Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

… I will let you know soon.

Meantime, my BWE (Re-)classification…

I stand by this grouping, pending an upcoming tasting…

First Growths

1. Lafite Rothschild
2. Margaux
3. Haut Brion
4. Mouton Rothschild
5. Latour

Second Growths

6. Pichon Longueville Baron
7. Montrose
8. La Mission Haut Brion
9. Ducru Beaucaillou
10. Leoville Las Cases
11. Palmer
12. Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande
13. Cos d’Estournel
14. Leoville Barton

Third Growths

15. Calon Segur
16. Smith Haut Lafitte
17. Haut Bailly
18. Brane Cantenac
19. Rausan Segla
20. Pape Clement
21. Giscours
22. d'Issan

Fourth Growths

23. Pontet Canet
24. Clerc Milon
25. Branaire Ducru
26. Gruaud Larose
27. Leoville Poyferre
28. Sociando Mallet
29. Lafon Rochet
30. Beychevelle
31. Malescot St. Exupery
32. Duhart Milon
33. du Tertre
34. Talbot
35. Lagrange
36. Lascombes
37. Prieure Lichine
38. Domaine de Chevalier
39. D’Armailhac
40. Kirwan
41. Lynch Bages

Fifth Growths

42. La Lagune
43. Gloria
44. Meyney
45. Malartic Lagraviere
46. Cantemerle
47. Chasse Spleen
48. Haut Batailley
49. Batailley
50. Langoa Barton
51. St. Pierre
52. Cantenac Brown
53. Boyd Cantenac
54. Les Ormes de Pez
55. Phelan Segur
56. de Lamarque

I like your Second Growth cat except I would drop Cos totally out of the ranking and add Haut Bailly and Lynch Bages to that tier. Haut Bailly is a personal fave, so elegant (but for 2009).

I can live with that, OB… But I need to taste the 2016 Lynch…

I would move Gruaud up and Leoville Barton down. Make Gruaud a third growth or even second and LB a fourth growth. John Gilman empowered me to admit I’ve never been that impresssed with LB - the subscription to his mag paid for itself with that insight alone — and I think Gruaud’s more elegant touch these days is underrated

Also, it’s ridiculous to leave Grand Puy Lacoste out entirely, I would make them maybe a fourth growth, certainly they are better than your listed fifth growths. But it is so on brand for the BD that you almost have to do it

I really like my left bank list. Sure, a minor tweak here or there, but I think I have it about right.

Move Pape Clement dowwwwwn, GL up

JimHow wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:52 am I really like my left bank list. Sure, a minor tweak here or there, but I think I have it about right.

What a condescending answer! I’m here to tell you that you blew it Jim, your list is WRONG !

Lol condescending? It’s um just my opinion.
Feel free to offer up the “correct” listing.
Let me guess… Lynch will be a “super second…” <rolls eyes>

I agree with Leoville Barton being overrated. Had a recent ‘88 and ‘03, neither of which wowed. Have had far better experiences with even off-vintage Lynch Bages.

Also, Rauzan Segla seems a bit low.

The dividing line between third and fourth should be shifted down, thereby increasing the number of 3rd growth properties.
Gruaud-Larose belongs much closer to Rauzan-Segla.
Lynch-Bages belongs between Cos and Calon.
G-P-L belongs on the list - at least as high as 40th.
Sociando-Mallet belongs with other new 5th Growth properties.

robert goulet wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:15 am Move Pape Clement dowwwwwn, GL up

I’d move Pape Clement “out” not “down”. Sucks so bad. Move GPL up for sure.

Would make more sense to me to have three categories rather than five. As you move down the cats, the dividing line between estates becomes much less.

My problem with the list are the first growths. I would promote La Mission, Palmer, Montrose and Ducru. Gruaud is a second.
Cos is my idea of a third growth. Serviceable but seldom interesting. Leoville Barton demoted there as well. Beychevelle borderline second, but definitely at least a third. Lynch the same.

In fact, I have a new category, Superthirds

Musigny 151 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:59 pm …. Beychevelle borderline second, but definitely at least a third….

Agreed.

Father Stefan, BD is messing with La Lagune. Does this mean war????

What! I’m doing him a favor!

JimHow wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:56 pm What! I’m doing him a favor!

Yes, we need to get La Lagune banished from the 1855 Classification altogether. Bill might not be asked to give a speech again as a result during his next visit, but that’s a small price to pay to rid this scourge from hallowed ranks of classified growths.

I think your classification isn't too bad Jim. Like some other, i would just raise Gruaud Larose one up. There are other things that i would suggest, but they are so minor that i won't lose time.

