1996 Lagrange

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

1996 Lagrange

Post by Blanquito »

Quick hit: the is really good and is finally starting to live up to the promise it showed when younger.

I opened this yesterday and enjoyed half of the bottle. It showed a wildly herby, zesty, green bouquet. I loved it, but would give the pyrazine-phobic an instant aneurism. The palate was much less rewarding, showing quiet lean and bright. It needed food.

I froze the 2nd half of the bottle and thawed it for dinner tonight, and is this really good now. The nose has morphed from shrubbery to more classic tobacco, green peppercorns, and earthy notes, there’s even some sweeter whiffs of cherry and lavender. But the palate has really transformed, fleshing out substantially with good midpalate chew and a pleasing sweetness. There’s excellent brightness and plenty of character, this is in an early maturity phase per the Blanquito Standard. Not a blockbuster to be sure, but this is a very encouraging showing for both the Lagrange (which is probably a somewhat earlier maturing Grand Cru Left Bank for the vintage) and where the 96s may end up in general.

That all said, I am increasingly convinced that while the 96 LBs will be glorious when fully mature, they will mostly be on the leaner, aromatic, old school end of the things compared to other top years, offering the best of their charms with aromatic expressiveness, freshness and complexity. The best of the best will have the palate power and depth to back up the aromatic fireworks and turn into legends, but this isn’t like your 82, 86, 89, 90, 05, 09 or 10 vintage in terms of concentration. I wonder if something like the underrated 2001 vintage is a good comparison for the 96s?

Discuss.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4864
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Comte Flaneur »

The 1996 Lagrange is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

Blanquito’s Law is attaining the same status as Newton’s laws of physics.

I think the 2001s are generally more forward than the 1996s, even without adjusting for the five year head start the 1996s have.

FWIW the 2002 Lagrange is an insubstantial wine.
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6386
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Nicklasss »

I had a bottle of the 1996 Lagrange end of March, at my brother's place. JeanFred was there too. It was just glorious, after a 90-120 decant time. The greens (especially green peppercorns) were there there, but buried under lot of fruits, flowers, and spices. Complex wine, with medium + concentration and a medium length. Not the greatest 1996 or Lagrange, but still very rewarding.

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

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Blanquito »

Your bottle sounds a lot like mine showed on day 2, Nic. Really good and drinking very well now with enough air...

2001 isn’t really a good comparison for 1996, as you say Ian. For one, the 96s always has a lot more tannin and I think 96 is superior overall on the left bank. I’m just having a hard time thinking of other Bordeaux vintages like the 96s— i.e. especially aromatic, mostly medium bodied with fresh green notes and bright acids, and plenty of structure on the tail end. Maybe 1985? I’m guessing the 85s never had the structure of the 96s. If the 96s continue to flesh out and sweeten in bottle (a real possibility), I will be underestimating the 96s even given how much I like them now.

Other 96s I’ve tried that showed like the Lagrange (aromatic, medium bodied with fresh green notes and bright acids):
Beychevelle
Cantemerle
Sociando Mallet
Cos d’Estournel
Pichon Lalande
GPL
Leoville Barton
Branaire
Pape Clement
Calon Segur

Richer versions of the 96 (but still not blockbusters):
Pontet Canet
Lynch Bages
Lafon Rochet
Ducru
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6225
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by stefan »

The only 1996 I would compare to its 1985 sibling is La Lagune. In fact, the 1996 worried me at first because it was so fruity yet refined almost at release. However, even more so than the 1985, which I love, the 1996 has continued to be wonderful.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Blanquito »

Good point, Bill. I didn’t start having the 85s until the last 12-15 years, but everyone who had them early on says the 85s drank great young, which the 96s certainly did not.

