The Lynch-Bages thread

[Comte Flaneur]

What are your personal experiences with this estate? Mine are numerous and have had my ups and downs with Lynch-Bages.

My first association came 31 years ago in 1990 when the 1985 Lynch-Bages won the Wine Magazine red wine trophy. The wine cost £25 a bottle then. I bought a lot of it and had it for lunch many times at a place called the Wine Library in the City of London, which had a minimal mark up. It was such a brilliant, precocious wine.

Another experience was in Vail Colorado in 1995 on a ski-ing holiday. We went to this really trendy restaurant called Sweet Basil and they had the 1989 Lynch-Bages on the list. It was an absolutely cracking wine. I can’t remember how much it cost but it was well south of $100.

I accumulated bottles/cases of the 1982, 1985 and 1989. But I did not get along with case of 1989 and ended up selling it in the late 1990s because the price was soaring and I really didn’t enjoy them.
Little did I realise how this wine was destined to be a multi decade legend.

When I joined BWE in 2001 I was a bit of a Lynch-Bages sceptic. Every critic was saying that it ought to be a second growth. Ya-da, ya-da, ya-da. I thought that the price had risen by more than was merited by the quality. Not only did I not get on with the 1989 I thought the 1990 was over-rated too. A bit too warm/low acid/easy obvious. Of the late 80s triumvirate my favourite was the 1988. Meanwhile my bottles of the 1985 were quite variable; some had a disquieting green streak.

So all this adulation of the 1989 Lynch on here did nothing for me. Then I tried it around 2015. I can’t remember if it was before or after our Bordeaux tour, where we were treated very shabbily. At the time I thought this is just typical.

Anyway at this lunch in London we had a flight of 1989s: Lynch, Leoville Barton and Montrose. Boy did the Lynch kick ass that day. Mind you the Leoville Barton ran it very close, but the Montrose was left trailing a distant third, and this is supposed to be a legendary Montrose.

Then a few years ago Tim brought a 1982 to my place here in London. That was one of the best wines I have ever had the pleasure to drink. I think the 1982 is the greatest ever Lynch. It too can be up and down, but good bottles are sensational. {This bit edited: Around the same time I tried the 1986 which was also sensational.{Edit at Denver ...2019...Jacques’s 1986 was sensational...(I got so sozzled in Denver it took me a whole week to sober up).

Over the last few years to Covid a group of us met every six weeks or so for a Bordeaux themed dinner. In both the 1995 and 2004 dinners the Lynch romped home in first place, the only two dinners in which it featured. Different class to the others, though we generally do not have first growths at these dinners. I do own a few bottles of the 2000, and it is a legend in the making.

Then I tried the 2016 Lynch. Man that is an epic wine in the making and goes toe to toe with the sensational 2016 Pichons. Over the last five years ago I have come to realise that Lynch is the real deal. I have come full circle. I regret that I own so little of it. I only have the 16 and 19 in quantity and they will both outlive me. It easily deserves second growth status. It is de facto a super second imho.

[JoelD]

I didn't see this thread when I just posted on the 1855 one, so copied and pasted the relevant parts here.

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.

[Blanquito]

I completely concur with where your evolution ended up, Ian. In my experience, Lynch Bages is undoubtedly a super second and a classic Pauillac to boot.

There’s a few caveats in all that though — I’ve had very few vintages post 2000 and I’ve had way less LB in general than many of your here. But I love, love, love 80’s Lynch and that 78 which Bill brought to Denver ‘19 was terrific as well.

My first real ‘moment’ was with the 90 Lynch, which was opened in 1995 at a fancy soirée I was crashing, and I was amazed by that bottle. The 82 (only had once, and the heavens parted), the 83 (my old standby, which I bought close to a case of for a song ~7-8 years ago), the terrific 85, the 86 (which is now a top of 10 wine in that year), the 88 (a candidate for wine of the vintage), and the 89 (which needs no introduction) are all also way, way up there in my experience.

I have way less experience with vintages since these, but I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the 96 when I’ve had it and I think it’s best is yet to come, and the 2000 is a towering wine in the making.

[Comte Flaneur]

I like that Patrick: ‘towering’ - an adjective that sums up Lynch-Bages well.

Clearly it was an over-achieving estate in the 1980s and among equals with Pichon Lalande, Cos D’Estournel and Gruaud-Larose.

