1855 keep as is?
- robert goulet
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:18 am
- Contact:
1855 keep as is?
Just curious, if the 1855 classification was open for change debate today...what major adjustments would you propose? Do you think it should be revised and how long can this classification exist before doing so?
Obviously, it needs some adjusting.
Some changes I would suggest is the addition of some Pessac, especially Smith Haut lafitte as a 2nd or 3rd growth, Larrivet Haut B 4th/5th growth...As for others, move up Pontet 2-3 spots, and I may consider La Mission Haut Brion as 1st growth.
In addition, I would like to see the same exact classification for the Right bank...The same structured ranking as left (1st-5th) yet exclusive only right bank wines...Lumping them into left bank would look too cumbersome plus their grape composition is considerably different...This way I can move Pavie down to a 5th growth...what can I say I have selfish reasons ...Does idea this sound crazy?
I have other suggestions but would like to hear the board perspective.
Obviously, it needs some adjusting.
Some changes I would suggest is the addition of some Pessac, especially Smith Haut lafitte as a 2nd or 3rd growth, Larrivet Haut B 4th/5th growth...As for others, move up Pontet 2-3 spots, and I may consider La Mission Haut Brion as 1st growth.
In addition, I would like to see the same exact classification for the Right bank...The same structured ranking as left (1st-5th) yet exclusive only right bank wines...Lumping them into left bank would look too cumbersome plus their grape composition is considerably different...This way I can move Pavie down to a 5th growth...what can I say I have selfish reasons ...Does idea this sound crazy?
I have other suggestions but would like to hear the board perspective.
Re: 1855 keep as is?
as crass as it is, if one must have a ranking, i'd use prevailing prices as 'the sorting hat'
- robert goulet
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:18 am
- Contact:
Re: 1855 keep as is?
wow, a quiet group...didn't expect this
- Comte Flaneur
- Posts: 4893
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
- Contact:
Re: 1855 keep as is?
Robert
We have had this discussion before. I have been involved in it countless times.
I agree it is not perfect and if it were changed some estates might be upgraded some downgraded and some included for the first time like the Graves you mentioned.
But if you change it you really are opening up a massive can of worms ... to very ugly politics. It would end up as a bidding war, and what we might end up with something less valuable than what we have now.
You see what happened in St-Emilion when they rejigged the classification, unworthy interlopers like Ch. Angelus get promoted to first growth equivalent.
Don't change it I say. Let sleeping dogs lie.
You already have a parallel classification, which is market pricing as Arv noted.
I think the 1855 classification has stood the test of time remarkably well.
We have had this discussion before. I have been involved in it countless times.
I agree it is not perfect and if it were changed some estates might be upgraded some downgraded and some included for the first time like the Graves you mentioned.
But if you change it you really are opening up a massive can of worms ... to very ugly politics. It would end up as a bidding war, and what we might end up with something less valuable than what we have now.
You see what happened in St-Emilion when they rejigged the classification, unworthy interlopers like Ch. Angelus get promoted to first growth equivalent.
Don't change it I say. Let sleeping dogs lie.
You already have a parallel classification, which is market pricing as Arv noted.
I think the 1855 classification has stood the test of time remarkably well.
- Chateau Vin
- Posts: 1522
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:55 pm
- Contact:
Re: 1855 keep as is?
Well said, and let the barking dogs bark...Comte Flaneur wrote:Robert
.
.
.
Don't change it I say. Let sleeping dogs lie.
I agree. The 1855 classification more or less is justified as it is...Comte Flaneur wrote:.
.
.
.
You already have a parallel classification, which is market pricing as Arv noted.
I think the 1855 classification has stood the test of time remarkably well.
Re: 1855 keep as is?
My main gripe with Angelus, would be how long its been since I've had one!
Re: 1855 keep as is?
Same take here. Not sure it would be possible to do a truly valid classification. How do you define quality? So default to price. And then what time frame would you look around?
The classification is less relevant in today"s information-rich environment, where ratings can be disseminated within minutes of tastings and opinions are as common as dirt.
That said, I have no real disagreement with RG's comments on left bank wines. I'm perhaps a bit less enamored of SHL than he is but could go with 3D growth. A lot of people push for LLC to be promoted to 1st but it takes forever to come around. It's the DunnHowell Mtn of Bordeaux (hahaha) so I'd leave it second. I'd drop Mouton to second, Rauzans to fourth, Leoville Poyferre and Barton to third, Durfort Vivens and Lascombes to fifth, Kirwan to fourth. Palmer would move up to second and a buch of other thirds would get demoted. Lynch Bages I'd move up to third, Grand Puy Lacoste to third or fourth.
On the right bank I wouldn't downgrade Pavie to 5th but would demote it to second. Same with Angelus.
The classification is less relevant in today"s information-rich environment, where ratings can be disseminated within minutes of tastings and opinions are as common as dirt.
