I couldn’t help thinking of the Harlan Estate line about being a “California 1st Growth”, and started to ruminate on where all these wines would land if there was a 5-tier system in place. A search on this site leads me to believe that, at the very least, such a discussion hasn’t happened in a while so let’s see if anyone has thoughts to share. I don’t live in CA so I probably drink less than many posters on this board, but I have tried a fair amount of nice Cali wines over the years, so here’s my opening salvo:
Premiere Crus
Harlan Estate
Promontory
Screaming Eagle
Macdonald
Ridge Monte Bello
Always interesting to think about and depends on how you characterize the here. If you’re thinking more historical relevance you probably need Dominus/Spottswoode here somewhere.
But that aside you’re definitely missing Scarecrow which I assume should go into the premier cru of your list
Not enough history/context to that list. There’s also the micro-exclusive factor for wines like Screagle. Seems more like Le Pin/Valandraud garage wine rather than a classified growth.
It’s also been tossed around any number of times, and more often than not ends up with a stylistic bias depending on the author(s).
If I was making a list, Monte Bello, Montelena, and Corison Kronos would be at or near the top. Others would go in a different direction.
To add to Phuong’s and David’s remarks, traditionally the Bordeaux were thought of as one with the land. The property of the vineyards was what mostly gave them their reputation. In today’s Napa, while most will give a spin about their vineyards, these wineries are primarily known as brands or commodities. While some of those vineyards attached the wineries above have demonstrated excellence over the decades, I doubt there is a consensus about all of them outside of Napa and it’s fandom. Some of these wineries are buyers only.
This actually comes up quite often and sort of devolves into everyone listing their pet favorites. Would be interesting to see a data-driven approach to this. Price is the easiest thing to factor. Quality, perhaps an average of critical scores over a time period. Reputation is tough to quantify – mentions in books, articles, plus placements on major restaurant wine lists?
Interesting it’s less easy to find through search. I think the comment about Screagle was a good one. It is more like the Le Pin of Napa, not a classified growth. I think everyone’s opinions, if listed by growth, would at least form a data set. Get enough of those data points and it could be interesting to aggregate. Using the #s from the 1855 classification as an overlay might be fun.
so, one could weight the “votes” 5 pts for 1st growth to 1 pt for 5th growth. Heck, I’ll do it if there’s enough action on the thread.
5 most points would get “1st Growth” status, next 14 get “2nd growth”, next 15 get “3rd growth”, next 10 get 4th growth, next 18 get fifth growth. Whether of not this is scientifically accurate would be plenty debatable, but that isn’t really the point. More of a snapshot in time.
A survey asking knowledgeable wine people to give their rankings could be effective if carefully controlled. The working assumption would be that these people have themselves taken into account the aforementioned factors. The issue being this is vulnerable to gaming if not limited via some criteria I’m sure everyone would argue about (and rightly so – who wants to be excluded)? Probably the easiest way to do it on this board would be to say you need to have X posts and have been around for length of time Y. If 100+ such responses could be gotten now that would be interesting.
Fine. Schrader isn’t a vineyard. Then don’t include it in your rankings! That was my list. What’s yours?
I like the “rules” part of this, so let’s say I’ll publish at 100 inputs, but will leave it open for further updating over time. I won’t say people need to have been berserkers for any number of years for their list to count, but I’ll note their “vintage” in the spreadsheet so one could parse the data that way they like. Lastly no cataloguing wines beyond the number of 1855 overlays, i.e. one can’t list 10 napa wines as 1st growth.
Years in existence is probably a sound consideration, but one that will be extremely subjective. Why don’t we leave it as best judgment. “consider years in existence, track record of excellence, and probability of longevity”. Also, I think we should leave ownership out of it. The bdx houses have changed hands a bunch of times, and I’m not sure it’s ultimately relevant to what is in essence a declaration of “quality”.
Lastly, folks: please declare the wines you mention - thusfar people only seem to be mentioning wines/wineries but without classification. There’s more than “first growth” out there.
Given that I really dislike the uber-ripe style wines there are some famous names that would not make the cut, as they have never been anything other than caricatures.
Putting Screagle in the Le Pin category was how I would leave that type of wine outside the rankings.
Macdonald is an interesting case. Not enough people have even had the chance to drink the wine. Likely they never will. It’s supposedly delicious but it’s also now a commodity. Can’t include it.
History matters, so “first growths” for me are:
Ridge Monte Bello
Montelena Estate
Heitz Martha’s
Diamond Creek Volcanic Hill
2nd through 5th is an significant exercise. Not going to try to toss out a list in 10 minutes.