1855 Classification

[StBlGT]

I know there is currently some work going on to make a 21st century classification on this forum, but I was just curious on what everyone's opinion is on this topic.

Without eliminating any of the current chateaux in the 1855 classification, and without including any of the 1st Growths or adding any chateaux that aren't in the 1855 classification, what would your following be:

1. Top 5 BEST chateaux.
2. Top 5 WORST chateaux.

I haven't drank enough to really answer this, but for those who have much tasting experience with these wines, what do you think?

[Comte Flaneur]

In the current 1855 classification, which btw excludes La Mission, and according to your criteria to exclude firsts, the top five would include Palmer, Leoville Lascases, Montrose, Ducru and the Pichons.

[jckba]

In the current 1855 classification, which btw excludes La Mission, and according to your criteria to exclude firsts, the top five would include Palmer, Leoville Lascases, Montrose, Ducru and the Pichons.

That’s 6 but it’s hard to disagree with those mentioned except for maybe the order in which they fall.

[StBlGT]

Thanks for the replies. I kind of figured the top 5 would probably fall into those chateaux. I would also be interested in everyone's opinions on the top chateaux that you think aren't living up to their classification. This is where it seems to get a little more interesting to me.

[AKR]

I know there is currently some work going on to make a 21st century classification on this forum, but I was just curious on what everyone's opinion is on this topic.

Without eliminating any of the current chateaux in the 1855 classification, and without including any of the 1st Growths or adding any chateaux that aren't in the 1855 classification, what would your following be:

1. Top 5 BEST chateaux.
2. Top 5 WORST chateaux.

I haven't drank enough to really answer this, but for those who have much tasting experience with these wines, what do you think?

Its very unfair that the right bank is being excluded. Right Bank Matters!

[Tom In DC]

It's difficult for any amateur to know with any certainty who the five biggest underachievers are, as tasting very broadly would be required.

There are a bunch of classified growths that I avoid due to reputation aa well as my experience when I was very adventurous a long time ago - "How can a classified growth be that bad?"

But I cannot state for certain that they continue to underwhelm for their rank and pricing. These days, frugality and limited disposable brain cells makes me concentrate on known quantities.

[DavidG]

It's difficult for any amateur to know with any certainty who the five biggest underachievers are, as tasting very broadly would be required.

There are a bunch of classified growths that I avoid due to reputation aa well as my experience when I was very adventurous a long time ago - "How can a classified growth be that bad?"

But I cannot state for certain that they continue to underwhelm for their rank and pricing. These days, frugality and limited disposable brain cells makes me concentrate on known quantities.

What Tom said.

We do have an ongoing thread for underachievers here, but not strictly limited to the GCC:
http://www.bordeauxwineenthusiasts.com/ ... f=4&t=9446

[DavidG]

In the current 1855 classification, which btw excludes La Mission, and according to your criteria to exclude firsts, the top five would include Palmer, Leoville Lascases, Montrose, Ducru and the Pichons.

That’s 6 but it’s hard to disagree with those mentioned except for maybe the order in which they fall.

If limited to 5 I’d drop LLC because it takes sooooo loooong to come around. It’s the Dunn Howell Mountain of Bordeaux (or vice versa?). Maybe not a negative characteristic for most. I may be impatient - 20 years ought to do it.

[rthomaspaull]

I think I would choose currently Cos D'Estournel before Pichon Lalande, and Pontet Canet before Pichon Baron. I do not think I would drop LLC but I am not sure what to drop instead. rthomaspaull

[Claudius2]

Best five other than Premiers Crus:
LMHB
LLC
Ducru B despite a few issues in 86-90
Palmer
Pichon Lalande and/or Cos Destourel just ahead of Montrose.

Worst Classed Growths:
Rausan Gassies
La Tour Carnet
Croizet Bages
Lynch Moussas
Belgrave or Pedesclax

[stefan]

Best:
LMHB
Pichon-Lalande
Ducru-Beaucaillou
Cos d'Estournel
Pichon-Baron

Worst:
Rausan Gassies
Lynch Moussas
Many others

but the worst loser of all, which no one should waste money on, is

La Lagune

[Comte Flaneur]

Point of order stefan and Claudius:

LMHB, unlike Haut-Brion, is not in the 1855 classification and therefore ineligible according to STBIGTT’s criteria.

