A while back, I remember when they tried to redefine the wonders of the world. In order to make sure the classifications were fair, they came up with multiple lists, like the natural wonders, and the medieval wonders, etc…
I’m sure there are other threads that have attempted this, but I thought we could put some structure around the different categories, here are my thoughts:
Should be limited to 5 specific wines (not wineries) per category. Also, to keep it simple, let’s keep it to bordeaux varietal (or pure cab) wines.
Should take into account: quality / secondary market performance / desireability & demand / vineyard source / demonstrated consistent performance within the specified time range:
Harlan
Hundred Acre Few and Far Between
Lokoya Howell Mtn
Dominus
Hobbs To Kalon
Modern First Growth (2005 - Present) Current Cult Wines:
MacDonald
Christopher Tynan Meleagris Gallopavo
Realm Absurd
Schrader Old Sparky
Tusk
We can certainly add other categories, or expand the lists to Chardonnay / Pinot Noir / Rhone Varietals, etc… but I thought this was a good place to start! I will also take all the lists and count each name as 1 point to see if we can come up with a collective ranking.
Fun exercise to think about for sure. Wouldn’t the California First Growths be those along the lines of Beaulieu, Mayacamas, Chateau Montelena, Matanzas Creek, Mondavi, Inglenook, Charles Krug, Louis M. Martini, etc.?
[edit] Nevermind: I just reread the last line before your lists.
Not that I know anything about these wines, but isn’t the term “First Growth” associated with estate vineyards (the land) and not purchased grapes? Cheers!
Like all this, fun thread! Does Dalla Valle get in there somewhere? Maybe a 2nd growth? And Abreu? Bryant and Phelps Insignia also to be considered maybe.
I think Phelps is useful to discuss a point. Are the “firsts” supposed to be at least somewhat accessible? I suppose Screagle is “great”, but if only a very few will ever see, much less drink a bottle, what’s the point. Phelps Insignia, Shafer Hillside, etc. can actually be purchased, and are often consumed.
With the Bordeaux firsts, they may be pricey, but if you want a bottle you can get a bottle.
Different issues. The first growths in Bordeaux were only selected by their reputations and prices they fetched in England. They were not selected, nor were they designated by vineyards. Over the years the vineyard holdings associated with the chateaux changed, expanding and contracting as a chateau bought or sold parcels here and there. To be labeled as coming from one area or another, the only requirement is that the land be within the larger commune. It would be like exchanging vineyard properties between Far Niente, Caymus, Mondavi, and Cakebread as long as they are all in Oakville.
I would class them the way they are done in Bordeaux, i.e - wealthy owners who don’t get their hands dirty pruning vines or making wine, and reputation and price. So Grgich and Mondavi and Montelena couldn’t be part of it, since the owners actually made wine themselves. Harlan and Shrader OTOH, would fit.
The OP uses Classified Growths (Bordeaux) but then lists them by vineyard a la Burgundy. I think the Burgundian model works better here (ie: many folks make great wine from ToKalon, like many folks make great wine from Clos de la Roche)
*I also sense a 10,000 word Piper post coming soon!
Kind of fun to look at the same place using both models. There’s certain wineries that are going to turn out top tier juice from any of their sites (or combination of).
There’s also vineyards that I would consider Grand Cru, such as To Kalon (which you could say has “grands” sections and lesser sections a la Echezeaux) and is sourced by many wineries, or the “monopole” Thorevilos.