The Aquitaine Papers: BWE 2021 Bordeaux Classification

[Antoine]

Had a look again...
Pessac: SHL and Pape Clement ahead of Domaine de Chevalier and at same level as Haut Bailly? Domaine de Chevalier at same level as ...?
Pauillac : Lynch Bages at same level as super second and one up on Pontet Canet?
St Emilion: Angelus won't be happy... but I don't know this wine. Bettane very bullish on la Gaffeliere by the way (and also Chevalier 5 star versus SHL and PC 4 stars... ).

[rthomaspaull]

To Comte Flaneur: I think there is a lot to be said for your reclassification of left bank red Bordeaux, Receently under the StBlGT's 1855 classification thread I posted what is essentially a summary of Robert Parker's average scores for the leaders among such wines from 1982-2003 (excluding 4 poor years)and from 2004-2016 (excluding 2013), as well as a combination of the 2 periods giving equal weight to each, Please let me know what your time frame is. rthomaspaull

[JimHow]

Just want to make sure I have my updated ranking in this historic thread, including the historic elevation of Lynch Bages to Fourth Growth, for the first time in official history, I believe, and, in the spirit of Lyndon Johnson style Texas compromise, demoting La Lagune to Fifth Growth....

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

[JimHow]

I feel cheap elevating Lynch to even fourth growth, I’m teetering toward sending it back to fifth where it belongs, but I’m trying to resolve this matter in the spirit of compromise. The silly modern notion that it should jump not one, not two, but THREE categories... so silly. Don’t make me laugh. It cheapens the product of Bordeaux. Stare decisis should be altered in only the most incremental , minuscule, of denominations. Come on folks... we are talking about two centuries of history here. You’re just going to flippantly elevate Lynch from 5th to 2nd? Gross. So predictable.

[DavidG]

I’m starting to think that the LB in Jimmy LB How doesn’t stand for Lynch Bages but for Lyndon Baines.

[Antoine]

Can't see Dufort Vivens in any category (2nd growth?)
Many decades ago Dufort Vivens and Lascombes (together with some SHL which was also cheap...) were some of the first fine Bordeaux I bought because they were cheap.(maybe for a reason...).. and had 2nd growth status... So, I could afford top Bordeaux... I learnt a bit later..

[camiwine]

Hello Lads,

Jimmy nice classification but I would make some little adjustement -

If you're not willing to increase any estate to the top tier and instead make a very qualitative second tier and third tier : here is my suggestion -


First Growths

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

Second Growths

6. Pichon Longueville Baron => that should go down to 3rd tier
7. Montrose => that should maybe go down to 3rd tier
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 => that should go down to 3rd tier

Third Growths

15. Calon Segur
16. Smith Haut Lafitte
17. Haut Bailly
18. Brane Cantenac
19. Rauzan Segla
20. Pape Clement => that should go to 4th tier
21. Giscours => that should go to 4th tier
22. d'Issan => that should go to 4th tier
xx. Carmes Haut Brion I would add it to the 3rd tier

Pontet Canet should go up to 3rd tier
Leoville Poyferre should definitely go up to 3rd tier !

I'm not going to dig more into the 4th & 5th tier but I would add Ch. Labegorce & Grand Puy Lacoste as a classified growth too (I edited my comment about adding Sociando & chasse Spleen somewhere, they are indeed already in your classification )

[JimHow]

Well done, camiwine, although you had me scared there for a minute, I do have Sociando in at 28 and Chasse Spleen at 47.

[Nicklasss]

For La Lagune, i feel it is more a 4th Growth. Personally, it is sure i like more La Lagune than du Tertre, Lascombes, Prieuré Lichine or Kirwan. Clearly the last 4 have not been as regular as La Lagune since the 80's.

And for Lynch Bages, sharing the same terroir as... Croizet-Bages. Let me all the 1989 Croizet-Bages available!

