Lanessan brought in a consultant for more recent vintages: Hubert de Bouard. Leve calls the 2016 vintage the best Lanessan he’s ever tasted. But then again, he also rated the 2000 an 82-pointer. Seriously.
Robert… You try the 2016 when it comes out. If you don’t agree it’s the best vintage of Lanessan you’ve ever tasted, I’ll drink an older vintage with dinner! Deal?
I drank my first '15 this week and found it to be juicy and delicious. I intend to drink the other 5 I purchased “whenever I like” or until it shuts down, at which point I might dig out the '05 that I put in a box.
Yes, I saw that. The 17 seems to be unloved. I have a wine-searcher alert in place; sooner or later I’ll find some.
That’s the thing about 375s; most of the time you pay a premium, but occasionally you’ll find a retailer who is nearly giving them away (much less than half the price for a 750).
Yeah, I haven’t really heard that much about '17 to excite. Last time I’d looked they still had '16s, so was thinking that would be more in line with what you wanted, but now showing only 750s for that vintage.
Deal, but we are breaking into your deep stash of mature First Growths, not the cheap, thin, weedy things that are the best that us country lawyers can afford!
I’ve never liked to drink Lanessan when young, so Lee’s take on the 2015 worries me not at all.
If the new consulting makes it flashy and fleshy and a Leve wine, however, Lanessan is no longer Lanessan. It might still be a fine wine, but the wine’s allure is as - happily - a traditionally older school wine that needs bottle age. I will keep an open mind with respect to the new consulting, but this wine does not need an ascot.