A Study in Bottle Variation - 2004 Lascombes

[J_e_r_e_m_y_Hannah]

• 2004 Château Lascombes - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (11/13/2009)
  I had two bottles of this tonight, one with a friend waiting on the wife to get home from work, and the other with the wife later in the evening. Bottle 1 - Decanted for 1.5 hours and drank over approximately 3 hours. Right from the pop this was showing overwhelming charred toast, soot and ash tray on the nose with only a hint of sweet red and black fruits and mint sneaking through. After the decant, this had softened only slightly, and these characteristics carried over into the taste. Medium to full bodied, well structured tannins and good acidity, but that charred oak is just killing everything in its path. I sense that there is good juice under there, but it had no chance in this bottle. After some time in the glass, the burnt toast would blow off slightly more, but this certainly didn’t show like I was expecting. (85 pts.)
• 2004 Château Lascombes - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (11/13/2009)
  Bottle 2 - Wow! Just night and day from the other bottle I had earlier in the evening. Splash decanted and drank over approximately 3 hours. Soft, feminine lavender or violets, bright red cherries, boysenberries, sweet spices, and just a touch of tar and oak on the nose. The taste showed great balance of lush red and blue fruits, spice, tobacco, and damp earth. Still showing same structure of mild tannins and acid. I couldn’t believe the bottle variation that I came across in this wine tonight. I am so glad that I had the second bottle because otherwise I would have probably just given my remaining bottles away as gifts or brought them to parties, as the way the previous bottle showed was just not my thing. This bottle, on the other hand, was exactly what I was looking for and certainly the elegant styling that I would expect from Lascombes. (89 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

Thanks for the notes … were these bottles both from the same source? purchased at same time? … “slash” decanted, huh? the new method must’ve made all the difference!

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

bump … i know you’re in here, jeremy!

[J_e_r_e_m_y_Hannah]

OK…sorry I missed your question, This hit page two in here pretty quick and so I just forgot about the thread all together.

First, [middle-finger.gif] You are worse than my wife on correcting my typos (which come from typing too fast and not proofreading, more than actual spelling errors), and she is going to be a teacher!

Second, yes, both bottles were from the K&L shipment you just dropped off for me. I have never had an issue with a K&L wine before, so I feel comfortable that the wine was treated properly. Besides, what would the flaw be in the first bottle? I have never heard of a flaw causing an overwhelming burnt toast nose and taste. Have you?

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

Damn! That’s bad news re: K&L. Maybe the first bottle was slightly heat damaged? … i dunno. regardless, that sucks! Both my bottles are from K&L, as well … with nearly one a half years between purchases … will be interesting to see how those two bottles compare. Will probably sit a bit while longer before opening either one, though.

… and I only comment on your spilling because I know you love it when I do!

[J_e_r_e_m_y_Hannah]

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

… and I only comment on your spilling because I know you love it when I do!

[middle-finger.gif]

Didn’t seem like Heat damage to me. But I haven’t had a ton of experience with it, so I could be wrong.

I have one more and hope that it is OK. Rob bought a couple as well and both of his were perfectly fine.

Guess I am the winner!

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

damn! … i wanted to see if you’d catch that … thought you might not!

[John_Morris]

It doesn’t sound like heat damage at all. It sounds like a wine aged in heavily toasted barrels and the oak char only emerged with the long decanting. That can happen. I had some left-over Unti sangiovese this month that showed only a little oak the first night but the leftovers were intensely oaky five days later.

[A_S_K_R_O_B_A_C_K]

@John Morris

It doesn’t sound like heat damage at all. It sounds like a wine aged in heavily toasted barrels and the oak char only emerged with the long decanting. That can happen. I had some left-over Unti sangiovese this month that showed only a little oak the first night but the leftovers were intensely oaky five days later.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

@John Morris

It doesn’t sound like heat damage at all. It sounds like a wine aged in heavily toasted barrels and the oak char only emerged with the long decanting. That can happen. I had some left-over Unti sangiovese this month that showed only a little oak the first night but the leftovers were intensely oaky five days later.

that makes way more sense than heat damage … i wish i had thought of that!

[Mark_Y]

How come a bad bottle that would have been given away as gifts is rated 85 (still ‘very good’ isn’t it?)

where as a really good one is rated 89 (very good to excellent)
?

Not trying to be critical, but trying to understand scoring matrix used.

[J_e_r_e_m_y_Hannah]

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

@John Morris

It doesn’t sound like heat damage at all. It sounds like a wine aged in heavily toasted barrels and the oak char only emerged with the long decanting. That can happen. I had some left-over Unti sangiovese this month that showed only a little oak the first night but the leftovers were intensely oaky five days later.

that makes way more sense than heat damage … i wish i had thought of that!

The charred oak nose and taste was there from the pop and actually subsided slightly after the decant, and with time in the glass even moreso. So I am not so sure about this. But I agree that this seemed more like maybe the barrel it was in was excessively charred or something. I didn’t think that it was a flaw.

[J_e_r_e_m_y_Hannah]

@markye

How come a bad bottle that would have been given away as gifts is rated 85 (still ‘very good’ isn’t it?)

where as a really good one is rated 89 (very good to excellent)
?

Not trying to be critical, but trying to understand scoring matrix used.

Good question! I still actually enjoyed the wine despite the excessive oak flavors and considered it to be in the good to very good range. It had some really nice fruit in there and with some time in the glass the oak really subsided to let the fruit come through. I wouldn’t give away a bottle that I didn’t think was decent as a gift. So I teetered on the 84-85 range for that first bottle, and ultimately gave it the higher score for the underlying fruit and structure.

When it came to the second bottle that showed well, I found it, as you said, very good to excellent, but a wine really has to wow me to get up over 90 (and I would take the “Wow” in my note out of this equation because that was at my surprise at how different it was from the previous bottle, not from the wine itself). So, an 89 to me is a wine that is flavorful and very tasty, with great balance and structure, but may be lacking that extra “something” to go higher.

I am glad you asked. I try to be as objective and consistent with my ratings of all my wine experiences, so to have to explain my rationale allows me to double check myself and ensure I know where I was coming from.

[Jim_Brennan]

Based on your description, I don’t think the differential of 4 points between the first and second bottles is accurate. I’d say the first bottle merits a considerably lower score, the second bottle higher, or a combination of both.

[Mo_K_a_n_g]

@Jim Brennan

Based on your description, I don’t think the differential of 4 points between the first and second bottles is accurate. I’d say the first bottle merits a considerably lower score, the second bottle higher, or a combination of both.

I agree. This merits at least a 5.75 point differential.

[Mo_K_a_n_g]

@Jim Brennan

Based on your description, I don’t think the differential of 4 points between the first and second bottles is accurate. I’d say the first bottle merits a considerably lower score, the second bottle higher, or a combination of both.

I agree. This merits at least a 5.75 point differential.