Bellefont Belcier 96 Ch Larmande 96 both listed as Grand Cru Classe.
Vintage has been good to me. Any thoughts on these as a wine to buy for an
upcoming diner?

I generally think of 96, 98, 00 and 01 as being good years. Is this a fair
assesment all other things being equal?

In message >
jcoulter > wrote:

>Bellefont Belcier 96 Ch Larmande 96 both listed as Grand Cru Classe. >
Vintage has been good to me. Any thoughts on these as a wine to buy for an
> upcoming diner? > > I generally think of 96, 98, 00 and 01 as being good
years. Is this a fair > assesment all other things being equal?


1998 & 2000 were great years without any doubt. 2001 was much more patchy,
1996 I would say as a generalisation was better than 2001 but not so good as
the other two years mentioned.

Bellefont Belcier is normally Grand Cru but is not and never has been Grand
Cru Classé, Larmande is GCC and, in my view, by far the better wine as well.
My only hesitation would be whether the 1996 is really ready to drink yet,
although its tannins are fairly supple and there is very good fruit. I
would be tempted to buy a bottle of each and see how they will go with
whatever food you are proposing to serve.


Timothy Hartley

Timothy Hartley > wrote in
:

> In message >
> jcoulter > wrote:
>
>>Bellefont Belcier 96 Ch Larmande 96 both listed as Grand Cru Classe.
>>>
> Vintage has been good to me. Any thoughts on these as a wine to buy
> for an
>> upcoming diner? > > I generally think of 96, 98, 00 and 01 as being
>> good
> years. Is this a fair > assesment all other things being equal?
>
>
> 1998 & 2000 were great years without any doubt. 2001 was much more
> patchy, 1996 I would say as a generalisation was better than 2001 but
> not so good as the other two years mentioned.
>
> Bellefont Belcier is normally Grand Cru but is not and never has been
> Grand Cru Classé,
just going by what I thought I saw on the bottle my research confirms what
you are thinking.
Larmande is GCC and, in my view, by far the better
> wine as well.
Leaning toward this, I have had grand cru from 96 Haut Veyrac and it was
drinking very well.

buying one of each is so tempting, I can always play the educating the
palate card for my wife.

I'd personally consider '96 a great year in the Medoc, but mediocre on
Right Bank ('98 is probably other way around). More tannins than fruit
in many cases. But I haven't tasted these 2 wines to memory.

I'd personally rank the last decade+ of vintages like this:
Medoc
96, 00, 90, 01, 95, 99,94, 98,93, 97, 91, 92

Libournais
90, 00, 98,95,01,96, 94 (better Pomerol than St E), 97, 93, 92, 91

If I did this againtomorrow, it might not be exactly the same. And 2000
might well end up being better than 90 & 96Medoc, just tht I've only
tasted as very young wines, so I'm being conservative.

jcoulter wrote:
> Bellefont Belcier 96 Ch Larmande 96 both listed as Grand Cru Classe.
> Vintage has been good to me. Any thoughts on these as a wine to buy for an
> upcoming diner?
>
> I generally think of 96, 98, 00 and 01 as being good years. Is this a fair
> assesment all other things being equal?

2000 is certainly a good year. I've got a lot of this (because I was in
St. E. last september and that was what most of the stuff in th stores
was). I've got some good 2001's as well.

I've had Bellefont Belcier (it's pretty common stuff domestically). It's
OK, but not the best I've had.

see, the vagaries of vintage variation- looking at this, I don't agree
with myself 2 hours later.
Medoc
96, 00, 90, 95, 01, 99, 94, 98, 93, 97, 91, 92


Libournais
90, 00, 98, 95, 01, 94 (better Pomerol than St E),96, 97, 93, 92, 91

DaleW wrote:
> see, the vagaries of vintage variation- looking at this, I don't agree
> with myself 2 hours later.
> Medoc
> 96, 00, 90, 95, 01, 99, 94, 98, 93, 97, 91, 92
>
>
> Libournais
> 90, 00, 98, 95, 01, 94 (better Pomerol than St E),96, 97, 93, 92, 91
>
Dale,
There's no 99 in the Libournais: oversight, or a comment on the
quality of the vintage?

