From: martin@lyra.cis.umassd.edu (Gary Martin)
Subject: Re: Grand-Puy-Lacoste confusion
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 05:58:43 GMT

In article <PETER.92Jul28103704@icad.icad.com> peter@icad.com (Peter Masters) writes:

   In article <1992Jul26.042600.22880@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> ostroy@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Dan Ostroy ) writes:

      Re: 1976 Grand Puy Lacoste  (Appellation Pauillac) and a vaste
      difference of opinion.

      Michael Broadbent writes in his "New Great Vintage Wine Book":
      Ch Grand Puy Lacoste: Many notes since 1978.  A firm uncompromising
      Pauillac, even in a vintage like 1976.  A bit hard a first.  A lively
      youthful cherry red; touch of vanilla, cedar, blackcurrant; crisp,
      fruity stylish, tannin, and acidity.  Last tasted April 1991.
      ***(*)  [Meaning three stars now, with potential to improve to four
      stars with further aging. Max is five stars.]

      Robert Parker writes in his book "Bordaux" (revised 1991):
       An acceptable wine for certain, but this Grand Puy Lacoste is
      surprisingly jammy, overripe, with a scent of fresh tea.  Soft,
      flabby, and loosely knit on the palate, this wine is now fully 
      mature.  Drink up! Anticipated maturity: Now.  Last tasted 7/80.
      [I wonder how he can make these statements, when he last tasted
      it 11 years before the writing, unless the "7/80" is a typo.  Else,
      this is left over from the 1985 edition of the book.   Curiously,
      other vintages have notes through 1991.]

      Any way, I have a bottle of this wine, and I am wondering whether to
      hold it a few more years, as Broadbent suggests, or take my chances
      and drink it ASAP, as Parker suggests.  Any ideas out there ??

   I'd vote with Broadbent, based largely on the age of Parker's
   comments.  While I think Parker is always honest and usually accurate
   in his descriptions of what a wine is like when he tasted it, I'm not
   so convinced he always knows how to predict how a wine will age.  Case
   in point:  I just had a 1983 Echezeaux from Bouree, which Parker liked
   in 1985, but which he gave 2-4 years to maturity, saying it tasted
   light or delicate (I don't have his comments in front of me).  Well,
   the '83 Echezeaux is still deep red and tannic, and is just coming
   into its own.

It might be interesting to note what Parker said about other 1976 Bordeaux.
In the 1989 edition of the Wine Buyer's Guide, he includes a table of
aging potentials of 100 'top chateaux'.  7 were not rated for 1976 either
because he hadn't tried them 'recently' [not defined] or the chateau had
not started producing until after 1976.  I assume that most of the tasting
and writing was done prior to 1989.  Of the remaining 93 wines, he only
recommended waiting with one, Lafite-Rothschild, and that only until 1990.
He considered all 92 to be fully mature and not likely to improve.  As for
longevity, he predicted that 80 of them would begin to decline by the
end of 1992, and 66 by the end of 1991.  (The ones he thinks have a future
are:  Ausone (to 2000), Batailley (to 1994), Beychevelle (to 2000),
Canon (to 1994), Chasse-Spleen (to 1996), Cos d'Estournel (to 1993),
Ducru-Beaucaillou (to 1993), Haut-Bages-Liberal (to 1993), Lafite-R. (to 2010),
Latour (to 1994), Montrose (to 1996), Mouton-Rothschild (to 1997),
and Sociando-Mallet (to 2000).  But he says, "Please keep in mind that
Bordeaux wines from top vintages tend to decline slowly and a top wine from
an excellent vintage may take 10-15 years to lose its fruit and freshness
after the last year in the stated plateau period."  

So it seems unlikely that Parker's analysis of Grand Puy Lacoste is
an isolated mistake.  He could be wrong about 1976, or Bordeaux in
general, but his position on 1976 is consistent and clear.  


--
Gary A. Martin, Assistant Professor of Mathematics, UMass Dartmouth
Martin@cis.umassd.edu
Newsgroups: rec.food.drink