Understood - I was responding to Alex who seemed to be confusing “GCC” with plain old “Grand Cru”
Marc F. and Alan,
I agree with you that the appellation system and the ambiguity of the AOC Grand Cru are very misleading. But I wouldn’t go so far to say that all non-classified grands crus are “middling Merlots” by any means. We are talking about literally hundreds of estates. Some are indeed “middling” and others are delicious.
Please consider the different meaning of grand cru not only in Burgundy and Bordeaux, but also Champagne and Cognac. And did you know that Provence has a grand cru system as well?
These are particularities that vary from region to region, and I don’t see the St. Emilion system as more ridiculous than any other. Indeed, it can be revised, which is a wrenching if not impossible mission in the other appellations I named…
Keith,
I haven’t actually confused GCCs with GCs.
Guillaume,
It is interesting that you should consider the critics more trustworthy than the powers-that-be in the region of production (I’m not saying that this is your personal viewpoint – you may very well have been referring to consumers at large).
Do you think that any of the critics have tasted all 82 great growths?
Don’t you think that there is a danger of concentrating just on known quantities?
Marc G,
Hi Mark .
You say that “the high scores have much more effect than the classification, and the wines are priced on the scores”. That is food for thought, for sure, and it’s not altogether reassuring… But I think that your statement only goes so far. As you very well know, there is a “classification within the classification” as there is in Burgundy where a grand cru from Aloxe-Corton and one from Vosne-Romanée don’t have the same price tag, ditto for Anne Gros’s Clos de Vougeot as opposed to several others I could name.
Please let’s take the example of a less exalted GCC, perhaps one that’s little-known in America, let’s say Château Laniote. If we subtract the critics’ darlings, a wine such as this is priced considerably more than if it were not classified. Similarly, were it to lose its classification, its market value would be significantly diminished (wine and vineyard). That’s really the only point I’ve been trying to make, not pretending that the St. Emilion classification is the best of all possible worlds!
Commercially-speaking, the cream of the GCCs are undoubtedly affected by Mr. Parker. But how many of the 82 crus classés does he review?
You go on to say “”The classification reflects this”. That is where your analysis in on less sure ground. If I understand you correctly, Parker points have an influence on the classification. If this is what you meant, I don’t see how.
What’s interesting too is that poster children for so-called “modern” Bordeaux, Angélus and especially Pavie, were bumped up to the supreme category. These were evaluated by French professionals, whose taste strangely coincided with the big wines beloved of some major critics!
It makes me wonder if “modern” Bordeaux isn’t perhaps as modern as all that, and if is not pretty entrenched by now…
I very much respect your comments on those two wines because you have experienced them first hand in extensive tastings.
Keith mentioned that ten years is a pretty “flimsy” basis for a classification. But seeing as this is revised every ten years, it seems pretty logical to me. It accounts for changes, recent changes, which is the whole spirit behind the thing.
Dale,
The examples you cited are very much exceptions that prove the rule!
Leaf through the Féret. Sorry for the repetition, but there are literally hundreds of châteaux in Saint-Emilion. The estates you named appear to back up your argument that the classification does not influence price, but they are rather like hen’s teeth and cannot be applied across the board.
As for your comment that “the classification system recognizes the most prized estates, it doesn’t necessarily cause them to be more prized”, this is contrary to the way the classification functions. Price is not the basis of the classification, and a heretofore unclassified estate will gain significantly in value – your examples notwithstanding – once it is classified. In much the same way, a demotion has huge financial ramifications (look at Tertre Daugay).
I take my hat off to Jean-Luc Thunevin and Silvio Denz, and the maverick François Mitjavile. However, their success is hardly typical.
Once again, I accept that the cream of Saint-Emilion is, for all intents and purposes, outside the classification (but curious, isn’t it, how eager they are to compete, and how overwhelmed they are when they get bumped up!). But this is only for a limited number of estates.
Best regards,
Alex R.
