Thinking about the 82 Talbot I just won, presumably a wine of “first growth quality”.
What other wines have attained that exulted status?
On the left bank, certainly the 82 Pichon Lalande. I’d add the 82 Gruaud, the 86 Pichon Lalande and Rausan Segla, the 89 Lynch Bages and Pichon Baron, and the 90 Montrose.
What else would we add?
When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
Patrick, I understand your point but I have a hard time describing Pichon, Rausan, Montrose, or Gruaud as lower wines. They are second growths. However in the spirit of your post I would add 1983 Palmer.
Bill
Bill
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
I would add in the wines i have tasted
1983 Palmer, 1989 La Mission Haut Brion, 1989 Montrose, 1982 Lėoville Las Cases. The 1982 Cos d'Estournel and 1986 Gruaud/Talbot would be very near too.
Nic
1983 Palmer, 1989 La Mission Haut Brion, 1989 Montrose, 1982 Lėoville Las Cases. The 1982 Cos d'Estournel and 1986 Gruaud/Talbot would be very near too.
Nic
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
Ok, i missed the lower part.
Nic
Nic
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
It is common for non first growths to be preferred over first growths at tastings.
1982 La Lagune ranked above 1982 Lafite and 1982 Margaux at our Fort Lauderdale dinner a few weeks ago.
Some recent Pontet Canet will probably best some first growth Pauillacs from the same vintage in tastings down the road.
1982 La Lagune ranked above 1982 Lafite and 1982 Margaux at our Fort Lauderdale dinner a few weeks ago.
Some recent Pontet Canet will probably best some first growth Pauillacs from the same vintage in tastings down the road.
-
JimHow
- Posts: 20219
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
- Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
- Contact:
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
1989 Lynch Bages
1996 Pontet Canet
1996 Pontet Canet
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
2009 Pontet Canet.
-
JimHow
- Posts: 20219
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
- Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
- Contact:
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
1989 Montrose
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
Back in the 90's we had a blind tasting and in that the 96 Sociando smoked out the 96 Lafite. I started buying S-M more consistently after that.
As alluded to upthread, I'm not convinced that people would automatically prefer first growths over everything if they had to drink what was in the glass without the context of a label.
I think Parker mentioned at one point that Reignac was assembled in a way to beat out top end wines when tasted bind.
======
I suspect a bunch of the 2016 St Estephe's will end up being like what Blanquito describes - modern analogs to the 82 or 86 Talbot though.
As alluded to upthread, I'm not convinced that people would automatically prefer first growths over everything if they had to drink what was in the glass without the context of a label.
I think Parker mentioned at one point that Reignac was assembled in a way to beat out top end wines when tasted bind.
======
I suspect a bunch of the 2016 St Estephe's will end up being like what Blanquito describes - modern analogs to the 82 or 86 Talbot though.
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
I'd say that Cos D'estournel consistently makes a wine that is worthy of 1er Cru status.
I say this not based on any one vintage, but for some decades, its wines have been excellent.
Sure, in any one vintage, there will be hits and misses, but I have been to a few vertical of Cos and in many vintages, it shines brightly.
Some years ago I probably would have included LLC and maybe Pichon Lalande but PL has had a few flat spots and the style of LLC tends to worry me sometimes despite being a St Julien lover.
Ducru Beaucaillou was also a favourite until it was affected by taint from about 86 to early 90's.
It was found later to be an anti-fungal agent used in the chais - not sure if it killed the fungus but it did kill the wine for some years.
Since then I think it has been on form.
Moving south, I'd rate La Mission HB as first growth standard, though it may not be as consistent as its neighbour.
I say this not based on any one vintage, but for some decades, its wines have been excellent.
Sure, in any one vintage, there will be hits and misses, but I have been to a few vertical of Cos and in many vintages, it shines brightly.
Some years ago I probably would have included LLC and maybe Pichon Lalande but PL has had a few flat spots and the style of LLC tends to worry me sometimes despite being a St Julien lover.
Ducru Beaucaillou was also a favourite until it was affected by taint from about 86 to early 90's.
It was found later to be an anti-fungal agent used in the chais - not sure if it killed the fungus but it did kill the wine for some years.
Since then I think it has been on form.
Moving south, I'd rate La Mission HB as first growth standard, though it may not be as consistent as its neighbour.
-
OrlandoRobert
- Posts: 1508
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:19 pm
- Contact:
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
The beauty of Bordeaux is that occasionally a solid performer over-performs and achieves that exalted status.