[Comte Flaneur]

Had a look again...
Pessac: SHL and Pape Clement ahead of Domaine de Chevalier and at same level as Haut Bailly? Domaine de Chevalier at same level as ...?
Pauillac : Lynch Bages at same level as super second and one up on Pontet Canet?
St Emilion: Angelus won't be happy... but I don't know this wine. Bettane very bullish on la Gaffeliere by the way (and also Chevalier 5 star versus SHL and PC 4 stars... ).

I have also heard very good things about La Gaff Antoine.

I plan to publish my upgraded classification over these Easter holidays, taking due account of all your representations, for which I am most humbly grateful.

Just one observation, however: what the market is telling us is not irrelevant. An estate like Lynch-Bages has similar production to, and commands similar prices to, the two Pichons. This is an important data point to take into account.

CFdB

[Nicklasss]

Just one observation, however: what the market is telling us is not irrelevant. An estate like Lynch-Bages has similar production to, and commands similar prices to, the two Pichons. This is an important data point to take into account.

CFdB

This is a fair and good observation Ian. So Jim, you can send the two Pichons at the 4th Growth level with the Lynch.

[JimHow]

Comte makes a relevant point, the original 1855 classification resulted largely from the prices wines were fetching in the market. As we continue this exercise, I give great weight and reverence to historical precedent. It’s how we lawyers operate. Moving from fifth growth to even fourth growth should not be shrugged at. We should have reverence for history and tradition. Moving up a whole classification is a big deal. It SHOULD be a big deal. Otherwise, la di da, if we are nonchalantly moving wines from fifth growth to second growth like we are handing out gumballs, we’re just internet noise, throwing out comments like some comments section in a Yahoo “news” story or some such meaningless waste of energy.

I stand firm in my position, indeed, I consider it a major compromise/concession to elevate Lynch even to fourth.

[rthomaspaull]

I did a study for the relatively short period 2002-2014 (excluding 2013), with all ratings from bottle and all by Robert Parker except 2014 by Neal Martin.The average Wine Advocate Rating fo the period for Pauillac etc. was a rounded 92. (100 +92=192. 192/2 = 96, the same as the average for the top 2 wines in left bank red Bordeaux. If 96 is the expected score for the top 2 wines in the area (and they do average 96.0, see later) then the bottom score for first growths is 96-2.5 = 93,5 (I have posted elsewhere about the 2.5). In descending order the chateaux qualifying for first growth status for the period (I realize there will be many dissenting opinions and they may well be right) are: Latour 96,3, Lafite 95.7, Haut Brion 95.5,Margaux and Pape Clement 95.4, La Mission Haut Brion and LLC 94.8 [perhaps one should stop there for the firsts for the limited period], Pontet Canet 94.6,Cos D'Estournel and Montrose 94.4 (Cos slightly higher),Haut Bailly 94.3,Palmer 94.2,Ducru Beaucaillou and Smith Haut Lafitte 94,1,Mouton Rothschild 93.9, and Leoville Poyferre 93.8. The period is really short and likely should be componded with "Grundeken" (elsewhere with presumably 2002-3 barrel ratings). I actually have combined Grudeken elsewhere with a 2004-16 (excluding 2013) study I did later.

[Comte Flaneur]

To Comte Flaneur: I think there is a lot to be said for your reclassification of left bank red Bordeaux, Receently under the StBlGT's 1855 classification thread I posted what is essentially a summary of Robert Parker's average scores for the leaders among such wines from 1982-2003 (excluding 4 poor years)and from 2004-2016 (excluding 2013), as well as a combination of the 2 periods giving equal weight to each, Please let me know what your time frame is. rthomaspaull

Hi Paul, I was thinking a longish timeframe with more weight given to more recent years/decades. One reservation I have with Parker, and reliance on his scores, is that it tends to favour ‘Parkerised’ - synonymous just about with ‘Rollandised’ - wines, which is why is wines like Pape Clement and Leoville Poyferre do well. While we all admire Parker and what he has done BWE palates are not generally well aligned with his palate, and in the post Parker era the Parkerisation has been dialled back a bit.

