The Aquitaine Papers: BWE 2021 Bordeaux Classification

[Comte Flaneur]

Mark I have always advocated ranking these estates by whatever criteria you see fit, just as I do in off lines when operating the Comte Flaneur 3-2-1 method for wines of the night.

The main reason why I would peg Mouton as a first and LLC as a second is that while the latter may be more consistent than the former, the former can achieve greater heights when realising its full potential, as in 45, 59, 82, 86, 09, 10 and 16.

[Musigny 151]

Mark I have always advocated ranking these estates by whatever criteria you see fit, just as I do in off lines when operating the Comte Flaneur 3-2-1 method for wines of the night.

The main reason why I would peg Mouton as a first and LLC as a second is that while the latter may be more consistent than the former, the former can achieve greater heights when realising its full potential, as in 45, 59, 82, 86, 09, 10 and 16.

When you have wines such as these, that is a sign of the greatness of the terror. For me that potential is realized by your very best wines.

I have never been particularly enamored by Las Cases. In fact, I sold most of mine, and kept only the 1996 and 1989.

I will talk about Ducru, an estate I love dearly, but would say that even their best wines are not on the level with those Ian just mentioned. And that is under a world class winemaker, Bruno Borie.

[Claudius2]

Folks
Firstly hope you all have a great Christmas and don't drink TOO much Bordeaux.

In reference to how the wines as classed, I try and use my own experience BUT I have qualified it in some cases based on limited recent tasting attempts.
I also think we cannot be devoid of some degree of bias - whether from reputation, critics or our own stylistic preferences.
Thinking back to Australia, there were tastings, events, shows et al pretty well every weekend.
Over here, they are limited and I only get to try horizontals or verticals occasionally. So I admittedly am a bit out of touch with some wines.

Ian
Let me tell a historical tale that helps explain my views of Mouton and to an extent, Lafite.
Firstly, the fact that Mouton excels in the vintages you mention but not in the remainder is exactly why I rate it a 2nd.
If you could name say, 20 vintages where it really shined since 1945, I'd agree. I have no problem with its brilliance in (say) 82 or 45.
last vintage I tasted was 2009 - and loved the wine but choked on the price tag. So I loaded up on many other 2009's - I think it is 27 cases when I last checked but no 1ers at all.
I first started drinking classed growths in the early 80's and 1982 was my first ever EP year.
Yet back then, I could pick up first growths for $A50 to $A100 and 2nds like DB and PL for half that.
After reading numerous books and articles by the usual British writers at the time, I was very keen to try the wines classed as the best.
I even got used to the under-stated writing style of the English which seemed to make more sense to me than most others.
So my first experiences with 1ers Crus were the wines from the 60's and 70's, two vintages with some treasures and more poor vintages.
Despite that, I took note of Broadbent et al and picked the best vintages.
Things obviously changed with the 80s, with much better (overall) vintages and I also must say, a return to profitability after a few decades of hard times.

My experience is that no wine is of 1er Cru standard all the time.
Whilst that is a self-evident truth, I often read that super seconds are "of 1er Cru standard in (xxxx) vintages."
Yet Mouton to my experience is not 1er Cru standard in numerous very good to great vintages, and Lafite has had some patches over the years where it was a consistent under-performer.
Yes, I agree - both can be great but I think I am once bitten twice shy, an issue compounded by escalating prices over the last few decades.
I only paid $A80 for 1990 Margaux and about $120 for 1995 firsts.
Of course with hindsight, I'd have backed up the truck on the Margaux but $960 a case was seen as expensive then.
Current 1990 prices in Australia and Singapore (incl commission and tax) would be around $A1500 (E900-1,000).

I consistently found the wines of St Julien to offer value and the style of the wines seemed to suit me.
So I hunted down LLC, DB, GL et at auctions, later moving to Branaire, LB, Lagrange etc as second growth prices moved up.
Similarly, Chambertin is an occasional wine despite being glugged down by the case load during the recession of 1990 to 94.

