modern classification of left bank red Bordeaux

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:14 pm

Is anyone interested in a simple system I have devised, using a wine's score and the year's Wine Advocate Vintage Rating for its area, for classifying left bank red Bordeaux wines into their proper classified growth classification category (if any) for the year in question? rthomaspaull

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Fri Mar 05, 2021 6:59 pm

My system is very simple and easy to use. All that is needed is the wine's score (preferably by oneself if one has a decent palate) and the year's Wine Advocate Vintage Rating (W.A.V.R.). No doubt valid objections could be made to the method, but it should be reasonably accurate in the long run.
For all except the first growths the classification parameters are those used in "Grundeken." Grundeken refers to a mid-2004 (I think) article no longer on the internet, called Grundeken by me because I think part of its internet address was grundeken. THe title of the article was "Reclassifying Bordeaux using Wine Advocate Ratings" (or something like that) and all ratings of wines were by Robert Parker (RP). The period covered was from 1982 to 2003 (excluding 4 poor years). 2002 and 2003 ratings were presumably from barrel rather than bottle. I later worked out the average ratings for many left bank red Bordeaux wines for the period 2002 to 2014 (excluding the poor year 2013). Ratings through 2012 were by RP, and for 2014 were done by RP's then designated successor, Neal Martin. All ratings were from bottle.
For the later period I observed empirically that the average rating of the two highest scoring wines (Latour and Lafite in Pauillac) was extremely close to 100 - 1/2 {(100-W.A.V.R.)}. This expression equals (100 + W.A.V.R.)/2 .
The average rating for the later period for Latour and Lafite was 96.0. The average vintage rating for Pauillac for the period was 92 rounded. (!00 +92)/2 also =96.
The average rating for the lowest rated official first growth, Mouton Rothschiid, in the Grundeken period was 92.9 and 92.5 was suggested as the lowest average for first growths,
The average rating for the lowest rated official first growth, Mouton Rothschild, in the later period was 93.9 , so by analogy the lowest average for first growths is suggested as 93.5 .
96 - 93.5 = 2.5, the suggested range for first growths. Per Grundeken the suggested ranges for descending classified growths are 2.5, 2.0 , 1.5 and 1.5 .

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:53 pm

The average Wine Advocate Vintage Rating (W.A.V.R.) for the Grundeken period (!982 to 2003 excluding 4 poor years, with 2002-3 barrel ratings for Pauillac etc, was a rounded 90, and the average W.A.V.R. for 2002-2014 (excluding 2013) (all botth=le ratings) was a rounded 92. 92 -90 =2, half of which = 1, the suggested increase for all classified growth categories from the Grundeken period to the later one.
Estimated top score fo the top 2 wines in an area (e.g. Latour and Lafite in Pauillac) = (100 + W.A.V.R.)/2 .
Estimated bottom score for first growth quality = (100 + W.A.V.R.)/2 -2.5
Estimated bottom score for 2nd growth quality+ (100 + W.A.V.R.)/2 -5.0
Estimated bottom score for 3rd growth quality = (100 +W.A.V. R.)/2 - 7.0
Esttimated bottom score for 4th growth quality = (100 +W.A.V.R.)/2 -8.5
Estimated bottom score for 5th growth quality = (100 + W.A.V. R,)/2 -10.0
When the W.A.V. R. is below 90, 90 is substituted, so that the score for a fifth growth never falls below 85.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sat Mar 06, 2021 4:31 am

I get that some like to analyze it quantitatively but the whole points thing doesn’t really work for me.

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:58 pm

David
I have to agree and for some decades I have refused to give 100 point ratings. Further there has been quite absurd points escalation in recent years that suggest that points are meaningless for comparative or absolute ratings.

Every day I get a pile of emails trying to sell me the latest round of 100/99/98 et al rated wines. Today I got an email for LLC only to be reminded that it has received 100 points by RPJnr. Yeah that’s all I need to know.