[Claudius2]

Richard
You are doing a good job of proving my rather controversial point that Mouton is really a second in most vintages, and I still argue that it’s 1973 reclassification- whilst not entirely undeserved - was largely political, though that is life.

In my own classification my top three are Latour, HB and Margaux. Still don’t see Pape Clement being so well rated but I’d say that also about Pontet Canet and the other Pessac wines. Also surprised to see Léoville Poyferre so well rated.

Having said that we are all human and I wonder if any list will ever suit anyone. What I do like about Bordeaux is the sheer number of wines that are so good these days even accepting that we all have different views.

[Nicklasss]

I will follow Jim, and say this is not one person/critic classification or cellartracker's classification, or any other half serious wine lovers site classification.

No, no and no.

Here will be done the only fair, unique, true Bordeaux classification, by true Bordeaux lovers that drink mostly Bordeaux, that are not rating Chateauneuf du Pape and Angélus and Magdelaine 95 points because it is cool to have a non precise nose/palate, that are not putting Pavie as a 1st growth because of it price, that will have a fair assessment about Pontet Canet or Lynch Bages even if they have a special place for us, that will make the real effort to challenge Mouton or Pape Clément or Léoville Barton.

This will be the most serious classification made, even more than the 1855 classification that had Rausan-Gassies (2nd)or Croizet-Bages (5th) in it, that will be the ultimate classification of red wines of Bordeaux, the BWE classification of red wines of Bordeaux.

In two words, it will be LA VÉRITÉ

[DavidG]

Had a look again...
Pessac: SHL and Pape Clement ahead of Domaine de Chevalier and at same level as Haut Bailly? Domaine de Chevalier at same level as ...?
Pauillac : Lynch Bages at same level as super second and one up on Pontet Canet?
St Emilion: Angelus won't be happy... but I don't know this wine. Bettane very bullish on la Gaffeliere by the way (and also Chevalier 5 star versus SHL and PC 4 stars... ).

I have also heard very good things about La Gaff Antoine.

I plan to publish my upgraded classification over these Easter holidays, taking due account of all your representations, for which I am most humbly grateful.

Just one observation, however: what the market is telling us is not irrelevant. An estate like Lynch-Bages has similar production to, and commands similar prices to, the two Pichons. This is an important data point to take into account.

CFdB

Is this a market classification or a BWE classification?

[robert goulet]

One thing becoming evident in this thread — many of you like Smith Haut Lafitte way more than I do. I would put SHL as a 5th Growrh at best in my ranking.

What is it that you have hated so much about SHL, Blanquito?

I've loved the old school SHL from 1990, 1995, and 1996, and into the golden age of SHL, 1998, 99, 200, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 (Bobby G fav).
I'll agree with you, the 2005 was over the top, but we had some of the RMP 100 efforts from 2009 and 2010 and, while you can agree to disagree, they were certainly compelling wines.

I remember drinking the 2001 off the shelf in Chicago with a young man named DavidG in my hotel room back in 2004... we loved it.

For me, one of the highlights of my BWE career was when we went to SHL in 2015. We drove up in our bus, a motorcade was already there, French sharpshooters armed from the rooftops. Danny Fan, the president of Singapore was there, to visit Mr. and Mrs Cathiard... a beautiful French couple, they had met on the epic French Olympic ski team led by Jean Claude Killy, back in, what, '68?... They left the formal dinner with the president of Singapore, to meet with... us... a bunch of shleps from some geeky wine website.... It was a magical moment...

Really? Of the hundreds of rankings in the BWE Re-classification, your bitch is with the estate of our friends the Cathiards from Smith Haut Lafitte... Okay....

