1850
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:51 am
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by marcs »

Yes, I brought the 09/10 to that dinner. We decanted for an hour. The 2010 was so shut down, unnaturally so, as to be non-existent. Our experience with it was very different than the Cellartracker notes by others (as I stated in my own CT note on the experience).

That was a Premier Cru wine. A significant chunk of my collection is. In light of the jaw-dropping revelations of total corruption on the part of John Fox I sometimes wonder whether I should be suspicious of the quality/authenticity of even the wines I did receive from them.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by JimHow »

You should be more suspicious of the Robert Parker herd mentality over at cellar tracker Marcus.
User avatar
jal
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:30 pm
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by jal »

Sorry for not participating earlier, we are in Costa Rica for two weeks and the internet is spotty here.
I'll second Jim's views. But I also agree with Arv. The 1996 and the 2000 were boring and overrated when I had them, a mediocre effort in a good vintage. The 1982 was a roasted mess and I had it three times, each time hoping it's just a bad bottle. When we had it together and Patrick said be liked it, I realized it was just not to my palate.
I went to a vertical tasting of GPL in 1995 or 1996 (wow! 20 years ago), all the eighties were represented. I recall that the only good bottle from that tasting was the 1982 Lynch Bages ringer.
Don't even get me started again on the 2009.
But there are a lot of good affordable Bordeaux out there, No need to compromise. And if you like the chateau, good for you, plus you won't have to push me and Jim out off the way to get some in your basket.
Best

Jacques
User avatar
AKR
Posts: 5234
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:33 am
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by AKR »

marcs wrote:Yes, I brought the 09/10 to that dinner. We decanted for an hour. The 2010 was so shut down, unnaturally so, as to be non-existent. Our experience with it was very different than the Cellartracker notes by others (as I stated in my own CT note on the experience).

That was a Premier Cru wine. A significant chunk of my collection is. In light of the jaw-dropping revelations of total corruption on the part of John Fox I sometimes wonder whether I should be suspicious of the quality/authenticity of even the wines I did receive from them.
I think that is actually a real risk. Even on a large production wine that one would not normally be need to turn on their fraud detector.

Maureen Downey told me that a number of the big ticket, large format bottles at PC were blatant frauds.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by DavidG »

Sure, I can see big ticket items being a high risk for fraud, and I have no doubt that John Fox' lack of scruples would be no barrier to their sale. And I've read the stories about middling wines being counterfeited. But I kind of doubt that Fox was actively involved in fencing large volumes of middle class/upper middle class Bordeaux in 750 ml size. I'm inclined to think he was more of a one-trick pony with embezzlement and fake sales as his MO. Then again, I was one of the last to see the light about his Ponzi-like scheme.

A little under 5% of my Bordeaux purchases have been from PC. Not that my palate is so refined as to know a fake when I taste it, but I've never been surprised or disappointed by a PC bottle compared to any other. Again, I'm not talking large formats or rarities here.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by JimHow »

Yeah, counterfeiting a GPL would be like counterfeiting a one dollar bill.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by DavidG »

JimHow wrote:Yeah, counterfeiting a GPL would be like counterfeiting a one dollar bill.
:lol:

I have never been particularly over- or under-whelmed by GPL. My most memorable bottle was a 1982 brought by Chris Bublitz to a dinner maybe 10-15 years ago. It was outstanding.

I currently have a total of 4 bottles in my cellar: 2 '05s and 2 '10s, all purchased locally on release. Haven't opened any of them yet, and I sure don't plan on opening the '10 for at least 5 years. Wasn't planning on opening the '05 for a number of years either. I hope you guys are wrong about the '10s prospects, but you win some and you lose some.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by Comte Flaneur »

I like to think I have a more nuanced view of GPL, but the reality is that my views have swung around wildly, conditioned by my experiences.

It was just over ten years ago at a Pauillac tasting in Manhattan - where I met Blanquito for the first time - in a line up which included Mouton 1988, GPL occupied two of the top three slots in my pecking order - a sublime and beautifully resolved 1978 and a feisty young 1995.

Back in late 2011, the week after I returned to Blighty, we did a 1994 tasting with Neal Martin, and the GPL really stood out in a decidedly mixed field. It was significantly better than the lauded Pontet Canet, and was up there knocking on the door and asking questions of the LLC. IIRC it came third, one place behind the LLC, and two behind NM's mystery wine, Chateau Margaux. 

I have had the 1996 a dozen times and while it can vary a bit I am convinced it is a fabulous wine, which has been nicely accessible for five or more years. I slightly prefer it to the 1995, which came away with the gold medal at a tasting we did with NM a year later, in late 2012. It just edged out Pichon Lalande 1995. Very happy to own eight bottles of GPL 1995. 

So in my opinion 1994-2000 was the golden era for GPL. It could well be 1990-2000. I can't remember drinking the 1990, but I have heard really good things about it. As noted the 2000 was superb when I tried it, nearly two years ago. We had the 2005 at the same event which seemed strangely out of sorts - not just because the sommelier mixed up some of the wines. But the 2005 is highly regarded by credible punters. 