[OrlandoRobert]

My least favorite 1855s, since they turned modern and glossy:

Lascombes
St-Pierre
Leoville Poyferre
Cos d’Estournel

[robert goulet]

Really liked 2003 Lascombes I had recently! I'm trying to get more!!! ParkerProud

[JimHow]

See now there you go!
I liked the 2003 Lascombes as well.
As for the 2004 that the Brothers Blanquito and I had with the Seattle model and Alfred Tesseron in the lobby of the Ritz at Central Park South, I think I can still taste the wood.

[rthomaspaull]

I think (but am not sure) I would drop Ducru Beaucaillou while keeping Montrose and LLC. rthomaspaull

[Claudius2]

Jim
I sent my 2004 Lascombes to auction some yrs ago.
Not only did it taste like oak，it was too acidic and tannic.
The wine also put me off 2004 per se.

While I don’t think a lot of it, the five wines I mentioned were worse to my palate. I’d leave it a fifth growth, The five I’ve mentioned should be downgraded to CB,

Ian if only classed growths fit then I’ll add either Cos or Montrose.

[rthomaspaull]

I do realize nobody may be interested, but in case someone other than me is I am giving the results of my recently mentioned "survey" {2004 trhrough 2016 excluding 2013, scores through 2012 by Robert Parker, 2014 by Neal Martin & 2015-6 by an average of Neal Martin and Antonio Galloni). In the following W.A.V.R. = Wine Advocate Vintage Rating. The expected score for the top 2 wines in a sub-area = {(100 + average W.A.V.R.)/2. For the period this for St.Estephe/Pauillac/St.Julien is a rounded 93, so 193?2 = 96.5 and 96.5-2.5 (as posted elsewhere by me) =94.0, the minimum for a "first growth".
For Margaux it is a rounded 91: 191/2 = 95.5 and 95.5 -2.5 = 93.0, and for Pessac Leognan it is a rounded 92: 192/2 = 96.0 and 96.0 -2.5 = 93.5 .
Average scores were ronded to the nearest decimal point.
In Pauillac etc. the following qualify: Latour 97.6 (3rd overall), Lafite 96.8, Pontet Canet 96.4, Mouton Rothschild and Leoville Las Cases 96.2, Ducru
Beaucaillou 96.0, Montrose 95.7, Cos D'Estournel 95.2, Leoville Poyferre and Pichon Baron 94.9. Pichon Lalande is a special case at 93.95, while Leoville Barton at 93 .3 and Lynch Bages at 93.1 do not make it.
In Margaux, Chateau Margaux at 97.1 (4th equal overall), Palmer at 95.3 and Rauzan-Segla at 93.8 make it, while Malescot-Saint-Exupery at 92.9 barely misses in this sub-area.
In Pessac Leognan there are 2 "super firsts", Haut Brion 98.3 (first overall) and La Mission Haut Brion 97.7 (2nd overall). Also making it are Pape Clement 97.1 (equal 4th overall), Haut Bailly 96.1, Smith Haut Lafitte 95.2 and (barely) Domaine de Chevalier 93.5. rthomaspaull

[rthomaspaull]

Re the original question, for the 5 best chateaux of the non-firsts, my admittedly recent evaluation would seem to point to Pontet Canet, LLC, Ducru Beaucaillou, Montrose and Palmer (just ahead of Cos D'Estournel ). My earlier guesses were none too good. rthomaspaull

[OrlandoRobert]

I do realize nobody may be interested, but in case someone other than me is I am giving the results of my recently mentioned "survey" {2004 trhrough 2016 excluding 2013, scores through 2012 by Robert Parker, 2014 by Neal Martin & 2015-6 by an average of Neal Martin and Antonio Galloni). In the following W.A.V.R. = Wine Advocate Vintage Rating. The expected score for the top 2 wines in a sub-area = {(100 + average W.A.V.R.)/2. For the period this for St.Estephe/Pauillac/St.Julien is a rounded 93, so 193?2 = 96.5 and 96.5-2.5 (as posted elsewhere by me) =94.0, the minimum for a "first growth".
For Margaux it is a rounded 91: 191/2 = 95.5 and 95.5 -2.5 = 93.0, and for Pessac Leognan it is a rounded 92: 192/2 = 96.0 and 96.0 -2.5 = 93.5 .
Average scores were ronded to the nearest decimal point.
In Pauillac etc. the following qualify: Latour 97.6 (3rd overall), Lafite 96.8, Pontet Canet 96.4, Mouton Rothscliild and Leoville Las Cases 96.2, Ducru
Beaucaillou 96.0, Montrose 95.7, Cos D'Estournel 95.2, Leoville Poyferre and Pichon Baron 94.9. Pichon Lalande is a special case at 93.95, while Leoville Barton at 93 .3 and Lynch Bages at 93.1 do not make it,6.1
In Margaux, Chateau Margaux at 97.1 (4th equal overall), Palmer at 95.3 and Rauzan-Segla at 93.8 make it, while Malescot-Saint-Exupery at 92.9 barely misses in this sub-area.
In Pessac Leognan there are 2 "super firsts", Haut Brion 98.3 (first overall) and La Mission Haut Brion 97.7 (2nd overall). Also making it are Pape Clement 97.1 (equal 4th overall), Haut Bailly 96.1, Smith Haut Lafitte 95.2 and (barely) Domaine de Chevalier 93.5. rthomaspaull