The wine press usually compares the 96s with the 86s, and maybe that’s the most apt. I just find the signature of the 96s quite distinctive from the 86s.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4864
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Yes I tend to think 1986 is the best comparison, but 1986 is pretty agricultural by comparison. The 2005s could turn out similar, but the 05s seem to have much more power, density and extraction. Likewise the 2000s. I don’t think the 2002s will be as long-lived as the 1996s but there are some similarities. As others noted the 1985s drank well from as young as five. Maybe 1996 is unique in the modern day. When the 2016 burgundy vintage was released the word was that the best template was a vintage from the 19th century, can’t remember which one.
User avatar
Claret
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:16 pm
Location: Reno, NV
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Claret »

I am a big fan of 96 Lefties. I wish I bought more. I was lucky to pick up almost a case of 96 Lagrange for a silly price. It was closed for a while and seems to be opening lately.

Was 96 the last great classic Medoc vintage?
Glenn
User avatar
Ognik
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:57 am
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Ognik »

Don't see any stylistic similarities between 86 and 96.
95 is much closer in style and evolution.
Lagrange and Talbot are great value wines in 96.
Pull the cork.
User avatar
AKR
Posts: 5234
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:33 am
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by AKR »

I've still got a lot of this estate/vintage held since release and chew through it slowly.

I think its a bit lean and taut, and likely better younger for my tastes.

Lagrange is reliable but its not a favorite of mine or anything.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4864
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Ognik wrote:Don't see any stylistic similarities between 86 and 96.
95 is much closer in style and evolution.
Lagrange and Talbot are great value wines in 96.
Pull the cork.
The similarities between 1986 and 1996 are:

1. Cabernet/left bank dominated
2. Painfully slow evolution, if anything 1996 slower than 1986

I do agree there are similarities with 1995. Good point. Especially wrt glacial evolution. But when you taste 1995s and 1996s next to each other, they are quite different...the 1996s have a bit more finesse and smoother tannins...if anything 1995 is closer in style to 1986 than 1996.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4864
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Slight thread drift, but related to my post above, I just popped a 1986 Sociando Mallet, and it is positively Ludditian. If that word does not exist I just invented it. An no that is not an oxymoron. The wine is OK, as in not being corked or flawed in any noticeable way. When this wine is ‘on it’ it is a great pre- ... (insert historical reference) ... thrill.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Blanquito »

It sounds positively medieval, Ian!
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20110
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by JimHow »

Or at least Victorian....
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4864
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Yes! Both in equal measure. Patrick I give you credit for .. turning me on .. to buy some 2008 Montrose when you described it as ‘medieval’ - it sent a shiver down my spine in exactly the same way as one might describe a Cornas as having the characteristics of Silicon (oooh!) or even Tungsten (ooo!) Carbide (clenches fists and other parts of the clenchable anatomy simultaneously.,) and it was exactly as you described. Jim - Victorian is also an apt descriptor for this Sociando, which is showing magnificently. I think I would go far as to say ‘Dickensian’ - it is austere yet riveting.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20110
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by JimHow »

Ha well done, Ian, well done. I was looking for Thomas Carlyle quotes on wine and I just got lost in some of his letters in the past 20 minutes or so, ah, BWE....
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8283
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by DavidG »

Comte Flaneur wrote: Jim - Victorian is also an apt descriptor for this Sociando, which is showing magnificently. I think I would go far as to say ‘Dickensian’ - it is austere yet riveting.
So you have Great Expectations for the Sociando Ian?
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6386
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Nicklasss »

The 1986 Sociando Mallet is an aristicratic lean before european industrial revolution type of wine. So much structure, as communism, but with succesfull organic agricultural practices in the earthy/leathery/green peppery/fruity definition. They don't make wine that way anymore, so much uniqueness.

