Top Super Seconds

Best Super seconds

I am planning a tasting to see who over a period of 25 years are the best candidates from the Medoc to be promoted to first growth should there ever be a new classification. Decided it was easiest to do a poll.

No Cos. Telling.

I thought about it, but I did not think it was a serious candidate.

I would rank Cos over several of the candidates you have listed. But I wouldn’t promote any to First Growth Status.

LLC seems like the most likely candidate in my mind. As far as consistency goes, can you beat Montrose? I think of them as a sleepy giant that makes good classically-styled wine regardless of vintage.

Am I wrong, or isn’t this going to be decided by the $$$$?

The original classification was, but at this point, I am thinking of quality and consistency.

I hesitated over Lynch and Gruaud, but both have produced wines that are extraordinary in the time period.
I cannot think of a Cos that is that good, apart from the seriously controversial 2009. Actually, the thought that if it were voted as the best, meant that I might have to taste that wine again, and that was reason enough to exclude it

I have to abstain, I’ve only had 4 of them, and only once for a few of those.

Cos 1990, 1996, 1982, 1989 are all fantastic and would anything from your poll candidates a run for their money. 2002 Cos was one of the best of that vintage, same with 2003. IMO you are severely underrating Cos, but everyone has their own taste.

What? No love for Brane Cantenac?

Am with Matt re: glaring omision of Cos … relative to a few in the poll that imho historically performed at a lower level. But I’m still voting, because I believe that this is for a good cause (or Cos).

Can only think of two that in my eyes merit First Growth Status.

Pichon Lalande
Leoville Las Cases

Seriously, I have done a couple of Cos verticals, I have always found them to be less distinctive and interesting than others. For instance, I think the 1982 Cos trails all the other wines on the list except possibly Palmer, the 1989 I thought pleasant but not terribly compelling, the 1990 is definitely a notch lower than the other wines in the poll (Lalande excepted). I did like 1996, but far preferred the Ducru, Las Cases, Poyferre and Montrose, although it was better than Lynch, Palmer and Baron.

GL, Montrose, Palmer for me…

No La Mission?

When Mouton was made first growth they supposedly also decided to fix the hierarchy of first to fifth growth status. Not that money wouldn’t be able to change that.
Anyway, even hypothetically I don’t see any of those wines as contenders.

I’m having a hard time seeing how elevating any of these chateaux to First Growth status would be in the interest of consumers, even assuming that any of them otherwise qualified.

Bruce

I would put cos in the middle of that group–I almost always have it behind montrose in the same year–but only tasted back to '89
Agree on the la miss omission, but I’m assuming bc it is not from the medoc rather than a quality issue.
LLC, Lalande, montrose for me, in that order.

I think Leoville las Cases is the obvious one. I also think Mouton being a first growth muddies the waters a bit - from my admittedly limited experience with first growths, I’ve found it consistently the weakest. I’d say Pichon Lalande would come second - remarkably consistent.

For me, LLC and Pichon Lalande were easy. The third choice was harder, but I settled on Montrose over Palmer based on performance from 2000 on. I don’t see Gruaud Larose as a serious candidate, but would have made a different call if it was 10 years ago.

The glaring omission is La Mission HB, which I would put well ahead of Mouton and the candidates you listed.

Is Leoville Barton not well regarded? I don’t drink a lot of bordeaux, but I’ve always been pleased with the consistent quality of Leoville Barton.