WTN: 1995 Carruades de Lafite, Pauillac

[Brad Ballinger]

1995 Carruades de Lafite, Pauillac. This is the second label of Lafite Rothschild. There are mixed opinions on second-label wines. One school of thought is that they can represent good value because there is supposedly a good winemaker at the helm. Another school of thought criticizes the chateaux for dumping their substandard wine on the market. The truth is probably somewhere in the large gap in between. Anyway, having tasted two other 95 Bordeaux wines recently, I thought I'd continue the trend. My overall impression of this wine is that it is still a year or two away from fully developing. It awoke from its slumber pleasantly enough, but then turned out the light and returned to sleep. Dark garnet color with only the slightest of bricking. The nose was a complex combination of earthy, leathery funk, mint, and blackcurrants. On the attack in the mouth, there was a burst of cassis followed by tobacco, leather, and herb. There was pleasant acidity. The tannins were giving way, but were a bit dusty. Shortly after, the wine began to shut down and become more one-dimensional. A bit astringent on the finish. Best to revisit in a couple years.

[glepore]

1995 Carruades de Lafite, Pauillac.    It awoke from its slumber pleasantly enough, but then turned out the light and returned to sleep.  Dark garnet color with only the slightest of bricking.  The nose was a complex combination of earthy, leathery funk, mint, and blackcurrants.  On the attack in the mouth, there was a burst of cassis followed by tobacco, leather, and herb.  There was pleasant acidity.  The tannins were giving way, but were a bit dusty.  Shortly after, the wine began to shut down and become more one-dimensional.  A bit astringent on the finish.  Best to revisit in a couple years.

←

I hope. I have a fair amount of this wine, and from youth until now (I've sampled a few) my experience has been pretty much identical to what you've described, each time, irrespective of age. I'm just going to let it get to the point where "dumb" isn't an issue before I try again, but I'm afraid its just a disappointment. My other second growth '95's have been more enjoyable. Because '95 was a marginal year, I'm wondering if Lafite didn't put most of their good stuff in the big label.

[jrufusj]

Because '95 was a marginal year, I'm wondering if Lafite didn't put most of their good stuff in the big label.

←

Wow! You’re spoiled (and so are we all) when 1995 is a “marginal” vintage. While it’s not a blockbuster vintage and is certainly taking a while to come around, it would be hard to call 1995 marginal in most decades. With the recent run of fair/good/great vintages in almost all regions, the bar certainly seems to have been raised.

Vintages

Like most wine lovers, I’ve wondered what has given us this run of vintages.

Over the past few months in this forum, we’ve seen a lot of long, passionate discussion of Mondovino, Parker, and similarly controversial issues about changes in the world of wine – some real, some perceived. I’m in the old, lean, acid-head, classicist camp. However, I stay out of the Parker threads as I don’t have the time, energy, or inclination to participate in turning one of life’s great pleasures into polemic.

Nonetheless, perhaps some comments in that direction are in order. One of the things I find frustrating about such conversations is their tendency to become absolutist and to attach real or perceived changes to the will (or ill will) of the leading figures. I will very often find myself disagreeing with Parker (broad generalization), but I don’t believe he is a nefarious creature. I believe he has an amazingly consistent palate, laudable integrity, and a true genius at marketing and communication. I do believe that these attributes have allowed him to have a significant impact on the world of wine. To believe he hasn’t influenced the way wine is made and marketed is to put one’s head in the sand.

Back to the topic at hand, I wonder if his influence has been at least a small part of the run of vintages we’ve seen. What I mean is that his focus on yields, clean winemaking, fruit, etc., may have contributed to winegrowing and winemaking that produces more consistently drinkable results in less than perfect conditions.

Of course, global warming and sheer good luck must also have contributed. There are plenty of other influences that have probably driven technically better vintage and cellar practices. Consultants like Rolland (even though I don’t much like the style and don’t buy his wines) and importers like Kermit Lynch and Bobby Kacher (different ends of the spectrum, I know) have also contributed.

I just think that, in the end, Parker’s influence has contributed to the run we’ve had.

In Burgundy, I generally prefer vintages like ’93 (entire Côte d’Or) and ’01 (Côte de Nuits) to ’90 and ’02 and vintages like ’03 do nothing for me, so the combined influence of Parker, et. al., and global warming is not entirely felicitous for me. However, it is hard to think of any other time that there have been more vintages that have produced more wine that has pleased more people in general than our recent run.

As a person who is on the traditionalist side of the fence pretty much all the time, I thought that needed saying. If these discussions were less one-sided and vitriolic, I would be inclined to participate more often, so I’m doing my bit here. (Then again, eGullet is downright tame and timid compared to Squires and other sites.)

Second Wines

I’m not a great fan of second wines. I’d generally rather buy a good cru bourgeois at the target price point than a second wine. In a bourgeois, I know I’m getting the best the producer has to offer – however good or bad that may be. With a typical second wine, I’m simply getting whatever the producer has decided needs to be kept out of the top cuvée. Only with certain seconds like Les Forts de Latour (where there is another lower cuvee) is there any real selection applied to the second wine. The bottom of any cascade system is a tough place to find consistency.

Thus, I agree with the point you made about Lafite's possible triage in '95, even if I don't agree that the vintage was "marginal".

That being said, I have enjoyed Les Fiefs de Lagrange over the years. It is at a low enough price point that I’m not devastated when it fails and it has generally met my expectations. It probably also helps that we had French friends in Seoul who loved Les Fiefs, so we kept it on hand for them. I may never have bought much of it otherwise, but in that case familiarity did not breed contempt – rather a bit of grudging affection.

I think I’ve got one more bottle of Les Fiefs in the cellar (’96 I believe). I’ll have to try it soon.

Jim

[Brad Ballinger]

My other second growth '95's have been more enjoyable.

←

I assume you mean second label first growths. Regardless, FWIW, I haven't had this wine, but I've heard good reports about the 1995 Bahans Haut Brion drinking well right now.

[glepore]

My other second growth '95's have been more enjoyable.

←

I assume you mean second label first growths.

←

Of course. Shouldn't drink and type.

As to '95 and "marginal", I should have been more clear. My own experience with '95's has been that they have a large spread, particularly in light of what has come since. The point made about "Parkerizing" is interesting; not sure if I'd give him the credit or the demographic changes that has resulted in a larger number of educated drinkers combined with real science having an effect on winemaking plus a string of hot summers. In any event, marginal might have been an overstatement, but you seemed to have grasped my thought.

Edited October 22, 2005 by glepore (log)