Here is my recent note on the 2001 Sociando Mallet Cuvee Jean Gautreau, which IMHO, outperformed some solid First Growths in that vintage:
https://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/vi ... n#p2891564
This is the only time that I have said that about Sociando. Normally it is just a ridiculously great QPR, consistent, distinct.
Wines that can, in some years, be every bit as good as some of the First Growths, are
La Mission Haut Brion
Vieux Chateau Certan
Trotanoy
Cheval Blanc
Pichon Lalande
Some specific wines for me:
1989 Montrose
1990 Montrose
1989 Pichon Barton
1986 Gruard Larose
1982 Talbot
Here is my recent note on the 2001 Sociando Mallet Cuvee Jean Gautreau, which IMHO, outperformed some solid First Growths in that vintage:
https://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/vi ... n#p2891564
This is the only time that I have said that about Sociando. Normally it is just a ridiculously great QPR, consistent, distinct.
Wines that can, in some years, be every bit as good as some of the First Growths, are
La Mission Haut Brion
Vieux Chateau Certan
Trotanoy
Cheval Blanc
Pichon Lalande
Some specific wines for me:
1989 Montrose
1990 Montrose
1989 Pichon Barton
1986 Gruard Larose
1982 Talbot
-
Racer Chris
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:41 pm
- Contact:
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
I sorted CT average scores for Left Bank 1980's.
17 of the top 40 wines were FG. Range of average score was 97.2 for 1982 Latour down to 93.0 for '83 Mouton in 40th place.
1982 PLL is right behind '82 Mouton, with '82 Latour at the top, ahead of everything else.
Other stars in that decade include LLC, Montrose, Gruaud, Lynch Bages, Palmer, P Baron.
Cameo appearances were made by Cos, L Poyferre, GPL, Talbot, Ducru Beaucaillou.
In the next decade, the 1990 Montrose topped everything else. LLC, Poyferre, and the Baron were also top performers in 1990.
A little further down the list I find 1995 S-M CJG followed closely by '96 LLC, '90 GPL, '90 Lynch Bages, and '94 Duhart Milon (an outlier perhaps).
PLL and Cos make the top 40. Ducru Beaucaillou also makes a single appearance with the '96.
17 of the top 40 wines were FG. Range of average score was 97.2 for 1982 Latour down to 93.0 for '83 Mouton in 40th place.
1982 PLL is right behind '82 Mouton, with '82 Latour at the top, ahead of everything else.
Other stars in that decade include LLC, Montrose, Gruaud, Lynch Bages, Palmer, P Baron.
Cameo appearances were made by Cos, L Poyferre, GPL, Talbot, Ducru Beaucaillou.
In the next decade, the 1990 Montrose topped everything else. LLC, Poyferre, and the Baron were also top performers in 1990.
A little further down the list I find 1995 S-M CJG followed closely by '96 LLC, '90 GPL, '90 Lynch Bages, and '94 Duhart Milon (an outlier perhaps).
PLL and Cos make the top 40. Ducru Beaucaillou also makes a single appearance with the '96.
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
Guys
I note that it is common for tasters to describe some wines as being first growth quality in specific years or in some cases, in decades.
Can I suggest another way of looking at this. It is common in my experience to find first growths that do NOT perform at "first growth level".
I'd say that in the years I've been drinking wine, all the first growths have had periods whereby they were under-performing.
That is propbably to be expected as all chateaux will have ups and downs, but I think Latour, Margaux and HB are more deserving of their status than the Rothschilds.
Seriously, I could point to lesser periods with all three but they were not as dramatic or as long.
My personal experience is that Mouton Rothschild is not consistently good enough to be considered a true first growth.
That may be controversial, but it was a 2nd growth until 1973, and realistically, the vintages of the sixties and early seventies (with a few exceptions) don't make sense in relation to any upgrade.
Particularly in the seventies and eighties, I think MR made great wines in only a handful of vintages and some of the wine I have tried even in top vintages (1990, 1989, 1985 etc) were not that great.
And several good to very good vintages such as 75, 78, 79, 81 and 83, MR simply did not perform at a level that justifies the high status and price of a 1er Cru.
Having said that, I'd say that Lafite was a consistent under-performer until around 1989 or 1990. And I did not think it was a solid performer in the 90's either.
Some of the first 1ers Crus I ever drank were Lafites from the 60's, 70's and 80's. Most were auction purchases but some were also from retailers that I know have proper storage.