By the way.... I take it you didn't enjoy your case of 2002 SHL that you got for $25 each at PJ's? Myself, I LOVED it, drank it up years ago.

Smith Haut Lafitte is a GREAT estate of Bordeaux. I highly recommend you visit it sometime.

Just now catching call this.... first of all, yes...OrlBobby huge dildo!

Second...SHL 5th growth?? Huh??...def. not in agreement.... Blanquito sir, '01 SHL is what converted me to bordeaux...killer stuff...Bobby and I popped the '96 recently...really solid stuff, classic green tobacco, leather and earthy notes...Tasty...'04 is a sleeper gem, had a bottle that stopped me in my tracks....ok '05 was a disaster, and more recent wines appear to have crossed the over a bit to the darkside so I can see some reason for the disdain.

I plan to pop a '98 soon with Bobby...I will report back

[rthomaspaull]

Re Robert Parker: I know many disagree with him a lot but he was very influential. I sometimes disagree with him but the wines we have both tasted (a tiny fraction of those he has tasted) are remarkably close on average. To his credit he liked the 2010 Cantemerle (my wife and I have a lot of it). I am fortunate in liking several (but not all) styles of left bank red Bordeaux. He liked several 2012 Margaux area wines and so do I. Unlike him I do not have the patience generally for Leoville Barton (I am very old). I have found his writings very helpful. Recently a score from adding 1/3 Neal Martin and 2/3 Antonio Galloni is usually very close to the rating I give. rthomaspaull

[rthomaspaull]

To the members of BWE: I would just like to say how much I appreciate the politeness and great perception of the members here. I have had a rough time on a website with (very possibly fittingly) Berserkers in its name, and I really appreciate this website and its members. Many thanks, rthomaspaull

[JimHow]

We are all misfits here, RT, welcome aboard.

[Comte Flaneur]

Had a look again...
Pessac: SHL and Pape Clement ahead of Domaine de Chevalier and at same level as Haut Bailly? Domaine de Chevalier at same level as ...?
Pauillac : Lynch Bages at same level as super second and one up on Pontet Canet?
St Emilion: Angelus won't be happy... but I don't know this wine. Bettane very bullish on la Gaffeliere by the way (and also Chevalier 5 star versus SHL and PC 4 stars... ).

I have also heard very good things about La Gaff Antoine.

I plan to publish my upgraded classification over these Easter holidays, taking due account of all your representations, for which I am most humbly grateful.

Just one observation, however: what the market is telling us is not irrelevant. An estate like Lynch-Bages has similar production to, and commands similar prices to, the two Pichons. This is an important data point to take into account.

CFdB

Is this a market classification or a BWE classification?

It will be a BWE classification David. What I said was that the information value of the market is not irrelevant. So something to bear in mind without driving or overriding our judgement. Particularly pertaining to an estate like Lynch Bages. Neither should we be frightened into only moving estates up and down by one notch. I think there is one think that virtually all critics agree on and that is that Lynch-Bages is equivalent to a second growth. That has been apparent for over three decades. I don’t think we should allow petty grievances to cloud our judgement.

As for SHL count me as a fan. One of the few areas where Blanquito and I diverge. However I think it was pretty mediocre pre-2000. The big step up came around then. The 2002, 2004, 2006 are marvellous, but very hard to track down these days. When I was living in CT I could buy the 2004 for $30 from a store in Pound Ridge called the Wine Connection.

[robert goulet]

I have also heard very good things about La Gaff Antoine.

I plan to publish my upgraded classification over these Easter holidays, taking due account of all your representations, for which I am most humbly grateful.

Just one observation, however: what the market is telling us is not irrelevant. An estate like Lynch-Bages has similar production to, and commands similar prices to, the two Pichons. This is an important data point to take into account.

CFdB

Is this a market classification or a BWE classification?

