Very bad. I think we need to do a farewell dinner to the chateau.
Care to share some finds
Yes, please do. I’d love some under the radar stuff at $20-$40 I can buy cases of, as I don’t have the bank roll to do that with the big boys.
It’s my understanding the cru bourgeois where not included in the 1855 classification
All of these wines were enjoyed immensely
These were some unknowns that rocked me…the macard is tricky for the first import of the '09’s with the maroon capsule were fantastic as for the second import with the red capsule…this was an incredibly inferior product (a la Sierra carche)
The 09 Macard is Marc’s canard! ![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}
Love me sum '03 Rollan de By - drank it with Marc in Vegas.
. The 09 Macard is Marc’s canard!
Ha ha ha…Yes the canard…telling u sir it was an awesome drink
Bill,
The new classification may not be relevant to you, which is fair enough, but it is very relevant to the world of fine wine. Consider it like the Academy Awards. You might not agree with the judges, but their decision weighs a lot.
I am reminded of trials where the verdict is decried by people who have only read about the facts for three minutes in the newspaper instead of listening to weeks of testimony. There were some serious procedural problems with the previous classification and things had become very lax. The 2012 ranking was done rigorously.
I, too, see Pavie and Angélus as more powerful than elegant BUT neither have I done a horizontal tasting over 10 years of those wines. Perhaps you and I both need to revisjt our prejudices.
The classification has a big impact worldwide. This is best proved by the huge price gap (by and large - of course there are exceptions) between a grand cru and a grand cru classé. The land prices vary greatly too according to classification.
Most consumers need guidelines in the complicated world of fine wine and the Bordeaux classification system is a benchmark. It is often said that Pomerol does very well without a classification, thank you. But Saint-Emilion is seven times the size of Pomerol and the realities are very different.
Burgundy has a classification system too. But it is very difficult to change and is based primarily on terroir. This means that wines from certain vineyards with umpteen owners vary from the sublime to the ridiculous. Not perhaps an ideal system either.
Some people think that the market alone should determine quality and that all classifications are worthless. However, speaking only about Bordeaux, where there are some 7,000 châteaux, I see more adantages than disadvantages…
The 1855 classification has remained virtually unchanged. The people in Saint-Emilion decided to innovate. There have been stumbling blocks along the way. But this is their way of doing things and should be respected, “warts and all”.
What I do criticize is the confusing appellation syststem in Saint-Emilion, whereby Cheval Blanc has exactly the same appellation as certain blends from the local cooperative cellar (considered “an estate” by the law). Even in Bordeaux, not one person in 10 knows the difference between AOC gand cru and AOC grand cru classé. That is surely misleading.
Best regards,
Alex R.
Me again,
Sorry, I was mistaken in the last paragraph.
GCC do not have their own appellation.
A humble “grand cru” (nearly a third of all wine in St. Emilion according to a rough estimate) and a “premier grand cru classé A” both have the same appellation: Saint-Emilion grand cru.
The local newspaper said today that the owner of Château Croque Michotte has decided to contest the new classification.
He has not yet said whether he will go to court.
However, as opposed to previous classifications, the whole shooting match cannot be called into question by a few dissidents.
Which is a huge relief.
Best regards,
Alex R.
Perhaps the most misleading thing about the St. Emilion classification system is the fact that countless chateau that don’t even make the grade for the extensive list mentioned above still get to put “St. Emilion Grand Cru” on their bottle, which sounds pretty grand to the casual consumer who doesn’t understand that it basically means “middling merlot” and doesn’t know to actually look for “grand cru classé”.
Tasting the 10 most recent vintages seems a pretty flimsy basis for a classification if you ask me. So they’re evaluating young wines and closed wines. Aren’t classifications supposed to offer a perspective based on lasting history?
No, they are supposed to offer a commercial opportunity and a reward for the arrived. You don’t think the 1855 classification was based on actual tastings and quality in the bottle, do you?
This is totally useless political crap, which will be “fixed” in litigation. But hey, what do I know?
This is extremely troubling, confusing and misleading buyers, for a burgundy drinker grand cru is apex but in St. Emilion it could be peasant juice? Not good…The classifications should get together to make a countrywide linear classification system.
Marc F.,
Grand cru is the apex in Burgundy? That’s more theory than practice, and arguably no better than the St. Emilion system.
Am I the only one to have had hugely disappointing grand cru Burgundy, in the same way that I’ve had mediocre St. Emilion GCC?
Marc G.,
I have difficulty relating to your statement: “To the consumer, even the Chinese consumer, this St. Emilion classification is almost entirely meaningless. The knowledgeable ones have other parameters, and the neophytes are much more interested in looking at what they think of as objective observers for help with with buying”.