Racer Chris · Post by **Racer Chris** » Sat Mar 06, 2021 1:02 pm

rthomaspaull wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:14 pm Is anyone interested in a simple system I have devised, using a wine's score and the year's Wine Advocate Vintage Rating for its area, for classifying left bank red Bordeaux wines into their proper classified growth classification category (if any) for the year in question? rthomaspaull

I'm still trying to understand the value of a dynamic classification system where a particular chateau may change growth status from one year to the next.
Is it simply a way to calculate the highest price you would be willing to pay to purchase more of a wine you like?
I so, can we continue with my prior example of 2014 Ch. Meyney? I rate that wine a solid 92 points (A-).

Racer Chris · Post by **Racer Chris** » Sat Mar 06, 2021 1:22 pm

Or, how about a little further up the ladder - 2014 La Croix Ducru-Beaucaillou. I bought quite a bit of that at an average price of $45 and have rated it 94 points. Cellartracker has it at 92.3 pts average.

Most of the time I'm pretty conservative with regard to what I'll pay for a bottle of wine, based on my perception of how much I expect to enjoy that wine. But there are some wines I would like to have more of and are still available, although at a higher price than my initial purchases. At this point I might have to spend more than $55 to backfill the '14 La Croix. What should be my limit?

jckba · Post by **jckba** » Sat Mar 06, 2021 1:31 pm

Let me start by saying that I think points are a good personal measure for me to distinguish how much I enjoyed a bottle of wine on a particular day, a snapshot if you will in that wines lifetime.

In response to the op, I am not sure I am looking or interested in reclassifying the whole Bdx hierarchy on a yearly basis much like Chris stated above, but it would be interesting to see what your system of Parker averages would result in for an updated classification as that could make for an interesting discussion.

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Sun Mar 07, 2021 1:08 am

To Chris F. :Yes, for me simply to find the highest price I would pay to order such wines.
I have not had either of the 2 wines you mention from 2014, but looking at the Neal Martin and particularly the Antonio Galloni scores for them on the Farr Vintners website, I would think that your (or CT's) score of about 92 is accurate for both of them. For a 92 point left bank Red Bordeaux wine I would not pay more than $74.87 before taxes and shipping. I would expect to pay considerably less, though I have not looked them up on Wine Searcher (etc.).
To jckba: I have no intention of reclassifying the whole Bdx hierarchy on a yearly or other basis, but would be interested in the result if someone else worked it out over a multi-year time frame. rthomaspaull

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:06 am

I will give an example of the lowest rated left bank red Bordeaux wine to qualify as of first growth quality in a fine year. The lowest Wine Advocate Vintage Rating for a fine year is 96. 196/2 = 98. 98-2.5=95.5, the lowest possible rating for first growth quality in such a year. I initially gave the 2015 Malartic Lagraviere Rouge a little less than this, but to me it improved enough to reach this figure eventually. The price at the time was good so I ordered more (and added some more later). Not long ago my wife and I I had no left bank red Bordeaux that I considered of first growth quality (however low) from a fine year. . Now we have quite a lot (2015 and 2016 Domaine de Chevalier Rouge, 2016 Grand-Puy-Lacoste and 2015 Malartic Lagraviere Rouge), for none of which as much as $85 before taxes and shipping was paid. My scores for the wines range from 95.5 to 96.5 .
Beyond this score from me it becomes really hard to find left bank red Bordeaux wines at reasonable prices. I would be grateful for any suggestions. rthomaspaull

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:19 am

Giving more thought to the named subject, I think it is of considerably less importance than "Sensible Pricing" for similar wines, though I believe the Wine Advocate Vintage Rating is more all-encompassing and probably less biased than the wine rating scores of anyone. rthomaspaull

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:35 am

I recently paid just under $100 a bottle (with taxes but no shipping charge) for a case of a wine I consider of very low first growth quality in a fine year (the 2016 GPL. to which I gave a 96 score). With this purchase and a small amount of judicious drinking of my lowest-scoring wines (90.5 from me) I think I will soon have achieved what I once thought nearly impossible, an average "growth rating" under 1.5 for my left bank red Bordeaux, All my wines, even the last purchase, were comfortably within my price limits. There will be more "first growths" than other red Bordeaux, and the great majority will be from a fine year. At my advanced age I plan to do lots of drinking (I hope) and very little if any buying of red Bordeaux. rthomaspaull