When I was living in CT I bought a few of the 2006 for $37 a bottle, which was superficially attractive, but ultimately a bit bland and uni-dimensional...and like drinking Ribena (a black currant cordial drink for kids). When I tried the 2009 for the first time I was shocked. It was like Ribena undiluted. It was pure porn. But I couldn't decide whether I liked it or not. That was slightly before Jacques gave his verdict. I had an option on some, which I let expire. 

The 2010 seemed solid when I tried it but there are plenty for exciting options in that vintage and the 2011 is pleasant enough although bland like the 0-6. The vintage that really is a shocker is the 2003. Burnt to a cinder. 

The last GPL I tried was the 1982 in December, which acquitted itself well against its illustrious flight mates - Latour 1983 and Lafite 1989 - and two 1986s, which followed - La Mission and LLC. It was an excellent wine, though a tad anonymous. Ticked most boxes, but lacked the thrills of the other four. 

In conclusion I think this is an estate that has lost its way. 

https://www.ribena.co.uk/flavours/bla
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by JimHow »

Yeah that 2003 GPL is a disaster.
You may be right about that 1990s stretch, Ian, I seem to remember liking the '94. I've always felt the 95 GPL was the best ever produced. I liked the 96 at one time but it seems to have not held up to the test of time. The 99, like the 03, was a complete disaster for my taste.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by Blanquito »

jal wrote:Sorry for not participating earlier, we are in Costa Rica for two weeks and the internet is spotty here.
I'll second Jim's views. But I also agree with Arv. The 1996 and the 2000 were boring and overrated when I had them, a mediocre effort in a good vintage. The 1982 was a roasted mess and I had it three times, each time hoping it's just a bad bottle. When we had it together and Patrick said be liked it, I realized it was just not to my palate.
I went to a vertical tasting of GPL in 1995 or 1996 (wow! 20 years ago), all the eighties were represented. I recall that the only good bottle from that tasting was the 1982 Lynch Bages ringer.
Don't even get me started again on the 2009.
But there are a lot of good affordable Bordeaux out there, No need to compromise. And if you like the chateau, good for you, plus you won't have to push me and Jim out off the way to get some in your basket.
Yes, that was David's 82 GPL if I remember correctly, which you found excessively roasted and that I really liked (I believe I had it in 3rd that night after the Margaux and Gruaud Larose). While I liked the roast, Jill shared a story how you dislike roasted scents and tastes so much you go out of your way to avoid Starbucks (which does over roast their beans, I agree).
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by Blanquito »

Comte Flaneur wrote:So in my opinion 1994-2000 was the golden era for GPL. It could well be 1990-2000.
This sounds right to me, Ian.
Comte Flaneur wrote:I can't remember drinking the 1990, but I have heard really good things about it.
The 1990 showed fantastic at the grand finale of DC '16, I think it was Chris B's bottle, which I found orphaned towards the end of the night. It quickly entered my top 5 on the evening.
Comte Flaneur wrote:As noted the 2000 was superb when I tried it, nearly two years ago. We had the 2005 at the same event which seemed strangely out of sorts - not just because the sommelier mixed up some of the wines. But the 2005 is highly regarded by credible punters. 
I thought the 2005 tremendous on release but I've not tried since. Incidentally, Parker downgraded the 05 from 95 pts to 92 pts in his 10 year check-in.
Comte Flaneur wrote:When I was living in CT I bought a few of the 2006 for $37 a bottle, which was superficially attractive, but ultimately a bit bland and uni-dimensional...and like drinking Ribena (a black currant cordial drink for kids). When I tried the 2009 for the first time I was shocked. It was like Ribena undiluted. It was pure porn. But I couldn't decide whether I liked it or not. That was slightly before Jacques gave his verdict. I had an option on some, which I let expire
Too funny. You know Ribena was exactly my discriptor of the 09 as well?

I really like the 95 GPL. I had a half bottle a few months ago and it is just about ready to strut its stuff. The 96 showed pretty well at a vertical last year, it may finally be coming together, but in the context of this vintage is always seems slightly underwhelming to me. Still, I own 3-4 bottles of the 96 and I'm glad I do.
User avatar
marcs
Posts: 1850
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:51 am
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by marcs »

2009 was seriously over the top early in its life, very liqueur-like and jammy. It's calmed down since but is still not showing classical.

I have faith that the 2005 will come around based on bottles earlier in its life. It has been shut down pretty hard for a while though. The shut down phase is deeply mysterious to me, I never know what conclusions to draw, perhaps in part because I have not collected long enough to follow a single Bordeaux through all phases of its life from release to 20 year+ aging. The 2005 made me a GPL fan and triggered my purchases of 09/10, so it might have cost me some real $$$ if those don't pan out. I have adjusted downward my expectations of GPL now.

