TN: 2005 Morgon, Lapierre

[Larry Stein]

Drank this last night with Steve Edmunds and FL Jim. It was a bit of a brett fest, but not too much so. This bottle was resolved. Lovely length and fruit notes. However, I felt it started to crack up after about 1 1/2 hours. This was the Kermit import, that is, the non (low?) sulfur bottling.

Drink 'em if you got 'em.

 

[Levi Dalton]

I believe Lynch imports both the N and S versions of this to the west coast. Did this have a wax capsule?

I have had the S 2005 twice in the last year. Once it was the platonic ideal of Lapierre Morgon, the best bottle of Lapierre that I have ever had. The other time it showed the brett you mention and was less thrilling. Less articulate.

 

[Larry Stein]

Wax capsule. Is that the N or S?

 

[Levi Dalton]

N

 

[BJ]

Hmmm...really?

I think it's just labelled on the back of the bottle, pretty subtle, with a letter code?

The norm are sulfured bottles - you have to go out of your way to find non-sulfured ones, at least on the west coast. I think the only place the non-sulfured ended up out here was Kermit's shop?

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by BJ:

I think it's just labelled on the back of the bottle, pretty subtle, with a letter code?

You are right. I looked back at my picture of the time that I had a 2012 N and a 2012 S side by side and they both had wax capsules.

 

[Pavel Tchichikov]

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by BJ:

I think it's just labelled on the back of the bottle, pretty subtle, with a letter code?

You are right. I looked back at my picture of the time that I had a 2012 N and a 2012 S side by side and they both had wax capsules.

Correct - just had 2005 S and it was under wax.

Really disappointing, especially considering how good most 2005 Beaujolais are these days (unless still too young) from the usual suspects.

 

[BJ]

Was it bretty or?

 

[Pavel Tchichikov]

originally posted by BJ:
Was it bretty or?

No brett.

On one hand a classic case of a nice wine that should have been drunk up in the first 5 years, but on the other hand it could not have been *that* good young with all the 2005 structure (could it?), so not really sure how to diagnose other than to say that I am happy to have invested in other producers.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Pavel Tchichikov:

originally posted by BJ:
Was it bretty or?

No brett.

On one hand a classic case of a nice wine that should have been drunk up in the first 5 years, but on the other hand it could not have been *that* good young with all the 2005 structure (could it?), so not really sure how to diagnose other than to say that I am happy to have invested in other producers.

You're a brave man hanging onto an S bottling that long. I tend to drink mine up in the first few years of life (I *did* avoid '05, however, as not my kind of vintage) because they are so fresh and also because I worry about their long-term aging potential (corks being corks, etc.).

Mark Lipton

 

[Bill Lundstrom]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Pavel Tchichikov:

originally posted by BJ:
Was it bretty or?

No brett.

On one hand a classic case of a nice wine that should have been drunk up in the first 5 years, but on the other hand it could not have been *that* good young with all the 2005 structure (could it?), so not really sure how to diagnose other than to say that I am happy to have invested in other producers.

You're a brave man hanging onto an S bottling that long. I tend to drink mine up in the first few years of life (I *did* avoid '05, however, as not my kind of vintage) because they are so fresh and also because I worry about their long-term aging potential (corks being corks, etc.).

Mark Lipton

i would think the "S" bottles would age longer than the "N" bottles. no?

 

[Jim Hanlon]

originally posted by Bill Lundstrom:

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Pavel Tchichikov:

originally posted by BJ:
Was it bretty or?

No brett.

On one hand a classic case of a nice wine that should have been drunk up in the first 5 years, but on the other hand it could not have been *that* good young with all the 2005 structure (could it?), so not really sure how to diagnose other than to say that I am happy to have invested in other producers.

You're a brave man hanging onto an S bottling that long. I tend to drink mine up in the first few years of life (I *did* avoid '05, however, as not my kind of vintage) because they are so fresh and also because I worry about their long-term aging potential (corks being corks, etc.).

Mark Lipton

i would think the "S" bottles would age longer than the "N" bottles. no?

I did a dinner last year with Foillard and Lapierre side by side going back a decade. In every instance with the older wines, the Foillard was showing better and the Lapierre seemed to have slipped. I still have a few bottles made by Marcel and I'll probably hang onto them for sentimental reasons, but I've come to the view that Lapierre generally drinks best in the first 5-8 years. Even the Cuvee Marcel bottlings, though there are exceptions of course.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Bill Lundstrom:

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Pavel Tchichikov:

originally posted by BJ:
Was it bretty or?

No brett.

On one hand a classic case of a nice wine that should have been drunk up in the first 5 years, but on the other hand it could not have been *that* good young with all the 2005 structure (could it?), so not really sure how to diagnose other than to say that I am happy to have invested in other producers.

