I recently found a horizontal of the 2001 LaLas in a local shop at decent pricing (read: exorbitantly expensive, but below market) and impulsively purchased them. I have never had any vintage of these wines before, but sometimes the urge to try trophy/reference point wines overpowers common sense. With that in mind and fully understanding these wines are controversial (read: heavy oak usage, Parker favorites, mass producer, etc.), I wanted to solicit some opinions on how best to enjoy these, and when. I’ve basically considered three options:
Side by Side – Drink all 3 together to to get a sense of the different vineyards
If this option, when would be an appropriate time to conduct the tasting? CT reviews seem to suggest they’re all mature, but have also read there’s still perhaps a decade before peak. Does each bottling typically peak around the same time?
Stylistic Comparisons – Drink a Guigal against a more classically-styled producer (TBD)
Realistically, this is the least likely of the options for me. I don’t have the connections to put together a tasting of similarly mature, but stylistically different wines, so logistically, I don’t see myself going this route. That said, it could certainly be interesting, and I’m wondering if there are interesting contrasts for each wine (I know La Landonne has multiple producers owning vines, but what would be a good contrasting comparison for the other two bottles?)
Drink in the Ordinary Course – Drink all 3 separately over time
Probably the least intellectual interesting option, but also the least complicated. I could drink all 3 bottles independently (with dinners, bottle shares, other normal wine drinking for me). If this option, is there an order you would pull these in terms of pulling a bottle at peak maturity?
I’m open to other suggestions, but that’s what I could come up with.
#1 easily. As you have not had them side by side, invite some friends (or coravin them) and compare and contrast. I’ve done this many, many times and it is always super fun and informative. The differences among the three wines are pretty consistent across vintages and from there best I keep my mouth shut so you go in with fewer prior expectations/notions. Enjoy.
#2 is the last option for me. If you like Syrah, and have had a bunch of different styles, you know what the differences will be. And in my experience, the modern style wine can be so different that they are distracting.
But, as much as #1 would be really cool, that almost seems wasteful. Those are great wines. Every one (of the small handful) that I have had has been no just enjoyable, but an experience. To follow a wine like that over an evening is worth more than small sips across multiple tastings.
So, I guess my answer is #3. But, nothing wrong with inviting a few people over who can also bring some good wines, and everyone can enjoy some different wines while appreciating the LaLa you open.
I purchased a horizontal of the 2001s fourteen years ago. I almost opened La Turque tonight, but opted for a midweek type wine. The Turque is going down soon. I drank the Landonne nine years ago with dear friends, and it was well worth the price.
My .02, which may not even be worth that, is to resist the temptation to geek out and taste side by side, and instead make each a showpiece of a great dinner or other night. You can get 3x the bang that way and can follow a bottle from opening to completion. I’ve attended a horizontal of La La’s and honestly without looking up my notes I couldn’t tell you the distinguishing characteristics of each vineyard. But they were all winners and stunning wines.
Normally, I would also opt for the #3 in order to make most out of it. But as you never had any of the LaLas and obviously don’t buy them usually, this seems to be the one chance to truly understand this reference point for Syrah. The educational experience is clearly the highest if you choose option #1 (ideally I would warm up the days before or on the same day with some other Northern Rhoen Syrah). If you drink them years apart, your reference system will not get as many exact data points as with option 1.
A few years back i was given a day old leftovers of the 1998’s. I sat down alone tasting them while listening to the Guigal epsiode (291) of the Ill Drink To That podcast. Was a very good way to do it hehe.
Thanks for the feedback. It sounds like there’s no wrong way to do it, but there’s a slight lean towards #3. Any preference on the order in which you’d drink them, and do I do it over the next 1, 2, 5, 10 years?
Just adding a bit of geek trivia, only one of these is actually a vi years designate wine. Most think all three are (I used to) but just La Landonne is a designated vineyard in Cote Rosie. Certainly a good wine geek trivia question.
I did this with friends. Unfortunately we did 2009s. Even with a lot of air, they were too young. I agree with not putting in a new world syrah. So different.
It’s actually a tie with 3 votes for #1 and 3 votes for #3
Either option is good. It really comes down if you want to learn and understand as much as possible while still have the hedonistic pleasure (#1 the best option) or if you focus on the hedonistic experience (#3 option). There are no wrong answers here… I’m more in the #1 camp as the inellectual side of a wine gives me immense pleasure.
Fwiw I was in the same position a few years ago with 1994, and opted for #3
Even at 25 years of age the Turque I opened tasted young, and so I would counsel patience in general. Have not tried Landonne but received wisdom seems to be to leave it till last
I have some of the 01 La Landonne. I opened my first bottle about 18 months ago and it was singing. Explosive nose; open and approachable palate full of smoke, bacon fat, red fruit, plum and bloody meat. It was in a fantastic spot, but I’m also in no hurry to open my other bottles. It has many years of life ahead of it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I always thought La Turque was the burliest of the three, La Mouline was the most suave and elegant, and La Landonne fell somewhere in between. No?