Maybe in my 60's I no longer see much point in EP purchases (okay, okay, I busted this year after saying 16 was my last...) and I am simply happy to drink middle ranked wines that over-perform at their price point.
I am also happy to drink 1er Cru rather than GC Burgundy, and NV Champagne rather than vintage wines and prestige cuvees.
I'd say the same about luxury sports cars too. If I drove a Ferrari, McLaren or Lamborghini these days, I'd probably need urgent back surgery.
cheers
Mark

[Nicklasss]

I will try to post here my classification, as I have a tough time doing it in Comte Flaneur file.

But one thing I will try to defend is that I really think the Chateau la Conseillante is a First Growth. It has a great terroir and from the vintages I tried, and what I read here and elsewhere about other vintages, i don't understand none here have think that way?

Nic

[stefan]

>>
I am not sure if I were Lynch Moussas, I could live with the indignity of being a sixth growth.
>>

We should have classes 1-99. Then Lynch Moussas would merit being a 99th growth.

[Comte Flaneur]

Folks
Firstly hope you all have a great Christmas and don't drink TOO much Bordeaux.

In reference to how the wines as classed, I try and use my own experience BUT I have qualified it in some cases based on limited recent tasting attempts.
I also think we cannot be devoid of some degree of bias - whether from reputation, critics or our own stylistic preferences.
Thinking back to Australia, there were tastings, events, shows et al pretty well every weekend.
Over here, they are limited and I only get to try horizontals or verticals occasionally. So I admittedly am a bit out of touch with some wines.

Ian
Let me tell a historical tale that helps explain my views of Mouton and to an extent, Lafite.
Firstly, the fact that Mouton excels in the vintages you mention but not in the remainder is exactly why I rate it a 2nd.
If you could name say, 20 vintages where it really shined since 1945, I'd agree. I have no problem with its brilliance in (say) 82 or 45.
last vintage I tasted was 2009 - and loved the wine but choked on the price tag. So I loaded up on many other 2009's - I think it is 27 cases when I last checked but no 1ers at all.
I first started drinking classed growths in the early 80's and 1982 was my first ever EP year.
Yet back then, I could pick up first growths for $A50 to $A100 and 2nds like DB and PL for half that.
After reading numerous books and articles by the usual British writers at the time, I was very keen to try the wines classed as the best.
I even got used to the under-stated writing style of the English which seemed to make more sense to me than most others.
So my first experiences with 1ers Crus were the wines from the 60's and 70's, two vintages with some treasures and more poor vintages.
Despite that, I took note of Broadbent et al and picked the best vintages.
Things obviously changed with the 80s, with much better (overall) vintages and I also must say, a return to profitability after a few decades of hard times.

My experience is that no wine is of 1er Cru standard all the time.
Whilst that is a self-evident truth, I often read that super seconds are "of 1er Cru standard in (xxxx) vintages."
Yet Mouton to my experience is not 1er Cru standard in numerous very good to great vintages, and Lafite has had some patches over the years where it was a consistent under-performer.
Yes, I agree - both can be great but I think I am once bitten twice shy, an issue compounded by escalating prices over the last few decades.
I only paid $A80 for 1990 Margaux and about $120 for 1995 firsts.
Of course with hindsight, I'd have backed up the truck on the Margaux but $960 a case was seen as expensive then.
Current 1990 prices in Australia and Singapore (incl commission and tax) would be around $A1500 (E900-1,000).

I consistently found the wines of St Julien to offer value and the style of the wines seemed to suit me.
So I hunted down LLC, DB, GL et at auctions, later moving to Branaire, LB, Lagrange etc as second growth prices moved up.
Similarly, Chambertin is an occasional wine despite being glugged down by the case load during the recession of 1990 to 94.

