Are 2016 3rd growths as good as 1970 firsts ?

WINE TALK
41

So your saying that in the 60’s or 70’s the first growths were frequently surpassed by many lower cru wines ?

42

You Bdx guys cant take a question at simple face value

Forget the exact vintage, all im asking is if viniculture and winemaking have improved enough that if say a good 3rd growth from 2016 could be sent in the magic time machine and drunk next to a sample of 40-50 year old first growths at he same age ie five years after bottling would the 3rd growth old its own or still be outclassed

43

Terroir is important and all First Growth have top terroir. But that’s not everything. The work in the vineyard and the cellar is as important. Fifth Growth like Lynch Bages and Pontet Canet are able to produce wines on par or better than First Growth in certain vintages. That makes clear that the classification of 1855 is more of historical than qualitative interest. And btw: Image and marketing play and played a big role – price does not necessarily reflect the quality. First Growth are expensive even in weak vintages though they cannot hold a candle to so called lesser Grands Crus from top vintages but cost a fraction of the firsts. I think with the exception of the best bottles of 1970 Latour none of the other First Growth is as good as let’s say Palmer 2005, 2009, 2010, 2015 …

44

…or 1970, 1966 and of course, the great 1961.

We should be clear that First Growths were not God ordained, but put together by a group of merchants in 1855. And they did a decent job, but made a large number of mistakes. Lascombes a second growth, Palmer a third?! Palmer along with Ducru, Montrose, and Las Cases arguably should be First Growths. Sociando Mallet not even classified and Lynch Bages a fifth etc etc.

45

Let’s not forget Mouton in 1970 was a 2eme cru

46

The original question was neither inarticulate nor misleading. The question is essentially: if I want a wine of quality [x], and in 1970 to get [x] quality, I would have had to buy a first growth (or one of several other classified growths, such as Palmer; think of “first growth” as a stand-in for the few consistently top quality wines), for the 2016 vintage can I buy a broad selection of non-first growths to get quality [x] or do I need to stick with the first growths and the “super seconds”?

I took a stab at answering that question, in part because I was curious to see what the answer would be (I didn’t know until I started if only because I don’t pay much attention to the classifications). The second growths were easy, as pretty much all of them are better. It got more difficult as I moved down the scale; I was not able to say with confidence, sure, throw a dart, you will get a better wine (or a wine of quality [x] to stick with the example).

I would be interested to hear the opinions of more experienced Bordeaux enthusiasts, such as Mark, on that question.

47

It’s a tough question to ask for many reasons, let alone how many folks here have both deep experience with 1970s FGs and have already tried many of the yet-to-be released Third Growths?

For context, here are the Thirds:

Third Growths (3ème Cru Classé)

Chateau Kirwan, Margaux
Chateau d’Issan, Margaux
Chateau Lagrange, St-Julien
Chateau Langoa Barton, St-Julien
Chateau Giscours, Margaux
Chateau Malescot St Exupery, Margaux
Chateau Cantenac Brown, Margaux
Chateau Boyd-Cantenac, Margaux
Chateau Palmer, Margaux
Chateau La Lagune, Haut-Medoc
Chateau Desmirail, Margaux
Chateau Dubignon, Margaux
Chateau Calon-Segur, St-Estèphe
Chateau Ferrière, Margaux
Chateau Marquis d’Alesme Becker, Margaux

To me, the best of the bunch and the most consistent over the terms have been Palmer and Calon Segur.

48

Other ways of assessing the question of what impact the improved quality of wine-making has had (let’s assume their has been advances; the Bordeaux themselves think so) might be to ask:

  1. Has the improvement been mainly resulted in greater consistency from vintage to vintage, but if you were to compare like vintages you would find the same general hierarchy across the classified growths? This question is intended to filter out the vintage comparison noise in Alan’s original question.

  2. Has the improvement increased the number of quality wines, such that in any given vintage, rather than ten good-to-great wines you can have 50-80 good-to-great wines? This question of course brings back the vintage noise in full, as one of the marks of a great vintage is that the quality extends widely, so it is difficult to distinguish the effect of improved wine-making from the quality of the vintage.

  3. Has the improvement closed the gap between the classifications such that any lower growth can produce near-first growth quality wine through capital investment and implementing better wine-making which is available to any with sufficient money? This is essentially the question Matt asked above and was probably a buried assumption in Alan’s original question. Given the influx of capital into Bordeaux in the last 20-30 years, clearly many people think they can accomplish precisely this. This is also the heart of much of the controversy over “modern” Bordeaux as it gets tangled up in what constitutes an “improvement” in wine-making, as well as dismay over increasing costs to consumers.