Mark Lipton

DaleW wrote:
> see, the vagaries of vintage variation- looking at this, I don't agree
> with myself 2 hours later.
> Medoc
> 96, 00, 90, 95, 01, 99, 94, 98, 93, 97, 91, 92
>
>
> Libournais
> 90, 00, 98, 95, 01, 94 (better Pomerol than St E),96, 97, 93, 92, 91
>
Dale,
There's no 99 in the Libournais: oversight, or a comment on the
quality of the vintage?

Mark Lipton

Oops Mark, just oversight.
Libournais:
90, 00, 98, 95, 01, '99, 94 (better Pomerol than St E),96, 97, 93, 92,
91
Sorry about that.

It would be easy for me to shuffle these around a space or two. This is
seat of my pants stuff, based on what I've tasted. Which for me is
concentrated on a lot of mid-priced stuff (2nd to 5th growths and the
better Cru Bourgeois in the Medoc, lots of middling St. Emilions and
Pomerols like Pavie-Mac, Pavie-Decesse, Troplong-M, Certan de May,
Gazin, Nenin, the Beausejours, Figeac, Barde-Haut,. etc).

And while I'm going out on a limb with vintage generalizations:
Graves/Pessac-Leognan
00,90, 98, 01, 96,'99, 95, 97,93 94, 92, 91

Oops Mark, just oversight.
Libournais:
90, 00, 98, 95, 01, '99, 94 (better Pomerol than St E),96, 97, 93, 92,
91
Sorry about that.

It would be easy for me to shuffle these around a space or two. This is
seat of my pants stuff, based on what I've tasted. Which for me is
concentrated on a lot of mid-priced stuff (2nd to 5th growths and the
better Cru Bourgeois in the Medoc, lots of middling St. Emilions and
Pomerols like Pavie-Mac, Pavie-Decesse, Troplong-M, Certan de May,
Gazin, Nenin, the Beausejours, Figeac, Barde-Haut,. etc).

And while I'm going out on a limb with vintage generalizations:
Graves/Pessac-Leognan
00,90, 98, 01, 96,'99, 95, 97,93 94, 92, 91

jcoulter > wrote in
:

> Bellefont Belcier 96 Ch Larmande 96 both listed as Grand Cru Classe.
mea culpa, the bottle next to the Bellefont was Grand Cru Classe though it
was a 98 and actually cheaper than the Bellefont

I bought the Larmande FWIW

jcoulter > wrote in
:

> Bellefont Belcier 96 Ch Larmande 96 both listed as Grand Cru Classe.
mea culpa, the bottle next to the Bellefont was Grand Cru Classe though it
was a 98 and actually cheaper than the Bellefont

I bought the Larmande FWIW

DaleW wrote:
> Oops Mark, just oversight.
> Libournais:
> 90, 00, 98, 95, 01, '99, 94 (better Pomerol than St E),96, 97, 93, 92,
> 91
> Sorry about that.
>
> It would be easy for me to shuffle these around a space or two. This is
> seat of my pants stuff, based on what I've tasted. Which for me is
> concentrated on a lot of mid-priced stuff (2nd to 5th growths and the
> better Cru Bourgeois in the Medoc, lots of middling St. Emilions and
> Pomerols like Pavie-Mac, Pavie-Decesse, Troplong-M, Certan de May,
> Gazin, Nenin, the Beausejours, Figeac, Barde-Haut,. etc).
>
> And while I'm going out on a limb with vintage generalizations:
> Graves/Pessac-Leognan
> 00,90, 98, 01, 96,'99, 95, 97,93 94, 92, 91
>

And, of course, the usual caveats apply: Good producers in bad vintages,
etc.