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:14 pm

rthomaspaull wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:35 am I reently paid just under $100 a bottle (with taxes but no shipping charge) for a case of a wine I consider of very low first growth quality in a fine year (the 2016 GPL. to which I gave a 96 score). With this purchase and a small amount of judicious drinking of my lowest-scoring wines (90.5 from me) I think I will soon have achieved what I once thought nearly impossible, an average "growth rating" under 1.5 for my left bank red Bordeaux, All my wines, even the last purchase, were comfortably within my price limits. There will be more "first growths" than other red Bordeaux, and the great majority will be from a fine year. At my advanced age I plan to do lots of drinking (I hope) and very little if any buying of red Bordeaux. rthomaspaull

Well I think several of us are of “advanced age” including me (b. 1957) but it is harder to stop buying wine than I ever thought. I really did not need to buy 2019 en primeur but I relented despite previously saying I’d not buy any more EP stock after 2016. I also have bought recent vintages of Burgundy and the storage facility is now overflowing to the point the doors are bulging.

Can I make one comment about points. I have never liked them for the reasons stated on the thread I started previously. How do you deal with the prized wines - I mean wines like Petrus, Ausone, DRC, Jayer and the like? How does La Tache or Romanee Conti even get considered? Some E20 wines now get ratings of 98 or 99 and there has been considerable escalation of points over the years. To differentiate wine in 2021 I am finding points to be less useful than ever. If a supermarket wine gets 99 points even by multiple critics, then is it either as good as or even vaguely comparable to a Petrus or DRC that gets the exact same rating? And how do you reconcile how an experienced taster (me) almost chokes on a wine that RPJnr gives 100 points?

The other central problem is when to drink wines. At say 10 yrs a middle ranked Bordeaux May peak and actually taste pretty good yet a Latour for example will in most vintages still be closed up and to most palates, appear dry and charmless. Penfolds Grange can be the same. Yet the lesser wines will not last as well nor develop the complex aged characters of either.

My own simple scale goes like this:

Do not put in mouth (DNPIM)
Fair or okay (drinkable but with no charm or interest)
Good
Very good
Excellent
Outstanding

I may add + or - to them if I can’t split them.
I also try and describe the character and flavour of the wine plus some idea of its development.

Yet the above are in the context of what the wine is and the higher ratings must show that they are correct in relation to the variety and region, show balance, intensity and complexity.

I know there are always arguments about what is and is not correct but I am troubled by say, Pinot Noir that tastes like Syrah. Whilst Bordeaux that tastes like a new world Cab blend may be theoretically okay I can buy Australian reds for much lower prices even if I now have to pay import duties to Singapore and GST. Similarly I like both Margaret River and Coonawarra Cabs but feel deflated if one tastes like my concept of the other. Both are equally good but when I want one style I get annoyed it isn’t what I feel like.

In the case of Sav Blanc I have long said it is just a weed and should be dug out. Yeah the Noo Zeelunders can be annoyed with me but I’ve found that the more points it gets the less I like it. Probably as Low point SB tends to taste more like generic white than typical grassy, herby and sharp wine.

Cheers
Mark

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Mon Mar 22, 2021 6:24 pm

Mark, I could have written that entire post, except for the Sauv Blanc part. My feelings about points mirror yours, and I use an identical rating scale.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:55 pm

I'm a Bordeaux wine enthusiast, so my scores are generally pretty enthusiastic.
My scale is generally between 85-100, with most of my scores falling between 88-96.
90 is obviously a key number for me, because that's a threshold where I get a certain level of expected excitement from a bottle.
Once a wine does or does not reach that level, the points up or down are pretty much an emotional assignment in the moment.

