I agree. Notes are consistently positive…enough so, for me to give the bottle a try. I’m by all means an outlier when it comes to oak treatment preferences, but this REALLY stood out as an example of heavy-handed winemaking and not a flawed wine.
Matt,
It was the flabby low acidity that caught my attention in your description. I was wondering if yours might have been heat damaged along the way. I have only tried two bottles and i would not have described the wine as flabby. In fact, I thought the two bottle I tried were fairly fresh - especially in light of the extraction and heavy oak treatment. I noticed that Gillman had one positive note and one that described the bottle as low in acid and flabby.
Does anyone know if they did two separate bottling runs?
G
As I stated on ERP, Matt sounds like a certain critic that I know. ![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}
If there is enough fruit in a Bordeaux, oak tend to resolve itself with time. This reminds me how some rated the Dominique Laurent wines. The time will tell.
I have one bottle left and it’s buried somewhere dark in my storage unit. I’ll put a reminder in my Outlook calendar to try it again 2026!
My only experiences with this wine have been outstanding. In addition, all persons that I have tasted with have rated it above 90. I have rated as high as 95 in a blind tasting. I am not surprised, however, that some people don’t like it. It is not for the AFWE , but as evidenced by my personal experience and by CT stats, the majority of drinkers enjoy it.
Try a Laurent Volnay next to a Lafarge of d’Angerville though. Even with age, the oak changes the wine. High oak might well resolve (and this wine is young) but let’s not pretend that it doesn’t affect the way the wine evolves and how it tastes even when resolved.
Rick,
I am not sure whether Laurent made the 95 or the 96 Volnays. A great Terroir can overcome oak treatment but if just a village wine probably not. Which vintage and vineyard are you referring? Would you be able to pick them blind? Is it the oak or just different style in terms of the fruit maturity and wine making? I had a number of the mid 90s GC Laurent wines and although I would not say the fruit expression is pure I didn’t notice oak.
These were 97s IIRC - been a few years. But no, a great terroir does not overcome oak. It integrates it and still shows the terroir, but the wine most certainly is changed by the oak and it was fairly obvious. The 1995 Barolos I had recently (see Steve Havas’ note in Wine Talk) had a few that oaked noticeably and the effect was still there 16 years on.
Ask yourself this - if the oak doesn’t change the wine - why use it? You don’t need new oak to get the other benefits of oak and used barrels are MUCH cheaper. So if new oak disappears… what’s the point?
New oak is a flavoring. It’s not one I like, so I avoid it. Some like it, so they seek it out… that’s fine too, but I don’t think people should expect the oak to wear off as if it had never been there.
I can’t really comment on the 95 Barolis as I don’t have enough experience. I don’t notice oak in the 95 and the 96 Laurent GC wines. Although I love wine I have never had the desire to learn the technical aspects. However, I believe the oak component does disappear with time when there is enough fruit to support, if not it translates into oak juice with very dry tannins. I am not so sure whether the folks use oak to “add” flavor when the wines get matured. As you mentioned oak can add a lot to a young wine’s flavor profile.
Are you sure it was the 97 Volnay? Which crus?
i had this wone onmothers day blind and found it to be very good. i guessed BDX but after that i had no idea. I would drink it again
WEll, how can you tell you notice it or not unless you compare it to something? The oak wasn’t obvious in the 97s (this was 4 or 5 years ago) and they were actually nice wines… but compared to the d’Angervilles they were spicer and rounder.
I guess I simply do not believe that significant oak actually disappears as if it had never been there. Where does it go? I mean, really? A prominent flavor vanishes? As if it had never been there? In that case, why even add it since new oak is expensive?
We dcites are in the works of doing a blind 04 gje style tasting:
lascombes
Ch margaux
1 other margaux
2 merlot driven right bank
1 ringer
All 04, all blind. Let’s let the chips fall where they may!!
This will be interesting. Might be nice to have the “1 other margaux” be one that’s approx. 50/50 Cab. Sauv./Merlot.
2004 Château Lascombes - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (8/5/2019)
– decanted immediately before initial taste –
– tasted non-blind over a couple hours on Day 1; revisited on Day 4 –
– 53% Cabernet Sauvignon, 44% Merlot, 3% Petit Verdot –
NOSE: strong, sweet, vanilla oak; not funky; hint of pencil shavings/mineral; ripe; oaky; espresso.
BODY: sediment present; medium bodied; blood red color of great depth.
TASTE: tannic; oaky; floral hint; red/purple fruited; medium acidity; very oaky; coffee/espresso when paired with steak topped with mushrooms and caramelized onions; this did get a bit better over a couple hours on Day 1 – became fruitier; a touch sweet (caramel); very modern. Medium-light oxidation note on Day 4 after it had been recorked and put in fridge; alc. a little noticeable on Day 4, too. Drink now and over the next five years. Modern style.
50, 5, 11, 15, 6 = (87 pts.)
I’m glad you seemed to like this, but I’m sad about what it has become. It’s interesting reading through the 2011 posts about it, and strange to me that people would think Matt got a bad bottle. It sounds like the same wine you had, Brian. He just hated it. I’m suspect John Gilman and lots of people here share that opinion.
It is what it is. It’s not a style I prefer. I try to be objective (to some extent) in my ratings. I liked it less than my score indicates; I try to maintain some perspective when scoring wines. Did I like this wine? No, not really. Do wines get worse than this? Hell-to-the-Hellyeah!!
That make sense. Your note doesn’t read like anything that would even be identifiable as Bordeaux. I know different people have different views on whether or not that’s a quality detractor and to what extent.
We had an 02 a little while ago that was still pretty oaky, earthy, and tannic.
http://www.bordeauxwineenthusiasts.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7009
I think at this point the wines are what they are - appealing to some, and not to others - and I would not expect huge changes/improvements with age.
I like your notes, always very clear. I don’t understand the attempted objectivity on your score. It’s your note, for you. Call balls and strikes. At least that’s my thinking. I think I gave the 2005 a 50. 
Generally agree with this, though the 03 improved a lot! It went from godawful to (just) quaffable with ~10 years of age.