I have no idea if this is “Guillaume’s personal viewpoint” but it certainly is mine. The “powers that be in the region of production” are in the business of selling their wine and protecting their markets against newcomers and outsiders. Why on earth would I trust their own self-praise? PR flack, plain and simple, and of zero consequence to me as a consumer.
Anyone else notice the exciting discussion here about Bordeaux??
Someone lead the charge and get some more Bordeaux action on Wine Berserkers, as there are plenty who want to participate!
that’s the defeatist attitude. The Burgundy freaks complained long ago that there wasn’t enough Burg discussion…so they started topics, encouraged more discussion, posted frequently, and kept at it until it became the region focus of Wine Talk.
Bordeaux fans can do the very same, and with our forthcoming Special Guest, the timing couldn’t be better…[/quote][/quote]
I think the problem is with a lot of the Bordeaux threads that do exist. Too few are tasting notes or have anything to do with wine. They are more like reading a financial column - all about points and whether high points will make the price of the wines go up so they can be flipped.
That can certainly be a valid point, and that was much the same complaint from the Burgundy fans years ago, so the solution is to post insightful threads that have to do with wine, and tasting notes. It may take some active effort on the part of a small handful of Bordeaux fans, but you CAN create the community you want here rather than just be saddened by its non-existence. Certainly I encourage it, and it definitely worked out well for the Burgundy fans.
Alex,
Of course I did not mean to say that there are no good St. Emilion Grand Cru wines. And of course, not every grand cru from other regions is a great experience. No system is perfect. But here are a few reasons why St. Emilion’s system is more ridiculous, just to take two:
-
The misleading nature of having three flavors of grand cru - St Emilion GC, GCC B, and GCC A
-
In Burgundy, the percentage of total regional production that is given grand cru status is like 1.5%. In St. Emilion, it’s more than 33% according to your own post, and looking at the link below, it may be as much as 60%? So, even if you may not be bowled over by every grand cru burg, and you may find some St. Emilion grand cru delicious, from a macro level, grand cru in Burgundy actually means something and in St. Emilion, not so much.
http://www.vignobledebordeaux.com/region_libo_aoc_st_emil.php
This may have been covered earlier here - but who was on the panel that set the classification? St. Emilion powers that be? Wine powers from other regions? I suppose even outsiders who are still in the trade would still have an incentive to promote St Emilion.
We seem to have taking a wrong turn. I was going to leave Keith’s misstatement about 10 years alone, but it took hold and has persisted. If he had correctly read the OP he would have noted that the PGCC wine were graded on a 15 year vertical. Sure, it is not 20 or 30 years, but certainly enough time to evolve somewhat. ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Neal,
Thanks for your input. There is, of course, no right or wrong here. People see things from their own perspective. I read your comments and immediately thought this “Jeez, what he’s advocating is as though the Pulitzer Prize or the Grammy Awards should be attributed by a bunch of French journalists”. I’ve obviously over-caricatured things, but see what I mean? This is indicative of my vantage point as seen from France, which is by definition different.
The terroirs of Burgundy have been classified down to the smallest details. This was done by French people, as is only normal. The new St. Emilion classification was established on the basis of totally blind tastings, there were also judges from outside the region, and the whole process was overseen by an internationally-respected quality control organization: Bureau Veritas - Wikipedia
Perhaps you did not know this.
Howard,
You make an extremely valid point. Between the rising and sometimes untenable cost of top Bordeaux and relating this to Parker points, the essence of why we come here, i.e. talking about the wines we taste, can get somewhat lost. It makes me think that I should post more often about the wines I drink, primarily Bordeaux. In my defense, not being wealthy, I do not taste the name wines as often as many of my American friends and say to myself that the more affordable wines I drink on a regular basis cannot be found in the States, so why bother? However, that is obviously a rationalization . I’ll try to post my tasting notes more often!