[Blanquito]

Indeed. The bottle of the 86 Lynch (that Jacques brought to Denver in 2018) gave the 82 Gruaud (also Jacques’ bottle) a serious run for its money, which is very high praise indeed. Both wines were truly sensational and while I slightly preferred the Gruaud, others (including Jacques) gave the nod to the Lynch.

[Musigny 151]

Thanks Ian. I have had a love/indifference relationship with Lynch. Good are magnifique, but while seldom bad, far too many are just boring.
The 1985 was the most annoying; the green streak you mention is really problematic. I bought three cases after a particularly good bottle, only to sell them after all three showed green.
I loved the 1989; never a bad bottle but the 1990 was pretty blowsy, and ill defined. I did like also the 2005, and the 2000 almost as much. 2008 is solid, 2015 is good, but did not taste the 2014 or the 2016. Lesser vintages, the 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2012.

[Winona Chief]

Interesting thread. A few thoughts - I have had universally good experiences with 1985 Lynch Bages, 1989 LB is always very impressive but some bottles have been a bit closed (too young?), not as much a fan of 1990 LB - some bottles were out of balance or a bit flat. The 1986 LB is really rocking these days and I think the 1982 is a bit underrated.

Chris Bublitz

[JimHow]

My love affair with the 1989 Lynch Bages notwithstanding, I haven't been overwhelmed in general by the property since.
I've drunk through a whole case of the 2000, it was excellent, but not anything that made me jump up and down like with the '89.
The 2014 was literally the only wine that disappointed me from either bank during that vintage, I even liked the GPL that year.
The 1988 is probably my second favorite Lynch. The rest of the vintages from the golden decade, including the '82, '85, and even the '90, have been excellent but, again, not the earth-moving sensation I get from, say, the 1986 PLL and Gruaud, the 1983 Palmer, or even a wine like 1986 Rausan Segla, etc., etc.
I'm happy to elevate it from fifth growth to fourth growth, in the spirit of compromise, but I don't see it anywhere near the category of Ducru, LLC, PLL, Montrose, etc., and the Purple Baron has left it in the dust, in my humble opinion.

[JoelD]

My love affair with the 1989 Lynch Bages notwithstanding, I haven't been overwhelmed in general by the property since.
I've drunk through a whole case of the 2000, it was excellent, but not anything that made me jump up and down like with the '89.
The 2014 was literally the only wine that disappointed me from either bank during that vintage, I even liked the GPL that year.
The 1988 is probably my second favorite Lynch. The rest of the vintages from the golden decade, including the '82, '85, and even the '90, have been excellent but, again, not the earth-moving sensation I get from, say, the 1986 PLL and Gruaud, the 1983 Palmer, or even a wine like 1986 Rausan Segla, etc., etc.
I'm happy to elevate it from fifth growth to fourth growth, in the spirit of compromise, but I don't see it anywhere near the category of Ducru, LLC, PLL, Montrose, etc., and the Purple Baron has left it in the dust, in my humble opinion.

All very fair points, but shouldn't we really focus on comparing it to the other 26 wines you have ranked ahead of it that are in your 3rd and 4th growth column? I just have a hard time believing that you've had more good experiences with Pape Clement, Lafon Rochet, SHL and d'Issan(which is one of my favorite wines for the value, but just doesn't quite have the depth of Lynch to me).

Do you really get earth moving sensations from a lot of those wines? And not with Lynch?

[Nicklasss]

Very interesting discussion. Lynch Bages will always have a special place at BWE. Many good points here, but all different views come from different experiençes, different expectations, different wines tasted.

The 1989 Lynch Bages is the answer to the 1990 Beausejour-Duffau: incredible jewels, and forever. But when you analyze deeper on other vintages, it is clear to me that Lynch Bages is better than other Fifth, but not really playing equal with other Second (excluding Gassies and Brane Cantenac. But that last one is clearly able to produce excellent to great wines).