The inherent flaw in this aggregation of mathematical data is that it does not account for stylistic preferences in any fashion. Perhaps that is a byproduct of the selection of critics you use for the pool of scores, but I would posit the approach remains flawed regardless. Your last sentence grounds that point home to me. While I concur about Haut Brion and La Mission Haut Brion, there is no scenario in which I would rank or even buy Pape Clement and Smith Haut Lafite. Unless they have transformed again after the 2010 vintage, these wines are modern abominations - thank Rolland, Derenoncourt, Magrez, et al.

[rthomaspaull]

To Orlando Robert: I consider your criticism valid, but "chacun a son gout". My wife and I only buy in quantity wines we really lke. I quite often concur with the critics I mentioned, especially Antonio Galloni. I can see how some wines technically merit a high score though they are not to my liking. As stylistic preferences differ quite a lot, and I only know those of relatively few people, I do not know how to account for them. Nearly all the wines i mentioned are too high priced for me to buy (my wife drinks little red), but luckily welcome anomalies can be found if one works at it. I consider myself fortunate in liking several different (though not all) styles of left bank red Bordeaux. rthomaspaull

[Claudius2]

Guys
I see data aggregation such as this as more of an academic exercise for a whole list of reasons and the order of best to worst will of course be a matter of preference.

Having said that, I find the rankings to be quite useful. I have always regarded LMHB as a first growth by any other name. Also interesting that Mouton is rated the same as LLC which supports my argument that if Mouton is a first then LLC should be as well.

Not sure about the very high points for Pontet Canet and Pape Clement though. Others appear to like both more than me. That is not to disparage either - I simply prefer other wines more. Pretty sure I’d rated both as third growths previously..

Richard, thanks for taking the time to do this. Do you have the same data for the Libounais wines?

Cheers
Mark

[rthomaspaull]

To Claudius 2: Thanks for your message. I still do not have access to my source material, which is only about left bank red Bordeaux, so had to look up scores on the internet. It did not take long due to the limited time frame, but I do not plan to repeat it for other wines. Regards, rthomaspaull

[Musigny 151]

To Robert’s point, whether or not you like a wine is totally subjective. Aggregating scores in the hope of giving it some kind of spurious objectivity is just an exercise in futility.

I don’t like scores at the best of times. I appreciate the work that went into this, but can’t help feeling you are better off going out and buying the bottle, and coming up with your own values.

Nothing beats actually tasting the wine. And if you want to keep the cost down, do this with friends.

[Musigny 151]

Robert beware Haut Brion and LMHB ‘09 and ‘10. Not the classic old school wines I hoped for.

[DavidG]

I agree with Robert that critics' scores ignore style differences. Similarly, and I think Richard acknowledges this when he says they only buy in quantity wines that they really like, the critics' scores don't always align with personal preference. Those different preferences get further muddled when you aggregate scores from multiple critics with different palates.

Critics' scores are fine if you're using the critics as a buying or exploring guide and making the final decisions based on personal preference, though TNs can be much more informative than scores alone. Critics' scores don't hold up at all as a basis for a personal classification. That ranking is mine, not someone else's.

[Claudius2]

Musigny/David
I don’t use 100 pt scores for all the reasons discussed.
I’ve also made up jokes about it like this:

Q: How do you pick the Nouveau Riche at a wine tasting?
A: they have two wine critics with them to tell them what wines they will like.

Drinker: ugh this wine tastes like road tar!
Critic: The wine Observer gave it 100 points
Drinker: I’ll take three cases.

Q: what do you need to be a good modern day wine critic?
A: A refractometer.

Q: what’s the difference between a 100 RP point wine and bitumen emulsion?
A: The price.

In relation to tasting notes, I’m not sure that they are much better. How often do you try a wine that is described as having black fruit and you open it and taste cranberry, red currant or strawberry?
Or you read a note that says the wine is the opposite to the review, like hi vs lo acid and/tannins etc, or the critic describes it having complexity when it is plain and simple to you?

