Lagrange vertical in DC

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Wed May 09, 2018 3:36 pm

I joined Winona Chief and a bunch of other members of the DC wine community at Black Salt last night for a deep vertical of Lagrange (St Julien) set up by the estimable Panos Kakaviatos. It featured the 1985, 1989, 1990, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014 and 2015 vintages. As usual with Panos this event was extremely well organized and informative, with guests from the Chateau to discuss the vintages.

I didn't bring a notebook so the below are some impressions from memory.

First, in general. I have never really got into Lagrange and after last night I can see why. It's a decent chateau, of fine quality, but the "highs" last night weren't particularly high. For the price I've found other producers more interesting and compelling and last night didn't change my mind. If it was a $25 Haut Medoc it would be great, but as a $50+ classed growth I generally didn't find most of these wines very exciting. Almost all of them lacked that extra dimension of length, depth, or complexity, and the 1985 and 1989 were already notably on the downslope. Probably the 1990 too but it was sliding from a higher peak so was still good.

With that said, I found this a very interesting vertical because it showed vintage characteristics so clearly. Possibly a "greater" wine would be less transparent to those. But last night the vintages played out like the tag lines from a Wine Spectator vintage chart. 2002 was very green, 2009 was fruity, 2010 imposingly tannic, 2014 had a harsher finish than the plush 2015, etc. etc. Part of this may be my own stereotypes of the vintages but I don't think so.

For me the WOTN was easily the 2009. I am just continually impressed by that vintage, I think it's still underrated. Yes it's rich and fruity and not exactly light, but it's in no way heavy or cloying. Just has a ton of charm and the extra richness and density was tailor made for a wine like Lagrange which has a problem with thinness at times. I have consistently found 2009s, especially once they calmed down a bit from their youthful exuberance, to be well balanced and have plenty of poise even if they lack that classical severity. I know it's fashionable to like 2010 more, but for drinking today the 2009 is far preferable and predictions about the future don't always come true.

Speaking of the 2009-2010 pair, the 2008 was also solid but had a notable stalky/leafy/greenish edge the other two vintages didn't. I didn't mind it, I rather enjoy that touch.

The 2002 Lagrange was quite interesting even if not for everyone, showed the green-ness and thin fruit of that vintage in spades, but in a complex and engaging way that had its own charm.

The 1996 was another wine that stood out to me, but I generally tend to feel that vintage is drinking well right now. This Lagrange was not the greatest example but it was good.

The 2014 and 2015 both had really good fruit but the 2014 had more angular and cruder tannins and didn't finish as well. The 2015 was really lush and might be another take on the 2009 style.

AKR · Post by **AKR** » Wed May 09, 2018 4:15 pm

That's my general take on Lagrange too.

I enjoy it but would not buy at prevailing prices.

Still have lots to chew through as it is, anyways.

Interesting to hear about the very recent releases; I've not tried any of those.

Ognik · Post by **Ognik** » Wed May 09, 2018 4:22 pm

Thank you for sharing. Underrated Chateau sometimes. 2009 was a sleeper e.p.
, great value.
Any thoughts on 2003?

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Wed May 09, 2018 4:37 pm

Thanks for your impressions Marc which reinforce all my preconceptions.

I have a case of 2002 on the go - it is distinctly underwhelming but somehow disarmingly charming. But you would expect better from a third growth St-Julien.

AlohaArtakaHoundsong · Wed May 09, 2018 4:45 pm

Verticals do seem instructive--not that I've ever enjoyed one. But I've enjoyed the 94, 96, 99 and 03 Lagranges, so much in fact I ordered a case of the 16. As for the pricing it seems to me to be one of the few classed growths I am able to afford any more.

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Wed May 09, 2018 4:50 pm

Ognik wrote:Thank you for sharing. Underrated Chateau sometimes. 2009 was a sleeper e.p.
, great value.
Any thoughts on 2003?

their 2003 was good. It didn't fall into any 2003 pitfalls. But not as good as the 2005 or 2009. It didn't really stand out to me in the lineup that much to be honest, in either a good or bad direction.

The 2009 was the only wine I had that I might make an active effort to purchase more of, pretty clear WOTN for me, but it seems to have gotten a bit expensive.