Maybe in my 60's I no longer see much point in EP purchases (okay, okay, I busted this year after saying 16 was my last...) and I am simply happy to drink middle ranked wines that over-perform at their price point.
I am also happy to drink 1er Cru rather than GC Burgundy, and NV Champagne rather than vintage wines and prestige cuvees.
I'd say the same about luxury sports cars too. If I drove a Ferrari, McLaren or Lamborghini these days, I'd probably need urgent back surgery.
cheers
Mark

Hi Mark within this you ask:

“If you could name say, 20 vintages where it [Mouton] really shined since 1945, I'd agree”

Well I could name about 40, based on my experience and CT scores.

Pre 1945 there were some really great vintages too, I have not gone through them all, but for example:

1928 - 93.9 - CT
1929 - 97.5
1937 -95.5

Then from 1945:

1945 - 97.2 - CT
1947 - 96.3
1948 - 93.8
1949 - 96.8
1953 - 93.9
1955 - 96.0
1959 - 94.6
1961 - 96.2 - IA 96
1966 - 92.3

That is a dozen straight off the bat, now based on personal experience:

1970 - last time a great great bottle, my wotn in a Mouton vertical
1975 - likewise variable but have had some great bottles
1978 - like Lafite a bit of a dark horse
1982 -
1985 - top five wotv imho
1986 -
1987 - tribute to the Baron, wotv by a mile (possibly topped up with 1986!)
1988 - won our 1988 horizontal a couple of years ago
1989 - not wotv but FG quality imho
1995 - won a Judgement of Paris rehash a few years back against Harlan, Bryant etc
1996 - not wotv but easily FG quality
1997 - one of the w(s)otv
1998 - ditto
1999 - ditto
2000 - it wouldn’t cost £20k a case if it was shit, tried once, outstanding
2002 - strong contender for wotv
2003 - likewise apparently, though I have not tried it - CT93.7
2005 - very highly acclaimed by Neal M and others
2006 - likewise, many critics’ wotv
2007 - outstanding for the vintage
2008 - strong contender for wotv
2009 - likewise
2010 - likewise
2011-2019- likewise though have not tasted 2015-19, but 2016 already critically acclaimed wine of the greatest modern Bordeaux vintage

That’s 44 by my count and 40 since 1945.

Since Philippe Dhalluin took over nobody has been making better wine in Bordeaux. He has stepped down now.

If we don’t rank Mouton a FG people won’t take us seriously.

[Claudius2]

Ian
Reading your notes it is pretty clear that you like Mouton more than me and/or better experiences - and given the notes you make about individual vintages I’m pretty sure both are true.
I have no problem with that however, I have tried numerous vintages of Mouton and with a few exceptions (eg, 82) I have not been so moved.
I also have qualified my comments based on limited recent experience which in some respects is one of the downsides of living in Singapore. In Australia as part of a tasting group we regularly brought 1ers Crus and the like.
I have had several disappointing Moutons and some I bought full cases of but after the 2002 vintage I stopped buying 1ers Crus en primeur and just bought the occasional bottle here and there. So I am deferring to your experience with this wine.
Having said that, I can only call it as I see it and my initial rating was for a modified structure as per St Emilion. Also note that in your spreadsheet I wasn’t the only one to downgrade it.
In relation to what others may or may not take seriously I am not sure this is either valid nor relevant. If it is a BWE classification then it really isn’t for general publication and given that Mouton was a second from 1855 until 1973, it can be reasonably argued that politics have played a role (which is hardly uncommon whether the topic is wine or anything else). I would argue that downgrading Lafite would be harder to justify given in the 1855 classification it was rated first of the firsts. That is why Lafite is sought after more than the others in China (but I won’t start on that topic).
Cheers
Mark

[DavidG]

It's not at all surprising or unusual for their to be a diversity of opinion on Mouton or any other wine for that matter.

Regarding a BWE classification, I don't believe we should be overly influenced by the 1855 classification. This is our opinion. So now we get down to the nitty gritty of discussing individual estates where opinions differ.