Now I know some will come out and say: "the 1XXX Lafite/Mouton etc was the greatest wine ever, but putting the anecdotes aside, some others are at least as good overall.
Some years ago, I went to a big (and quite expensive) Bordeaux tasting which was modelled a little on the style of the "Judgement of Paris" though including only Bordeaux.
It was hosted by a well known Australian wine industry guru. I also went to a very large Grange vertical which he hosted, from the experimental first vintage to those in the 90's, and a right bank tasting in similar fashion.
I would hate to think how expensive it would cost now. Things have changed.
As close as possible, the same vintages were served of numerous growths - from all the 1ers Crus to even one or two CB's including SM.
Not every wine 1855 growth was included - it would have made the event unwieldy and too expensive (let alone intoxicating....).
We did however try a handful of vintages of every wine - though again, there were practical limits, and the wines were tried and scored from old to young.
I think about 20-25 individual Chateaux were tasted and 4-5 vintages for each. There were at least 100 wines tried in flights (each flight was a vintage) and it took all day and a lot of water and crackers.
A group of quite experienced tasters and some big names in the industry were there, and the results were as follows:
Latour was the highest rated overall, and one of the few that was regularly rated the best across the table. Not exactly a surprise.
HB and Margaux followed. HB was rated slightly above Margaux at the time.
Mouton was placed a 2nd growth and Lafite a 3rd growth. Some were rather shocked at the latter, but it was a consistent under-performer.
Cos D'estournel, LLC and LMHB were all classed as 1ers.
Ducru, Pichon Lalande, Gruaud Larose and Palmer were 2nd growths.
Third growths I think included GPL, Leoville Barton and a few other well known estates - I think PB and Lynch Bages as well. And Sociando Mallet which also surprised many - it was placed as highly as Lafite overall, and above it by me.
Below that, there were a few wines which got some rather poor ratings, and these included some wines which may have improved since, but were then under-performers, Camensac, La Tour Carnet and I think one other.
I have tried a few recent vintages of Camensac by the way and it is now quite a nice wine. It was certainly not then. The host pointed out that some wines were simply riding on the coat-tails of the 1855 classification.
The general consensus was that the overall 1855 classification makes sense, but obviously not to every wine and in every vintage.
Tasters were divided as to whether it is necessary and meaningful so many years later, but I thought it was clear that the top producers and those wishing to be effective 1ers crus, were a lot better than anything else.
I envisage that the order may vary somewhat if this tasting was re-tried. The youngest vintage was 1990 and the oldest 1970.
If we tried (say) 1995 to 2010 or similar, I wonder what we'd find.
However, I did use the results of this tasting as a guide to what to buy.
I hunted the non-first growths such as the Pichons, Lynch B, Ducru, GL, LLC, Cos and LMHB when I could find them cheap.
Now I hardly bother. Most of these wines are now several times the price they were then - the first growths even more.
I note that it is common for tasters to describe some wines as being first growth quality in specific years or in some cases, in decades.
Can I suggest another way of looking at this. It is common in my experience to find first growths that do NOT perform at "first growth level".
I'd say that in the years I've been drinking wine, all the first growths have had periods whereby they were under-performing.
That is propbably to be expected as all chateaux will have ups and downs, but I think Latour, Margaux and HB are more deserving of their status than the Rothschilds.
Seriously, I could point to lesser periods with all three but they were not as dramatic or as long.
My personal experience is that Mouton Rothschild is not consistently good enough to be considered a true first growth.
That may be controversial, but it was a 2nd growth until 1973, and realistically, the vintages of the sixties and early seventies (with a few exceptions) don't make sense in relation to any upgrade.
Particularly in the seventies and eighties, I think MR made great wines in only a handful of vintages and some of the wine I have tried even in top vintages (1990, 1989, 1985 etc) were not that great.
And several good to very good vintages such as 75, 78, 79, 81 and 83, MR simply did not perform at a level that justifies the high status and price of a 1er Cru.
Having said that, I'd say that Lafite was a consistent under-performer until around 1989 or 1990. And I did not think it was a solid performer in the 90's either.
Some of the first 1ers Crus I ever drank were Lafites from the 60's, 70's and 80's. Most were auction purchases but some were also from retailers that I know have proper storage.
Now I know some will come out and say: "the 1XXX Lafite/Mouton etc was the greatest wine ever, but putting the anecdotes aside, some others are at least as good overall.