I also question the altruism of critics - they won’t get samples and bottles if they shitbag the wines, they see themselves sometimes as aides to the industry and they are more agreeable about wines when they are friends with the producer or distributors.

I mainly buy Bdx on EP and it is rather scary. I don’t have a chance to go to the annual tastings nor do the distributors put on many anymore, and the few regular events were skittled by Covid-19.

So I simply have to accept that we cannot gain much from notes other than when we get numerous tasters using the same terms independently. And I really don’t think that happens much.

For backfilling I douse Cellartracker but there is a tendency for The Central limit theorem to be applied - there is an annoying pattern of all wines getting scores in a narrow range and with a Low standard deviation.

Cheers
Mark

[Musigny 151]

One more.
“If you think I am a snob, you should talk to my sommelier.”

[rthomaspaull]

I love Musigny's witticism. For a longer term view, for which there is something to be said for using scores (though I rate wines in practice only by tasting them) one could combine my results above with what I call "Grundeken" {because I think grundeken was part of its short-lived internet address, beginning in I believe mid-2004. Grundeken was an article titled "Reclassifying Bordeaux Using Wine Advocate ratings" giving average Robert Parker (and only Robert Parker) scores from 1982 to 2003 (excluding 4 poor years). 2002 and 2003 ratings were presumably from barrel rather than bottle.} First growths had to average a minimum of 92.5 and second growths a minimum of 90.0 (successive minima after that were 88.0, 86.5 and 85.0).
The article listed the "First Growths " in descending order as Lafite -Rothschild 94.6, LLC 94.1, Margaux 93.9, Haut-Brion 93.8, Latour 93.5 and Mouton-Rothschild 92.9 . The "second growths" were in descending order La Mission Haut-Brion 92.2, Pichon Lalande 91.6, Cos D,Estournel 91.1, Lynch-Bages 90.8,
Montrose 90.7, Ducru-Beaucaillou and Leoville Barton 90,6, and Pichon Baron 90.1 . (Leoville Poyferre and GPL just miss at 89.9) rthomaspaull

[rthomaspaull]

Looking back to the original question, combining with equal weights "Grundeken" and my more recent results, for the top 5 "non-first growths" of 1855 classification Bordeaux one would appear to get in descending order LLC, Ducru-Beaucaillou, Montrose, Cos D'Estournel and Pichon Lalande, at least at a quick initial assessment. rthomaspaull

[Claudius2]

Looking back to the original question, combining with equal weights "Grundeken" and my more recent results, for the top 5 "non-first growths" of 1855 classification Bordeaux one would appear to get in descending order LLC, Ducru-Beaucaillou, Montrose, Cos D'Estournel and Pichon Lalande, at least at a quick initial assessment. rthomaspaull

Palmer doesn’t get a look in here?
I largely agree otherwise,
Cheers
Mark

[rthomaspaull]

To Claudius 2: Palmer and Pontet Canet did relatively badly in "Grundeken", so they both miss the top 5. I realize I have used 3 tasters (2 only recently) instead of 1, but their scores for wines 2 or 3 of them rate are usually very similar. Over a long period I think the resulting "top 5" are pretty convincing.
Regards, rthomaspaull

[rthomaspaull]

To all: please say if vou can improve on the 5 choices for long-term (1982-2016 excluding 5 poor years) for best non-first growth Bordeauc classified in 1855. Essentially they were chosen by Robert Parker. rthomaspaull

[DavidG]

To all: please say if vou can improve on the 5 choices for long-term (1982-2016 excluding 5 poor years) for best non-first growth Bordeauc classified in 1855. Essentially they were chosen by Robert Parker. rthomaspaull

Montrose
Palmer
Pichon Lalande
Pichon Baron
Ducru - if we ignore their TCA debacle

La Mission instead of Ducru if it were eligible, but it’s not per your criteria.

[JimHow]

I have to go with the first five wines in the second growth category of my 2021 BWE Reclassification of the Wines of the Medoc:

6. Pichon Baron
7. Montrose
8. LMHB
9. Ducru
10. LLC

If no LMHB, then... Palmer.

[Claudius2]

To all: please say if vou can improve on the 5 choices for long-term (1982-2016 excluding 5 poor years) for best non-first growth Bordeauc classified in 1855. Essentially they were chosen by Robert Parker. rthomaspaull

Montrose
Palmer
Pichon Lalande
Pichon Baron
Ducru - if we ignore their TCA debacle

La Mission instead of Ducru if it were eligible, but it’s not per your criteria.