I was one who rated Mouton as a second growth. Not even a super second. I would not put as much weight on my "vote" as Mark's or Ian's because I have had far fewer vintages than they have. The 1982 and 1986 have been killer wines for me, but other than that I have not been impressed. Maybe bad luck/bad showings, and some were not top vintages, but 1978, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 2000 ranged from solid excellent but not first growth exceptional/outstanding in most instances. Most tasted only once or twice, except the 1988 which I have had multiple times.

[s*d*r]

Re: Mouton

Personal experience only:
1945- variable, from good to spectacular (all from an OWC 30 years ago)
1953- excellent but too old in 1997
1955- mediocre, too old in 2017 but only tasted once from a bottle with questionable provenance
1959- too variable, can be outstanding, provenance vs. bottle variation, better 25 years ago
1961- usually great, a masterpiece even now if you get the right bottle
1966- fair to very good, much bottle variation even from well stored bottles
1970- usually mediocre but one terrific bottle in 2013
1975- not good, too tannic like most ‘75s
1981- not sure, one puzzling experience in 1998, none since
1982- excellent to fabulous, a legend already
1983- one mediocre experience
1985- usually fair to poor
1986- still not sure but best bottles are at least excellent
1988- one bad bottle in 1998, none since
1989- not very good
1990- terrible bottle at the 1998 Mouton vertical but not tasted since
1998- quite good
2000- outstanding several years ago

So I’m with David. Way too many disappointments for me to be FG. But I have limited experience in most vintages and none from vintages of this century.

Stu

[Comte Flaneur]

I wholeheartedly agree about bottle variation Stu but seems like you have been unlucky...this was my last encounter, when neither the 82 nor the 86 were on top form.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8718&p=76912&hilit=mouton#p76912

[Claudius2]

Ian
I think you have clearly been a lot luckier than others here and possibly your geographic location is salient.
So I will give a few notes of vintages I have tried including those I drank at least 6 of:

1966: very good well balanced wine but not outstanding and HB and Latour were better
1970: very good again richer than 66 but not as good as hoped. Drunk several times with consistent notes
1973: okay a lesser vintage but several 2nds were better and richer.
1975: LMHB, HB and several seconds notably LLC, PL and DB were much better with fruit balancing the firm tannins of that vintage
1976: better than expected in about 2004 when last tried, medium bodied but still other wines were better such as Lafite （about time), DB and LLC
1978: the miracle vintage was good but not great and the St Juliens shined to me along with Margaux. Good Mouton but not great.
1979: I drained a dozen of these in the 90s and early 00’s and no first growth here. Again my fav of the vintage was Ducru.
1981: Mouton rather lean from memory and Margaux was my fav along with PL and DB
1982: once tried and I rated this the second best after Petrus, possibly Margaux
1983: again I think an underperforming wine in a vintage where HB, LMHB, Margaux and Palmer shined plus several RB wines which seemed to have been forgotten about,
1985: bought a case EP and was never impressed. Lacked the depth or complexity of a first and frankly, not good enough. I took the last bottle to a tasting in Sydney in 2005 and the av rating was 86 and that was using RP’s scale.
1986: only tried once at a big tasting and it was well behind the other firsts. I however did not rate it as I thought it needed more time (I think it was 1995)
1988: I really like this vintage yet I found the wine to be oaky and rather angular.
1989: very good wine and one of the best of the vintage
1990: outshined by other firsts and various seconds.
1995: very good vine that probably will continue to improve. Last vintage I bought a case of was 96 and actually never tried as it went to auction.
2002: one of the best of the vintage and I always liked 2002 - Mouton was more powerful than many.

In the 70s I tend to think of St Julien as more consistent than the other Medoc regions and as noted previously I have always liked the style of the wines. Yet the 80’s was a very good decade overall and so many wines shined brightly that I started buying a broader range of wines and more regions, starting to explore the right bank and Pessac/Graves.

