Larose Trintaudon 2014, 15, 16 and 17

I’m organising the wine for my son’s wedding next year. One of the reds I’m considering is Larose Trintaudon.

Most of you probably know it, but for those that don’t, it’s a Cru Bourgeois situated a few miles inland from Pauillac and Saint Julien, close to Batailley and Du Glana, I think.

Larose Trintaudon is a huge estate, producing something like 1.3 million bottles a year and it’s sold in virtually every supermarket in France. In spite of the vast production, I’ve always found it to be pretty good and very reliable, as well as excellent value. I buy some every year. It’s a wine I often serve at low-key dinner parties or receptions, since it always goes down well: it tastes like a much better wine than it is, because without having the complexity of the big guns, it has quite a silky touch which flatters the palate.

Obviously I haven’t got the number of bottles needed for the wedding in my cellar but since I have the last few vintages I decided to organise my own tasting to select the vintage, before ordering direct from the château.

I chose 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017:

2014: aromas of blackberry and wild strawberry, before quite a plump mouthful of blackcurrant, plum and blackberry, very suave and classical in style, still a little tannic, fresh, elegant and reserved. I had this a month a go so knew what to expect, but it’s a fine example of Larose.

2015: the bouquet is richer and deeper than the 2014, with prominent blackcurrant and plum. The attack is fuller too, quite a full-bodied mouthful of blackberry and blackcurrant, with at this stage just hints of plum and violet. Less elegant, more concentrated than the 2014, this needs another three to five years, but very promising indeed.

2016: notes of red cherry and cranberry, very bright and at first, rather disconcertingly so. The attack was just as odd, quite sharp notes of red cherry and cranberry, with a wave of redcurrant, none of the blacker fruit I was expecting. It took a couple of days to calm down and in the end, the bright flavours became quite enjoyable, but certainly the strangest Larose I have ever tasted - like a bio-dynamic experiment gone wrong.

2017: fresh notes of dark cherry and spring flowers, with quite a sappy mouthful of black cherry and blackberry, clearly not the finest vintage but with lots of easy-going charm.

For the long term, the 2015 was clearly the best. The 2016 needs revisiting in a couple of years time, but for the wedding, the choice was between the 2014 and 2017 - the 2017 has a very appealing brightness, but the 2014 is a lot more classy, so the 2014 will probably be the chosen wine. I had expected that it would, but the 2017 gave it a run for its money.

It was fun trying them together in ideal conditions, being able to drift from one vintage to another throughout several evenings. Apart from the odd 2016, it confirmed just how good the wines can be and why this estate is one of my bankers.

Congrats to your family, Julian!

My wife and I - or, should I say, our parents - served the 1990 Larose Trintaduan at our 1996 wedding. My dad and I picked it, looking for a Bordeaux since we had a French-inspired menu, and wanting a high quality drinker that would not break the bank. Was a large wedding. The wine was a total hit; well, so was the open bar, and the shooters, and the champagne. Ultimately ‘twas a drunken affair, but that’s what happens at a Cuban wedding. If I ever hear La Macarena again, well, it could get ugly . . . .

Thanks for sharing your comparison Julian. I’ve only had the '15 and '16. 2014 was never available in stores here. 2017 may not ever find its way here either.
The '16 is certainly an anomaly, particularly in light of the 2016 Left Bank vintage character.
As for my feelings about the 2015 L-T, I bought 3 cases (at an average price of $17.80). If I had access to the 2014 it would have been the same most likely.
That should be a great choice for your son’s wedding.

Cheers guys, thanks for the kind words!

Robert, great minds think alike about the wine, but sadly my children are planning on playing another Macarena at the wedding!

Chris: if you ever come across it, the sister wine Larose-Perganson is also well worth trying. It’s slightly more expensive over here, perhaps slightly better too. As for the 2016 L-T, it could have been a bad bottle.

Thanks for the notes!

It just so happens that we had the 2016 last night amongst other bottles in a very informal “apéro dînatoire”. It’s definitely more red-fruited and less structured than the 2010 I drank in 2019. However, I didn’t find any cranberry or unduly sharpness to it even right after opening. It did get 2 hours of air and coming to temp before we served it. I thought it drank well now and for the price. This is not the 2010 in any way but “like a bio-dynamic experiment gone wrong” lets me think you might have had an off-bottle.

I can’t find the 2014 anymore and we don’t have the 2017 yet but I can still get my hands on some Mags of 2015 which I haven’t tried before. Based on your note, I might buy a couple and lay them down even though I hate storing Mags!

Thanks Phil - it does sound as if I just had a bad one, well I hope so anyway since I have several more! I would definitely get some 2015 - my impression was that it was better than both the 09 and the 10 and probably the best “ripe” vintage I’ve had, bar none. This is my own little theory, but I’ve always had the impression that Larose-T actually does better in “classic” vintages - I far preferred the 06, 07 and especially 08 to either the 05, 09 or 10, for example.

Great overview Julian. I remember the 96 and 00 being nice, but after moving west don’t see it as much. I did buy the 16 Perganson via mail order though, after reading some positive comments either here or on BWE.

What kind of closures does this have in the French market?

Cheers Arv - I hope the Perganson 2016 turns out well - all the bottles I have seen here have corks.

Thanks for the notes Julian. Remembering all your previous posts on cru bourgeois I think our entry level Bordeaux selections are pretty similar. I usually stick a few L-T in the boot (trunk for those in the US) when stocking up in hypermarche. I know I have mags of the 14 and 15 in stock, I have resisted them so far, but it is encouraging to know what I have to look forward to. BTW I had more 2010 Cissac this week, and it seems to be going through a leaner phase.

I don’t think it was a bad bottle. I opened a bottle this week and it had very little fruit presence, although no discernible flaws either.

Thanks Paul - I hadn’t tried the Cissac yet. I’ve found the CB 2010s to be a mixed bunch recently after really enjoying them young. I tried Maurac a month ago, a new one for me and found it cringeworthily powerful, whilst one of my perennial favourites, Malleret, was going through a difficult patch too, but I did discover something very good - Planquette - a small production organic wine from the Northern Médoc, not strictly speaking a CB but at the same price, very low octane for a 2010!

Obviously no hurry at all for your 14 and 15 L-T mags!

Sadly I’m afraid you could be right - I finished up the remains of my 2016 a couple of nights ago - it was less odd than on the first night, there was more fruit than you found, but absolutely no comparison to the other vintages, which is weird indeed.

I had a 2010 Malleret that was absolutely humming a few months back, as good as the CSG.

From his note, Julian was finding fruit but too much sharpness.
Your bottle had very little fruit.
My bottle was decent: red-fruited with average structure.

Critics seemed okay with it when tasted:
CHRIS KISSACK : 94/100
JAMES SUCKLING : 92/100
JANCIS ROBINSON : 16/20
WINE ENTHUSIAST MAGAZINE : 92/100
NEAL MARTIN-VINOUS : 89/100
BETTANE + DESSEAUVE : 15/20

CT detailed notes are a little all over the place on fruit and structure but mostly citing this as average.

This might point to an average vintage for L-T with a buyer beware on bottle variation.