When I look at vintages I had, 1982 is something really nice, but all 1982 are. 1983 is good but a bit unpredictable. 1985 is reliable, but like musigny wrote, is sometime greeny. 1986 has prove many time to be excellent strict Pauillac, but many Saint Julien in that vintage are more complex/complete. The 1988 is "solid", but Lagrange, Gruaud Larose, LLC,the two Pichons, Pape Clement, are also "solid". The 1989 is what we know. 1990 was a deception to me, but i was having high expectation the only time I had it. 1995 and 1996 are excellent but I would have expected more, because 1995-1996 GPL/Duhart/Clerc Milon aren't no sloutch either. 2000 is great, but not like 1989, more an improved 1988. 2003 is ok but limited. And the one that we tasted at the Château in 2015 was forgotten the next day.

so where do we go now?

[Comte Flaneur]

I must be getting old because I forgot I started this thread

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9326&p=90006&hilit= ... ges#p90006

BWE has already decided - Lynch Bages is a second growth. I personally, as you all know, think it should be adorned with super second status. But as instigator of the BWE classification I am prepared to make a major concession here and accept Lynch-Bages as a second.

A total of 14 votes for second growth or higher a total of seven votes for third or lower. A thumping majority of 2:1.

Those on the fringes who think it does not deserve second growth status are in the minority, and have to accept the will of the BWE people.

[Claudius2]

Guys
Well I am definitely getting old as whenever I get screened at hospital they find another four things wrong with me. I really should buy shares in the Pharma companies. I at least got my second and last Covid-19 fax today - the Pfizer brand - so hopefully I can travel back to Aust this year.

My experiences with Lynch Bages are partly historic and like many other properties LB has evolved over the years. My earliest experiences were vintages from the 70s and the wine was lighter and more autumnal with the exception of the 75 which was rather angular and too tannic for the fruit. This difficult vintage is one I have drunk a lot of and arguably more than any other vintage.

The 73, 76, 78 and 81 I do recall quite fondly as rather old fashioned claret with dark fruit, pencil like characters and soft, smoky oak characters. I wonder if I will ever try another Bordeaux that tastes like the wines from the 70’s. That decade was hardly a great one but seriously many wines were really nice drinks. The 78 I sipped thru a few cases of and it was always a light to medium bodied wine with autumnal characters.

The wines from 82 were quite different being firmer and more fruit forward. Only tried the 82 once with fond memories but the 88 was excellent - one of my favourite vintages of all time - and the 85 and 86 were also very good. I don’t recall the 85 showing green characters though.

The youngest vintage I have tried is 2000 and I drank it too young to really get a good picture of it. I did visit LB during the harvest and the fruit was in great condition and I recall the smiles on the faces of the winemaking staff.

I happily rate LB a third growth though not a second simply as the wines generally rated as a super second are better. I don’t see it as being as good as say, LLC, DB, the Pichons, Cos or Montrose.

Regarding Rauzan Gassies, this wine should be downgraded to a CB and its status as a second growth is simply unrealistic.
Cheers
Mark

[Jay Winton]

LB=BWE for me as I seem to drink it at most get togethers. I have a single mag of the 89 purchased on release to be saved for a gathering unless I drink the whole thing by myself (I kid of course).

[stefan]

3rd for Lynch looks right to me. It is better than D'Armailhac, Clerc, Duhart IMO. I judge mostly on older vintages as I have not drunk (rather than just tasted) many younger ones. Often Lynch-Bages made excellent wines in vintages that were good but less than outstanding, such as 1983 and 1988. I bought and tried 2002 and 2009. The 2009 is certainly excellent, but probably below both Pichons and Pontet-Canet. The 2002 gives me pause. I am blanquitoing mine.

[Nicklasss]

I did not thought it would be so easy: just do a BWE poll to know the classification of a Château, like it has been done for Lynch Bages.

Now we just have to do many more polls for all the other Châteaux, and we will have our red Bordeaux Crus Classés classification!

Why so much discussion or drama, when we can avoid all that?

The thing is we might end up with many more First and Second growth...

[JimHow]

Yeah, I think that the Lynch poll was conducted before any discussion in this year-long project, which is not even half way through.
Also, I think it is fuzzy math to assign it second growth status based on that poll.
I haven't done the math myself but I think the average would be somewhere in the mid to high third growth category, a very generous elevation from fifth growth, if you ask me.

[SF Ed]

I'm in the 3rd growth camp.

I like Lynch Bages a lot, and I think the "more recent" very good vintages like 1996 and 2000 are very good ones. Unlike stefan, I like the 2002 and have drunk nearly an entire case. I also have liked old vintages like 1966 and 1970, well before the '80s surge in popularity and points.