That said, I have no real disagreement with RG's comments on left bank wines. I'm perhaps a bit less enamored of SHL than he is but could go with 3D growth. A lot of people push for LLC to be promoted to 1st but it takes forever to come around. It's the DunnHowell Mtn of Bordeaux (hahaha) so I'd leave it second. I'd drop Mouton to second, Rauzans to fourth, Leoville Poyferre and Barton to third, Durfort Vivens and Lascombes to fifth, Kirwan to fourth. Palmer would move up to second and a buch of other thirds would get demoted. Lynch Bages I'd move up to third, Grand Puy Lacoste to third or fourth.
On the right bank I wouldn't downgrade Pavie to 5th but would demote it to second. Same with Angelus.
- AlohaArtakaHoundsong
- Posts: 1460
- Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
- Contact:
Re: 1855 keep as is?
Of course the 1855 classification should be left as it is. It is an historical document. What influence it has on things today is not at all clear to me.
- robert goulet
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:18 am
- Contact:
Re: 1855 keep as is?
Thank u DavidG..thats exactly what I was looking for, this was more for fun....I was just curious that if something like this ever happened what changes would u put forth?...all for fun guys, nothing serious...so let me hear it!!
Last edited by robert goulet on Sun Jul 16, 2017 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Comte Flaneur
- Posts: 4893
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
- Contact:
Re: 1855 keep as is?
On price one glaring anomaly is that Mouton often costs 3 x LLC...so you sell Mouton to buy LLC which is what I am thinking of doing. And if LLC ever does get upgraded you would make an instant windfall.
If I was handed the task of rehashing the classification my changes would be to have left, right bank and 'sweet' classifications along the lines of 1855
On the left bank:
1. LMHB included and put in as a 1st, all other firsts would remain as firsts including Mouton
2. Other contenders for first growth status would be LLC and Palmer. I am on the fence here. For choice though I would upgrade Palmer to second and leave LLC as a second, but it is a close call
3. I would downgrade Dufort, Gazzies and Lascombes from 2nd to 4th or 5th, I would also downgrade a couple of thirds - Desmairil and Ferriere
4. Upgrade Beychevelle two notches to second, upgrade Talbot one notch to third and Cantemerle, Clerc Milon and Duhart Milon two notches to third
5. Upgrade Pontet-Canet three notches to second, Lynch-Bages two notches to third and GPL one notch to fourth
6. Haut-Bailly, SHL and Pape Clement would be second growths, DDC a third growth
7. Gloria and Sociando Mallet would enter the classification as fourth growths; Poujeaux and Chase-Spleen would come in as fifth growths
8. Most others left as is, with Calon-Segur considering itself a bit unlucky not to be upgraded to second
On the right bank - with a bit less authority:
1. First growths would be Cheval Blanc, Ausone, Petrus, Lafleur and Le Pin
2. Second growths would include Figeac, Pavie, Tertre Rote-Boeuf, La Conseillante, Trotanoy, VCC, L'Eglise Clinet, La Fleur Petrus and Evangile
3. Third growths would include Canon, Clos Fourtet, Belair-Monange, Valandraud, Gazin, Hosanna, La Tour a Pomerol, La Fleur De Gay
4. Fourth growths would include Pavie Macquin, Grand-Mayne, both Beausejours, Certan De May, Clinet, Le Gay, Petit Village
5. Fifth growths would include Angelus, Larcis Ducasse, Franc Mayne, La Pointe, Bourgneuf, Rouget, Clos Du Clocher
In Sauternes/Barsac - with even less authority:
First growth: Chateau d'Yquem
Second: includes Coutet, Rieussec and La Tour Blanche
Third: includes Climens, Suduiraut, Raymond Lafond
Fourth: would include the Doisys
Fifth: Stuff like de Malle, d'Arche?