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Tue Mar 23, 2021 12:05 am

To the recent posters: Many thanks for your interesting observations. (I was born in 1934, so I am much older than Claudius 2). It is many years since I bought a first growth red Bordeaux, as I consider them way over-priced. Refusing to pay more than $170.00 for any left bank red Bordeaux pretty much limits me to those under 97 points ( a good mood can seem to add several points: knowing one has paid a reasonable price is a plus). My wife and I save a lot on our white wine choices (she drinks little red). We do not bother scoring white wines: we just buy what we like at a reasonable price. She usually prefers Sauvignon Blancs and Chards with little or no oak (Rombauer has as much oak as I can stand and I do not buy it for either of us). We both love an unoaked South African Chardonnay for $6.99. We like various Sauv Bs such as the regular Brander, Margerum Sybarite and some Sancerres.
Tastes in wine can certainly change: years ago I drank mainly Burgundies with some Rhones. I do drink some U.S. Cabs. and Sta. Rita Hills wines. rthomaspaull

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Tue Mar 23, 2021 5:05 am

rthomaspaull wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 12:05 am To the recent posters: Many thanks for your interesting oservations. (I was born in 1934, so I am much older than Claudius 2). It is many years since I bought a first growth red Bordeaux, as I consider them way over-priced. Refusing to pay more than $170.00 for any left bank red Bordeaux pretty much limits me to those under 97 points ( a good mood can seem to add several points: knowing one has paid a reasonable price is a plus). My wife and I save a lot on our white wine choices (she drinks little red). We do not bother scoring white wines: we just buy what we like at a reasonable price. She usually prefers Sauvignon Blancs and Chards with little or no oak (Rombauer has as much oak as I can stand and I do not buy it for either of us). We both love an unoaked South African Chardonnay for $6.99. We like various Sauv Bs such as the regular Brander, Margerum Sybarite and some Sancerres.
Tastes in wine can certainly change: years ago I drank mainly Burgundies with some Rhones. I do drink some U.S. Cabs. and Sta. Rita Hills wines. rthomaspaull

Wow
I did not realise that you were older than me - and by a few decades.
The BWE regulars have often been here for two decades and I thought we were all just getting older.

I do not entirely agree with your comment about Bordeaux getting expensive.
Yes it is when you consider the trophy wines (1ers Crus, garagiste wines, etc) and maybe the best of the second growths, but there are around 8,000 estates in Bordeaux, and if you simply leave out the most expensive wines from the Medoc and Pomerol in particular, you still have plenty to buy that are great wines at reasonable prices.

I drink a lot of Burgundy too and the prices have really increased lately, even for village wines and 1ers Crus not just the top GCs. If anything, the prices of Bordeaux have (with some exceptions) corrected a little in recent vintages and there are many wines that now look well priced.
If I go back 30-40 years, the situation was nothing like it is now as I bought first growths in the 80's for $A50 and even the 1990 Margaux cost me (only) $A80 on sale.

Internationally we have seen escalation of prices in the world's most famous wines - including my old homeland of Australia, where Hill of Grace has gone from $A20 to $800 since the early 80's. I suppose the driver here is more rich people who don't care if the wine is $100 or $1000. That price escalation also happened very fast partly due to the industrialisation of China and other Asian nations, the tech booms and the like. Unfortunately, the nouveau riche have bid me out of the market.

My approach has in recent decades been to seek out wines that are good quality and are reliable thus I tend to buy wines more in the price range of Branaire, Sociando Mallet, Giscours, the less famous St Emilions and lesser wines such as Haut Medocs and a few favourite Cotes wines. I really don't have a need to sip Petrus and DRC any more. Have not bought Petrus since 1982 and DRC since the 87 (or was it 86?) vintage. I saw these wines becoming collector's items some decades ago. The last year I bought first growths (all 4 Medocs) was 2002, and at 2.5 times what the 1995's cost me. Even GPL (in in-house joke here) is off my list.