For me it is classic Pauillac and classic Bordeaux. Not the best, but very good, and very consistent.

[Rainer Guntermann]

Hi all,
long time lurking but this thread makes a response necessary:
In my book Lynch Bages is really second growth quality. Looking at 1970 Lynch it is head and shoulders above Pichon Baron, Cos, Montrose etc. It is a wine that delivers even in difficult vintages as 1981, 1999, 2002 or 2007.
1961,1966,1970,1982,1985,1986,1988,1989,1990,1995, 1996, 2000 are really, really good and challenging all 2. growth, the younger ones promising but not tasted often enough . Since my first eP buys in 1982 always great QPR. That's a period 60 ( 40 ) years of high quality which imo only Las Cases can match. Now it is price wise catching up but nevertheless still one of my year in, year out buys. Sadly - due to the price hike - now only in smaller numbers. From a buyers perspective it could stay a 5. growth for ever, as long the quality stays the same.
Cheers
Rainer

[JimHow]

Welcome Rainer!

[Comte Flaneur]

Hi all,
long time lurking but this thread makes a response necessary:
In my book Lynch Bages is really second growth quality. Looking at 1970 Lynch it is head and shoulders above Pichon Baron, Cos, Montrose etc. It is a wine that delivers even in difficult vintages as 1981, 1999, 2002 or 2007.
1961,1966,1970,1982,1985,1986,1988,1989,1990,1995, 1996, 2000 are really, really good and challenging all 2. growth, the younger ones promising but not tasted often enough . Since my first eP buys in 1982 always great QPR. That's a period 60 ( 40 ) years of high quality which imo only Las Cases can match. Now it is price wise catching up but nevertheless still one of my year in, year out buys. Sadly - due to the price hike - now only in smaller numbers. From a buyers perspective it could stay a 5. growth for ever, as long the quality stays the same.
Cheers
Rainer

Welcome to BWE Rainer. By way of introduction Rainer is part of our community of connoisseurs in London and we often see him when he pops over from Düsseldorf, which is not so far away. We haven’t seen him so often recently of course, but he famously has a cellar under his garden with an ambient temperature of 8 degrees Celsius and a stash of Bordeaux and other treasures, especially in half bottles.
If anyone knows a thing or two about Lynch-Bages it is Rainer - wise words mate.

[Blanquito]

Welcome Rainer, thanks for your perspective.

[rthomaspaull]

Lynch Bages (not in our "collection" as it is normally too expensive) qualifies as a second growth under Grundeken, under my 2002-2014 (excl. 2013) study, and of course under the two combined at equal weights. The total period covered is 1982-2014 (excl. 5 poor years), and virtually all the ratings were done by Robert Parker (2014 was by Neal Martin). rthomaspaull

[jal]

Great, so now we will need another poll: Is Lynch Bages a 3rd growth?

[Antoine]

I have a 6 packs of Lynch Bages 2006. Is it any good? Now or later?

[DavidG]

Great, so now we will need another poll: Is Lynch Bages a 3rd growth?

What’s wrong with this one?
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9326

I voted for 2nd growth. More great experiences than disappointments, but I tend to avoid the "bad" years.

[jal]

DavidG you rock! I need memory implants

[Comte Flaneur]

I have a 6 packs of Lynch Bages 2006. Is it any good? Now or later?

Jacques when I started this thread I completely forgot I commissioned this poll back in November, which of course demonstrates that it is the will of the BWE people that Lynch should be a second growth, despite a Putinian northern North American conspiracy theory to subvert the will of the people.

Antoine I have not tried this vintage of Lynch. Even though Neal Martin raves about this wine, in my experience 2006 is a rather spikey, tannic and slow moving vintage so there should be no hurry to release it from storage.

[jal]

You're right Ian, Jim is using Nicolas the way Putin used Medvedev, good thing our Canadian friend is above corruption.

[JimHow]

I have full faith in the Canadian parliamentary democracy system.

[jal]

We can all get together and give Nicolas a better bribe than you can!

That said, I believe 3rd Growth is a fair compromise for Lynch Bages. Especially if we’re doing without the super second category

[Nicklasss]

Great, so now we will need another poll: Is Lynch Bages a 3rd growth?

What’s wrong with this one?
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9326

I voted for 2nd growth. More great experiences than disappointments, but I tend to avoid the "bad" years.

