Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

Started back, for you to select 3 each.

Unfortunately, limited to 10 choices, so i did not put in Léoville Poyferré, Brane-Cantenac, Rauzan Gassies, Durfort-Vivens and Lascombes, as i thought they were the logical choices to not be in the poll. But i guess you can have one of these as favorite and this is not a problem.

Well done, Nicola, for me it's a really tough choice between Montrose, Ducru, and the Purple Baron.
I decided to reward the Purple Baron for the work they've been doing there during the past 20 years.

Ah ok, selecting 3, I have Montrose, Ducru, Baron.

It won't let me vote for more than one though....

For my casted vote, I went with Montrose, Ducru and Lalande.

Jim, i think that if you select one and vote, you can't select two others. You need to select three and vote.

3 votes each make it more interesting and fair to me.

Ah I see, oh well, I would have added Montrose and Ducru.

I edited the title of your post, Nic, to pick 3.

Tough to pick just three, but I chose L-B, Montrose, and LLC, because those are the 3 I have the least experience with.
I think I drank some 2000 Lynch-Bages at a wine dinner once. I've never had a drop of either Montrose or Leoville Las Cases.

You are such a mischievous naughty boy Nic like Mutley to Dick Dastardly.

It has already been decided by BWE that Lynch should be a second. As Racer Chris said in the other poll post this one was easy to call. To which I quipped that even Trump would have conceded this one, which you and the BD seem reluctant to do - a (worse than) Trumpian disdain for democratic due process.

It is quite easy to eliminate some of these straight away. Pichon Baron was a serial under-achiever until 1988, so was Montrose until 1989, while Ducru had a catastrophic run in the mid-late 80s. Grauad and Rauzan were superb in the 1980s but their mixed form in the next two decades rules then out. Cos was brilliant in the 1980s but is ruled out for going on to the dark side in the naughties. So that just leaves four contenders and Lynch gets in quite comfortably in the end.

Comte Flaneur wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:54 pm You are such a mischievous naughty boy Nic like Mutley to Dick Dastardly.

It has already been decided by BWE that Lynch should be a second. As Racer Chris said in the other poll post this one was easy to call. To which I quipped that even Trump would have conceded this one, which you and the BD seem reluctant to do - a (worse than) Trumpian disdain for democratic due process.

It is quite easy to eliminate some of these straight away. Pichon Baron was a serial under-achiever until 1988, so was Montrose until 1989, while Ducru had a catastrophic run in the mid-late 80s. Grauad and Rauzan were superb in the 1980s but their mixed form in the next two decades rules then out. Cos was brilliant in the 1980s but is ruled out for going on to the dark side in the naughties. So that just leaves four contenders and Lynch gets in quite comfortably in the end.

Well said.

Lynch and PLL were easy to choose with the first two picks. Then it gets more challenging as I am usually let down by LLC, and I don’t love/ or have had bad luck with L. Barton pre-1990. Because of that I voted Montrose for my third.

Montrose
LLC
Lalande

Comte Flaneur wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:54 pm You are such a mischievous naughty boy Nic like Mutley to Dick Dastardly.

It has already been decided by BWE that Lynch should be a second. As Racer Chris said in the other poll post this one was easy to call. To which I quipped that even Trump would have conceded this one, which you and the BD seem reluctant to do - a (worse than) Trumpian disdain for democratic due process.

It is quite easy to eliminate some of these straight away. Pichon Baron was a serial under-achiever until 1988, so was Montrose until 1989, while Ducru had a catastrophic run in the mid-late 80s. Grauad and Rauzan were superb in the 1980s but their mixed form in the next two decades rules then out. Cos was brilliant in the 1980s but is ruled out for going on to the dark side in the naughties. So that just leaves four contenders and Lynch gets in quite comfortably in the end.

.

Comte, when you say that it has already been decided by BWE for Lynch Bages, are you talking about the "massive" number of vote from the previous poll (total 21 votes)?