It will be a BWE classification David. What I said was that the information value of the market is not irrelevant. So something to bear in mind without driving or overriding our judgement. Particularly pertaining to an estate like Lynch Bages. Neither should we be frightened into only moving estates up and down by one notch. I think there is one think that virtually all critics agree on and that is that Lynch-Bages is equivalent to a second growth. That has been apparent for over three decades. I don’t think we should allow petty grievances to cloud our judgement.

As for SHL count me as a fan. One of the few areas where Blanquito and I diverge. However I think it was pretty mediocre pre-2000. The big step up came around then. The 2002, 2004, 2006 are marvellous, but very hard to track down these days. When I was living in CT I could buy the 2004 for $30 from a store in Pound Ridge called the Wine Connection.

First time I had the '04 SHL was at OrlBobby's years back...the price tag still attached...$37.99...ahhh the good ole days...it was tasting it that night that I began to seek out more bottles of the 2004.

[DavidG]

I have also heard very good things about La Gaff Antoine.

I plan to publish my upgraded classification over these Easter holidays, taking due account of all your representations, for which I am most humbly grateful.

Just one observation, however: what the market is telling us is not irrelevant. An estate like Lynch-Bages has similar production to, and commands similar prices to, the two Pichons. This is an important data point to take into account.

CFdB

Is this a market classification or a BWE classification?

It will be a BWE classification David. What I said was that the information value of the market is not irrelevant. So something to bear in mind without driving or overriding our judgement. Particularly pertaining to an estate like Lynch Bages. Neither should we be frightened into only moving estates up and down by one notch. I think there is one think that virtually all critics agree on and that is that Lynch-Bages is equivalent to a second growth. That has been apparent for over three decades. I don’t think we should allow petty grievances to cloud our judgement.

As for SHL count me as a fan. One of the few areas where Blanquito and I diverge. However I think it was pretty mediocre pre-2000. The big step up came around then. The 2002, 2004, 2006 are marvellous, but very hard to track down these days. When I was living in CT I could buy the 2004 for $30 from a store in Pound Ridge called the Wine Connection.

Ian, thank you. I agree with this perspective.

I would also emphasize that this should be about the quality of the wine, not the owners.

[JimHow]

I’m curious how the issue of Lynch Bages is going to be decided.

Is it going to be a second growth because Ian says all the critics say it’s a second growth, or is it going to be something less because BWEers like me, Nicola, and others simply don’t think that, since 1989, with a few exceptions, it has merited that status?

Is it going to rise to second growth status because Ian is not afraid to elevate more than one category, or something less, because others among us are more inclined toward incremental change?

Is it going to be a second growth because of Ian’s enthusiasm for Lynch and thus the influence over his faithful following, or will it be something less because those of us who have a different view from Ian’s are in reality (obviously) merely engaging in petty grievances?

[JoelD]

I’m curious how the issue of Lynch Bages is going to be decided.

Is it going to be a second growth because Ian says all the critics say it’s a second growth, or is it going to be something less because BWEers like me, Nicola, and others simply don’t think that, since 1989, with a few exceptions, it has merited that status?

Is it going to rise to second growth status because Ian is not afraid to elevate more than one category, or something less, because others among us are more inclined toward incremental change?

Is it going to be a second growth because of Ian’s enthusiasm for Lynch and thus the influence over his faithful following, or will it be something less because those of us who have a different view from Ian’s are in reality (obviously) merely engaging in petty grievances?

Firstly, count me as a fan of SHL rouge. I just had the 2006 recently that I bought for $65. Great wine. The 2013 was also surprisingly solid for such a shit vintage. I am actually now very curious to try the bottle of 2005 that I have, and see if it is really the disaster that some say.

Then there's few things I would like to respond to and add to this about the Lynch Bages debate. First off, I lean towards Ian's way of thinking but see Jim's points. All of the Lynch that I've had true sit downs with, merit 2nd growth. Which is the 1989,1990,2000. I have only had others in passing, but they certainly weren't 5th growth for that vintage, 3rd, or maybe 4th at absolute lowest.

