Well this wine has the nose of a New World wine - big ripe blackberries, vanilla, and creme de cassis, a distinct smell of toasty oak (all by itself, not built into a more complex aroma), licorice, a touch of crushed peppermint.
On the palate minerality provides depth, with a distinctive Bordelais note. There is good acidity and a mouthwatering oak tannin note. The ripe black fruit flavors persist.
In its peak drinking window. Not that it wouldn’t last, but I don’t see this holding together to be a more dynamic wine years in the future.
I would find it very surprising if this anywhere near peak drinking or for any decent 2005 Bordeaux. Even if this is new world Bordeaux in style, most 2005 Napa Cabs are not at Peak drinking yet. I am not planning on even looking at mine until after 2020, but I like mature Bordeaux. Glad it was showing well for you.
Your taste is of course your taste. But I could not disagree stronger with you on this. I do not find this wine to be even close to peak. It is just now starting to get going IMO. You can see my notes here:
I think peak depends on stylistic preferences here - if primary characteristics are your favor, it likely is in the end of that ‘peak’. I have a couple bottles of this vintage and a couple of the 04 and am anxiously awaiting some notes outlining their secondary phase
My feeling is as the wine enters the phase when secondary qualities emerge they will be overdominated by the strong oak component.
Time will tell.
Jeff, I do appreciate the effort you put into all you do - it’s amazing - and I have long looked at your notes on CT before I became an active WB member.
But it’s hard for me to see the 05 Larcis in the 95-98 pt range when we see other posters commenting on a wine like 1990 La Tache which is apparently in the 98-100 pt range - the difference between the two is just that large to require a difference is scores.
In fairness, I have not tasted the 90 La Tache so it’s not right for me to use that as a reference point, but I have tasted wines usch as 95 La Tache (at a young age), 1982 Latour, 1966 Latour, etc. other wines which I would consider outstanding, so I have my own reference point for what great wines can be, and by my measuring stick the distance between those requires a commensurate distance in scores.
Keep in mind the Larcis is a good, enjoyable wine. Cribbing from the Wine Spectator scoring table:
95-100 Classic: a great wine
90-94 Outstanding: a wine of superior character and style
85-89 Very good: a wine with special qualities
80-84 Good: a solid, well-made wine
Hi Karl, I agree with what was said and that it all comes down to how/what stage of development you like your Bordeaux. It will be different for a lot of people. The La Tache is a different animal, but it could also be better or worse than the Larcis-Ducasse, again depending on where the wine is in it’s stage of development. You also have to remember the WS just rated Korbel as one of the Top wines in the world at 90pts. My score would be 70pts, but everything is relative. If Korbel is really 90pts, then Larcis-Ducasse is an easy 98+pts.
Why do you care what other rate wines? It is your palate that counts. I only responded because you felt the wine was at full maturity, and I did not agree.
I have tasted wines usch as 95 La Tache (at a young age), 1982 Latour, 1966 Latour, etc. other wines which I would consider outstanding, so I have my own reference point for what great wines can be, and by my measuring stick the distance between those requires a commensurate distance in scores.
IMO, 05 Larcis Ducasse is a better wine than 95 La Tache and 66 Latour. And I like 66 Latour. 82 Latour on the other hand is hard to beat. Every wine note says as much about the taster as it does about the wine.
It does help sharpen my own ability to appreciate, analyze, and express my thoughts on a wine.
Like I said, i do consider you to be very good at doing just that, and I admire you for that.
As for “Every wine note says as much about the taster as it does about the wine,” i agree 100%.
If anything, it says more about the taster than the wine. Sometimes people just say something about a wine because they heard or read something about a wine and they are just parroting what they heard or read. I know this because I have done just this in years past and am working to become more of an independent taster. (For another example, think about how many derivative CT tasting notes there are - seeing so many relatively unenlightening notes is what led me to appreciate yours.)
As for the particular wine that started this, I certainly stand ready to be corrected in 15 years. it may be its ageability is much better than I now see in it.
I appreciate the feedback of those here because they are expert tasters, and even though we may come at things from different directions, so many of you are serious (or at least passionate - we don’t always have to be serious!) and that is a nice thing.
That Korbel wine is not the white label, giant production Korbel that you see in every store, so unless you’ve tasted it I don’t think you have any idea. The one you are likely thinking of (Brut California NV), they rated 83.
Hi Craig, the wine that Winespectator rated as their 73rd out of the top 100 is the NV Korbel Brut from California for $14. I don’t see anything that says this is a different wine than the standard white bottle. Tell us what you know about the different bottling.
Craig, thank you for the clarification. I had no idea Korbel made different types. I don’t think I am alone in thinking this. I guess it just shows that they need to distinguish between their wines in marketing better, not that an additional $3 is going to really make a difference. I appreciate the clarification.