Gruaud and Rauzan never lost it, they lost"Parker approval" for whatever reason, but they never lost it. The 1996-2000-2006 Gruaud are quite excellent to me and later vintages commented very positively by other BWEers. For Rauzan, better than Lynch in 1986 and 1990 and we could be impressed right now by 1995-1996. Since Chanel took over, Rauzan rocks more then ever.

Cos being Cos, it has always been controversial, so nothing changed there too. Parker and others always rated it high. I don't understand why it doesn't get much love. An enigma.

For Montrose and Pichon Baron, i agree it is a tough call before 1988, but since than, in average, i guess they've been performing better than Lynch? I think off vintages or special difficult vi tages can help to figure out better. In 1993 and 2003, Lynch is the lest interesting of the three.

jckba wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:23 pm For my casted vote, I went with Montrose, Ducru and Lalande.

Mine as well.it would have been hard if Palmer was in
The mix. I would have probably lost the Montrose.

LLC
Comtesse
Baron

Maybe i tasted these more, but so be it. It was close between Lynch and the Baron though.

Musigny 151 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:01 pm

jckba wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:23 pm For my casted vote, I went with Montrose, Ducru and Lalande.

Mine as well.it would have been hard if Palmer was in
The mix. I would have probably lost the Montrose.

I really thought abour Palmer instead of Rauzan Ségla, but finally let Lynch Bages challenging actual 2nd Growth only.

Being a Saint Julien type of Bordeaux fan, i ended up with:

LLC
Pichon Comtesse de Lalande
Gruaud Larose

Montrose
LLC
Pichon Lalande

I would have definitely voted for Ducru but for their lengthy cellar-taint stretch — come on, their 85-90 vintages are basically untouchable, that’s really hard to ignore.

And Baron — were there any good wines made at this address between 1970-1988? I’ve had a decent bottle or two of the 86 I suppose.

Lynch fans living off its 1980s era performances is like Yankee fans pining for the days of DiMaggio and the Mick. The Sox have won four World Series since Jetes last donned the pinstripes. Reminiscing about the glories of the ‘89 Lynch is like the high school sports star leafing through the yellowed newspaper clippings of past glory after popping a beer following a long day at the shop.

Man, I hope Ian never rises to the benevolent dictatorship of BWE after I go on to the great tasting room in the sky with the great Stefan, who we knew. No tolerance for dissent or alternate opinions, I’m going to start this discussion about a reclassification but it’s going to end up the way I say it is, dammit, super second categories and all.

Blanquito wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:54 pm I would have definitely voted for Ducru but for their lengthy cellar-taint stretch — come on, their 85-90 vintages are basically untouchable, that’s really hard to ignore.

While I agree is does throw shade and anger for those holding those original release bottles from that period, I’ve had several of the estate rebottled editions and they have been absolutely stellar.

The 2014 Ducru is absolutely brilliant, I have 17 bottles.

JimHow wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:08 pm The 2014 Ducru is absolutely brilliant, I have 17 bottles.

Recency bias!

But based on maturity preferences, not surprising — you like ‘em young, I like ‘em old.

I need to try the 2016 Lynch.
Gerry, does NH have any in stock?

Starting that poll was just to "stir the pot" a bit, and while Lynch Bages is a great wine, to compare it directly with some other 2nd growth can just add some understanding and get to some kind of answer to that difficult question.

Let's wait for some more votes on that poll, some more point of view, some more reflexion. I think we have the best group here on BWE to make the best decision.

Blanquito wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:54 pm I would have definitely voted for Ducru but for their lengthy cellar-taint stretch — come on, their 85-90 vintages are basically untouchable, that’s really hard to ignore.

And Baron — were there any good wines made at this address between 1970-1988? I’ve had a decent bottle or two of the 86 I suppose.