JimHow, I think you're wrong about Cellartracker -- you have to use it wisely (read reviews, don't just look at scores, etc.) but I think it's the best source available on the collective experience with a wine.
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6384
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by Nicklasss »

Come on guys, Chateau Grand-Puy Lacoste isn't that bad! It is a star in the Pauillac AOC, like are Sociando Mallet and Cantemerle in AOC Haut-Médoc, Branaire-Ducru in Saint-Julien or Du Tertre in Margaux.

Of course, all these wines will very rarely compete with the high end Third, Second of First, but quality/price ratio is quite different.

I understand that some don't like it, or find it boring or under the quality it should be every vintage, as i understand we all have different noses and tastebuds. In my case, it is the Haut-Brion blanc that never made it for me, and the four vintages I had, I did not liked...

As for Grand-Puy Lacoste, the 1978 (once), 1982 (3 or 4 times), 1985 (2 times), 1990 (once at AlexR's place), 1994 (once), 1996 (5 times), and even the 2003 (at the Chateau in 2004 with AlexR) had met expectations all the times, but of course, not the same level of expectations i have with Cos d'Estournel, Pichon Baron, Palmer, Léoville Las Cases or recent Pontet Canet/Smith Haut Laffite.

So don't be shy to write it is a good wine, and I'm pretty sure none of you would refuse a sip, of any vintage of Grand-Puy Lacoste, even Jimhow or Jal.

And even if Jimhow is bugging me with the 1985 GPL, in Napa in 2002, it lost by one vote vs 1986 Léoville Barton, and there was 11 or 13 tasters who voted i guess that night...

And sometimes, i wonder if our BD consumes bizarre stuff, as this is what HE wrote about the 1985 Chateau Grand-Puy Lacoste, this past February 2016 :

"We had a delicious meal at Etch Restaurant in Nashville.
Outstanding service, a fun place. Thanks for the recommendation, Mr. Vino.

The two northern Medocs shined. The 2002 Cos d'Estournel was a Jim How kind of wine, deeply colored, youthful but fresh and very drinkable, spicy, a classically styled Cos but with great ripe fruit, especially for the vintage. 13.5%, I believe. I loved this wine! 95 points.

Nic brought a BWE legend, a 1985 Grand Puy Lacoste, the cork was in rough shape but it showed appropriate evolution. It was a great 1980s GPL, back in the days when they made good wines. It reached a great peak during the meal then started a slow fade. A real great Pauillac treat. 93 points.

My first trip to Nashville, hung out with Jean-Nicolas for a while on the strip after dinner, what happens in Nashville stays in Nashville….".

And finally, I believe dstgolf and others here that are finding the 2000 GPL great. Wish I will open one someday with my favorite Ottawa BWEer.

:-)

Nic

P.S. I know Jim, that hurts!
Last edited by Nicklasss on Wed Aug 24, 2016 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by JimHow »

Obviously I was influenced by the great company Jean-Nicolas. You have to admit, that '85 faded pretty fast.
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6384
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by Nicklasss »

I agree that it was an excellent wine, for the first 50-60 minutes. It fade away quickly after. This is the sign were getting old Jim, not emptying a bottle fast enough!

But hey, when the 85 GPL was there, in that sweet spot, it was very ok. Proof, you gave it a 93, i guess, in the 50 first minutes after opening.

Nic
User avatar
dstgolf
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by dstgolf »

Jim

Calling 2003 GPL a disaster is a bit harsh. When was the last time you had it? Recently as last month it was more than enjoyable and it has rounded out better than expected from the way it was being trashed here. Not great but I'd take it over most Californians at the same price point in a heart beat. No GPL is not up there with P Baron, Pontet Canet and other greats but its also not the dog that you are slamming it to be. I accept that you have different tastes than most but there are people that must like the wine or they'd be out of business quick. Just because it doesn't turn your crank doesn't mean that others aren't fond of it.

I don't get your craze about whoopie pies and Bordeaux but to each his own. People have different tastes and I get it. ;)
Danny
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by Blanquito »

After a big dinner, I saw someone eat two whole whoopie pies in DC, washed down by nothing more than the 89 Lynch Bages. And it wasn't Jim!
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by JimHow »

Just because it doesn't turn your crank doesn't mean that others aren't fond of it.
I never said anyone else can't be fond of it Danny!
I had the 2003 once probably when it first came out.
I was shocked at how light and shallow it was.
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by stefan »

It is not surprising that GPL is compared unfavorably to the first and second growth Pauillacs and to the current darling of the fifths, Pontet Canet, and the traditional darling, Lynch Bages. How about comparing it to D'Armailhac, Clerc Milon, Haut-Batailley, Batailley, or Haut Bages Liberal? (I would not insult it by comparing it to Lynch-Moussas, Croizet Bages, or Pédesclaux). i think it deserves the same ranking as D'Armailhac, Clerc Milon, and Haut-Batailley.
User avatar
jal
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:30 pm
Contact:

Re: 2000 Grand-Puy-Lacoste

Post by jal »

Stefan, are you talking about the mediocrity rankings here? These are wines I do not care for and will never buy again, d"Armailhac, Haut-Batailley, and Clerc Milon so Grand Puy Lacoste is a good comparison.
Best

Jacques
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 5 guests