TNR: 1996 Legras Cuvée St. Vincent

Any info on the 96 Legras Cuvée St. Vincent will be appreciated. Thanks.

Pass. Not complex. Just acid. Very little body or fruit.

I hope Charlie had a bad bottle, as I have some in my cellar. I’ll have to open one soon. CT notes look very good.

I unfortunately bought 4. 3/4 have been okay. Better with 30min or so of air. Pleasant but not much else.

In the last few months, I’ve had two bottles, and my experiences were more positive than Charlie’s and Fred’s. One bottle was better-than-good: it had a dense body, lovely minerality, and good acidity; the second bottle was merely pleasant, as its body was a little lacking. Neither bottle had lots of fruit, though.

Last week, I also had a bottle of the 1990 Cuvee St. Vincent, and it was very good, though it might not appeal to those who don’t like aged-notes in their Champagne or white wine. After this recent tasting of the 1990, I’m going to save my third and last bottle of the 96 for another few years.

Had a decent bottle and a completely odd bottle in the past two weeks.

I’m surprised to see such poor reviews, but I haven’t had one in a while. I guess it’s possible that a beautiful Champagne has fallen apart over the past couple of years, or maybe there’s some serious bottle variation, but I though the bottles I had 3-4 years ago were outstanding.

I dunno. Seems kinda like your second bottle sounds like what I had.

I’ve had the chamber three times in the past year. Once the acid was so high strung that it felt lt felt like my teeth were getting peeled back. The other two times were just ok.but lacking in fruit was a common theme in all three. Fine if it was a $40 btl but not $80-100.

I don’t know, either, Charlie. At $80, I would have been a buyer, after my first bottle; I wasn’t a buyer, after my second bottle.

Speaking about 1996 Champagnes in that price range, I had an excellent bottle of 96 Pol Roger Brut (recently purchased for $90) at Red Medicine, this week. The wine was full, yet elegant, with great fruit, minerals, and acid; it also had just the beginnings of tertiary development. And, it got even better over time. Maybe we can can share a glass of something good, one day, Charlie.

I have had three of these. The first was fabulous and the reason I bought several. The second was very good, but not on the same level. The third was the last part of the bottle Phil had. Todd said it had some “baby poop” on opening, which I thought might be reduction. This third bottle opened up and seemed clean by the time I finished it. So who knows?

you let me know and I’ll be there!

Love Red Medicine. Nice Riesling selection.

Was the 96 Pol Roger on the menu for $90 or did you BYO? Guessing the latter but you never know!

went to WeHo last night. Took me over a hour to get there and a hour and a half to get home at midnight. This is why I never go :X

Faster to HB to hang with me and Fred.

Unfortunately, Fred, the 96 Pol Roger was BYO. I recently bought it from one of our excellent local pushers for $90.

I’ll jump on that thread drift. I had a magnum of the '96 Pol Roger last year that was also outstanding. The '96 BdB is as good.

I would not bury this wine in the cellar- it is pretty forward for a 1996 Champagne and is a solid B+ in quality for current drinking, but I would expect it to start to fade over the next handful of years. The mousse is not particularly energetic for its relative youth, and there are already structural cracks that suggest this is going to be pretty short-lived for a 1996. The wine is pretty understated in style, but at least the most recent bottle I tasted did offer up nice complexity when one concentrated on the wine a bit. Its wide open style today augurs for not burying it in the cellar and hoping for a bit more fireworks down the road, as I suspect this is as good as it is going to get. Not a bad bottle, but $80 is a bit too stiff of a tariff for what ultimately ends up in the glass.

All the Best,

John

I agree with John on this; it is tasty right now and not likely to get better. Yes, it will evolve, but not necessarily improve. Being from Chouilly, it is not as intense as other Cote de Blancs villages were in 1996. I find it to be a Champagne that White Burgundy lovers go nuts for - even at $60-$90 a bottle. For me, it isn’t anything special for the vintage, but I certainly wouldn’t turn down a glass. A tasty and slightly cloying wine that is enjoyable here and now.

Steve, I had the same experience. The first bottle I had was fabulous. This was a couple of years ago. The second that I had a couple of weeks ago, was excellent, but not on the same level. Have not had my third bottle yet.