You're a brave man hanging onto an S bottling that long. I tend to drink mine up in the first few years of life (I *did* avoid '05, however, as not my kind of vintage) because they are so fresh and also because I worry about their long-term aging potential (corks being corks, etc.).

Mark Lipton

i would think the "S" bottles would age longer than the "N" bottles. no?

Ah, fuck. Yes, I got it ass-backwards, Bill. Thanks for catching that. I get tripped up thinking that "S" stands for "sans" rather than "souffre."

Mark Lipton

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Jim Hanlon:

originally posted by Bill Lundstrom:

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Pavel Tchichikov:

originally posted by BJ:
Was it bretty or?

No brett.

On one hand a classic case of a nice wine that should have been drunk up in the first 5 years, but on the other hand it could not have been *that* good young with all the 2005 structure (could it?), so not really sure how to diagnose other than to say that I am happy to have invested in other producers.

You're a brave man hanging onto an S bottling that long. I tend to drink mine up in the first few years of life (I *did* avoid '05, however, as not my kind of vintage) because they are so fresh and also because I worry about their long-term aging potential (corks being corks, etc.).

Mark Lipton

i would think the "S" bottles would age longer than the "N" bottles. no?

I did a dinner last year with Foillard and Lapierre side by side going back a decade. In every instance with the older wines, the Foillard was showing better and the Lapierre seemed to have slipped. I still have a few bottles made by Marcel and I'll probably hang onto them for sentimental reasons, but I've come to the view that Lapierre generally drinks best in the first 5-8 years. Even the Cuvee Marcel bottlings, though there are exceptions of course.

I agree with this statement.

 

[Bill Lundstrom]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Bill Lundstrom:

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Pavel Tchichikov:

originally posted by BJ:
Was it bretty or?

No brett.

On one hand a classic case of a nice wine that should have been drunk up in the first 5 years, but on the other hand it could not have been *that* good young with all the 2005 structure (could it?), so not really sure how to diagnose other than to say that I am happy to have invested in other producers.

You're a brave man hanging onto an S bottling that long. I tend to drink mine up in the first few years of life (I *did* avoid '05, however, as not my kind of vintage) because they are so fresh and also because I worry about their long-term aging potential (corks being corks, etc.).

Mark Lipton

i would think the "S" bottles would age longer than the "N" bottles. no?

Ah, fuck. Yes, I got it ass-backwards, Bill. Thanks for catching that. I get tripped up thinking that "S" stands for "sans" rather than "souffre."

Mark Lipton

me too sometimes. i have a couple "N" bottles somewhere in my cellar. probably should drink them up.

generally speaking, i have been underwhelmed with LaPierre the last couple vintages.

 

[Larry Stein]

I have a bottle of 2009 "N" in the drinking queue. As I have four bottles, I'm going to try it much sooner than later. My final bottle of 2005 "N" was terrific. I drank it a couple of years ago. It was much better than the one mentioned in my initial post.

I was at the same dinner with Jim Hanlon and agree with his assessment.

 

[BJ]

originally posted by BJ:
Was it bretty or?

Yeah, I think the brett showed up for the 08 bottlings.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by Jim Hanlon:

originally posted by Bill Lundstrom:

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Pavel Tchichikov:

originally posted by BJ:
Was it bretty or?

No brett.

On one hand a classic case of a nice wine that should have been drunk up in the first 5 years, but on the other hand it could not have been *that* good young with all the 2005 structure (could it?), so not really sure how to diagnose other than to say that I am happy to have invested in other producers.

You're a brave man hanging onto an S bottling that long. I tend to drink mine up in the first few years of life (I *did* avoid '05, however, as not my kind of vintage) because they are so fresh and also because I worry about their long-term aging potential (corks being corks, etc.).

Mark Lipton

i would think the "S" bottles would age longer than the "N" bottles. no?

I did a dinner last year with Foillard and Lapierre side by side going back a decade. In every instance with the older wines, the Foillard was showing better and the Lapierre seemed to have slipped. I still have a few bottles made by Marcel and I'll probably hang onto them for sentimental reasons, but I've come to the view that Lapierre generally drinks best in the first 5-8 years. Even the Cuvee Marcel bottlings, though there are exceptions of course.

I agree with this statement.

Tant pis; I had high hopes for cellaring some Marcel MMXIV. OTOH, I have a fair amount of Foillard cellared.

Not enough.

I have a distant memory of Fatboy extolling the virtues of wizened Lapierre.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:

I have a distant memory of Fatboy extolling the virtues of wizened Lapierre.

Most likely that would have been from the Marcel era, though.

Mark Lipton

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

Interesting that the son would not have learned to make wines of similar longevity.