This is a poll. I'm just waiting the remaining mass of other BWEers to vote... come on guys, you're better than that!

[Nicklasss]

You're right Ian, Jim is using Nicolas the way Putin used Medvedev, good thing our Canadian friend is above corruption.

I don't need bribery, i'm not always agreeing with Jim (example 1985 GPL or GPL generally, drinking red Bordeaux with everything...), and Jim isn't using me. And sometime, I agree with Jim, or Jal (dry white Bordeaux, yark, get me some Chassagne or Puligny instead) or Comte Flaneur (Côte Rôtie, Léoville Barton, SHL) or blanquito (Magdelaine).

But for Lynch Bages, with vintages i had, i really think a 2nd Growth is exagerated. And it is an excellent Pauillac, and i guess a 3rd Growth would be more appropriated. And it is already a great (almost impossible!) achievement, from 5th to 3rd! I don't need to be completely understand, i don't have to agree with Parker (I think i will never really like Troplong Mondot), i'm respectful of other BWEers point of view, as wine appreciation is so personnal and subjective. But Lynch Bages a 2nd Growth, i very simply don't agree. Even worst, i think doing that would distinguish BWE as "non serious" Bordeaux community, doing more harm to our reputation than good. It is like the critics that say that "Pontet Canet today is 1st Growth quality". This is too easy, too big, non serious, a comedy. And BWE is not that.

Sincerely,

Nic (while blowing a kiss)

[JimHow]

I honestly have absolutely no agenda.
If I think a wine is great I say so, if I think it sucks I say so.
If I change my mind, I say so.
Who woulda thunk 20 years ago that I, JimHow, would be arguing against Lynch Bages?
We made our bones on 1989 and other 1980s-era Lynches.
I honestly believe we actually moved the market on that wine.
It was so dramatic that Jean-Michel Cazes became a member of BWE, wrote me a letter, and Whuzzup__ presented me with artwork from the estate.
But... My honest assessment of the wines is that it is not the same stuff that was produced in the '80s.
And it is nowhere near the level of Palmer, Ducru, LLC, etc., etc., that make up the class of "super seconds."
So... I have stated my position, I stand by my vote for fourth growth, and wash my hands...

I leave it to the Canadians....

[JimHow]

Also, it has nothing to do with how we were treated at the chateau.
We were actually treated nice there, if run of the mill.

If I were rating estates based on how we were treated I would drop Margaux to fourth growth, I can still see the look of disdain that blonde girl had for us.

[JoelD]

You're right Ian, Jim is using Nicolas the way Putin used Medvedev, good thing our Canadian friend is above corruption.

I don't need bribery, i'm not always agreeing with Jim (example 1985 GPL or GPL generally, drinking red Bordeaux with everything...), and Jim isn't using me. And sometime, I agree with Jim, or Jal (dry white Bordeaux, yark, get me some Chassagne or Puligny instead) or Comte Flaneur (Côte Rôtie, Léoville Barton, SHL) or blanquito (Magdelaine).

But for Lynch Bages, with vintages i had, i really think a 2nd Growth is exagerated. And it is an excellent Pauillac, and i guess a 3rd Growth would be more appropriated. And it is already a great (almost impossible!) achievement, from 5th to 3rd! I don't need to be completely understand, i don't have to agree with Parker (I think i will never really like Troplong Mondot), i'm respectful of other BWEers point of view, as wine appreciation is so personnal and subjective. But Lynch Bages a 2nd Growth, i very simply don't agree. Even worst, i think doing that would distinguish BWE as "non serious" Bordeaux community, doing more harm to our reputation than good. It is like the critics that say that "Pontet Canet today is 1st Growth quality". This is too easy, too big, non serious, a comedy. And BWE is not that.

Sincerely,

Nic (while blowing a kiss)

I have no true agenda but I would love to see this debate come to a conclusion. How many wines would you say are better than Lynch Bages?
15? 25? I'd love to hear.

I dont think I can pick 25 wines that are better from Bordeaux, but thats just me. Better to compare it to all the ones that are in the same range.

Is it better than Rauzan Segla? Debatable, I think this is maybe the closest comparison.
Better than SHL? I think most would here would say so. And I like SHL, but Lynch is better.
Is it better than Cos? It got more votes for the 1970-2019 vertical. I might choose Lynch, but its very close.
Leoville Barton? I know that gets a lot of of love here but I choose Lynch.