Some years ago, I went to a big (and quite expensive) Bordeaux tasting which was modelled a little on the style of the "Judgement of Paris" though including only Bordeaux.
It was hosted by a well known Australian wine industry guru. I also went to a very large Grange vertical which he hosted, from the experimental first vintage to those in the 90's, and a right bank tasting in similar fashion.
I would hate to think how expensive it would cost now. Things have changed.
As close as possible, the same vintages were served of numerous growths - from all the 1ers Crus to even one or two CB's including SM.
Not every wine 1855 growth was included - it would have made the event unwieldy and too expensive (let alone intoxicating....).
We did however try a handful of vintages of every wine - though again, there were practical limits, and the wines were tried and scored from old to young.
I think about 20-25 individual Chateaux were tasted and 4-5 vintages for each. There were at least 100 wines tried in flights (each flight was a vintage) and it took all day and a lot of water and crackers.
A group of quite experienced tasters and some big names in the industry were there, and the results were as follows:
Latour was the highest rated overall, and one of the few that was regularly rated the best across the table. Not exactly a surprise.
HB and Margaux followed. HB was rated slightly above Margaux at the time.
Mouton was placed a 2nd growth and Lafite a 3rd growth. Some were rather shocked at the latter, but it was a consistent under-performer.
Cos D'estournel, LLC and LMHB were all classed as 1ers.
Ducru, Pichon Lalande, Gruaud Larose and Palmer were 2nd growths.
Third growths I think included GPL, Leoville Barton and a few other well known estates - I think PB and Lynch Bages as well. And Sociando Mallet which also surprised many - it was placed as highly as Lafite overall, and above it by me.
Below that, there were a few wines which got some rather poor ratings, and these included some wines which may have improved since, but were then under-performers, Camensac, La Tour Carnet and I think one other.
I have tried a few recent vintages of Camensac by the way and it is now quite a nice wine. It was certainly not then. The host pointed out that some wines were simply riding on the coat-tails of the 1855 classification.
The general consensus was that the overall 1855 classification makes sense, but obviously not to every wine and in every vintage.
Tasters were divided as to whether it is necessary and meaningful so many years later, but I thought it was clear that the top producers and those wishing to be effective 1ers crus, were a lot better than anything else.
I envisage that the order may vary somewhat if this tasting was re-tried. The youngest vintage was 1990 and the oldest 1970.
If we tried (say) 1995 to 2010 or similar, I wonder what we'd find.
However, I did use the results of this tasting as a guide to what to buy.
I hunted the non-first growths such as the Pichons, Lynch B, Ducru, GL, LLC, Cos and LMHB when I could find them cheap.
Now I hardly bother. Most of these wines are now several times the price they were then - the first growths even more.
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
Fun read, Mark. Those two tastings sound awesome. I vaguely recall you mentioning one or both of them in the past.
Haut Brion has long been my favorite first growth but I can’t claim to have tasted dozens of vintages of all of them. The style just appeals to me and it made a couple of really strong early impressions in my wine loving journey. I’ve had bottles of other firsts and non-firsts that I’ve liked better than HB at times, but on balance it remains my qualitative and sentimental favorite. Sadly it’s been too expensive for me to purchase for a long while now.
Haut Brion has long been my favorite first growth but I can’t claim to have tasted dozens of vintages of all of them. The style just appeals to me and it made a couple of really strong early impressions in my wine loving journey. I’ve had bottles of other firsts and non-firsts that I’ve liked better than HB at times, but on balance it remains my qualitative and sentimental favorite. Sadly it’s been too expensive for me to purchase for a long while now.
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
from 2009, IMO Pontet Canet and Pichon Baron made wines of FG quality.
-
JimHow
- Posts: 20219
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
- Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
- Contact:
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
Agreed.
2010 Pichon Baron is first growth quality.
2010 Pichon Baron is first growth quality.
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
1982 LLC
1983 Palmer
1989 Montrose & LB
1990 Montrose & LB
1990 PB
2005 Haut Bailly
1983 Palmer
1989 Montrose & LB
1990 Montrose & LB
1990 PB
2005 Haut Bailly
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
It's been a long time since we've seen this in the US as the estate had given up on distribution, and made a half hearted attempt to do it themselves by being the first Bordelais house to attempt DTC sales (which presumably worked as well as one would expect given no marketing / advertising support etc.) but Reignac seems to be back.
