Next question...

[Comte Flaneur]

Does Chateau Mouton Rothschild deserve to be a first growth?

SF Ed doesn't think so, based on the two examples from good vintages - 89 and 96 - that we had recently in London. I thought they showed quite well. They were just out shone by the 96 La Tache and the 98 Grange. The 89 I had recently with MEK in Cap Martin was good but frankly a bit uninspiring. And totally outclassed by the LLC 88 we the previous night. Supposedly from a lesser vintage. Which got me thinking again.

Mouton is also arguably the least consistent of the first growths. Like Lafite and Margaux it was a bit iffy through most of the 1960s and 1970s, and since the 1980s seems to be susceptible to considerable bottle variation. Vintages where I have experienced significant bottle variation include 1982, 1985, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1995 and 1996. Perhaps a bit less so for the latter two which are arguably strong wines, which still need considerable time.

I think that on balance that it does still deserve to be a FG, based on the electrifying highs that it can reach in vintages like 1982 and 2009, and apparently in 1945 and 1959 too. Higher highs than for, say, LLC. Also the vertical we attended last year hosted by Neal Martin and Philippe Dhalluin, from 2005-2014, convinced me that even if Mouton was not quite FG standard before, it is now.

Is Mouton better than La Mission, Palmer and LLC? That's a tough one...

[dstgolf]

I'll try and add to your question next week. We'll have a mini Mouton vertical next Sat night with the 78,82,88,89 for the pre dinner tasting. Over all I don't think there is any question for me that its consistently better than Palmer and LLC especially since 2000. La Mission has a different profile altogether and I happen to love the wine but still think Mouton deserves its place as a first growth. Now if you were asking Pontet Canet or the Baron then I'd have a more difficult time deciding if only one could be there out of the latter then my preference would be PC since 96.

[Chateau Vin]

I personally think Mouton doesn't deserve first growth. But I do not have a problem being up there either. Let me explain...

As comte pointed out, it is not as consistent as the other first growths, but it can reach the heights of other first growths and also pass them in some vintages. Well, LLC and Palmer can do the same but less often than Mouton does. I think Mouton is somewhere in between the other first growths and LLC/Palmer. That's why I do not have a problem with being a first growth and generally view as the last in the pecking order among the first growths.

I personally also would place Mouton higher than LaMish and much higher than other right bank 'premier crus' Pavie and Angelus. For me, if Mouton weren't there as First growth, none of the others including LaMish should be there. With Mouton being there as first growth, I would draw the line over there. I feel the difference between Mouton and other first growths is small compared to the differences between Mouton and other wannabes LaMish/LLC/Palmer etc.

[Nicklasss]

I think Mouton deserve to be a First Growth, as much as Trump to be President, or Jimhow to be BWE BD. Please meditate on that previous sentence, and you'll elevate your soul... from Second to First Growth status.

On a slightly more serious note, does Angélus or Valandraud deserve classified status? Mouton deserve it more for sure, if you consider the last 160 vintages. Now if you compare Mouton to other Médoc/Graves First Growth, it seems to me (but I did not tasted all these) that each First Growth had their lows and highs, but in average their standard quality or appreciation from wine lovers is higher than for other wines.

Nic

[SF Ed]

As Ian mentioned above, I do not believe that Mouton should have been promoted. I say that not only on the basis of our dinner with the 1989 and 1996, but many many other bottles. Some years are very good, most notably 1982, but a couple of other folks made great wine that year that are 2nds.

Mouton simply does not have the depth and complexity I associate with first growths. Nice labels, though.

SF Ed

[Jay Winton]

My favorite Mouton moment was the vertical we did for a dinner at the convention in Napa many years ago. My 86 performed very well that night but the other bottles have not. I don't drink enough MR to venture an opinion but consistency is the mark of a great i.e 1st growth wine I guess.

[DavidG]

I haven't had enough vintages of Mouton to offer a broad experience-based opinion, but I would agree with SFEd that other than the 1982, Mouton lacks the depth and complexity of the other firsts.

[AlexR]

Short reply:

Agree that Mouton is the least consistent of the premiers.
But, also believe that it deserves its 1st growth status.

I thought that the 96 at Ian’s dinner was superb.
And I am anxious to read Danny’s notes on his upcoming tasting.

I can remember a BWE 86 tasting with all the first growths (including Pétrus) I attended in New York..
The wine of the night for me – and I was not alone – was the Mouton

Among more recent vintages, I thought the 2009 was sublime.

Nic, I had more than a few reservations about Valandraud. I have tasted it young on several occasions and been disappointed. But a bottle of the 2004 drunk on Thursday outshone a 2004 La Mission Haut Brion. So it is time for me to be more open-minded….

All the best,
Alex