If I was handed the task of rehashing the classification my changes would be to have left, right bank and 'sweet' classifications along the lines of 1855
On the left bank:
1. LMHB included and put in as a 1st, all other firsts would remain as firsts including Mouton
2. Other contenders for first growth status would be LLC and Palmer. I am on the fence here. For choice though I would upgrade Palmer to second and leave LLC as a second, but it is a close call
3. I would downgrade Dufort, Gazzies and Lascombes from 2nd to 4th or 5th, I would also downgrade a couple of thirds - Desmairil and Ferriere
4. Upgrade Beychevelle two notches to second, upgrade Talbot one notch to third and Cantemerle, Clerc Milon and Duhart Milon two notches to third
5. Upgrade Pontet-Canet three notches to second, Lynch-Bages two notches to third and GPL one notch to fourth
6. Haut-Bailly, SHL and Pape Clement would be second growths, DDC a third growth
7. Gloria and Sociando Mallet would enter the classification as fourth growths; Poujeaux and Chase-Spleen would come in as fifth growths
8. Most others left as is, with Calon-Segur considering itself a bit unlucky not to be upgraded to second
On the right bank - with a bit less authority:
1. First growths would be Cheval Blanc, Ausone, Petrus, Lafleur and Le Pin
2. Second growths would include Figeac, Pavie, Tertre Rote-Boeuf, La Conseillante, Trotanoy, VCC, L'Eglise Clinet, La Fleur Petrus and Evangile
3. Third growths would include Canon, Clos Fourtet, Belair-Monange, Valandraud, Gazin, Hosanna, La Tour a Pomerol, La Fleur De Gay
4. Fourth growths would include Pavie Macquin, Grand-Mayne, both Beausejours, Certan De May, Clinet, Le Gay, Petit Village
5. Fifth growths would include Angelus, Larcis Ducasse, Franc Mayne, La Pointe, Bourgneuf, Rouget, Clos Du Clocher
In Sauternes/Barsac - with even less authority:
First growth: Chateau d'Yquem
Second: includes Coutet, Rieussec and La Tour Blanche
Third: includes Climens, Suduiraut, Raymond Lafond
Fourth: would include the Doisys
Fifth: Stuff like de Malle, d'Arche?
- Comte Flaneur
- Posts: 4893
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
- Contact:
Re: 1855 keep as is?
By the way should we set up a Committee to publish our official BWE classification?
Jim How?
Jim How?
- robert goulet
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:18 am
- Contact:
Re: 1855 keep as is?
Comte I was going to suggest this but then thought too ambitious and too difficult to appease everyone...but I would love to see it and referenced !
Last edited by robert goulet on Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Comte Flaneur
- Posts: 4893
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
- Contact:
Re: 1855 keep as is?
My starter for ten above!
This could be the first decision in BWE history that BD allows to be determined by democratic means
This could be the first decision in BWE history that BD allows to be determined by democratic means
- JimHow
- Posts: 20234
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
- Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
- Contact:
Re: 1855 keep as is?
Sorry I've been away, been in a couple rugged trials, I like the idea of a BWE (Re-)Classification!
- robert goulet
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:18 am
- Contact:
Re: 1855 keep as is?
lets do it!!!
- robert goulet
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:18 am
- Contact:
Re: 1855 keep as is?
with a reference link at the top people can click on when visiting the site ...we can have both the 1855 and the BWE side by side...or separate links
- robert goulet
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:18 am
- Contact:
Re: 1855 keep as is?
start with !st growth: my suggestions
Left
lafite
latour
la mish
mouton
margaux
haut brion
Right
petrus
le pin
lafleur
ausone
cheval
L'Eglise-Clinet?
VCC?
Left
lafite
latour
la mish
mouton
margaux
haut brion
Right
petrus
le pin
lafleur
ausone
cheval
L'Eglise-Clinet?
VCC?
Re: 1855 keep as is?
I follow the thread with interest.
The topic is almost as old as the classification itself.
I'll vote for keeping the classification, warts and all.
It nearly changed, but the hierarchy was leaked to the press, and it could not be made official.
Look at the mess in Saint-Emilion with a classification that changes...
Alex R.
The topic is almost as old as the classification itself.
I'll vote for keeping the classification, warts and all.
It nearly changed, but the hierarchy was leaked to the press, and it could not be made official.
Look at the mess in Saint-Emilion with a classification that changes...
Alex R.
Re: 1855 keep as is?
Ian,
You love your Beychevelle! Have not had any recent vintage but have never been very impressed... certainly not worthy of the Pichons (which I prefer to the Pontet Canet) .
Obviously better than Dufort Vivens... although I hear last vintages much better than before.
Caveat: youngest I have had are the 2004s... so,any development since then not taken into account.
You love your Beychevelle! Have not had any recent vintage but have never been very impressed... certainly not worthy of the Pichons (which I prefer to the Pontet Canet) .
Obviously better than Dufort Vivens... although I hear last vintages much better than before.
Caveat: youngest I have had are the 2004s... so,any development since then not taken into account.
- Comte Flaneur
- Posts: 4893
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
- Contact:
Re: 1855 keep as is?
Antoine when we next meet I will bring a 2005 Beychevelle and you will change your mind.
The 2005 marked the first major step up in quality for this estate, the 2016 moved the game along even more into potential superstar territory.
Philippe Blanc invited me down to see his new cellar, and will certainly take him up on that offer. We should go along with Alex...
The 2005 marked the first major step up in quality for this estate, the 2016 moved the game along even more into potential superstar territory.
Philippe Blanc invited me down to see his new cellar, and will certainly take him up on that offer. We should go along with Alex...
Re: 1855 keep as is?
Indeed if the date fits.
By the way, I opened and Echezeaux Daniel Rion 2011 and it was almost excellent (bar the greenies).
By the way, I opened and Echezeaux Daniel Rion 2011 and it was almost excellent (bar the greenies).
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 48 guests