With that said, small sample. So I turn to everyone's rankings, I believe most rated LB as a 2nd growth. With a few thirds and Jim's fifth. Why not put it to a final vote? With point values attached to each rank. And find the average. The way they do in sports MVP voting. I believe that Lynch would come out as a low second with that vote. Possibly high third. Certainly not a fourth. But I think this is a fair practice, and something I think should be employed in some way for the final total rankings in general.

As far as incremental change, I honestly don't think that applies to 1855. That was a Long time ago. Maybe if it was 1955. But even still, 99% of our tastings would be for wines made after that. I understand about the terroir and other factors, but its really about the final product right?
The final product has changed a lot with all the advancements in winemaking and cellar cleanliness etc.

The perfect alternative example is Rauzan-Gassies. That was a 2nd growth in 1855. Does anyone even have that on their list? Should it be a 3rd growth for incremental change?

Also, if current prices affected the 1855 classifications, I do believe they should have Some merit now. Current prices for current classification. But just one piece of the puzzle, price does not trump quality and consistency or even a few other factors. I also think critics should have a small factor as well, could argue more or less than the $ commanded.

[Comte Flaneur]

Joel if we put Rauzan-Gazzies as a third we would be laughed out of court.

The question we should be asking of this estate is should we peg this as a fifth or should we declassify it?

[JoelD]

Joel if we put Rauzan-Gazzies as a third we would be laughed out of court.

The question we should be asking of this estate is should we peg this as a fifth or should we declassify it?

Sorry, that was purely meant a good example to counter the incremental change argument that Jim brought up. Which in principle I don't agree with. I have never actually had it, but from everything I've heard it should probably be declassified.

[Comte Flaneur]

Joel I was reinforcing your point. Timidity is not a word or a value I associate or recognise with BWE...After all 1855 was a long time ago...I got given a bottle of 1967 Rauzan Gassies last year. I must try it soon...

[JoelD]

Joel I was reinforcing your point. Timidity is not a word or a value I associate or recognise with BWE...After all 1855 was a long time ago...I got given a bottle of 1967 Rauzan Gassies last year. I must try it soon...

Understood. I'll be curious to hear about the 67. When did this estate completely fall off and anyone know why?

Also, looking back at everyone's rankings. I also see a significant difference between Ian's and Jim's that might be causing part of the issue here. Ian has 25 total wines that are 1st, super 2nd, or 2nd. Jim has 13. By that difference alone, it makes some sense. I will be curious if we can get a real vote together on this. But I think we'll need a little bit tighter parameters to make it effective.

[rthomaspaull]

I did a study covering many left bank red Bordeaux wines from 2002-14 (excluding the poor year 2013: all ratings were from bottle, and through 2012 were by Robert Parker and for 2014 by Neal Martin). As the average Wine Advocate Vintage Rating was a rounded 92 for Pauillac etc. rather than the 90 rounded of Grundeken, 1 point is added to Grundeken's suggested figures for each growth classification. That means first growths have to average 93.5 and second growths have to average 91.0 . Averaging the study at equal weights with Grundeken (1982 -2003 excluding 4 poor years, 2002 & 2003 apparently being from barrel, all scores by Robert Parker) gave an average result in descending order for Grundeken first and second growth chateaux of Lafite 95.15, Latour 94.9, Margaux 94..65, Haut Brion 94.6, LLC 94.45, LMHB 93.5, Mouton Rothschild 93.4 {last of first growths as they have to average a combined 93.0 minimum}, Cos D'Estournel 92.95, Montrose 92.55, Ducru Beaucaillou 92.5, Lynch Bages 92.05, Pichon Lalande 92.0, Pichon Baron 91.7 and Leoville Barton 91.45. Happy Easter (or whatever is preferred) to everyone, rthomaspaull

[rthomaspaull]