Just one story about Sav Blanc.
I lived in Australia for 50 odd years. I first visited New Zealand in the late 70's and visited some wine regions. The industry was with a few exceptions like a cottage industry then, with lots of second rate German grape varieties (eg, Reichsteiner and Muller Thurgau) and a new Loire variety (SB) that was beginning to be planted in Marlborough in particular. When I first tasted it I almost gagged. Well, all I could smell was nettles, asparagus and cat pee (and I had two very spoilt Persian cats at the time). The wine offered to my palate little more than harsh acidity, a thin texture and flavours that reminded me of canned green vegetables. I could not believe anyone would actually enjoy this. Now, I CAN cope with some Sav Blanc blends (SSB and Fume Blanc) and the occasional Sancerre or Pouilly Fume but that is as they don't have the same aggressive mouthfeel and overtly green flavours, let alone the smell of the litter tray.

Maybe I really cannot handle what could be called extremities in wine - the green characters of NZ SB or for that matter the taste of tar and/or molasses in some reds. Getting older has not changed my palate one bit, irrespective of fashion and trends in wine.

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Tue Mar 23, 2021 5:31 am

To Claudius 2: I agree with much of what you say. It is the "first growths" that I consider way overpriced. Many red Bordeaux outside the "trophy wines" do seem reasonably priced and I buy some of them. GPL is usually just within my limit: I only have the 2012 and the 2016. Obviously, rightly or wrongly (I don't really care-smile) I like it better than some important members here, but I always think anyone with a half-decent palate should go by their own taste buds: for themselves they are generally right, probably. I also agree that some NZ Sauv Bs can be too "ferocious". Do not be too surprised if eventually you start to prefer some other wines, but of course that is by no means certain. rthomaspaull

Racer Chris · Post by **Racer Chris** » Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:37 am

Since you have the 2012 and 2016 GPL I'm surprised you didn't buy the 2014. I think its much better than the 2012, and was priced lower.

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Tue Mar 23, 2021 2:31 pm

Richard
Don’t mention GPL or the benevolent dictator (I mean JH and not Louis XIV) won’t be happy. Just joking...
In relation to Sav Blanc I’m sure my rels will chuck a bucket load of it on my ashes.
Cheers
Mark

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Tue Mar 23, 2021 6:18 pm

To Chris: I do not usually buy GPL, but bought it along with several other classified 2012s because the prices seemed so reasonable. In general they have performed well, especially some from Margaux. I bought the 2016 GPL after trying one bottle and really liking it (Antonio Galloni, the critic on whom I rely the most gave the wine a good score and I bought some after trying the one bottle). As for the 2014 I think it now costs more than the 2012 and I am not sure it is all that much better (Farr Vintners gave them both a 16.5, I think, for example). To me the 2016 is much better than the 2012, though I get reasonable enjoyment from the latter and the price was good. Neal Martin gave the 2016 a 97, I believe. It is true that under my system it barely qualifies as a "first growth" at my score of 96 (197/2 = 98.5. 98.5-2.5 = 96 . )
To Claudius 2: I do not doubt that JH is benevolent, but from what I remember from history I would not say that Louis XIV was benevolent (though he could be on occasion). rthomaspaull

Racer Chris · Post by **Racer Chris** » Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:24 pm

When I started looking at the 2012 vintage, the prices looked too close to 2010 level, but without the vintage hype.
I only gave a 91 to the bottle of 2012 I bought and 93-94 points to bottles of 2014.
The price of most 2014s rose significantly once the quality was apparent. The GPL only cost me $54. Now it's around $75.
I wasn't ready to buy much 2016 before the tariffs kicked in and consequently don't have much in my cellar now.