[Comte Flaneur]

The 1970s Moutons are extremely variable none more so than the 1975 which I have had at least half a dozen times. Last one I tried courtesy Tim was being administered its last rites by the Priest. But Tim still really liked it. One tried previous to that was joyous and glorious, a 98 point wine.

Mark when did you last try the 1983 and 1985 Moutons? Both were difficult in their youth, but both have blossomed in the last decade though the 1985 is still quite youthful. The last three times I have had the 85, it has been top drawer. Definitely in my top few wines of the vintage with Lafite, Haut-Brion and Cheval Blanc.

The 1988 is a Vin de Garde and is still on the upslope. We did a 1988 horizontal a few years ago and that bottle comfortably won but there were no other FGs, only super seconds like LLC and PLL. The mag we had at the Mouton vertical was too young, but had it all there.The 1990 has turned out to be a dark horse.

[Claudius2]

Ian
I drank a full case of the 85 in the 00’s and not sure exactly but the last bottle was at a tasting a year or so before I left Australia. I started it in the mid 00’s so around twenty years and I thought it was approachable and quite mature then. The wine was a bit variable but overall the style did not change.
I can’t exactly recall when I had the 83 and I think I have had it only once. I think at 20 odd years.
As a general theory I leave classed growths in good or better years for 20 yrs and as noted there are few wines that demand more time but I prefer them younger. My formula for Burgundy is 10-15 yrs for 1ers Crus and a bit longer for the GCs but I have pretty well finished off the 2005s.

In the case of The 88 I am quite a fan of the vintage but I found the wine rather woody and presumably if consume now then after over 30 yrs that may well have changed but I am surprised that 88 is a vin de garde style.

[Musigny 151]

I have had several bottles of 1985 Mouton. Some slightly better than others, but I like the wine, so 93-95 points.
Can’t remember ever having the 1983.

[marcs]

I will try to post here my classification, as I have a tough time doing it in Comte Flaneur file.

But one thing I will try to defend is that I really think the Chateau la Conseillante is a First Growth. It has a great terroir and from the vintages I tried, and what I read here and elsewhere about other vintages, i don't understand none here have think that way?

Nic

Well, right banks don't have first growths. But I do agree that Conseillante is really wonderful and is perhaps as good as a wine like VCC in a totally different style. At its best Conseillante is really beautifully "feminine", soft, subtle, and accessible while VCC seems more imposing, intellectual, and long-aging.

[Claudius2]

Musigny
You must have liked the Mouton 1985 more than meals ihave never given it points such as 93- 95.
I have a theory.
Australia produces pretty good Cabernet based wines As does the US though our Merlot is with some exceptions used as a blending wine to soften Cab. So hi Cab wines in Aust have a lot of competition.
Of the first growths I think the style of Mouton is more akin to say Coonawarra Cabernet and blends. My view of the other LB 1ers Crus is that they are not really like Australian wines at all. Each has a distinct character that stands out from others - including the best Cabs from Australia.
So this suggests why Mouton isn’t my fav. It isn’t to my palate unique or different enough from other top quality Cabs.
I have referred to a big left bank tasting (more like a leviathan) some years ago where Latour, HB and Margaux were the three top rated wines which covered a handful of top vintages each.
Several second growths and LMHB were rated above both Mouton and Lafite.
I felt that the style of Lafite at that tasting was a little misunderstood and Mouton was ranked as a second but the view of the wine at that event was that there wasn’t as much special or unique character to Mouton. A few seconds were thought of as having individuality to a greater extent. Or as I explained to students of my old branding class, a lack of strong and favourable product differentiation.

I’ve given the issue some thought and even got out some old notes from tastings on old thumb drives. When I describe Mouton from the 60s to 90s, I have not used much emotive descriptors. That is not a criticism but at the last tasting I referred to this issue was raised. It just did not move the group and when tried among other firsts and super seconds the Mouton 85 was rated last. The group winner was HB with LLC and Margaux hot on its tracks. The Latour was not tried and the Lafite was not considered a good bottle.