Bottles of the 1982 can be good but Baron woefully underachieved in 1970-88 esp vs. Comtessa. Baron was also mixed in the 1990s after the 88-90 triumvirate. If Nic’s poll was from 2000 however I would have chosen Baron because Christian Seely really raised the standard from the 2000 vintage on.

Montrose was a big underachiever between 1970 and 1988 too. The wines were agricultural and prehistoric. I am surprised how many people voted for Montrose. If it was from 1989 I would understand.

Over the 50 year period Lynch is probably the most consistent wine, because Pichon Lalande was very patchy in the nineties and noughties. Lynch followed by Leoville Lascases and Leoville Barton, the most consistent over the 50 year span.

My 2 favorites are Pichon Lalande and Ducru. Not that I have a lot of experience... Baron the one I have had most of in this lot though...

Do you go with consistency or occasional greatness? Are recent vintages more important with older ones? After a lot of thought (i.e. more than 30 seconds) I went with

Pichon Lalande
Pichon Baron
Ducru-Beaucaillou

Seems like everyone chose Pichon Lalande.

Edited to add: “not surprisingly...”

Very interesting and i agre that Pichon Lalande is a popular choice when considering the last 50 years.

I'm also amazed that Montrose is now the second favorite, and that Gruaud Larose is almost left in the dust.

Lynch Bages is doing ok, considering the competition.

We still need more voters, as only 21-22 BWEers answered the poll until now.

Combining at equal weights Grundeken and my 2002-14 (excl. 2013 study) , essentially with Robert Parker scores, gives in descending order Cos D'Estournel, Montrose and Ducru-Beaucaillou, closely followed by Palmer (& Pape Clement), Lynch Bages and Pichon Lalande [this list is not too out of line with what {with my very limited experience} I would choose.] I have omitted Leoville Las Cases as both RP and I consider it first class. rthomaspaull

I could see a Lynch Bages compromise at third growth but I'm at fourth growth and I'm not going to bid against myself.

JimHow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:33 pm I could see a Lynch Bages compromise at third growth but I'm at fourth growth and I'm not going to bid against myself.

I'd like to find a way to get a better/larger vote on this, based on the previous results, it does appear to be right on the 2nd/3rd line depending on how you calculate. If you calculate in a reverse yelp/google review style, it averages out to a 2.65. That could technically round down to a 3rd growth. However, I don't think thats a fair judgement, until compared to the other wines that are in that borderline 2/3 zone.

I also think that it's important for us to decide on how many wines can be in each tier. Somehow. Ian had 25 2nd growths, Jim had 13. So right there is enough of a divide for it to be reasonable for Ian to call it a 2nd growth, and Jim to say its a third.

I recommend a few options, doing all would give us the most data however some would be redundant.

1. Have us re-do our google doc rankings, but this time all with the same format, either with or without Super Seconds. Also with the same number of wines for each class. We could decide on this by averaging how many wines each person had per class.

2. Have more votes on all the wines that could fall on that 2nd/3rd border. Then get the average of those votes like I did above for Lynch. Then re-rank based on average for each wine. Then see where Lynch Bages falls. (We would also need to decide on the number of wines per growth for this as well). Looking at the google doc rankings, these are the wines we should likely vote on as it appears fairly clear that all the wines above Cos, got at least 2nd growth ratings across the board on the doc.

Cos D'Estournel
Leoville-Barton
Lynch Bages
Haut-Bailly
Smith Haut-Lafitte
Rauzan-Segla
Pontet-Canet
Gruaud-Larose

3. The other option, that may be easier. Is to have a vote that makes you Rank all of the above wines (we can throw more in there if there are any that anyone else feels may be on that 2/3 border). Then we can calculate based on the rankings of just those wines and see where Lynch falls.

I think that agreeing to the parameters before the voting, can leave little doubt. Obviously this is a close one. But the more data and votes we have from different angles can turn this very subjective proceeding into a much closer to objective one.