Nic
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4864
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Yes...yes...and yes...Jim, David and Nic. This bottle is such a thrill. It really is a throwback to a bygone age but such a compelling wine. I have had a few faulty bottles from this case. This bottles was absolutely riveting. More than a hint of sado-Masochism going on. Ooooo...that must hurt...ooo, yes it does....please don’t stop....
User avatar
Ognik
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:57 am
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Ognik »

@comte
E.g. 95 is much closer to 86 than 96 is to 86.
96 is a contrapoint to 86. Elegant, expessive, friendly.
95 and 86 are "unfriendly" vintages...and will unfortunately be forever...... i fear.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4864
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Comte Flaneur »

I think 95s will come round and be magnificent Ognik, but they may outlast us.
User avatar
Ognik
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:57 am
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Ognik »

Will tell you in 30 years time.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Blanquito »

I’m a big believer in the top 95s as well. Yet the 95s are evolving even slower than the slow 96s, but they’ve always seemed to have a more concentration than the corresponding 96s (talking about the left bank only here), perhaps because the 95s have so much more merlot in the grand vin compared to the 96s. For my palate, 95s are unlikely to ever match the aromatics on the 96s though, even if they remain the deeper wines. Maybe the 2025 Convention is when we can put these matters to the ultimate test.
User avatar
Claret
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:16 pm
Location: Reno, NV
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Claret »

I have faith in 95. I tasted the vintage young and bought. Recent Sociando Mallet and Pontet Canet showed well with upside potential. Calon Segur is picking up steam. Still waiting on my Cos. A vintage for the patient. Old school Bordeaux that takes a few decades to shine. Real Bordeaux.

95 and 96 are probably the last back to back vintages in the old style of less ripe fruit with significant tannins.
Glenn
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: 1996 LagrangeqW

Post by Blanquito »

I had the 95 Sociando a few months ago and it showed great. Better than the 96 for current enjoyment.
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6225
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by stefan »

I love old complex Bordeaux that has completely resolved tannins and tertiary characteristics. OTOH, I agree with Parker when he says that it is ridiculous to try a 20 year old wine and find that it is too young for current drinking. Sure, great wines evolve further after 20 years into the kind of beverage that some of us love, but they should not be undrinkable at age 20. Throughout the 1970s Lucie and I drank wonderful mature claret from 1961, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1967. The 1970s were less approachable young and the 1975s unapproachable. 1979s were pretty harsh. The 1980s showed a return to the earlier period until 1986 came around. 1988, 1989, and 1990 were not as bad, but all required considerable patience and some are still too young. 1995 and 1996 are beyond belief. Neither is a fantastic vintage by historical standards, but many wines from these years are still subject to Patrick's "5 more years" rule. My impression is that 1998 LB is in the same mold, and with less justification.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4864
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Comte Flaneur »

stefan - I can hear Alex cheering you from the sidelines
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4864
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Btw- ‘antediluvian’ was the word I was looking for last night, but by the time I posted I had deposited three quarters of a bottle of S(ado)-M(aschimo) ‘86 down my neck, in an addition to a glass of Bourgogne Blanc.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Blanquito »

Bill, I completely agree with everything say here, although your experience far exceeds mine especially with pre-1982 wines.

Nearly every wine I’ve tried from 1982-1988 was at least ready if not fully mature by 2008. Even the 86 Mouton and 86 Lafite were fully in the zone in 2008, even if they’ll go and improve for a long while more.

Many Bordeaux from 89 and 90 need more time (89 Lynch is a prime example), but lots of others are great now for my tastes (though I just had a 90 Lagrange that showed shockingly primary).

Yet, as you say, there’s only a handful of Grand Cru 95 and 96s fully in the zone. I had a bunch of 95 and 96s at a tasting in 2015 —many were top wines — and they were so young I had to double my ‘another 5 year rule’ to 10! Hopefully this doesn’t mean they’ll disappoint in the end (I’m still very high on the eventual quality of these vintages).
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6386
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Nicklasss »

If 1995 and 1996 red Bordeaux aren't ready, i have to say like G'n'R : " Where do we go, where do we go now?".

But the 1995 Chateau La Mission Haut Brion I opened at the last convention was... very very very young.

If 1995/1996 aren't ready, that means I'm too old for post 1995 red Bordeaux.

Nic
Last edited by Nicklasss on Sun Apr 29, 2018 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8283
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by DavidG »

Nicklasss wrote: I'm too old for post 1995 red Bordeaux.