I’m not head butting you on this, partly because I know very little about the Chinese market.
But, I see the higher prices for the GCC, and deduce that the ranking must mean something to somebody!
Furthermore, in this same vein, don’t you think that Pavie’s and Angélus’s price will rise because of their new classification?
I’d be interested to know who the “objective observers” you speak of are.
I think many of us here forget what it was like when we were just learning about wine.
And there are plenty of people out there with fat wallets, but little knowledge.
I am unaware of Parker’s influence in Asia, but the books on wine people read mostly include the classifications.
I fully agree that knowledgeable wine drinkers take them with a grain of salt and, at best, a rough guide.
But let us not forget the people just getting into wine.
Best regards,
Alex R.
you’ve made this point several times, but you seem to be confusing correlation with causation.
La Mondotte & Valandraud sold for a $%@#load of money before they were promoted Premier GCC, I doubt that goes up due to promotion- it’s not the classification people pay for.
Jean Faure, Peby Faugeres, etc ALREADY sold for more than almost all of the other unclassed estates before they were promoted this week.
And of course those that don’t choose to be classified aren’t necessarily penalized- Le Dome and Tertre Roteboeuf sell for more than any of the regular GCCs.
The classification system recognizes the most prized estates, it doesn’t necessarily cause them to be more prized.
Alex true, I was referring more to the classification system and the dichotomy between the two rather than quality…but u r right…in fact the three best burgundies in the last year for me 2 were village wines 1 was a 1er
Alex, Grand Cru is the apex in Burgundy because no villages or 1er wine is ever better than the BEST Grands Crus. Or in other words, the very best wines from Burgundy are definitely Grands Crus. Which is not the same as to say that all the Grands Crus are great wines.
In Bordeaux if I am to believe metrics such Parker’s ratings, retail price, auction price or the results of François Mauss’ degustations (pick the one you prefer), it seems many wines are on par with the top wines, if not better (and in some other parts there isn’t even a classification).
All in all I’d guess the two most pissed off people in Bordeaux right now are the owners of Ausone and Cheval Blanc, as they had a special status which is now rendered meaningless when shared with the likes of Angélus or Pavie… So it seems to me that the classification matters to at least these 2 owners.
You’re confusing the St. Emilion “Grand Cru Classé” system, which has a meaning (however debased that meaning might be by the recent changes), with the “St. Emilion Grand Cru” moniker, which means almost nothing. There is no comparison to be made between that and the Burgundy appellation system. Burgundy grand crus are at least aspirationally grand; “St.-Emilion Grand Cru” doesn’t even have pretensions to grandness, it’s pure marketing pablum.
True Keith, I’m just trying to state obvious confusion that could be experienced by the inexperienced purchaser, it’s very misleading. Nothing more nothing less
Alex, your defense of the St. Emilion Grand Cru ridiculousness basically consists of “nobody pays attention to that anyway” and “Burgundy’s system doesn’t work all the time either” (which is no defense of the Bdx system at all). Unfortunately, I actually have seen retailers send out ads saying about a mediocre St. Emilion GC “that’s right, you can get GRAND CRU quality for only $60/bottle!” and the like. All of which is set up by the silly nomenclature system.
This is what happens when your system is made up of “Grand Cru”, “Really Grand Cru” and “Really Really Grand Cru”. Are you really gonna defend that?
Hi Alex,
Long time.
The “objective observers” are of course parker, Spectator, and written with a fair amount of irony. The high scores have much more effect than the classification, and the wines are priced on the scores. The classification reflects this.
As to the Pavie and Angelus question, I have tasted them both in major verticals in the last year or so; Pavie going back to the acquisition by Perse and Angelus since 1998.
The Pavie was disappointing; the 1998 and 2006 were both excellent and the rest for me, let’s just say, lacked any real character. Yes modern and rich and fat, but low in acidity and cloying on the palate.
The Angelus is also made in a relatively modern way, and yet, it really does seem to be a distinctive beautifully made wine. The 1998 was superb, and the great vintages showed well, but for me, one of the marks of greatness, is how well the property performs in lesser years. Again Angelus made lovely wines in years like 2002 and 2007. Somehow, they seem to get levels of extraction right, and the wines are balanced and interesting. The one exception, 2003, was a victim of the year, and actually underlined how well Bouard makes the wines in almost every other year. I have absolutely no problem with Angelus’ promotion, in fact, drank a bottle of the lovely 1989 when it was announced.
1 Like