Bordeaux QPR - 2nd Growths

[Dionysus]

2nd Growth Best QPR: Montrose. The Bouygues brothers have invested significantly in this estate since taking control in 2006, and are arguably now producing the best wines ever to leave this property. Even before this investment, Montrose had stunning successes in 89, 90, 00, 03 arguably (one of the few from this vintage) and 05. The 09 and 2010 vintages are quite remarkable, and the run from 14 up to and including 2020 have really elevated this estate to another level (I haven’t tasted 19 or 20 but reports from numerous critics indicate a wine of very high quality). I’m not sure if any other singular wine exhibits such consistently over this period…whether a cool or hot vintage, it doesn’t appear to make too much of a difference. This is partially due to the unique micro-climate at this address…the vines run right up to the banks of the Gironde estuary which has a cooling effect in hotter years. Even in the warm vintages of 15 and 18, alcohol has been kept in check and the wines retain a degree of freshness. In cooler years, the wines take on an almost Margaux quality, and can be quite floral and wonderfully aromatic, while still retaining the stoic backbone for which Saint- Estèphe is known. While prices have crept up, they remain more than reasonable…the 2019 was available for $130 on release, which is stonking value.

Léoville-Las-Cases was next in line for me. How could the most expensive 2nd growth deliver the best QPR I hear you ask? Because it should be a 1st Growth.

2nd Growth Worst QPR: Lascombes. Not sure I need to say much more? Tastes nothing like what I would typically expect from a Margaux…a big, bold, austere, tar-laden mess. Nothing else came close. Sure, there are underperforms amongst the 2nd Growths (i.e. Rauzan-Gassies, Durfort-Vivens, Croizet Bages) but they are priced accordingly. Lascombes still commands a premium way beyond the actual quality of the wine. My god, how to take a prime terroir and totally & utterly destroy it!

[DavidG]

Second growth and QPR don't belong in the same post but I get what you're saying. I agree about Montrose and Lascombes. I have a tougher time with LLC because it takes sooooo long to come around.

[Comte Flaneur]

Only one winner here - Leoville Barton

[DavidG]

Yeah Leoville Barton is hard to disagree with. Montrose is better. But is the cost difference is greater than the quality difference? Depends on the vintage and bottle.

[Comte Flaneur]

Agree David. Leoville Barton qualifies as a super second imo - based on its performance since 1999 - and trades at roughly half the price of the other so called super seconds. It is am easy winner on that basis unless you make the case for Gruaud Larose at around the same price. And that’s why I own more Leoville Barton than any other wine. I also think the quality difference with Langoa (3rd growth) is not fully reflected in the price, as Langoa is a simpler and less complex wine, though I do actually slightly prefer Langoa for current drinking in 2000 and 2005.

The price of Montrose has been rising as has the quality perhaps to the point where it is challenging LLC for the accolade of best second growth - though Ducru and the two Pichons would also have something to say there. But none of them offer best QPR among the seconds. If they were first growths they might offer QPR among the firsts but then the question is how much would their prices rise in the extremely unlikely event they got upgraded to firsts?

[Musigny 151]

Only one winner here - Leoville Barton

Rauzan Segla. It also has my vote for best value among classified growths period. Montrose prices only recently started to increase; at the beginning of the year it would have been my other contender.

[DavidG]

Rauzan’s up there. That’s been a more recent development than Leoville Barton, at least to my palate. Not sure how much of that is me and how much is Rauzan.

[stefan]

Leoville Barton

[Racer Chris]

Based on a small sample size I'll go with Rauzan-Segla as offering the best overall qpr among second growths.

[Nicklasss]

Here, i guess the contest is between Léoville Barton and Rauzan Ségla. And it is a really tough call to do. To be fair, i guess it is ex aqeo. These are among the less expensive 2nd growth, and very high quality.

[Dionysus]

A tie between Léoville Barton and Rauzan Ségla it seems...good choices I think.
Montrose is third, but definitely seeing some price increases of late.

[Nicklasss]

A tie between Léoville Barton and Rauzan Ségla it seems...good choices I think.
Montrose is third, but definitely seeing some price increases of late.

I agree that the case for Montrose make sense too, as great 2nd growth, and less expensive than the Pichons, Ducru Beaucaillou, cos or LLC.

[Claudius2]

Hmmm
This is complex.
I tend to think that the seconds such as LLC, Ducru B, the Pichons, Cos and To a lesser extent Montrosere are 1er Cru quality. And if your argument is that they are only that good in top vintages, I can easily point out that is lesser vintages, the 1ers Crus are in the same boat.

So as a general rule I am much happier buying the top second growths compared to the 1ers. I’ve not bought 1ers on indent since the 2002 vintage and only a few odd bottles at auction since then.

In terms of value for money, I largely agree with Leoville Barton though I’d opt for Rausan Segla and Montrose over LB. yet this comes to style preferences.