Last thing: if for any reason Lynch Bages would be moved to Second Growth status, that would be a sign that BWE is ready to migrate to the new Trump social media...

My plan is to drink a bottle of 2016 Lynch Bages.
If Lynch did not rise to the level of second growth in 2016, it never will.

Jim, How was Lynch Bages 2014?

Best, Dan

Danny, as I have noted before, the 2014 Lynch was the ONLY 2014 that I’ve had that I thought sucked. I had it twice. I have a case of it in my cellar. I have loved EVERY single 2014 I have had, from both the left and right banks, except for the Lynch. I’ve had it twice, and thought it was swill both times.

Wow, a Pauillac 2014, that is not awesome but rather unpleasant. Already from that I have a hard time thinking that an excellent 2016 would make it a second in your eyes. Looking forward to see the notes from your coming 2016 tasting of Lynch Bages, will it be this weekend?

Best, Dan

No, first week of November.
I’m fasting this week for my annual doctor blood work results.

Geez Jim, I guess I'll just sit on my 4 bottles for 10 years and see where it goes.

Ok, Jim please explain as if to a five year old.
For years, you have come onto these boards, and expressed your love for the 1989 Lynch. You would have married it if you could, and were certainly prepared to pay hundreds of dollars for it.

And yet, Lynch is a fourth growth in your classification. Not just a fourth growth, but at the bottom of the fourths, maybe an afterthought, or a grudging inclusion. But then I have to ask myself, is the classification not about the potential of their greatest wines, rather than the screwed up version of the current ones?

Lol… A fair question, Musigny-151.
Part of it is that I’m being a little mischievous, but on the other hand, I really do believe Lynch has underperformed, GPL-like, since 1990. The 1996 was excellent (but not great), and the 2000 was great. Otherwise, it doesn’t seem to have risen to the glories of the 1980s, which culminated in the 1989, which was the greatest wine ever produced, from any region. To me, Pichon Baron has far exceeded it in the past twenty years, and other estates, like Montrose, PLL, Calon Segur, Haut Bailly, and others, have achieved new levels, while Lynch seems to have ridden on its reputation. And I really did think that the 2014 Lynch was a flawed effort, from the two bottles I tried, in a year that is one of my favorites. Admittedly, my experience with the very recent Lynches is limited, thus the commitment to spend some time with a bottle of the 2016, which Comte tells us rivals the ‘89.

JimHow wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 8:14 pm I’m fasting this week for my annual doctor blood work results.

Uh, not to discourage you from taking a break, but how do you think that will influence your blood chemistry results? And if you thinking you might be riding your liver a little too hard, wouldn’t you like to know that?

Personal story:
About 25 years ago, my insurance blood tests, my first in decades, showed some mildly elevated LFTs (liver function tests). Terrified my Bordeaux-drinking days were over, I had a liver biopsy done, which showed foie gras; i.e., fatty but no inflammation. I abstained totally from alcohol for 6 months, then had another biopsy, which showed exactly the same thing. Turns out, it was not due to alcohol damage (although it could have been), but to my newly diagnosed diabetes. Once my diabetes was under control, my LFTs promptly retreated to normal where they have remained ever since. I decided a third biopsy was unnecessary and I no longer worry about my drinking.

Last year when I had my check up my liver numbers were a little elevated, the doctor didn’t seem too worried about it. I was abusing Tylenol and was probably drinking a little too much fine northern Medoc. He said, let’s not drink alcohol for two weeks, and retest. I abstained from both alcohol and Tylenol for two weeks, and my levels were “perfect.” I kind of let myself go a little this winter after my brother died, put on 20 pounds, etc., but since June 1st I’ve been a health demon, I’ve lost 26 pounds, have been feeling great, to the point that I was comparing myself to Jesus during my recent murder trial. I’ve also been on the Praluent cholesterol injections for the past year, these will be my first cholesterol test results since. So I want to put in an extra good two weeks of dieting/fasting and see if I can get extra good results!

JimHow wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 9:52 pm Lol… A fair question, Musigny-151.
Part of it is that I’m being a little mischievous, but on the other hand, I really do believe Lynch has underperformed, GPL-like, since 1990. The 1996 was excellent (but not great), and the 2000 was great. Otherwise, it doesn’t seem to have risen to the glories of the 1980s, which culminated in the 1989, which was the greatest wine ever produced, from any region. To me, Pichon Baron has far exceeded it in the past twenty years, and other estates, like Montrose, PLL, Calon Segur, Haut Bailly, and others, have achieved new levels, while Lynch seems to have ridden on its reputation. And I really did think that the 2014 Lynch was a flawed effort, from the two bottles I tried, in a year that is one of my favorites. Admittedly, my experience with the very recent Lynches is limited, thus the commitment to spend some time with a bottle of the 2016, which Comte tells us rivals the ‘89.