Nic
Oy, where does that leave me?
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6225
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by stefan »

David, maybe your tolerance for young wines will increase as you age. That has happened to me, although, if truth be told, I still dislike very young Bordeaux that forces me to pull out my Indian tongue cleaner between glasses.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Blanquito »

Just re-reading this (fantastic) old thread... and I’m wondering if the needle has moved at all on the 95s/96s in the last 2 and a half years? Anyone have any updates?

Also, this thread got me thinking early about New Years Resolutions (disclosure: our Christmas tree has already been up for a month, to give the kids something to get excited about during lockdown #3), and I have a resolution I am ready to declare: as soon as I am COVID vaccinated (sometime in March, hopefully), I am heading to Europe for an epic bender. Hopefully, Ian, Alex, Tim (if still in France) and as many other BWEers stateside we can round up, are ready and willing.
Last edited by Blanquito on Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20110
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by JimHow »

Yeah, baby! I want to be the first one vaccinated, and the next day I'm going to be off to Europe!
User avatar
JoelD
Posts: 1410
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2019 1:48 pm
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by JoelD »

Blanquito wrote:Just re-reading this (fantastic) old thread... and I’m wondering if the needle has moved at all on the 95s/96s in the last 2 and a half years? Anyone have any updates?

Also, this thread got me thinking early about New Years Resolutions (disclosure: our Christmas tree has already been up for a month, to give the kids something to get excited about during lockdown #3), and I have a resolution I am ready to declare: as soon as I am COVID vaccinated (sometime in March, hopefully), I am heading to Europe for an epic bender. Hopefully, Ian, Alex, Tim (if still in France) and as many other BWEers stateside we can round up, are ready and willing.
Now this is what I'm talking about. Between a trip like that, and hopefully Mark's VCC tasting. This could be great first half of 2021. Consider me in if the stars align.

Side note, referring to the original post. Is freezing older reds and then thawing for the next day really a thing?? This doesn't ruin the wine at all? I don't even like changing the temp back and forth from room to cellar if it can be helped.
User avatar
Claudius2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:07 am
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Claudius2 »

Guys
This really has become an intellectual thread.
Not heard the word Antediluvian since I last listened to Atlantis by Donovan.

I have drunk two 96’s this year being Sociando Mallet and Leoville Barton. Both were very good and I was surprised how they had developed. Both were fruitier than my past experiences. Both took some years to open but I have to say that the 96 SM - WOTY in 2000 (I think) was actually really nice young. In London in 2000 I drank several bottles and was amazed how drinkable it was. I tried the 1986 at the same age and it was as dry as the Sahara. I drank it 10 yrs later and frankly it had not changed one bit. It will probably outlive all of us.

So to my old palate 86 was not much like 96 at all. I am not sure I have ever had an 86 that showed tertiary development. Yet 96 is now showing more fruit. Before leaving Australia I happily drank several Chateaux that were after 13 to 14 years actually quite drinkable. No way that was the case with 86 though I loved some 86’s at say, 20 years and despite their structure.

Not sure I can compare 96 with any vintage but maybe the older I get the more unique I see every vintage. No way 95 or 96 are like 85 or 86 to my palate. I’d also say that 2001 reminds me more of a modern 75. That may surprise some but both have powerful tannins and 75 took 30-30 yrs to open up. Yet quite a few 75s were very good with age. Not sure if 2001 will turn out.

I am somewhat unsure of 95. I think 96 is a better LB vintage overall and I really have no idea where these wines are going. I have few of them now but I have had much more disappointments than I expected. To my palate 95 is a RB vintage and after a run of poor to average vintages (91 to 94) maybe it was overall.
User avatar
Claret
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:16 pm
Location: Reno, NV
Contact:

Re: 1996 Lagrange

Post by Claret »

A recent 86 Lagrange was mature and drinking well with mostly resolved tannin.
Glenn
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 20 guests