So, Lynch Bages a Second Growth, really? (Pick 3)

[JimHow]

The U.S. and England resolved the fate of Europe in a number of venues, including Nicola's home town, Quebec City, at the Chateau Frontenac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS3KQvwUSOs

I think Ian has become incapacitated by Churchillian pride in his blind advocacy of those great United Kingdom names, Lynch and Barton. Who can blame him? I'm proud of Lewiston, despite its shortcomings.

As Benevolent Dictator, I'm inclined to exercise my rare intervention, kindness, and benevolence, and, in the spirit of those great 1944 conferences on the banks of the St. Lawrence, delegate the fate of Lynch Bages to the Canadiens....

Whatever Nicola, Danny, and Jean Fred decide with regard to the status of Chateau Lynch Bages, I will accept.

After all, they are Canadians, from the greatest country on the planet.

(Imagine every country on Earth were Canada. Would we be a net better or net worse place? I think we all know the answer.)

[dstgolf]

Kind words Jim but many sitting through this pandemic may have some differing opinions about the greatness of Canada as we sorely lag behind the rest of the world because of a bumbling leadership at all levels.

When it comes to Lynch I question whether we are not going to experience the same as the Trudeau family where the son is nothing like his father and will Jean Charles rise to the levels of his father Jean Michel after taking over the year of our first visit in 2005. I understand the greatness of the 80s but past 2000 there have so far with my limited exposure have not been wowed by the wine and aren't we living in the present rather than the past along with looking at creating a classification that respects the past however looks to the future as we've seen the 1855 classification may have held its own in most instances but there certainly are pruners that no longer deserve the status that this classification lends itself to. For myself the Lynches of the 80's we may quibble about 2nd or 3rd growth status but since then it in my mind has dropped a notch into a 4th growth position and I have no concerns about keeping it in 5th if push came to shove rather than elevating it to a status that frankly it no longer deserves. I'll defer to my Francophone colleagues who may have a different opinion as living in Quebec they usually see things slightly different than people in other parts of the country not unlike New Yorkers/Londoners I'd imagine??

[rthomaspaull]

As I still have Canadian citizenship (and my wife was born in Canada), and citizenship in the UK (I was born in London), though the only passport I now have is a U.S. one, am I allowed a vote (or a fraction of one) under JH's recent edict?
If so,as I largely agree with Robert Parker's scores, and though I am pretty sure I had Lynch Bages many years ago I do not remember it, I stick with the list in my post before this. I know it is very long, but I think the 1855 classification ultimately ended up with 14 chateaux as 2nd growths. rthomaspaull

[JimHow]

I thought the Canadian contingent was going to resolve this controversy, especially the Québécois mafia, but, oooh, a last minute surprise!

Yes, RT, of course, by virtue of your Canadian citizenship, you are authorized to cast a vote on the fate of Lynch Bages!

[rthomaspaull]

Thanks , JH. Even though I have my doubts, I am going with the Robert Parker combined score of 1982-2014 (excluding 5 poor years: actually 2014 was by Neal Martin) and voting for Lynch Bages as a second growth. rthomaspaull

[DavidG]

So Nic, you didn’t like the results of the other poll where the majority voted Lynch as a second growth, so you devised a new poll designed to show it isn’t? You have learned well from the master!

Now that I’m done pulling your leg, I will say that you make your point well. Like you, I put Lynch behind Montrose, the Pichons, Ducru... but that doesn’t mean they can’t all be second growths. Which is why your poll is not able to determine whether Lynch should be a second or not.

Would you feel better with Lynch a second growth if the others were super seconds? It acknowledges the distinction but does not elevate them to first. Which seems appropriate to me. They’re not quite up there with the firsts.

[DavidG]

Thanks , JH. Even though I have my doubts, I am going with the Robert Parker combined score of 1982-2014 (excluding 5 poor years: actually 2014 was by Neal Martin) and voting for Lynch Bages as a second growth. rthomaspaull

Well done, RT, well done indeed!

Anyone want to start a pool on when Jim changes the rules again?

[robert goulet]

Ducru
Lalande
Montrose

[Claudius2]

Nic
If the is an A and B class first growth, then LMHB should be in the A group (whatever it is called and I suggested it earlier in any case - that way fits with St Emilion) and I am still pushing for Mouton to be in the B group.