[JimHow]

In the spirit and generosity of "BWE Wine Month," as well as my kindness and benevolence, in conjunction with the compromise brokering of Assistant Manager DavidG with that LBJ-like curmudgeon Stefan from Teyxasss, with some assistance from the wise counsel and argument of Barrister Viscount Comte Flaneur of the City of London, United Kingdom, I hereby amend my "Reclassification of the Wines of the Medoc" by elevating Lynch Bages to a fourth growth, and demoting La Lagune to fifth growth status.

So it is written. So it shall be done.

First Growths

1. Lafite Rothschild
2. Margaux
3. Haut Brion
4. Mouton Rothschild
5. Latour

Second Growths

6. Pichon Longueville Baron
7. Montrose
8. La Mission Haut Brion
9. Ducru Beaucaillou
10. Leoville Las Cases
11. Palmer
12. Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande
13. Cos d’Estournel
14. Leoville Barton

Third Growths

15. Calon Segur
16. Smith Haut Lafitte
17. Haut Bailly
18. Brane Cantenac
19. Rausan Segla
20. Pape Clement
21. Giscours
22. d'Issan

Fourth Growths

23. Pontet Canet
24. Clerc Milon
25. Branaire Ducru
26. Gruaud Larose
27. Leoville Poyferre
28. Sociando Mallet
29. Lafon Rochet
30. Beychevelle
31. Malescot St. Exupery
32. Duhart Milon
33. du Tertre
34. Talbot
35. Lagrange
36. Lascombes
37. Prieure Lichine
38. Domaine de Chevalier
39. d’Armailhac
40. Kirwan
41. Lynch Bages

Fifth Growths

42. La Lagune
43. Gloria
44. Meyney
45. Malartic Lagraviere
46. Cantemerle
47. Chasse Spleen
48. Haut Batailley
49. Batailley
50. Langoa Barton
51. St. Pierre
52. Cantenac Brown
53. Boyd Cantenac
54. Les Ormes de Pez
55. Phelan Segur
56. de Lamarque

[stefan]

L-L is moving in the right direction.

[JimHow]

I did it for you, Stefan.
I believe in the spirit of compromise.

[robert goulet]

Place Pavie as a cru Bourgeios

[DavidG]

Some movement in the right direction! Who said a dictatorship can’t be bipartisan?

[robert goulet]

Some might consider Pontet Canet higher .....considering it has garnered a 100 point wine...what other 4th growth can say that, or even a 3rd growth, maybe SHL?(that's if SHL was an actual third growth which, I think is completely justified)

[OrlandoRobert]

Some might consider Pontet Canet higher .....considering it has garnered a 100 point wine...what other 4th growth can say that, or even a 3rd growth, maybe SHL?

Yea, but. It’s Pontet Canet. Pass.

[JimHow]

Yeah, I have Pontet Canet at the cusp between Fourth and Third growths. I could possibly move it to the bottom of Third Growth but I'll leave it as a Fourth for now.

[Claudius2]

Jim
I think you are rather tough on:
Lynch Bages (I’d say 3rd)
Branaire
Gruaud Larose (was off form for a while but has been on good form lately)
Leoville Poyferre
Malescot St E
Beychevelle
La Lagune
Dom Chevalier
St Pierre

There are a few I think you are rather soft on a few Cru Bourgeois and a few others but I don’t really mind either way. Kirwan for example.

You have downgraded Cos Labory though both the 09 and 10 are very good and I’d also leave Camensac as a 5th but only just. Neither Rausan Gassies or La Tour Carnet are easy to justify as classed growths however.

I know you are reluctant to upgrade any wine to Premier Cru though surely LMHB deserves that rank even if you don’t agree with LLC for example.
Cheers
Mark

[JimHow]

Thanks for your input, Mark, that’s what the Aquitaine Papers are all about. It will be interesting to see where Lynch ends up.