49

So here you are being practical and trying to make this concrete. But how does one even start to answer unless someone has tasted these all in 2015 and 2016? And has a time machine that moves backwards and forwards in time?

Re: 1970 for me it’s easy. It’s not rational. Birth year (ok-Lafite does suck) versus another alleged random Bordeaux vintage of the century / decade / biannum that is unlikely to be mature in my lifetime. Give me the 1970 first growths. (And throw in the Mouton). And don’t forget Cheval and Petrus.

50

Hence me giving Leve shit on that other thread about modern Bordeaux. The way you know, within reasonably predictable limits, is because you know the estates well, have followed them for years, and understand that 2015 and 2016 are above-average vintages. Odds are, you will like what you buy without having tasted it before. Isn’t this how we did things before the mass proliferation of critics and mass tasting events? Now it’s a crap shoot at times, 'cause you don’t know what estate Rolland has infiltrated and spat on with his ubiquitous brand of modernism. And then you take a time warp back to the '70s for comparative purposes!

Just a quick check on a couple of obvious examples from thsi list of Third Growths, Rolland consults for Malescot and did for a long time at Kirwan. La Lagune of today is not the same as La Lagune of the past, now owned by the Jaboulet family and using a major wine consultant. Why on earth would I buy new La Lagune when I can still backfill on that once-glorious estate, just picked up a smattering of the delicious 1986s from WineBid at $50 per. PS. Not suggesting that La Lagune has gone totally rogue, I’ve have bought 2010 and 2009, but nothing more current until I get a better feel for where this Chateau heads.

Damn, I hate being rational! [wow.gif]

51

I look at the historical context, and 1970 as a really problematic time in Bordeaux. Almost no money, little investment, and a heavy reliance on a few markets, notably UK and Belgium. As an example, Ginestet owners of Ch. Margaux were in financial trouble, which was to result in the sale of the property a few years later, I think for $13 million.

Then 1970 came along, the first good vintage since 1966, and suddenly interest in top flight was reignited, and prices actually doubled. But any optimism soon faded with a recession and an adulteration scandal. Prices for 1970 retreated, and Bordeaux slumbered again until the 1982 vintage. The result of all these problems was that winemaking was variable, and you were just as likely to find good winemaking with a third growth like Palmer as with a first like Margaux. That being said, there is a ton of really good 1970 Bordeaux, which I suspect would have been even better if they could do some fairly basic things which winemakers routinely do now.

52

I picked up a 1973 Latour recently for a song. Now I’m really intersted in popping it, perhaps this weekend. I’ve had a fair bit of 1970 and 1975, but I don’t think I’ve ever had a 1973.

53

I’ve had 1973 Petrus and 1973 Latour in the last 18 months. The Petrus was interesting, if in no way profound. The Latour was meh. Both were purchased by the owner on release, and stored under very good conditions.

54

Adrian So had a very complementary note on CT so I took a flyer. It was cheap enough to go for it. $200. And it was well-stored.

55

I remember that bottle. It was gorgeous. Hope yours shows as well! For $200 I’d roll the dice.

56

yeah, for $200 there are 100 other wines I’d rather have.

57

This seems to be one distinction between you and Mark, for all that Mark is generally a traditionalist: he will argue from time to time that certain estates have improved, sometimes dramatically, based upon significant capital investments, whereas you, even ignoring your Rolland obsession, come very close to arguing that any change from the past is bad. Mark will defend, for instance, the improvements at La Conseillante, Pontet Canet and Haut Bailly, which can constitute an improvement without it being “grotesquely modern.” You, on the other hand, tend to associate any change at all with something bad. Your evident dismay about the changes at Carmes Haut Brion being one example, because I don’t think there is a Rolland influence to explain your reaction.

58

Lol, you are h8’ing it cause Adrian compared it to a “brilliant Chinon”!

59

Nah, I rarely spend $200 on a bottle of wine, and I would be reluctant to take a flyer on a bottle of unknown provenance from a lousy vintage, which may be dicey even if stored correctly. Way too many sure-thing bottles I could buy for $200, or that one can get 2 bottles of for that sum.

Question: which is more likely to provide a memorable experience: that chinon-taste-alike 73 Latour or the 1998 Conseillante?

60

But 93 points…