David
The issue was not TCA and I’ve also qualified my rankings on the same basis.
The culprit was a fungicide used in the Chais which badly tainted the wines made in the mid to late 80s. I think 1990 was the last. The crazy part of the story was that the product used to get rid of fungus was in fact what gave the wine a taint that was similar to TCA. Unfortunately it took some time to catch the culprit thus five vintages - which should have been top vintages other than 87.

Until then DB was absolutely one of my favourite wines from anywhere and I hunted it at auctions back in Australia. Now like other super seconds the price here (they are more expensive in Asia) has escalated and I only occasionally get to drink it.

During the same period Gruaud-Larose also suffered and it took some time to return it to its prior status. The Cordier family which owned the estate were having internal problems as well as financial issues and this eventually led to divestment of GL. The sister of my best friend at school married into the family and I heard a few juicy details some years ago. Oh well. But now GL is well below the price of other seconds so at least I can buy it.
Cheers
Mark

[rthomaspaull]

I did a study for 2002-2014 (excluding 2013; bottle ratings only): through 2012 by Robert Parker and for 2014 by Neal Martin, covering many left bank red Bordeaux form 2002-2014 (excluding 2013). Combining this with "Grundeken" I only came up with 2 wines from the 1855 classification as being sub-par in both periods: Croizet-Bages and Marquis D'Alesme Becker. Sevaral other chateaux failed Grundeken" but were "incomplete" in my study', though generally with some indication of improvement.
Since about 1980 I have not bought a first growth (the closest to Latour I have come is Pauillac de Latour, provided by a friend). The only wines that I can remember (sometimes including second wines, broadly construed) that seemed to have first growth or near first growth potential under my system, were: 1982 LLC (and later its "second wine"), 1982 Pichon lalande, some Pichon Baron, some (not happily) Leoville Barton ( I preferred Langoa Barton at that tme), several Leoville Poyferres, 2011 and 2012 Pontet Canet, 2012 Rauzan Segla, 2012 Malescot-Saint-Exupery, 2012 Alter Ego de Palmer, 2010 La Dame de Montrose, several Cos D'Estournel (including the 1985) and quite a few vintages of Domaine de Chevalier Rouge. These and several other chateux provided a lot of drinking enjoyment to my wife and myself (mainly the latter as she drinks mainly white wine) at what I considered very reasonable prices, and now we have a lot of low or very low quality first growth in a fine year wines, again at very reasonable prices. There has been some improvement in wine-making (as well as generally in vintage ratings) since first growths were affordable. No doubt they are better now, but I consider their prices ridiculously high even if they all scored 100 every year. I did drink a 1975 Lafite but I would not buy it even at a low price. Best wishes to all, rthomaspaull

[rthomaspaull]

Apologies to eveyone: I seem to have miscalculated , or perhaps there have been revised scores for wines, or perhaps both, but as of 8-28-2020 here is a llist in descending order of those that qualify for 2004-2016 (excluding 2013, as previously) as "first growths" in all sub-areas: Haut Brion 96.75 (!), Latour
96.5 (2), La Mission Haut Brion 95.9 (3), Margaux a slightly lower 95.9 (4), Lafite and Pape Clement 95.6 (equal 5), Pontet Canet 95.4 (7),Haut Bailly 95.3 (8), LLC & Palmer 95.2 (equal 9), Ducru Beaucaillou and Smith Haut Lafitte 94.9 (equal 11), Mouton Rothschild 94.8 (13), Cos D'Estournel and Montrose 94.6(equal 14), Leoville Poyferre 94.4 (16) and Pichon Baron 94.1 (17). No other chateaux make it in Pauillac etc., while in Margaux Rauzan- Segla (93.0) just makes it (Malescot-Saint-Exupery at 92.9 just misses), and in Pessac Leognan Domaine de Chevalier at 93.5 barely makes it. Sorry about having to revise things, rthomaspaull

[rthomaspaull]

The top 5 after the first growths still seem to be (in a slightly different descending order, combining Grundeken at equal weights with my later study, LLC, Cos D'Estournel, Ducru Beaucaillou, Montrose and Pichon Lalande. I twice tried to make a longer post on this subject but for some weird unstated reason was told that the form was invalid. I would be interested in seeing the "top 6-10" of any other members for 1982-2016 (excluding 5 poor years). rthomaspaull

[rthomaspaull]

The chateaux in my last post were essentially chosen by Robert Parker. Though I sometimes disagreed with him, the average scores for wines that we both tasted (a really tiny fraction of what he tasted), were remarkably close. I know many disagree with him, but he was certainly very influential. All the best to everyone, rthomaspaull