[OrlandoRobert]

It's actually a rather solid ranking. My thoughts in bold embedded below. I'd quibble with the number or ranking within each category.

In the spirit and generosity of "BWE Wine Month," as well as my kindness and benevolence, in conjunction with the compromise brokering of Assistant Manager DavidG with that LBJ-like curmudgeon Stefan from Teyxasss, with some assistance from the wise counsel and argument of Barrister Viscount Comte Flaneur of the City of London, United Kingdom, I hereby amend my "Reclassification of the Wines of the Medoc" by elevating Lynch Bages to a fourth growth, and demoting La Lagune to fifth growth status.

So it is written. So it shall be done.

First Growths

1. Lafite Rothschild
2. Margaux
3. Haut Brion
4. Mouton Rothschild
5. Latour
6. La Mission Haut Brion

Second Growths

6. Pichon Longueville Baron
7. Montrose
8. La Mission Haut Brion
9. Ducru Beaucaillou
10. Leoville Las Cases
11. Palmer
12. Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande
13. Cos d’Estournel - demote[/b]
14. Leoville Barton

Third Growths

15. Calon Segur
16. Smith Haut Lafitte - major demotion
17. Haut Bailly - arguably a Second
18. Brane Cantenac
19. Rausan Segla
20. Pape Clement - major demotion
21. Giscours - demote to Fourth
22. d'Issan

Fourth Growths

23. Pontet Canet - demote to Fifth
24. Clerc Milon
25. Branaire Ducru
26. Gruaud Larose - Promote to Third
27. Leoville Poyferre - demote
28. Sociando Mallet - Promote to Third
29. Lafon Rochet
30. Beychevelle - Promote to Third
31. Malescot St. Exupery
32. Duhart Milon - Promote to Third
33. du Tertre
34. Talbot
35. Lagrange
36. Lascombes - Yuk, total demotion off the ranking[/b]
37. Prieure Lichine
38. Domaine de Chevalier - arguably a Third
39. d’Armailhac
40. Kirwan
41. Lynch Bages - Promotion to Second

Fifth Growths

42. La Lagune
43. Gloria
44. Meyney
45. Malartic Lagraviere
46. Cantemerle - arguably a Fourth
47. Chasse Spleen
48. Haut Batailley
49. Batailley
50. Langoa Barton
51. St. Pierre
52. Cantenac Brown
53. Boyd Cantenac
54. Les Ormes de Pez
55. Phelan Segur
56. de Lamarque

[JimHow]

Well done, OB!
I see consensus emerging!
We will have a report for Comte “Alexander Hamilton” Flaneur in due course.

[Nicklasss]

Let's go BD, don't get influenced too much by those thinking Lynch Bages is a Second Growth. A Fourth or maximum a Third.

To be First or Second, the question is : is the Chateau is making the expected excellent or great wine it can, every vintage? Unfortunately, i think the answer for Lynch Bages is... no. And I believe the people in Lynch Bages are always doing the best they can every vintage, but at the end, it is the terroir that makes the difference, so the reason for the classification.

Nic

[JimHow]

Yeah, it's a tricky question with Lynch Bages.
The 1980s was like a period of Camelot in Bordeaux, numerous wines up their game in most of the years of the decade, including the likes of Gruaud, Lynch, and others. If we are just considering the 80s, Lynch and Gruaud should be considered for second growth status.

[OrlandoRobert]

If we are just considering the 80s, Lynch and Gruaud should be considered for second growth status.

Without a doubt!

The Golden Era.

[jal]

Without a doubt!

The Golden Era.

Exactly. What classified growth underperformed in the eighties? They were all for the most part overachievers. Maybe Ducru with its cellar issues? Maybe a couple of vintages of Clerc Milon or d'Armailhac? Exceptions that prove the rule, imo. On the whole I think every wine I tasted from 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, and 89 (ok, and 90 as well) outperformed its 90s production.

