2000 Chateau La Fleur de Bouard, Lalande de Pomerol.
Young looking dark, brooding color. Expressive complex bouquet. Savory, mineral, high acid from red fruit. Still youthful. Long finish. Needs food, but impressive at this stage. I tried to sell/trade the rest of my stash since about 4 years ago and, based on this bottle, am glad that there were no takers. A-
I had an 00 La Fleur, the St Emilion, tonight by sort of related coincidence.
Not as deep as the FdB but still pretty good.
Both FdB and (small production) de Chambrun age way longer than any of the Lalande de Pomerol peers.
Yeah the last one I had about 2 years ago was still a bit young. Early maturity. Good though.
Just because I get confused with all the properties with the words “La Fleur” in their names, I googled and, just to add to more confusion, it now appears that there are 5 other properties that I did know before but also have the same words in their names. Also guess what? Chateau La Fleur would only show under their owner’s website (since 2002), Chateau Dassault, but retained the bottle-brand of Chateau La Fleur. Unless you’re partial, or impartial, to drinking (or not drinking) Bordeaux that has involvement with Michell Rolland, your 2000 is, I suspect, Rolland-free .
Yes, I bought a few of those on release, and decided rather quickly it was not my cup of tea in bordeaux, but when last tasted about a year ago I too was surprised at just how young the wine seemed.
Thanks for the note and good to know you liked it, Ramon, as I always assumed this would be a modern wine that I’d rather avoid.
Le Plus is a killer, their 3rd (or 2nd depending on how you look it it), Le Lion de La Fleur de Boüard is one of the deepest values for everyday BDX that I’ve come across.
Anyone seen the cellars? They’re even bottling by gravity. It looks like the lair of a Bond villain 
This is essentially the R&D facility for Angelus since a first growth is too expensive to experiment on. Drank a lot of it this summer when a DB visited for a couple months…so impressed.
Random thoughts
Back in 1998 and 2000 it was more the way I think of Mouiex imports, not at all jacked out.
However I like Fleur du Bouard too. I have not bought recent vintages in a while, that I can remember, though. 2012 seems attractive, no? I do remember massive amounts of sediment from teenage FdB’s though.
I like Rolland’s wines in general. Maybe there are some I don’t like, but I can’t think of any off the top of my head. I recently picked up an Argentinean malbec he is involved with. I’m excited to try it since I hardly ever buy anything from below the equator (because of the whole upside down glasses problem) and I hardly ever have a malbec or Cahors
Good memory on the sediment, Arv. Yes, the 2000 Lfdb sure had a fair amount of gunk at the bottom.
I’ve had this a few times lately.
My last note. - Nary a sign of age. Light aromas of earth and cherry bowl. Full-bodied. Velvety, powdery texture. This offers black cherries covered in dark chocolate, an interwoven thread of iron and a pebbly finish. This has some grip on the finish. Stacked. 92
There is that modern touch to it, Patrick, so it might still not fit in your wheelhouse. But there are those good mineral, herb, and savory characteristics that I like in my wines.
I’m gonna be the distinct minority here, and hope I don’t offend, but this wine is not to my liking. I’m on night two, and cannot make myself drink it. And while I know that I am not a fan of Bouard, I do recall liking this wine on release. It was 2003, 2005 and beyond where his hand seemed to become heavier on this wine. This wine as a baby had such precocious, archetype Pomerol fruit, that stood up to the heavy hand and what now seems to be charred oak. While I do not know the oak regime on this wine, or whether it really is toasted, but the entire profile of the wine from nose, to palate and to finish, is marred by charred wood notes and carries the astringency of new oak. It also expresses almost a sour mash to the dark cherry fruit.
Maybe these are all just better younger.
I can really understand your dislike, Robert. I bought a case of the 2000 and a case of the 2001 on release and opened the first bottles a few years later. The 2001 was significantly better balanced than the more astringent 2000, but both wines not only had an astonishing depth and length, but also a syrup-like fruit and were packed with a heavy dose of noble oak. At that time, my palate was more tolerant to modern claret, but over time, I developed a real aversion to both wines and gave the remaining bottles away. BTW, my sister was happy with the wines. 
I thought that this punched in well enough for a wine that was around $20ish in price point. May have turned the corner. It’s approaching the the 20 year mark, so I’ll look to check in on my remaining few.
Too bad, and I may be wrong, but I recall here it wasn’t that long ago that you were throwing a few praises on this wine.
I did indeed, Ramon. Be curious to hear your take as you pop another. I picked this and some 99 up recently, quite inexpensively, remembering that I haD enjoyed them as nice QPRS.
As Jean-Marie Guffens once said to me in his cellar in Burgundy, “all the musts descend by gravity, which was invented by Isaac Newton”…
Actually, given what we know about relativity, Guffens was right.
Quelle surprise! Alfert n’aime pas des chenes
Actually, the bottle of this I had seemed to me stand up ok to it; definitely in a modern style, but this and the Canon La Gaffeliere, especially the '01, for some of us what…less sensitive/more open-minded types… take your pick, can give real pleasure.
Alfert loves dogs!!!
Nice article by our very own William Kelly on Guffens . . . .
Alfert is barking up the wrong tree. 