I like this explanation. Very fair. I think that Healthy Jesus Jim is on to something here. I am curious to hear about the 2016 as well. I just bought a few more bottles recently. And loaded up on the 2019.

Speaking of Lynch Bages. Has anyone tasted the 2018? I am tempted by some good prices, but wary of the 14.5% alc and just general thoughts on the 2018 vintage.

I think with Lynch, it is another case of a son taking control and trying to make his mark. Jean- Charles is nowhere near the winemaker Jean Michel was.

The most important change is to demote La Lagune from the classified growths.

Other than that, I would raise Lynch, Poyferre, Gruaud, and Pontet Canet to third growth and put d'Issan among the fourths.

Personnally, if i compare the performance of 2 Pauillac 5th Growth starting from 1995 to now, Lynch Bages vs Pontet Canet, well that is telling a lot. Of course, the poor man Mouton was between excellent and great in the 80's, but i also feel it surfed a bit on it reputation after 1990,and produced good wines but less convincing. And in regular or difficult vintages, Lynch Bages is very ordinary. The wine they served us in 2015, i guess it was the 2014, was nothing memorable.

I'd rank Lynch Bages at the bottom of the second growths or maybe at the top of the third growths. I'd slot it in above Cos and Leoville Barton, both of which I'd drop to third. And I'd move Haut Bailly up to second and Gruaud up to third.

The answer is easily a second and Lynch also sits comfortably among the ranks of the super seconds. I had the 1989 and 1990 side by side in the last few weeks, both epic 96 point wines.

In my opinion anyone who thinks that Lynch should be a fourth or a fifth has taken leave of their senses or has an irrational grudge to bear. Empirically it doesn’t stand up.

The market is an important reference point. Lynch is a large left bank estate which now commands high prices, higher than say Leoville Barton, and nearly as high as the Pichons.

Guys
I fell a strange sense of Deja Vu reading this thread, or maybe I better stop listening to Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young.

I would happily rate Lynch Bages a third growth but I do not see it as being as reliable over the years as my view of what a 2nd should be.
Despite my love of the wines of St Julien (they were the wines that drove my interest in Bordeaux) I would not rate Leoville Barton as a 2nd. I'd slide it down to third. Last years' vertical demonstrated to me that despite being a very good and reliable wine, it does not wow me like some other St Juliens.

I am rather surprised that Gruaud Larose is getting kicked around. Yeah, it has had its ups and downs, and I posted various notes about its corporate difficulties over the years, but I rate it above Leoville Barton. Yes, some vintages of Barton will beat it, though I've been to tastings were Sociando Mallet was rated above Lafite when tried blind, for what that is worth.

A few other ideas:

1. I have never loved Pontet Canet despite realising its quality. A 3rd for me only as it is reliable.
2. Okay, I know some have issues with GPL, but I do think it is a bit mean to drop it to a CB. Leave as a 5th. C'mon guys, it isn't all bad.
3. I will of course get trolled for this, but I cannot rate Mouton with the other firsts. If you disagree, so be it.
4. LMHB historically deserves to be a 1st HOWEVER the alcohol level has creeped up recently and I reserve judgement for now.
4. Several lesser ranked wines are left off the list entirely. Whilst some deserve it, there have been improvements recently (eg, Ferriere, Cos Labory, even Camensac, a historical underachiever).
5. If Leoville Lascases is "only" a second growth, then LP is a third. Surely it is above 4th.
6. I can't accept that La lagune is only a 5th.
7. Some of the wines classified here as 4th growths should be bumped up a notch to 3rd, eg, Branaire, Beychevelle, MStE, Dom Chevailier.
8. Similarly, a few of your 4ths I'd drop to 5th - Lascombes, Lafon Rochet, Kirwan.
9. St Pierre is better than 5th - has to be at least 4th if not 3rd.
10. Some CB's have been added which I think are marginal. Haut Marbuzet could be added.
11. Some mentioned downgrading Cos D'estournel, and I argue it is a worthy 2nd.
12. Not sure I can rate Brane Cantenac as a third. I have had some absolute shockers from this estate. One bitten, twice shy.

Cheers
Mark

I think you're making my point, Comte.
The first Lynches that come to your mind are the 89 and 90, more than 30 years old.
I'd rate those wines even higher, 100+ and 98, respectively.
Problem is, Lynch hasn't risen to those heights since.
And, as you say, it has been surpassed by the Purple Baron... something we'd never have thought possible in 1989.
Lynch has rested on its laurels, as its prices have skyrocketed.
But, as I am open-minded and tell it only as I see it, I will take a close look at the 2016 Lynch.