[robert goulet]

It's actually a rather solid ranking. My thoughts in bold embedded below. I'd quibble with the number or ranking within each category.

In the spirit and generosity of "BWE Wine Month," as well as my kindness and benevolence, in conjunction with the compromise brokering of Assistant Manager DavidG with that LBJ-like curmudgeon Stefan from Teyxasss, with some assistance from the wise counsel and argument of Barrister Viscount Comte Flaneur of the City of London, United Kingdom, I hereby amend my "Reclassification of the Wines of the Medoc" by elevating Lynch Bages to a fourth growth, and demoting La Lagune to fifth growth status.

So it is written. So it shall be done.

First Growths

1. Lafite Rothschild
2. Margaux
3. Haut Brion
4. Mouton Rothschild
5. Latour
6. La Mission Haut Brion

Second Growths

6. Pichon Longueville Baron
7. Montrose
8. La Mission Haut Brion
9. Ducru Beaucaillou
10. Leoville Las Cases
11. Palmer
12. Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande
13. Cos d’Estournel - demote[/b]
14. Leoville Barton

Third Growths

15. Calon Segur
16. Smith Haut Lafitte - major demotion
17. Haut Bailly - arguably a Second
18. Brane Cantenac
19. Rausan Segla
20. Pape Clement - major demotion
21. Giscours - demote to Fourth
22. d'Issan

Fourth Growths

23. Pontet Canet - demote to Fifth
24. Clerc Milon
25. Branaire Ducru
26. Gruaud Larose - Promote to Third
27. Leoville Poyferre - demote
28. Sociando Mallet - Promote to Third
29. Lafon Rochet
30. Beychevelle - Promote to Third
31. Malescot St. Exupery
32. Duhart Milon - Promote to Third
33. du Tertre
34. Talbot
35. Lagrange
36. Lascombes - Yuk, total demotion off the ranking[/b]
37. Prieure Lichine
38. Domaine de Chevalier - arguably a Third
39. d’Armailhac
40. Kirwan
41. Lynch Bages - Promotion to Second

Fifth Growths

42. La Lagune
43. Gloria
44. Meyney
45. Malartic Lagraviere
46. Cantemerle - arguably a Fourth
47. Chasse Spleen
48. Haut Batailley
49. Batailley
50. Langoa Barton
51. St. Pierre
52. Cantenac Brown
53. Boyd Cantenac
54. Les Ormes de Pez
55. Phelan Segur
56. de Lamarque

By the way.... I'm bringing nothing but SHL when I come down to your beach house and maybe a Lascombe or 2.

[robert goulet]

I would move Haut Brion to #1 overall rank.

[Musigny 151]

First Growths
Latour
Haut Brion
Lafite
Margaux
La Mission
Mouton
Palmer
Pichon Lalande

Second Growths
Ducru
Montrose
Pichon Baron
Rauzan Segla
Haut Bailly
Lynch Bages
Domaine de Chevalier pre 1990

Third Growths
Leoville Las Cases
Leoville Poyferre
Leoville Barton
Gruaud Larose
Domaine de Chevalier post 1990
Cos d’Estournel

Too lazy to do the rest.

[Claudius2]

Guys
Lascombes is nowhere near a second but maybe a fifth growth?
Cheers
Mark

[JimHow]

Yeah, I might have Lascombes too high at Fourth Growth.

[Racer Chris]

How about moving Cantenac Brown to 4th? Trading places with Lascombes.

[DavidG]

I would move Haut Brion to #1 overall rank.

+1

[rthomaspaull]

I wonder if anyone is interested in a recent (2004-2016 excluding 2013) evaluation of which left bank red Bordeaux wines deseve first growth status.
Ratings through 2012 were those of Robert Parker, for 2014 those of Neal Martin, and for 2015-2016 those of an average of Neal Martin and Antonio Galloni scores. (I have made postings on the Wine Berserkers forum on this subject). rthomaspaull