So my personal list (which is mine alone) is as follows:

1(A) Classification of 2021
Latour
Haut Brion
Margaux
Lafite
LMHB

1(B) classification of 2021
Mouton (I’ve put it first to reduce arguments)
LLC
Ducru B
Palmer
Pichon Lalande
Cod D’estournel

Second Growths
Montrose (my first of the seconds)
Rausan Segla
Gruaud Larose (accepting a few bad spots)
Pichon Baron

Lynch Bages gets a third on my list and I am not sure where to put the Pessac wines such as HB, PC, SHL and DdeC.

In answering the question about one bottle from 1970 to 2019 I would take LLC, DB and PL in that order. Surprised LLC does not always get much love here. I have a few in the wine fridge so must open one soon.

Cheers
Mark

[jal]

So Nic, you didn’t like the results of the other poll where the majority voted Lynch as a second growth, so you devised a new poll designed to show it isn’t? You have learned well from the master!

Now that I’m done pulling your leg, I will say that you make your point well. Like you, I put Lynch behind Montrose, the Pichons, Ducru... but that doesn’t mean they can’t all be second growths. Which is why your poll is not able to determine whether Lynch should be a second or not.

Would you feel better with Lynch a second growth if the others were super seconds? It acknowledges the distinction but does not elevate them to first. Which seems appropriate to me. They’re not quite up there with the firsts.

Well David, it is ambiguous; the other poll did have Lynch Bages at second growth, but if we don't have super seconds and just go with regular classification of five growth levels, I really don't know where Lynch Bages would be voted but it would definitely be 2nd or 3rd and not 4th (surely not 5th).

[s*d*r]

Finally got my notes together on twentieth century vintages:

1995 - poor; soft young, bitter later
1994 - unsuccessful, both soft and bitter again
1990 - ok but short, not tasted since 1999
1989 - a lot of bottle variation, sometimes young, sometimes mature, at least very good
1985 - a lot of structure for the vintage, good, not great
1984 - poor
1982 - didn’t seem that good young but has blossomed into excellent to wonderful, still going strong
1973 - poor
1970 - rustic, old-fashioned, not tasted in a long time
1961 - really quite good, still lively, slightly coarse but very black fruity
1959 - much too old, dry and thin

I enjoy Lynch Bages but for me only two or three excellent vintages, lack of consistency and elegance do not merit second growth status. The intensity is there but not the flair.

[tim]

Ok, I went for Montrose, LLC and Baron. Unfortunately I haven't had enough experience with Lalande to rank it, so although it probably would be in the top three, I can't put it there from personal experience.

RT: I'm curious about your choices, without referring to or even mentioning Robert Parker or any other WA score.

[Comte Flaneur]

I think Nic’s poll should lay to rest any doubts as to Lynch’s rightful second growth status.

According to the BWE cognoscenti:

1. Comtessa - 15
2. Lascases - 12
3. Montrose -11
4. Ducru - 8
5. Baron - 7
6. Lynch - 6
7. Leoville-Barton - 5
8. Gruaud - 4
9. Cos - 3
10. Rauzan -1

Lynch is basically neck and neck with Ducru, Baron, Leoville-Barton, Gruaud - nobody is suggesting any of these others are not worthy seconds.

Friends, Romans, Countrymen...BWErs...let’s put an end to this nonsense!

Let’s recognise and embrace Lynch Bages as a bona fide second growth!

I personally think it is super second as my ‘rethinking...’ piece articulates, but if we want to move this process forward, as the instigator of this process, I am happy to make a major concession and accept Lynch as a second.

[JoelD]

Of the 10 people who did the google doc, 1-5 here were very solidly second growths as almost every person ranked those as a 2. However 6-10 were very mixed between 2's, 3's and obviously the occasional 4 or 5. Thats really the debate here.

Ian, I think we're avoiding an important detail here. As I've mentioned before, you have far more 2nd growths on your list than anyone else. If we find a way for everyone to choose the same amount, I think this could easily be fleshed out.