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:39 pm

rthomaspaull wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 6:18 pm To Chris: I do not usually buy GPL, but bought it along with several other classified 2012s because the prices seemed so reasonable. In general they have performed well, especially some from Margaux. I bought the 2016 GPL after trying one bottle and really liking it (Antonio Galloni, the critic on whom I rely the most gave the wine a good score and I bought some after trying the one bottle). As for the 2014 I think it now costs more thean the 2012 and I am not sure it is all that much better (Farr Vintners gave them both a 16.5, I think, for example). To me the 2016 is much better than the 2012, though I get reasonable enjoyment from the latter and the price was good. Neal Martin gave the 2016 a 97, I believe. It is true that under my system it barely qualifies as a "first growth" at my score of 96 (197/2 = 98.5. 98.5-2.5 = 96 . )
To Claudius 2: I do not doubt that JH is benevolent, but from what I remember from history I would not say that Louis XIV was benevolent (though he could be on occasion). rthomaspaull

I may be thinking about Louis XiV - think I put the I in the wrong place

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:21 am

I thought I would try to explain the logic for my system. I wanted to find which category (if any) I should consider appropriate for a left bank red Bordeaux and so I needed a range of scores for each growth classification. This was not at all easy and I took a great deal of time and found very few sources to help me. I have never used Wine Advocate scores other than some time ago to find wines to try. I go entirely by my taste buds, right or wrong. I do use the Wine Advocate Vintage Ratings as they cover each sub-area separately. It would be quicker to use the Wine Spectator Vintage Ratings and that would be a little simpler, but I prefer looking at each sub-area separately. I understand that the system does not have to be used to find wines to try (I just use it for evaluating our "collection") and expect almost if not quite everyone to ignore it.
Obviously a great first growth might occasionally score a little above the system's limits (a "super first" ?) but there is no problem with the fifth growths.
I can work out a system without using "Grundeken", which was (I think) not long on the internet or at all well known. There would be a range of 9 points instead of 10. For 4 categories of growths (in the 1820s there were "deuxiemes quatriemes") one could use 2.25 for each, and for 5 categories one could use 2/2/2/1.5/1.5 . I am not saying there is anything wrong with Grundeken. rthomaspaull

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:50 pm

My "system" for "classifying" left bank red Bordeaux wines of a particular year has the drawback of making an assumption about the likely average rating of the top 2 scorers in an area. I can think of 2 other methods but each has the drawback of relying on relative prices of a yery long time ago (though I think they are useful re a good "quality-value " relationship). The simplest method would seem to be to use the "Grundeken" figures for all but the "first growths" and allow for the Grundeken average Wine Advocate Vintage Rating (W.A.V.R.) of a rounded 90 for Paullac etc. for the period. If the W.A.V.R. is below 90 it is forced to be 90, so that the minimum rating for a "fifth growth" is never below 85. The top possible score for a "first growth" is clearly 100.
For each point above 90 for the rounded W.A.V.R. half a point is added to the expected score. Best wishes, rthomaspaull

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:54 am

The first sentence of my reply to Chris F. on 3/6/21 at 5:08 pm was inadvertently somewhat misleading. I determine the maximum I would pay for a given wine based only on my taste buds. The rest of my "system" is just to "classify" wines after I have bought them (if I feel like bothering).rthomaspaull

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:06 am

what is this full editor and review followed by not allowing a post ?????? rthomaspaull

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:09 am

The moderator continues to frustrate me. I know my computer"skill" are lousy, but normally it is pretty easy for me to make posts here and elsewhere. rthomaspaull

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:19 am

I don't usually feel like an idiot, but to some extent I do now (at least the results of my simpler system might well be identical). Having chosen a left bank red Bordeaux to buy based on the score I give it and the price, I sometimes want to evaluate it by "classification " for its year. I am simply going to go with the Grundeken figures for the second to fifth growths, allowing for its average Wine Advocate Vintage Ratings (W.A.V.R.) of a rounded 90. For a change of 2 points in the average or year's W.A.V.R. a change in the "classification" range is made of 1 point. The maximum score for a "first growth" is clearly 100.
The W.A.V.R. is not allowed to drop below 90 rounded average, so that 5th growths do not score below 85. I should have thought of this long ago, but at least I used my more convoluted system very little in practice (and it is really easy to use). Anyway , let us hope, better late than never. (To be fair to myself I think I had to do a bit of work to come up with 1 point change for each 2 point change in average rounded W.A.V.R.) rthomaspaull

OrlandoRobert · Post by **OrlandoRobert** » Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:27 pm

RTP -

I don’t understand your scoring/ranking methodology at all, but likely because I’m a lawyer and we are generally terrible at math.