The 2015 might be worthwhile as it is still under $50 (a little). That was a good wine but still a ton of baby fat so hard to completely judge. Reminded me of the 2009s when they first arrived.

Racer Chris · Post by **Racer Chris** » Wed May 09, 2018 4:52 pm

Thanks for the report. I like reading about the events Panos puts together.
I have one bottle of the 2010 which I bought for $60 which seemed reasonable given the notes previously posted on Cellartracker, and in comparison to other St. Juliens of the same vintage.
I'll hang onto it for at least a few more years before opening.
I haven't found the '10 or other vintages since, at a price which was compelling enough for me to make a purchase.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed May 09, 2018 5:51 pm

I enjoyed the 2006 and 2007 Lagrange.
I thought the 2007 was the best of the 2005-2006-2007 triumvirate.

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Wed May 09, 2018 5:53 pm

I remember the 2006 as having good fruit and fullness but also rough tannins at the end and clipped finish. An impression I generally get with 2006s. Not bad overall but I preferred the 2005. The 2007 was not tasted.

spikegrhm · Post by **spikegrhm** » Wed May 09, 2018 6:20 pm

Marcs, I have a 6 pack of the 2005 which I have yet to taste. From your memory is the vintage sufficiently down the path to start drinking ? Thanks, Spike

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Wed May 09, 2018 6:49 pm

Yes, I think the 2005 is ready to start drinking but maybe not yet in its prime. It is still somewhat tannic at the back end and that shortens the finish. But it is giving some nice secondary elements, like cigar tobacco etc., along with plenty of fruit so it is enjoyable. I didn't like it as much as a couple of other wines I had last night but for current drinking it was certainly in the top four or five vintages we had, if I had to rank.

If you have a six pack I would crack one now and save the rest. If you had just one or two I'd advise sitting on it for a few more years.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Wed May 09, 2018 7:06 pm

Overall, I concur that Lagrange is a pretty ho-hum claret, but I do think the 1990 is a pretty great wine and my bottles aren't quite a peak yet (they tend to improve when I follow them for 2 days).

I haven't had any (though I own some), but there was a lot of buzz about the 2000 Lagrange back around 2004-2005. How'd that show?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed May 09, 2018 7:09 pm

We drank a LOT of 2000 Lagrange half bottles in that time frame.
The SteveH’s of the world really liked it, as did I.

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Wed May 09, 2018 8:26 pm

The 2000 showed well but not well enough to really transcend the ho-hum factor. Same with the 1996. Both clearly good wines from good years, but....eh

of course these big verticals demand that wines really stand out. Possibly these would be better on their own. But still, it wasn't like a cattle call mass tasting -- we had time to linger (at the table with the wines for about three and a half hours) and were drinking with good food.

AKR · Post by **AKR** » Wed May 09, 2018 8:29 pm

What I like about verticals is that they really help identify when one might best enjoy a wine.

Still its been a while since I've attended a formal one.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed May 09, 2018 8:45 pm

I drank through early a case of 2006s. I have one bottle left.

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Wed May 09, 2018 9:10 pm

AKR wrote:What I like about verticals is that they really help identify when one might best enjoy a wine.

Still its been a while since I've attended a formal one.

Panos is amazing at putting them together. There are a lot of ways a big vertical can go wrong but he always does it well -- decent pours, time to linger over the wines, and the absolute maximum number of vintages before your head would explode.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Wed May 09, 2018 9:19 pm

Did you guys vote on favorite wines?

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Wed May 09, 2018 10:36 pm

1990 is the best vintage of Lagrange in my experience. Other vintages, as you say, lack a "wow" factor, but I like 1996, 2000, 2002, and 2003. Lagrange seems fairly priced in relation to comparable Medocs.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed May 09, 2018 10:46 pm

You nailed it on the Lagrange vintages, Stefan: 1990, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2003.
We had the 1982 Lagrange at a restaurant in Montreal in my early days of drinking Bordeaux (early 1990s) and it was memorable.
And, as I said above, the 2007 was a pleasant surprise.

