Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
So, down at K&L a few weeks ago, I picked up three cru bourgeois that I recall from the old days as being very good examples of Mdoc and Haut-Mdoc in hopes that they would have retained some link to the clarets of the past.
First up was Ch. Loudenne 2005, $20. This used to be owned by Gilbey's (of the Gin), but appears to be in French hands now. In the old days, it was about 53% Cab.Sauv., 40% Merlot, 7% Cab. Fr. Today, it's about 40% CS, 55% Mer, 4% CF, 1% Petit Verdot. More importantly, if I'd done my homework, I would have realized that Michel Rolland is now consulting here. 1/3 new barrels, malo in new barrels. The wine wasn't overly oaky, but it was impenetrably dark purple -- like a high end Napa Cab. No indication of RO, although I wouldn't rule the possibility out. The wine shows dark fruits and some roundness -- it is decent modern Mdoc, could be still better to this traditionalist's palate, but I can drink this, even if it's not exactly what I'm looking for. Lot L0507.
Next, 1999 Ch. Lanessan. $20. Supposedly, this would have been a classified growth in 1855 if only the owner had bothered to submit samples. The estate has long been in the Bouteillier family who had, at least in the days when I followed Bordeaux and I'm too lazy now to look it up, ownership interests in Pichon-Lalande and Palmer, as I recall. 60% CS, 30% Merl, 5% CF, 5% PV. Vinified in stainless and concrete, and if Clive is to be believed, no new oak in the aging. This is classic claret, albeit austere and not likely to appeal to younger fans of claret; think young Barolo for the austerity. I'm favorably impressed. 13% stated alcohol. Lot L0907.
Last, 2004 Ch. Coufran. $13. Again, I should have done my homework -- although back in my Bordeaux days I thought Coufran was a good value, I'd forgotten that it's 85% Merlot. A little weedy to my nose, round but with firmness and even a little austerity. 13% stated alcohol. Lot L1. I wouldn't rebuy this, but at $13, not a bad value.
I think what these three wines showed is that even if one is looking for tradition in claret, much of the rest of the world has caught up and surpassed Bordeaux in overall quality, notwithstanding the fact that these wines are better than many classified growths of 30 years ago. At $20, I'm on the fence on whether to pick up a few bottles of Lanessan. As for the other two, I don't regret having bought them, but I'd certainly not rebuy -- in the end, they're just not terribly interesting, which is an accusation that one can make for many Bordeaux higher up the line, too.
First up was Ch. Loudenne 2005, $20. This used to be owned by Gilbey's (of the Gin), but appears to be in French hands now. In the old days, it was about 53% Cab.Sauv., 40% Merlot, 7% Cab. Fr. Today, it's about 40% CS, 55% Mer, 4% CF, 1% Petit Verdot. More importantly, if I'd done my homework, I would have realized that Michel Rolland is now consulting here. 1/3 new barrels, malo in new barrels. The wine wasn't overly oaky, but it was impenetrably dark purple -- like a high end Napa Cab. No indication of RO, although I wouldn't rule the possibility out. The wine shows dark fruits and some roundness -- it is decent modern Mdoc, could be still better to this traditionalist's palate, but I can drink this, even if it's not exactly what I'm looking for. Lot L0507.
Next, 1999 Ch. Lanessan. $20. Supposedly, this would have been a classified growth in 1855 if only the owner had bothered to submit samples. The estate has long been in the Bouteillier family who had, at least in the days when I followed Bordeaux and I'm too lazy now to look it up, ownership interests in Pichon-Lalande and Palmer, as I recall. 60% CS, 30% Merl, 5% CF, 5% PV. Vinified in stainless and concrete, and if Clive is to be believed, no new oak in the aging. This is classic claret, albeit austere and not likely to appeal to younger fans of claret; think young Barolo for the austerity. I'm favorably impressed. 13% stated alcohol. Lot L0907.
Last, 2004 Ch. Coufran. $13. Again, I should have done my homework -- although back in my Bordeaux days I thought Coufran was a good value, I'd forgotten that it's 85% Merlot. A little weedy to my nose, round but with firmness and even a little austerity. 13% stated alcohol. Lot L1. I wouldn't rebuy this, but at $13, not a bad value.
I think what these three wines showed is that even if one is looking for tradition in claret, much of the rest of the world has caught up and surpassed Bordeaux in overall quality, notwithstanding the fact that these wines are better than many classified growths of 30 years ago. At $20, I'm on the fence on whether to pick up a few bottles of Lanessan. As for the other two, I don't regret having bought them, but I'd certainly not rebuy -- in the end, they're just not terribly interesting, which is an accusation that one can make for many Bordeaux higher up the line, too.