Mark Lipton

DaleW wrote:
> Oops Mark, just oversight.
> Libournais:
> 90, 00, 98, 95, 01, '99, 94 (better Pomerol than St E),96, 97, 93, 92,
> 91
> Sorry about that.
>
> It would be easy for me to shuffle these around a space or two. This is
> seat of my pants stuff, based on what I've tasted. Which for me is
> concentrated on a lot of mid-priced stuff (2nd to 5th growths and the
> better Cru Bourgeois in the Medoc, lots of middling St. Emilions and
> Pomerols like Pavie-Mac, Pavie-Decesse, Troplong-M, Certan de May,
> Gazin, Nenin, the Beausejours, Figeac, Barde-Haut,. etc).
>
> And while I'm going out on a limb with vintage generalizations:
> Graves/Pessac-Leognan
> 00,90, 98, 01, 96,'99, 95, 97,93 94, 92, 91
>

And, of course, the usual caveats apply: Good producers in bad vintages,
etc.

Mark Lipton

"And, of course, the usual caveats apply: Good producers in bad
vintages,
etc."

Indeed. Vintage generalizations are just that, generalizations. On
average, this is how I'd rate the vintages for mid-level Bordeaux. Yet
there are over-achievers and under-achievers in every vintage. I'll
take the '97 Leoville-Poyferre over the '95 Rauzan-Gassies, thank you
very much. There's also the issue of current drinkability- the '93
Lynch-Bages isn't really an overachiever (compared to other
Lynch-Bages) , but it's currently drinking quite lovely, while '00 &
'95 are "better" but too tight.

In message >
jcoulter > wrote:

> jcoulter > wrote in
> :
>
> > Bellefont Belcier 96 Ch Larmande 96 both listed as Grand Cru Classe.
> mea culpa, the bottle next to the Bellefont was Grand Cru Classe though it
> was a 98 and actually cheaper than the Bellefont
>
> I bought the Larmande FWIW

How was it and what was theoter, cheaper, 1998 GCC as a matter of interest?

Timothy Hartley

Timothy Hartley > wrote in
:

> In message >
> jcoulter > wrote:
>
>> jcoulter > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > Bellefont Belcier 96 Ch Larmande 96 both listed as Grand Cru
>> > Classe.
>> mea culpa, the bottle next to the Bellefont was Grand Cru Classe
>> though it was a 98 and actually cheaper than the Bellefont
>>
>> I bought the Larmande FWIW
>
> How was it and what was the other, cheaper, 1998 GCC as a matter of
> interest?
>
> Timothy Hartley
>

will let you know, The wine is for my wife's birthday next week and I
will have to recheck on the cheaper GCC (something around 24USD as
opposed to 29 for the Bellefont)

jcoulter > wrote in
:

> Timothy Hartley > wrote in
> :
>
>> In message >
>> jcoulter > wrote:
>>
>>> jcoulter > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>> > Bellefont Belcier 96 Ch Larmande 96 both listed as Grand Cru
>>> > Classe.
>>> mea culpa, the bottle next to the Bellefont was Grand Cru Classe
>>> though it was a 98 and actually cheaper than the Bellefont
>>>
>>> I bought the Larmande FWIW
>>
>> How was it and what was the other, cheaper, 1998 GCC as a matter of
>> interest?
>>
>> Timothy Hartley
>>
the GCC next was Ch. Laroze marked down appearantly because the 2000 was
"so much better".

jcoulter wrote:

>I will have to recheck on the cheaper GCC (something around 24USD as
>opposed to 29 for the Bellefont)

> the GCC next was Ch. Laroze marked down apparrently because the 2000 was
> "so much better".
>
>

Ignorant wine merchants are a boon to us all — thanks be to God for
them. I would buy them all up at that price and cellar it for the next
ten years or so. Guy Meslin makes very good wine indeed even though
his terror is sandier than other GCCs around. He has, I believe, a
doctorate in microbiology and is a very interesting host - it was
there, in late 1993, that I first tasted Merlot, Bouchet and Cavernet
Sauvignon as individual four year old varietals (1989) and then the
assemblage for the year. Funnily the assembled wine tasted much more
ready to drink than did any of the varietals though it was, of course,
�nobbut a lad‘ as they say in these parts.

Timothy Hartley