Or something along the lines of a vote. Everyone must vote for 3 out of 5 of Lynch Bages, Leoville Barton, Gruaud, Cos, Rauzan. 3 of the 5 get to be classified as 2nd growths. The two bottom scoring are 3rd. Although you could also make this a larger vote and include a few others such as Haut Bailly and Pontet Canet.

[Comte Flaneur]

With respect Joel that is nonsense.

In my ‘rethinking’ classification I have 14 second growths, exactly in line with the original 1855 classification.

It is the others who are out of synch, with less second growths.

[rthomaspaull]

For 3 of 5 to be second growths, in descending order from the "combined lists" [which have 14 seconds] that I have posted one would get Cos D'Estournel, Leoville Barton and Lynch Bages. Leoville Barton demands more patience than I have at my age, except for older, over-priced vintages. Good luck finding any of these at a "sensible price". Grand-Puy-Lacoste barely makes the combined list of seconds, but it can be of very low first growth quality in a fine year (e.g. 2016).
[Sorry, JH] rthomaspaull

[Claudius2]

Tim
I think Pichon Lalande has historically been a wine that is easy to love.
I know I’m being a bit simplistic but it has a soft, velvety character that sometimes reminds me of a theoretic blend of a right bank and left bank wine.
I think it was off form from about 1990 to maybe 2000 but even in pretty average vintages it can be an elegant and complete wine.

It truly excelled in the 80’s and was seriously a first growth standard during that decade.

Even in the 70’s which was not a consistent decade, PL produced some very good wines often when the actual first growths very irregular.

Cheers
Mark

[jal]

Ian, for some reason your spreadsheet seems to have been altered. I no longer see the names of the estates in the first column. Can you please have a look? Maybe I'm looking at an older version?

[JoelD]

With respect Joel that is nonsense.

In my ‘rethinking’ classification I have 14 second growths, exactly in line with the original 1855 classification.

It is the others who are out of synch, with less second growths.

Apologies, Ian. I did not realize that you had cut five wines from your original doc, from 19 down to 14. (super seconds+seconds). I was mostly using the old google doc because that compared everyone side by side. At 19 you were clearly an outlier on the high side. With Jim down at 8 seconds on the low side. Now with your adjustments. Now a majority have 13 or 14 seconds. Although Jim, Patrick, and Mark(Claudius) are still much lower at 8, 8, 6 respectively. A few in the middle.

Patrick already voted for Lynch as a second, Jim obviously did not. I would be curious to hear if Mark(Claudius) would elevate Lynch from 3rd to 2nd if needed to add an addition 5-8 seconds to match you and others. My guess is that he would.

My main point is that when there is a debate, putting everyone within the same parameters makes it much easier to try to come to an equitable conclusion. I would say that you already did that by cutting 5 wines.

[Claudius2]

Joel
My experience with Lynch is a little out of date. It was a lighter wine in the 70’s and was very good, if a little variable, in the 80’s. the few more recent examples I have tried were not in super second class and I put wines such as Montrose, Calon Ségur and Leoville Barton ahead of it.

Depending on the structure of the classification system it is easily a third growth or second if the system is extended beyond the super seconds.

A fifth growth? No way. It is seriously much better than every other existing fifth and a mile better than many of the Margaux seconds - never quite understood why so many got rated as seconds or even thirds.

I was however seriously shocked that Jim was so reluctant to upgrade it particularly after reading of his romance with the 1989.

Cheers
Mark

[Comte Flaneur]

Ian, for some reason your spreadsheet seems to have been altered. I no longer see the names of the estates in the first column. Can you please have a look? Maybe I'm looking at an older version?

Hi Jacques

I didn’t alter it; someone else did, but I think it upset the apple cart.

I will have a look.

Ian

[Comte Flaneur]

I had a look and I can’t figure out how to fix it. Whoever altered it can you please put the chateau names into the left hand column.

[Comte Flaneur]

Jacques I managed to get the names of the estates back to column 1. Much easier to do in a state of complete sobriety!

[jal]

LOL, thank you Ian. I'll make a copy onto Excel just to have a backup in case it happens again.

[jal]

Ok, now I see that I also rated Lynch Bages as a 2nd Growth. My only differences with Ian in 2nd Growth Classification are Leoville Poyferre and Pape Clement vs Leoville Barton and Rauzan Segla (a highly touted wine here but one which I haven't tasted in decades).