K&L has brought in 24 cases, a half dozen for each of their California locations.
https://www.klwines.com/p/i?i=1562271&s ... archRank=1
Back in the 90's, and including the turn of the century, this used to be a property with some buzz about it for their oaky/sexy/crowd pleasing wines. They performed well in blind tastings and I bought 1996-2000 and enjoyed them. Prices went up a little, tastes changed, and the owners decided they wanted much more for their wine, and the market didn't agree with that, decreeing that at some level, there was a price ceiling a 'Bordeaux Superieur' was held to no matter the packaging, scores etc. The owners, the Vatelots, left the La Place system, and discovered without Parker, and a global network of agents, that selling (tasty!) wine gets harder as the price goes up, when there is no long history of luxury cachet and constant auction validation. Both Stephen Brook and other (non Parker) authors had covered the wines, and commercial aspects, in some detail as it was quite fascinating.
Anyways, this modest AOC has been little seen in the last decade here, and it looks like some has landed. Perhaps its more elegant now; a lifetime ago they were getting the full Jeff Davies treatment.
K&L has brought in 24 cases, a half dozen for each of their California locations.
https://www.klwines.com/p/i?i=1562271&s ... archRank=1
Back in the 90's, and including the turn of the century, this used to be a property with some buzz about it for their oaky/sexy/crowd pleasing wines. They performed well in blind tastings and I bought 1996-2000 and enjoyed them. Prices went up a little, tastes changed, and the owners decided they wanted much more for their wine, and the market didn't agree with that, decreeing that at some level, there was a price ceiling a 'Bordeaux Superieur' was held to no matter the packaging, scores etc. The owners, the Vatelots, left the La Place system, and discovered without Parker, and a global network of agents, that selling (tasty!) wine gets harder as the price goes up, when there is no long history of luxury cachet and constant auction validation. Both Stephen Brook and other (non Parker) authors had covered the wines, and commercial aspects, in some detail as it was quite fascinating.
Anyways, this modest AOC has been little seen in the last decade here, and it looks like some has landed. Perhaps its more elegant now; a lifetime ago they were getting the full Jeff Davies treatment.
Last edited by AKR on Wed Mar 30, 2022 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
robert goulet
- Posts: 1268
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:18 am
- Contact:
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
1982 Talbot is probably the best bordeaux I've ever tasted, its the poster child for classic old school claret.
-
Musigny 151
- Posts: 1258
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:06 pm
- Contact:
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
The old war horse, Jean Bernard Delmas, who ran Haut Brion for decades, once snorted “I make wine to be drunk with food, not other wines.” As I grow older, I realize how flawed those big tastings I used to attend are, and how right he was.
Once you open a bottle, the wine for the most part goes through several stages as it takes in oxygen. Rather than tasted and discarded quickly, it will need patience to whittle out everything it has to offer. At most large scale tastings, the wine has to show all that within ten minutes before we move onto the next flight.
That caveat apart, the gap between pricing of the FGs and the rest is close to historical highs, but the quality gap is decreasing. With climate change, the need to preserve freshness is paramount, and the advantages of terroir that made them first growths originally is being lost.
Overall, I can cite hundreds of examples where the middle ranks outstripped FGs, not because the FGs aren’t great, but the others are so much better than they used to be.
Once you open a bottle, the wine for the most part goes through several stages as it takes in oxygen. Rather than tasted and discarded quickly, it will need patience to whittle out everything it has to offer. At most large scale tastings, the wine has to show all that within ten minutes before we move onto the next flight.
That caveat apart, the gap between pricing of the FGs and the rest is close to historical highs, but the quality gap is decreasing. With climate change, the need to preserve freshness is paramount, and the advantages of terroir that made them first growths originally is being lost.
Overall, I can cite hundreds of examples where the middle ranks outstripped FGs, not because the FGs aren’t great, but the others are so much better than they used to be.
-
Racer Chris
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:41 pm
- Contact:
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
Definitely first growth quality in the bottle I opened a few weeks ago.robert goulet wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 10:30 am 1982 Talbot is probably the best bordeaux I've ever tasted, its the poster child for classic old school claret.
Re: When lower wines make “First Growth quality”
Ain’t that the truth!Musigny 151 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 10:57 am The old war horse, Jean Bernard Delmas, who ran Haut Brion for decades, once snorted “I make wine to be drunk with food, not other wines.” As I grow older, I realize how flawed those big tastings I used to attend are, and how right he was.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 289 guests