Alan,
I completely agree with your two criticisms, which are less about the classification than they are of the confusing AOC “St. Emilion grand cru”.
To some posters on this thread, I’m sure I have come off as an apologist for the St. Emilion classification - or maybe an enemy agent in the employ of the winegrowers there .
In fact, I think that, as a guide, it is far from infallible, but respect it despite its flaws – like the 1855 classification – and feel that it is indeed the right of the people in Saint-Emilion to do things their way.
They must be doing something right, because sales are good!
I’ll say something controversial here, but please bear with me. In my opinion, the English speaking world has has more of an affinity with the Médoc and Graves than it does with Right Bank wines. I would put that down to several things: the easier-to-understand and immutable classifications on the Left Bank, the wines’ longer-established history as the cream of Bordeaux, the strong links between properties there and the négociants, the smaller size and confusingly large number of Right Bank estates – and it is also quite possible that Anglo-Saxon palates are simply more attuned to the tannic backbone of Cabernet.
Best regards,
Alex R.
Despite all this (and remember, Enron’s accounts were certified too), the Château owner who already lead to the demise of the last change in the classification is bringing them to court again, claiming that the process wasn’t so well organized, communicated, etc.
Alex, I am blissfully ignorant of the procedures used this time around. I have no doubt that you are better informed than I am. I know (or think I know, because I really don’t care enough to investigate more fully) that the previous one in 2006 was declared invalid because the panel that decided the classification was thick with self-interest and commercial conflicts, that the French court of appeals upheld that decision but that political influence paid for a footnote in an unrelated bill reinstating what was, in my view, a corrupt decision.
Perhaps the 2012 panel was composed of virtuous men tasting blind, and maybe they tasted across 50 years of wine – a span sufficient to say whether elevation or relegation is warranted. Perhaps the new classification actually means something (which would, in my view, distinguish it from the 1855 Medocian job). I couldn’t care less. I am arrogant and egotistical enough to believe I can determine relative quality and value on my own. And if I need help, I will rely on individuals who are either not trying to sell me anything, or are only trying to sell me the information and are indifferent to what wines I actually buy.
Guillaume,
Your point about Enron is well taken (and look at what ratings Moody’s and Standard & Poors gave to Lehman Brothers…). You are right, no certification is airtight.
In essence, a “perfect” classification, that satisfies everybody, is an impossibility. But the methodology for the 2012 classification was seriously cleaned up. Once bitten, twice shy!
What you said about litigation isn’t exactly true, but it may be later on. The owner of just one château, Corbin Michotte, has made a stink and appealed to the Minister of Agriculture. Who knows what he will do later on… In any event, one of the many changes in the most recent classification is that never again can anyone legally call the whole shooting match into question, just on a one-by-one basis. The opposite situation in 2006 constituted a major stumbling block.
Neal,
The reason for the repeal, and subsequent reinstatement of the 2006 classification was largely procedural. The examining committee visited some estates, for instance, to check on the state of their cellar facilities, but not all. This led to accusations of favoritism. Wines that were eliminated in the tasting said “Hey, wait a minute, you said that the state of the cellars was a factor, but you didn’t visit ours, and that’s unfair”. If you have wind of any political influence and corruption, please share it.
As a contributor to this board and fellow geek, I have little doubt that you can “determine relative quality and value on your own”. But the classification is a tool for people who don’t know which end is up, i.e. most people. You have to start somewhere! And I am not alone in thinking that one foreign critic should NOT be able to speak ex cathedra to the world’s wine lovers.
Are hierarchies useful? Can they approach objectivity? Who should establish them? What about the updating of them? What about changes in vineyard size or winemaker?
The parameters are numerous, the room for debate large.
Neal, I respect your point of view, and you are consistent in your criticism, because you have no truck with the 1855 classification either.
Let us agree to disagree, both of us from opposite sides of the ocean, and thus the issue.
All the best,
Alex R.
