Well, it certainly begs the question: Do any of us even pay attention to it? I mean, it’s a fun academic discussion, but it has absolutely zero bearing on what I buy. None. Never has. Well, perhaps the First Growths when you want to impress, but other than that, I do not really care. And when I bring wines to dinner engagements, I dont think most people know much about it, or care about the academic discussion about whether it is a 2 or a 5, or should be a 3. Pomerol, as Mark points out, is the perfect example. Many of the wines there are FGs and Super Seconds in my opinion. I own more Sociando than any other Chateau; technically, it would be a 3 in my book but it is entirely irrelevant to me.Musigny 151 wrote:Unlike our constitution, the 1855 classification was never meant to survive much beyond the Exposition Universelle of 1855. For that reason it is a snap shot with no rules to allow change, it has remained basically unchanged. So the idea of simply adhering to the original probably makes no sense, as it was never intended to last 165 years. So much has changed since its inception, and while it is a surprisingly good guide, it is still riddled with mistakes.JimHow wrote:I'm an originalist, a subscriber to the sanctity of the genius of the 1855 classification.
Changes, if any, should be made with the greatest of reluctance and deliberation.
Just throwing out super seconds and seconds like they are candy cheapens the reverence owed to the mythical wine region that is Bordeaux.
Just throwing stuff out there is an insult to the greatness of a classification that has been around for 165 years.
And as for a "super second" classification, that is so Saint Emilion, so Parker-era. Don't you guys have more imagination than that, just copying what others have already done.
I still need to do a lot of analysis, but my instincts are that, if anything, there should be LESS second growths rather than MORE second growths.
A debate needs to be had whether there even needs to be one less first growth, whether the 1973 Mouton elevation needs to be revisited.
Let me throw out a suggestion. Now that we have the internet, and every vintage of every important wine is dissected, graded, scored, revisited, scored again by so many “experts,” rather than trying to alter the classification which would be outdated the moment it was published, we should decide to just eliminate it all together. Think of the freedom of not having to wonder what growth Lascombes or Prieure Lichine is, and then ask yourself if it makes any real difference. Think Pomerol, it has never had a classification, and chugs along quite happily with its unofficial hierarchy as opposed to Saint Emilion, an example of a classification that is constantly being updated. Every ten years, the lawyers can count on a great year as they sue the appellation, neighbors stop speaking to one another, and the feuds can last for generations. Just asking.
I’d never update it, keep it historic.