I will say, I do understand this math: You are 87 and still buying young Bordeaux! Sorry Stefan, you buying recent futures elevated you to God-like status, but RTP may be #winning now. RTP is my new idol. Glad to see you all enjoying life to its finest. My dad is going on 82, very healthy, and drinks fine wine most evenings, as does my 81-year old mom. I can only hope to be in the state when the time comes, total bliss.

Curious, RTP, whether your palate has changed as you aged.

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:15 pm

To OrlandoRobert: Thanks, but I do not think I will buy any Bordeaux after the 2016s. I think the wines are made now in such a way that they can be drunk earlier with pleasure, more than previously, and I keep the wines slightly warmer now. Years ago I drank mostly Burgundy and Rhones, but since I switched to predominantly left bank red Bordeaux I have noticed no change in my palate. I never buy futures. I like maths and know very little of the law, by the way. As the saying goes, being old is not for sissies. I wish it was easier to get half-bottles with their quick maturing (we have very few). As for my "system" (it is more Grundeken''s than mine) it has been greatly simplified: use the Grundeken ranges but with an obvious upper limit of 100 for "first growths" and a lower limit for the Wine Advocate Vintage Rating (W.A.V.R.) of 90, so 5th growths cannot score below 85. For each 2 point change in the W.A.V.R. a change of one point is made for the 2nd through 5th growths. The system is only used (if I bother) after the wines are bought. All the best, and I am glad your parents are doing so well. rthomaspaull

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:22 am

RT: Amen, my brother. Who can blame you for not going past 2016 Bordeaux, heck, at 62, I vowed I wouldn't. But, come on, like me, try some 2018 Haut Brisson from my friend Howard Kwok... You definitely have the "BWE spirit" !

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:09 am

To JH: Many thanks (I think the 2010 Cantemerle will likely improve a bit longer: we have drunk nearly all our 2006). I really love this website. Though I don't buy futures your suggestion seems to have a great QPR. It is quite likely, from what I have read, that I would gve it about a 91. I realize that I am making far too many posts, but I have an unusual amouunt of time on my hands. For some reason I have a hazy memory of a quotation by Clifton Fadiman (who lived to 95) in the Wall Street Journal in which (I think) he praised reading, drinking wine and "the avoidance of all forms of exercise" {this last might be going a bit too far, though apart from walking I take little physical exercise myself}. While very lazy physically I don't think I am usually lazy mentally. Anyway I enjoy life and hope my wife and I have some years left (after all, we have only been married 62 years). All the best to BWE members, rthomaspaull

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:49 am

RT: I'm with Orlando Robert and Jim: much respect for your long-running passion for Bordeaux!

Can you give a brief summary of the Grundekin ratings you refer to? I think you explained it somewhere in one of your posts about your ranking system. I can’t recall where it is or what you said about it other than it’s part of your system. Is Grundekin a critic? Was it a tasting event?

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:49 am

To DavidG: Many thanks for yet another kind post.
"Grundeken" was a mid-2004 (I think) article no longer on the internet that I call "Grundeken" because grundeken was part of its internet address. The article was called "Reclassifying Bordeaux Using Wine Advocate Ratings". It used only Robert Parker ratings for left bank red Bordeaux
wines from 1982-2003 (excluding 4 poor years). 2002 and 2003 ratings were apparently from barrel rather than from bottle. Later I did a study covering
many left bank red Bordeaux chateaux for 2002-2014 (excluding 2013). All ratings were from bottle and by Robert Parker, except 2014 was by Neal
Martin.
I obtained a result from combining the 2 sets of ratings at equal weights, in order to give a bit more weight to recent results.
The results giving combined "first growths" through "fifth growths" are given "bit by bit" in my posts under "Rethinking the left bank Classification" by Comte Flaneur. I think he has done a great job and one that is much more likely to appeal to BWE members than my "Parker" results, but I am giving them because I have had several of the better study wines and relatively few of Comte Flaneur"s top wines.. Of the small number of wines Parker and I have both tasted our average scores are very close, despie my having some disagreements with his scores.
I consider myself fortunate in liking several (though not all) styles of red Bordeaux. I love the 2010 Cantemerle (we have lots left) and Parker and I both gave it a 94.5 (sometimes I find it noticeably better on the second night). We each also gave the 2012 Ruazan-Segla a 94.5 .
Hoping that helps, with best wishes to you and other BWE members, rthomaspaull