Alex, if I understand correctly, a number of criteria were used this time around that had nothing to do with the wine itself, but with the property and the presence (or absence) of some amenities, etc. That doesn’t sound like a valid set of criteria to me, and to be quite honest sounds more like a validation of investment and/or a way of artificially eliminate some of the contenders.
Furthermore re: your comment about a critics-based classification, that wouldn’t be new in Bordeaux, considering that currently the opinions of critics (and of one in particular) is a very good proxy for price.
Guillaume,
Referring back to your comment about certification, there are aspects of the new classification that are reminiscent of ISO standards in that all the requirements can be met at every step of the way, but quality can never be guaranteed.
But the standards do serve a useful purpose.
Here are the criteria, because I don’t think the French will be a problem for you:
A/ la qualité des vins jugée par dégustation des échantillons : 50 % de la note finale pour les crus classés (millésimes 2000 à 2009) et 30 % pour les premiers grands crus classés (millésimes 1995 à 2009, avec un coefficient multiplicateur très important pour les millésimes 1995 à 1999).
2/ la notoriété du cru (20 % de la note finale pour les crus classés et 35 % pour les premiers grands crus classés)
3/ l’assiette foncière et l’homogénéité du terroir (20 % de la note finale pour les crus classés et 30 % pour les premiers grands crus classés)
4/ la conduite du vignoble (10 % de la note finale pour les crus classés et 5 % pour les premiers grands crus classés)
There is no artificial elimination, and as long as you’re in the Saint-Emilion appellation, you can be a candidate.
You say that the opinions of critics is a very good proxy for price.
You won’t find me disagreeing.
However, I would contest that they are a proxy for price and quality!
Confession: I have always been one to root for the underdog, and I’m never more happy than when an unheralded wine, or a wine from a politically incorrect vintage just shines at table. It gets so tiring when people bang on about the same wines when the field is so vast.
Best regards,
Alex R.
How did they measure the fame/notoriety of an estate? What does the “way the vineyard is managed” mean exactly?
Re: price/quality and critics, I was mostly referring to the other classification in Bordeaux which was 100% based on price. At least 150+ years ago people had understood it was the only objective criteria 
[quote=“Alex Rychlewski”]Howard,
You make an extremely valid point. Between the rising and sometimes untenable cost of top Bordeaux and relating this to Parker points, the essence of why we come here, i.e. talking about the wines we taste, can get somewhat lost. It makes me think that I should post more often about the wines I drink, primarily Bordeaux. In my defense, not being wealthy, I do not taste the name wines as often as many of my American friends and say to myself that the more affordable wines I drink on a regular basis cannot be found in the States, so why bother? However, that is obviously a rationalization . I’ll try to post my tasting notes more often!
Alex,
Sometimes I read this board and think that only you, Leve, Panos and one or two others treat Bordeaux as a wine to be drunk rather than as an investment vehicle.
Seriously?
I know quite a few Bdx lovers on this site, none of which invest in Bordeaux. In my 20+ years of buying wines, a very significant percentage of which has been Bdx, I have sold one wine: Dalla Valle Maya. I made a boatload on that wine, but other than that, I really do not think the Bordeaux I buy to drink are true investment vehicles. I’m much better, any way, at losing money in the stock market. As Marc F. about my biotechs! ![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}
I don’t see many people talking about Bordeaux for investment anymore. It wouldn’t make much sense, considering Bordeaux has been scratching the ceiling of what they can get away with charging for several years now, and has abandoned the “buy futures, get a big discount” arrangement that has made short-term investing in Bordeaux so profitable in the past.
If people aren’t talking about it much as a wine for drinking, well, that’s for the very same reasons. People can’t afford to drink it anymore, and the ones they can afford to drink aren’t worth talking about.
Oh, and back to the classification issue: tasting the last 15 years is just as flimsy a basis for a quality classification as tasting the last 10. Evaluating their reception area, or whatever it was, is even more ridiculous.