Nicklasss · Post by **Nicklasss** » Wed May 09, 2018 11:16 pm

SdR unimpressed by Lafite, and now marcs unimpressed by Lagrange. Is BWE doomed?

I think Chateau Lagrange is an excellent red Saint-Julien, at this price, and considering the number of bottles produced. What other red Bordeaux at the same price is as good as or better, EVERY vintages, good or less good? Maybe Sociando but not a lot more.

I agree that it is a wine that doesn't have peak, high or low. Kind of "Haut Brion from Saint-Julien". It is a medium power Saint-Julien, let say a junior Gruaud Larose, as having terroir far from the estuary. So the style is just a bit less elegant than the ones near the water. It has less blackfruits, a bit more spices, and (a good indicator) a Saint-Julien that Bordeaux lovers buy and drink. Taste among bigger/better wines, it rarely end up at the top, but never make the bottom.

Over the years, for me, the 1990 is a top, as it almost bested the 1989 Chateau Lynch Bages in the blind tasting at the first BWE convention (1989 Chateau Pichon Baron finished third, one point behind the 1990 Chateau Lagrange, and the Saint-Julien one point behind the "Poor man Mouton"). The 1988, 1989, 1995, 1996, 2003, 2006 have all been excellent to me. For the records, the 1988 won the blind tasting at the second BWE convention... i remember that the 1988 Gruaud Larose was also in the lot.

Marcs, your tasting seems like you were having more expectations. And basically, you seem to have like the wines instead of loving them. And this is very true to Lagrange. But, with your comments, I wonder about Lagrange aging capacity: 1989 and 1990 too old? I remember the 1990 being a child in 2001. But this is (already) 17 years ago.

Nic

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Wed May 09, 2018 11:39 pm

Great report on a very comprehensive tasting Marcus. I too like, not love, Lagrange and don’t buy it. The 1990 was an exception.

Nic, I think you just dissed my favorite first growth with your "Haut Brion from Saint Julien" comment. Corkscrews at 30 paces!

Nicklasss · Post by **Nicklasss** » Wed May 09, 2018 11:47 pm

DavidG wrote:Nic, I think you just dissed my favorite first growth with your "Haut Brion from Saint Julien" comment. Corkscrews at 30 paces!

Sorry David, english being my second language, I don't get the sense of that sentence.

Nic

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed May 09, 2018 11:54 pm

He wants to fight you Nic.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed May 09, 2018 11:56 pm

I agree with the sentiments, Nic, the Lagrange hate is a little over the top.
this is like Gruaud hate.
Is this something unique to St. Julien?
Didn't you name one of your children Julien...????
Oh the hate out there.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Thu May 10, 2018 12:03 am

A duel, Nic, with corkscrews instead of pistols.

Hate, Jim? I said I like it, just not enough to be a regular purchaser. Your Lagrange sensitivity is showing, like my Haut Brion sensitivity.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu May 10, 2018 12:39 am

Ha you are not a hater, David, you are a lover....

danzur · Post by **danzur** » Thu May 10, 2018 12:47 am

JimHow wrote:He wants to fight you Nic.

OMG-I almost spit up my wine. That was a LOL moment...

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu May 10, 2018 12:49 am

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Thu May 10, 2018 12:59 am

>>
What other red Bordeaux at the same price is as good as or better, EVERY vintages, good or less good? Maybe Sociando but not a lot more.
>>

Yeah, Nic; not very many. D'Armailhac comes to mind, not that we discuss it much here. It is as Pauillac as Lagrange is St Julien and is very consistent but almost never really exciting. Just a sound beverage of its (premium) type.

Nicklasss · Post by **Nicklasss** » Thu May 10, 2018 1:22 am

Nic = personna non grata in Washington DC.

Yes stefan, i agree that Armailhac is a good candidate.

Nic

Racer Chris · Post by **Racer Chris** » Thu May 10, 2018 1:50 am

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Thu May 10, 2018 9:46 am

Interesting thread.

I put Lagrange squarely into the "value for money' category, rather than an estate reaches the heights.

Château Lagrange is so HUGE (118 hectares, the size of some entire appellations in Burgundy), I think they would do well to produce a presitge cuvée, even if that is generally not the done thing in Bordeaux, among the crus classés, at least.

