TN: 1996 Château Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande (France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Pauillac)

WINE TALK
1
  • 1996 Château Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Pauillac (6/22/2009)
    Opened and slow-oxygenated for 6 hours before consumption. Dark, almost inky, ruby in color with aromas of small, dark berries, currants, tobacco and earth. On the palate a silky and supple sip with ample fruits and tobacco. Balanced with good freshness and supple tannins. However I get the feeling perhaps I caught this in its adolescence, or perhaps I slow oxygenated it a little too long - it was a solid bottle of wine but really lacking a wow element from a wine of this caliber and vintage. (91 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker

2

Based on drinking several older bottles in the past few months, I think that this bottle needs more time.

Disclaimer: Haven’t had the '96 yet.

3

Thanks for the reference point.
I tried the 95 PL about a mth ago and it was nowhere near ready but quite drinkable.
I’ve got a few btls of the 96 stashed and will probably wait a few more years before popping one.
[thank_you.gif]

4

I opened one a couple of years ago and was sorry I wasted it. It was tight as a well I won’t go there [foilhat.gif]

5

Jamie, thanks for the reference point. I’ve only had the wine once (at a blow-out tasting [drinkers.gif] ) about four years ago, so my memory is bit foggy, but I remembered it being a big dynamic wine. Did you follow the wine while it was slow-o’d and give it any points for potential upside or was it a this is now score?

Thanks,

Jeff

6

Jeff, I had a sip of it when it was first opened to make sure it wasn’t flawed, but had to run errands for most of the afternoon so I unfortunately did not.

The reason why I felt I might have slow-ox’ed too much was precisely that slightly oxidated element that was present. The cork was in relatively good shape so visually there’s no evidence of seepage. Oh well, I guess my expectations were just too high - it was still a pretty good bottle of wine, just the thought that I might have slow-ox’ed too much burns me up a little bit!

7

I’m almost always disappointed with these BDX with such big reputations. Mainly, I’m sure, because I drink them too young. Its so tempting to say, what the hell, I’ve got six or twelve or whatever, so why not try one? Wrong! The only exception I can recall is the 95 Grand Puy Lacoste which I first had in about 2000 and has since always been great. I had my first 1990 Leoville Poyfere in 1999 and was disappointed as I was again in 2001. However it has been awesome since about 2006. Many years ago I bought 1 lonely bottle of 96 PLL which I will save for many years before consuming.

8

I am quite familiar and have a good deal of experience with the wines of this château. The '96 I’ve been trying at least once a year since 2004. I agree with your assessment of the '96 as of last I tried it.

N