Gosh this wine gives me faith that Lascombes, a Second Growth of all things, once made excellent wines. Its more recent stuff, 2005 in particular, not to my liking.
A really aromatic profile of dried red fruits and flowers, wet ground cover, mushrooms and leather. Throw in some old barn planks as well. Mid-weight on the palate, perhaps slightly less, but packed with such a wonderful range of dried fruits, earth and herbs. Quite savory, actually, with some sweaty saddle leather and tobacco folded into the mix. Crisp acidity, tannins fully resolved. Alcohol and oak so impeccably balanced, as in a side note. On the backside of its lifecycle, but a lovely drink. A bit clipped on the finish.
I had a fleeting thought about who would enjoy this wine. And Neal popped to mind. Someone that appreciates a classic, stately wine of quality not hype. Not a barn-burner, but something I would love to drink with more regularity.
Sometime after the 2000 vintage, Lascombes sold to a US venture capital group. Looking to maximize profits, of course, they brought in the formulaic modernist consultant, Rolland. Critics sycophantically heaped praise on it, but the once more classic estate was no more. The 2005 is probably one of the worst left bank classified growths that I ever had. Maybe it morphs into something drinkable by 2035, but sheez even Leve finds it oaky and only rates it a 92, which is like the kiss of death for a CG in a year like 2005. I got rid of all of my 2005s and never bought this Chateau again, well, except for backfilling on these lovely older vintages. I bet the 2000 is nice, need to try it!
I may edit this and revisit, but thinking of Lascombes, yes, they have made highly rated wines, but I can’t tell you I have ever tasted a great wine, pre or post - 2000.
Thanks for the nice note, Robert! Because prices were very reasonable, I bought Lascombes fairly regularly in the eighties and nineties. I can’t recall ever having had an extraordinary Lascombes, but their wines from vintages like '85, '89, '90, and even '93 and '97 were excellent -neither massive nor fancy, but elegant and charming and made for relatively early consumption. Nice to see that the 1985 still is a lovely drink.
This is very surprising to me. I always thought of Lascombes as being a severe underperformer in the days before they become an overoaker. They must have had a short window when they made good wines.
Many moons ago, I was offered the 82 and/or the 85 for around $250 a case in wood. I drank a bottle of each and bought the 85. Long gone but I liked it.
Thanks for the thought bud. Yeah, I’d be all over this wine. They have made some really enjoyable wines over the years. The 88 is very similar and if you keep an eye out you can occasionally find them at reasonable prices.
I´ve had this wine at least a dozen times during the nineties and early 2000s - it was always a solid but rather uninteresting Bordeaux, a bit disapointing, lacking mid palate and depth, witrh a slightly metallic finish, far from being a 2nd growth (but also not expensive). I´m a bit astonished about such an excited review -
Not that CT is an Oracle, and gosh knows that I deviate from the masses regularly, especially on the modern stuff, but the notes on this Margaux are actually very positive almost across the board. Quite a few far more glowing as well.