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:13 pm

Thanks RT, that helps. I’ll go back to Ian's (Comte's) thread for more details. I don’t know what file formats can be uploaded here, but if you have a PDF version of the Grundekin report, would you be willing to try to upload it? Maybe in a new thread titled Grundekin ranking so it’s easy to find on search? I’d be happy to help with the upload instructions or try to do it myself if you sent me the file.

As I’ve said before, I don’t put much faith in critics' scores for purchase decisions (I used to). I see you don’t rely on them for purchasing as much as it first appeared to me. Like you, I’m fortunate to enjoy a fairly broad range of Bordeaux styles, though I have shifted away from the super-ripe, heavily extracted versions.

tim · Post by **tim** » Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:25 pm

I must admit that I am not at all a fan of any ranking system based on RP scores, period. The entire industry has been driven by these scores. I want to know what are the opinions of people that are drinking these wines now, and over the course of their maturity, with a variety of palates.

Sorry, RT, while I admire your passion for Bordeaux, I am not much interested in your proposed system (which seems to be the subject of the majority of your posts).

rthomaspaull · Post by **rthomaspaull** » Mon Apr 12, 2021 1:15 am

To DavidG : I am sorry but the only copy I have of "Grundeken" is a tattered one that I printed out in 2007. It would frankly be too much trouble for me to send all of it, but the bottom scores for each growth classification were in descending order 92.5, 90.0', 88.0, 86.5, and 85.0 . For the Grundeken period {1982-2003 excl. 4 poor years, with 2002 and 2003 ratings apparently being from barrel rather than bottle, all ratings by RP) the average rounded Wine Advocate Vintage Rating (W.A.V.R.) was 90. (for each 2 point change in the rounded W.A.V.R. a 1 point change is made in the required bottom scores for each growth classification). For the "first growths" the Grundeken scores were in descending order: Lafite-Rothshild 94.6, Leoville -Las Cases 94.1, Margaux 93.9, Haut-Brion 93.8, Latour 93.5, and Mouton-Rothschild 92.9 . The "second growths" were in descending order were La Mission Haut-Brion 92.2, Pichon Lalande 91.6, Cos D'Estournel 91.1, Lynch-Bages 90.8 , Montrose 90.7, Ducru-Beaucaillou & Leoville Barton 90.6 and Pichon Baron 90.1. If you are interested in the Grundeken score for some other chateau(x) please let me know.

To tim: I suggest you use your own taste buds to see if you like a wine enough to buy it at its price. That's what I did after checking the scores of Neil
Martin and particularly Antonio Galloni, usually on the Farr Vintners websie. At my age I plan to drink rather than buy left bank red Bordeaux
now. rthomaspaull

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:26 am

Seems to be a lot of repetition going on in these threads ...

tim · Post by **tim** » Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:28 am

After reading many of his posts here and on WB, I am becoming more and more convinced that RT is just trolling us. Too many references to his age, to his "lack of computer skills", to the moderator deleting posts, etc. The thing that did it for me is the magical square root of 1.108 calculation for pricing on WB. Not to mention playing the victim everywhere he goes while spouting the same stuff about WA scores. I just don't buy it.

Sorry, RT, but if you want me to believe you are real, you'll need to provide some more information about yourself that can be verified. I find it hard to believe that an 87 year old in a home is just now discovering wine forums and is repeatedly promoting a system based almost entirely on Wine Advocate scoring. Call me a skeptic.