I agree about Palmer, Montrose, Ducru, Both Pichon's. I think most agree those are ahead of Lynch, but that doesn't mean it can't be at the bottom of the list of seconds. I agree that it is not a super second.

[JimHow]

Excellent, progress!
Young Joel, from the Comte/Blanquito Club, says Lynch is "bottom second growth."
Longtime BWEers SF Ed and Stefan and others say third growth.
In my weakness, I've conceded fourth growth.
The Canadians say fifth growth.

I vote a resolution, that Lynch Bages be awarded the honor of being elevated from fifth to fourth growth.

Congratulations, Lynch Bages, on such an esteemed honor! I believe it is the first official elevation of Lynch Bages from its 166 year status at the bottom of the Medoc classified hierarchy!

A great achievement!

[Nicklasss]

Jim, I was more thinking 3rd Growth. Dstgolf a bit lower and Paul a bit higher.

JoelD, if you talking about all wine World, i can easily find 75 to 100 wines that i find better than Lynch. If you talk about red Bordeaux only, and you include the Right Bank, probably 40 to 50 that i find better (and maybe a bit more).

But i will stop there. Put it over Lafite or Mouton, i don't really mind. I'm starting to think it is arguing for nothing, as it is so personnal and subjective.

Finally, all i think is the 1855 classification was probably right. At that time, there was only red Bordeaux made probably in a shitty way compared to today, but people that were drinking wines were paying a bit much for some Médoc Châteaux, because they were drinking it and find them the best red wines and they classified them by that fact. Today, it is critics, marketing, investing, speculation, image, brand, money, China, etc... etc... not at all the same ball game. So is Lynch Bages a 1st or 100th or -5th Growth? I don't really care.

All i know, i'm looking forward to drink any Lynch Bages in your company in the future (or Comte, or blanquito, or Winona, or AKR, or jal or any BWEers, even Jim) and just say if it is great or bad.

Nic (doing an eye wink)

[JoelD]

Jim, I was more thinking 3rd Growth. Dstgolf a bit lower and Paul a bit higher.

JoelD, if you talking about all wine World, i can easily find 75 to 100 wines that i find better than Lynch. If you talk about red Bordeaux only, and you include the Right Bank, probably 40 to 50 that i find better (and maybe a bit more).

But i will stop there. Put it over Lafite or Mouton, i don't really mind. I'm starting to think it is arguing for nothing, as it is so personnal and subjective.

Finally, all i think is the 1855 classification was probably right. At that time, there was only red Bordeaux made probably in a shitty way compared to today, but people that were drinking wines were paying a bit much for some Médoc Châteaux, because they were drinking it and find them the best red wines and they classified them by that fact. Today, it is critics, marketing, investing, speculation, image, brand, money, China, etc... etc... not at all the same ball game. So is Lynch Bages a 1st or 100th or -5th Growth? I don't really care.

All i know, i'm looking forward to drink any Lynch Bages in your company in the future (or Comte, or blanquito, or Winona, or AKR, or jal or any BWEers, even Jim) and just say if it is great or bad.

Nic (doing an eye wink)

Totally fair. At this point, I feel like this has gotten into debating whether someone scores a wine a 97 or 93. The rating system is clearly flawed, as is our ranking system here. I have enjoyed trying though and hearing all of your thought processes. I'm certainly glad that I don't have to go up against Jim in court, he surely pulls out all the stops.

I do very much look forward to blind tasting some of you in person related to this subject!

[JimHow]

Great stuff indeed, Joel, although I'm really intending my commentary as devil's advocacy, mostly tongue in cheek.
I will support the esteemed Mr. Comte Flaneur in however he sorts out the Lynch Bages (re-) classification.

[Racer Chris]

I have too little experience to weigh in directly on the L-B controversy, except to say that the arguments in favor of 2nd growth status seem to be based on logic, while the arguments against are more heavily weighted on emotion.

Its generally a wine that's out of my price range but I found a bottle of the 2012 locally for $100 that I may purchase soon and open for a special treat, maybe around Memorial Day. It will be fun to contrast with the 2012 Rauzan Segla I just brought upstairs to open. I paid less than $60 ea for the 6 R-S bottles I have, but it has a one point better CT average score than the L-B.