Alex R.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Thu May 10, 2018 3:30 pm

Why, Alex? Lagrange seems to be doing fine now.

I dread the day that Lafite comes out with Lafite Excellence.

dstgolf · Post by **dstgolf** » Thu May 10, 2018 4:12 pm

Great thread. Just so happens without seeing this we popped a 2005 Lagrange last night. Good but not a show stopper by any means. A little short on the finish and hollow mid palate having us both look a one another and going where's the oomph! Very drinkable now with ripe but still present tannins and still a little closed. Shows nice cassis, dark fruits and a nice touch of cedar but oak subtly in the background. For the price a little disappointed paying $74cdn on futures release and not a good QPR. I get more enjoyment from the $25-35 range from St Paul, Belle Vue, d'Aguihle, Laneson, Lilian Ladouys. Certainly agree with the comments on d'Armailhac being a more consistent drink and better QPR. I'd also go a little into St Estephe with Lafon Rochet that rarely disappoints for less $$.

jal · Post by **jal** » Thu May 10, 2018 4:53 pm

Is it me or is Lagrange underperforming lately? I was disappointed in the 2010, the 2011 and the 2012, not bad but again nothing earth shattering and for the price, I have had much better wines.
I much prefer Branaire Ducru in St Julien.

Racer Chris · Post by **Racer Chris** » Thu May 10, 2018 5:21 pm

marcs wrote:The 1996 was another wine that stood out to me, but I generally tend to feel that vintage is drinking well right now. This Lagrange was not the greatest example but it was good.

Recent thread on BWE: '96 Lagrange

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Thu May 10, 2018 5:39 pm

JimHow wrote:I agree with the sentiments, Nic, the Lagrange hate is a little over the top.
this is like Gruaud hate.

I don't hate Lagrange. Where did I say I hated Lagrange? I said I felt "meh" about it and wouldn't seek it out. "Meh" is like the opposite of hate, right?

Now, if you want to see some real, venomous hate for a perfectly innocent Bordeaux classed growth, I'd encourage you to check out some of the posts around here about Grand Puy Lacoste. Whooo, that's real hate!

I don't really agree that Lagrange offers value for money. It's not bad value exactly, but on futures it tends to be in the $40-50 range. That's not really cheap IMO and there are a lot of strong competitors within about $10 of that. At $25 it would be value for money.

In that $40-60 range I try to seek out wines where I have had at least one really good experience, so I know that the wine has a high "ceiling" so to speak. For me, a chateau like Gruaud Larose meets that test, I have had some fantastic Gruaud before. I think a deep Gruaud vertical would be much more exciting than this Lagrange vertical was last night, with higher highs. There are other wines in the Lagrange price range with higher ceilings too -- e.g. Malescot (a fantastic 2009) or Branaire Ducru (had some very good years) that I would seek out before I would go to Lagrange. Leoville Barton can also be around $50-55 on futures (although sadly it's increasing in price). Of course that is a wine with an amazing track record that I would always seek out. There were very few Lagrange I had last night that would beat out a Leoville Barton from even a mediocre year.

Someone above mentioned d'Armailhac as a comparison for Lagrange. That's a good comparison; it's another wine I feel "meh" about and don't seek out for the price.

Racer Chris · Post by **Racer Chris** » Thu May 10, 2018 6:06 pm

marcs wrote: Now, if you want to see some real, venomous hate for a perfectly innocent Bordeaux classed growth, I'd encourage you to check out some of the posts around here about Grand Puy Lacoste. Whooo, that's real hate!

I have enough to go around.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Thu May 10, 2018 8:27 pm

Stefan,

Of course, I see your point

.

I was simply musing that with 118 hectares, there is a lot of scope for selecting wine from the best plots.
Commerciallly, it would be a very audacious thing to do.
But then, many present-day estates were split from larger ones...

For goodness sakes, Le Chambertin, not the smallest grand cru in Burgundy, by any means, has just 13 hectares of vines.
I was just imagining a special cuvée that could be made from a 118-hectare estate...
It'll never happen though

.

Marc,

Yes, I'm with you, Gruaud Larose is a better wine. But is in not usually considerably more expensive?

Best regards,
Alex R.