Further to my preceding message' there were quite a few chateaux that did not make it as second growths under Grundeken but which qualified over the combined period (minimum average needed 90.5, 2.5 less than the 93.0 needed for "first growths"). In descending order they are: Palmer and Pape Clement 92.35, Leoville Poyferre 91.8, Pontet Canet and Smith Haut Lafitte 91.5, Haut Bailly 90.95, and Grand -Puy-Lacoste 90.5 . rthomaspaull

[Nicklasss]

Let's go all, just finish the debate and put Lynch Bages as a First Growth. BWE will make it mark with that. It is "the poor man Mouton" after all.

But if Lynch is first or second growth, that mean that GPL is fouth growth and Ducru Beaucaillou is also a First Growth? It is more and more confusing.

By the way, on posting, i might look nasty or unforgiving, but it is just to add to the general fun, and it is only grape juice after all. Welcome Paul to BWE and thanks for your great contribution to that classification discussion. .

[robert goulet]

Joel if we put Rauzan-Gazzies as a third we would be laughed out of court.

The question we should be asking of this estate is should we peg this as a fifth or should we declassify it?

Bobby and I had the R.Gassies 2000 last week.... absolutely killer...lovely brine, green tobacco, wet leaves and leathery notes....yum

[rthomaspaull]

The moderator or whatever on this website gives me an enormous amount of trouble, for a reason unknown to me. rthomaspaull

[rthomaspaull]

Many thanks, Nicklasss for the kind words. THe top 6-10 of the 1855 classification, after the first growths, would appear to be in descending order: LLC, Cos D'Estournel, Montrose, Ducru Beaucaillou and Palmer. I like that list, but I am sure there will be other valid answers. Lynch Bages,just ahead of Pichon Lalande, would be chosen if an extra chateau was permitted. rthomaspaull

[Claudius2]

Ian
Rauzan Gassies is no more than a CB or even Cru Artisan.
I visited the Chateau in 2000 and the people were really friendly but the wines rapidly took the smile off my face.
I am very fond of the flavour characters of Margaux wines but this wine offers little more than disappointment and bewilderment.
C’est la vie.

I have an idea.
Maybe pool our resources and launch a buyout of RG?
Maybe crowdfund whatever else we need.
Cheers
Mark

[rthomaspaull]

This might annoy some, I fear, but the study of 2002-2014 (excluding 2013) left bank red Bordeaux shows quite a few "2nd growths" with GPL (average score 91.1, minimum requirement 91.0) just barely making it. Combining it with Grundeken it makes it with the minimum requiement of 90.5 . I personally think its "status" is very year-dependent. Lynch Bages makes both lists a little more comfortably. Of course the time frame is only from 1982-2014 (minus 5 poor years) and the later period has a lot of "first" and "second " growths. I think winemaking did improve along with the weather/climate', but I consider the list generated too large. rthomaspaull

[Comte Flaneur]

Ian
Rauzan Gassies is no more than a CB or even Cru Artisan.
I visited the Chateau in 2000 and the people were really friendly but the wines rapidly took the smile off my face.
I am very fond of the flavour characters of Margaux wines but this wine offers little more than disappointment and bewilderment.
C’est la vie.

I have an idea.
Maybe pool our resources and launch a buyout of RG?
Maybe crowdfund whatever else we need.
Cheers
Mark

That is a good idea Mark. Maybe get Robert Gourley and OrlandoBob involved too as they seem to be big fans.

[Claudius2]

Ian
The flavour profile of Margaux wines are quite unique offering a palate full of all sorts of berry fruit. Luckily many estates have improved in recent decades so I’d expect that RG should be able to perform at the same level of Rauzan Segla.

So if Robert and OrlandoBob are reading, have a think about it.

I nearly bought a wine estate in Australia some years ago but I pulled out as the economics did not make sense but it was obviously not a classed growth.

Cheers
Mark