Joel I nominate you to take over this project. You are much younger therefore have more energy and are not burdened by vast experience and strong opinions on these matters. If I continue I can just imagine the fights we are going to have over preserving Mouton’s first growth status. It is just not worth the effort.
P.S. Something to bear in mind in this instance Joel.The median is a more relevant concept than the mean when you have extreme/rogue data points dragging the distribution in one direction. There is a bar with 100 people in it. Average net worth less than one million dollars. Then Jeff Bezos walks in. Suddenly the average net worth is over a billion dollars. I rest my case.

Robert Parker would remove Gruaud -Larose from the list (I wouldn't). Combining Grundeken at equal weights with my 2014 (excluding 2013) study, the following in descending order qualify as 2nd growths (LLC is counted as a first growth): Cos D'Estournel, Montrose, Ducru Beaucaillou, Palmer & Pape Clement,Lynch Bages, Pichon Lalande, Leoville Poyferre, Pichon Baron, Pontet Canet & Smith-Haut-Lafitte, Leoville Barton, Haut Bailly and (just barely) GPL. I apologize for the list being so long, but it is essentially RP's list (I am not saying I disagree much). Because of a relatively poor score in Grundeken Rauzan Segla does not make it, but it does much better recently. rthomaspaull

Comte Flaneur wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:11 pm Joel I nominate you to take over this project. You are much younger therefore have more energy and are not burdened by vast experience and strong opinions on these matters. If I continue I can just imagine the fights we are going to have over preserving Mouton’s first growth status. It is just not worth the effort.
P.S. Something to bear in mind in this instance Joel.The median is a more relevant concept than the mean when you have extreme/rogue data points dragging the distribution in one direction. There is a bar with 100 people in it. Average net worth less than one million dollars. Then Jeff Bezos walks in. Suddenly the average net worth is over a billion dollars. I rest my case.

Ian, I definitely appreciate the thought but this is clearly your baby and you have done an awesome job putting it all together. I am just here to try to help with some parameters to try to get everyone's input which seems to be what you wanted in the first place right? And then make final decisions on a few wines that are polarizing and/or right on the border of a few growths. I'm sure the original 1855 committee had some sort of system for decisions like this so that they didn't get stuck on a couple of wines like we have.

I do love breaking down data when theres enough of it, and the good thing with scores of 1(1st growth) through 5(5th growth) is that there cant be an extreme data point like you mentioned. So if averaged, then it can't get out of hand. I find this to be more accurate as long as there are specific parameters. We would then rank all of the wines based on the average at that point.

Either way, I hope this can get resolved because I really love the project and want to see it completed. Thats the only reason I am even coming up with ways to try to bridge the gap and/or settle the argument democratically.

I vote to keep Mouton as a first growth, I have it number 4 in my hierarchy.

Ok, here is a compromise:

Lynch Bages get the 2nd Growth status.

Montrose, the Pichons, Ducru, LLC, Palmer... get the 1st Growth status.

Haut Brion, Lafite, Latour, Margaux and Mouton get the 1st Growth Supérieur (same kind as Yquem).

Then, everyone's happy?

Nicklasss wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:13 am Ok, here is a compromise:

Lynch Bages get the 2nd Growth status.

Montrose, the Pichons, Ducru, LLC, Palmer... get the 1st Growth status.

Haut Brion, Lafite, Latour, Margaux and Mouton get the 1st Growth Supérieur (same kind as Yquem).

Then, everyone's happy?

While I support Lynch Bages occupying a coveted 2nd growth spot; I thoroughly dislike the idea of a classification that will read 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b ... etc

Yes jckba, me too i hate it. But who want Lynch as 2nd Growth will be happy, and who don't want Lynch as a 2nd Growth will also be happy, because putting it that way, the 2nd Growth status is a disguised 3rd Growth.

Don't ever say i'm not trying to find solutions to make everyone happy.

By the way, the wine we tasted at the Chateau Lynch Bages (can't remember the vintage) during the 2015 visit was 5th or Cru Bourgeois status.