That somewhat describes my personal preference, but I do enjoy many Merlot-driven Bordeaux. I’ve always found the Right Bank to be much more of a minefield, however. It seems much harder for winemakers to get ripeness under control in warm year and leanness under control in cool years. If you’re in Europe and are barrel tasting stuff across the board years before we get to try it, you can play the field much more reliably. Too many highly-rated Right Bankers at recent tastings from 2009 have tasted like gloop to me; if I want gloop, I can find silos of it two hours away in Napa, I don’t have to look to France… Whereas even the ripest Left Bankers have had enough of a backbone to satisfy my palate.
FWIW, it’s 20 years for Premier Cru Classe A, 15 for Premier Cru Classe and 10 for Grand Cru.
Other factors are also considered, from the terroir to the wine making, the facilities, presence in the market etc.
FWIW, Grand Cru is close to meaningless. Almost any property in St. Emilion can get that by applying and following the rules of the appellation.
If the criteria of tasting, terroir, wine making and yes, for Premier Cru Classe A, the reception area are not important, on what grounds should the classification be awarded?
20 years is getting to be more like it, although assuming that’s starting with the 2009, it only takes you back to the 1990 vintage. I don’t think anyone will argue that 1990 Bordeaux first growths have peaked, much less 1995 and 1996 and the other notable vintages since. 20 years is barely even the beginning of the drinking window for top Bordeaux. If someone is going to say that a wine is the equal of Cheval-Blanc and Ausone, they need to be basing that judgment on having tasted 40, 50, 60 year old examples. If they are just basing their judgment on guesswork and the “potential” exhibited by young wines, well, that’s not what people expect a classification to do. That’s what people expect Robert Parker and James Suckling and the rest to do, and they’re doing it. What’s the point of enshrining that guesswork in law?
The stupidity of taking into account the reception area obviously speaks for itself.
Kieth I’m going to disagree with you on this. I think a ten year tasting is proper given that the classification is suppose to be revaluated every ten years. How wine from 1990 was made has little relevance to what’s happening today. I would take this method over other ranking systems that I know of.
Dispute arising in the St Emilion reclassification
http://www.wine-searcher.com/m/2013/01/2012-st-emilion-classification-dispute-surfaces
Yup.
Two declassifieds and one non-ranked are going to court.
Bordeaux paper says: there is widespread feeling that if this classification is cancelled, there will never be another one.
Alex R.
We had an 00 Le Prieure [St Emilion] last night. I’d never had one before but had squirrelled one away on release. It was ok, probably reasonably slotted into that latter grouping for classification purposes, although in the bottom half in quality by my taste. I don’t see the wine much in my market. It’s a medium bodied, finesse St Em, sort of like Larmande. I think a few of of those grand crus are much better and if one cared about rankings maybe they ought to be slotted a shade higher.
I am curious what has happened to the scores of the super ripe since Parker left.
How for instance has Neal Martin scored Pavie?
Seems very interesting, especially if it can be maintained over a longer period.
No surprise at this already going to the courts. I have a little sympathy - why should the opinion of half a dozen people dictate your place in the establishment pecking order. FWIW I think the problem revolves around the supposed need for an establishment pecking order, which Pavie ably illustrates as folly when a wine is as polarising as it has been over the last decade. Maybe it would be a good thing if the classification ends. It may even help a few producers to think differently, not wondering whether they need to change their style to maintain or improve their ranking.
My last significant purchases of St Ems were from the 2005 vintage, most of which I have since discarded. The renewed classification is a joke, showing the bastardization of this once-acclaimed region. Other than Cheval Blanc and Ausone, which I cannot afford, the vast majority of wines on that list are candied. Even Figeac, a former old-world stalwart, has now succumbed to Rolland. I wish they would jettison the classification.
I agree on all points here.
And the point mentioned earlier By Keith, that a much longer period of time is needed, before any wine(chateau) can “earn” this promotion, is also correct IMHO. -Much longer track records needed, and certainly for the fully matured bottles.
I can understand the need for making new lists. It’ll prevent producers from carelessness, as they will be degraded if poor quality flows in the system for consecutive years.
But if They need to please certain palates, to achieve further “greatness”, (the candied ones), then these wines instead, need a list of their very own. - * Le Classification de Bonbons en 2016 *.
-Soren.
Arv’s revived an oldie but goodie…
Alex, menioning ISO in the same post as the above is an insult to ISO. 65-70% of the weighting is purely subjective, based on tasting and reputation of the estate. The remaining may be subjective as well, depending on the details underlying the terroir and winemaker criteria.
I have no problem with subjective rankings. There is no completely objective way to evaluate wine. I do have a problem with taking those rankings at face value if those making the subjective determinations have a vested interest in the outcome.
I pay no heed to the St Emilion classification or the 1855 classification in making purchasing decisions. But if I understand correctly that it was based solely on price, the 1855 classification was less subjective than the St Emilion system.
Canon and Chauvin are more affordable and I wouldn’t put them in the candied group. Though your tolerance for candied may be lower than mine.
Has Figeac since Rolland been noticeably riper/sweeter, or is it too early too tell?
I don’t know, David. I bought Cannon in 2014 but did not grab the 2015. Have not tried the new Figeac but check out the reviews and scores on it. The notes read more modern than prior Figeacs that I adored, which admittedly, I had sorta been priced out of anyway. Been years since I tried Chauvin, any vintage reds?
+1
2000 Chauvin is drinking superbly right now.
Because that is what all the chateaux wishing to be classified agreed on. There is no obligation to be classified. There are high end St. Emilion wines that remain out of the classification system, Tertre Rotobeouf and Le Dome for example. Until 2012 La Mondotte was not classified either.
The classification is more about land values. The market sets the price and determines the worth of the wines. This is quite apparent with the wines of St. Emilion.
the rules of the game are pretty easy to follow. Invest in your property, make good clean wines that have more value than nostalgia (I.E. Taste good and have a place on the international market for the betterment of the SE ‘brand’). Jeff hit the nail on the head on one hand, but there is a pride factor here as well… In terms of valuation, you pay what will end up being a set price for your ‘trophy,’ the price of the land, and a deviation of NPV.
I, for one, think that for such a political affair with so many emotions and differing viewpoints, and such a polarizing subject, they did a fantastic job. Not that the people satisfied with the results will ever be as loud as the person finding a single flaw in a wildly complicated process or anything…
Jeff
My suggestion to them is to collectively throw off the shackles of a classification and make the wines they want to / think will sell. They chose outsiders because of the problems last time around, but that might be trading one problem for another.
regards
Ian