Then how do you keep the bs wines from dragging down the SE brand? The game theory is already at play with plenty throwing the group out the window… I don’t see it as shackles, rather training wheels for all but the utmost pinnacles of winemaking. God forbid nobody invests in their property anymore and brands themselves as ‘true terroir…’ For cost savings/laziness sake…And we have to drink dirty horse stable wine that has no purity, fruit, takes 25 years to still taste awful, etc…
I’m sorry but the de Boüards and the like have taken this app to a new level and I don’t want to go back in time- the best days of this app lie ahead.
The 2012 classification made the whole thing meaningless. This was a regurgitation of Parker’s opinions ironically at a time when Parker has left the playing field.
And Jeff, if you really think the vineyards of Pavie and Angelus are of the same quality as Cheval and Ausone,
Chris Christie has a bridge to sell you.
2022 classification is coming out before 2022 harvest season.
Now, there’s talk of Figeac joining the PGCC A list. I don’t really get the Figeac love. I thought it was so austere and unremarkable the few times I tried it. If anything, Beausejour Duffau is maybe the only candidate that should make a go at it.
I cannot believe they are masochistic enough to try this again. A lot of lawyers will be very happy to hear this.
Anybody demoted will sue, and probably win. No methodology that has so much subjective input can be seen as objectively fair.
If Angelus and Pavie can be promoted, so too can Figeac. Better terroir, and better wines.
I think they should scrap the ranking of Chateau and instead just rank the wonderfully talented modernist consultants that have infested this appellation.
I had a similar thought. Why don’t they just do something “objective” and consistent with modern St. Emilion and rank the wines in order of alcohol level.
It is funny. Many years ago, Beausejour Becot incorporated land into its holdings without permission, against classification rules, and were demoted. On paper, the classification is a a lot stricter than the Medoc. Chateaux in the Medoc, are classified by brand, so can buy and sell without penalty.
St. Emilion was supposed to be the new wave of how to do a proper classification, now it is a bit of a joke. But they do take it seriously.
StE classification is once in a decade. I’m sure this time around someone will try to sue and nothing will come out of it just like last time. Hard to sue when you pay to play.
If you compare Angelus and Pavie CT scores and critic scores to Figeac for the past 20 years, Figeac is not playing the same game. Traditional & high score aren’t mutually exclusive. Anyway, I am curious what is it about Figeac that people love more than the higher status chateau.
How about Character???! It is a far more interesting wine than the two new promotees. It has better terroir, and even though it is slightly glossier before, it is still n my opinion, a much better wine.
As for scores, the last classification was pretty well correlated to Parker’s tired palate. I have yet to have a Pavie from 1999 that I would want to serve to friends. My taste; it sounds as if your is different.
If you want to understand a perfectly mature great Figeac, try a 1998.
Now that the market has inconveniently refused to participate in the delusion that Pavie and Angelus are equal to Cheval-Blanc and Ausone, a demotion should be in order.
I just looked up 1998 Figeac, price seems to be very high. Don’t know when I will be trying that. Let’s say if you have 1998 Pavie, Angelus, Figeac all at once, would Figeac really come out on top in a room of experienced drinkers? Judging from the CT notes, it does not stack up.
Anyway, can a wine be great without being interesting or having a lot of character? Take the Michelin system for example. some stalwart 3* restaurants are great but boring. Great and boring wine can still be better than interesting and good wine, no?
Should we demote a bunch of chateau in classe B as well? and the Grand Cru?
A lot of them don’t stack up to their peers. For example, Trotte Vieille, La Gaffelière? I got La Gaffelière from TW from time to time because the price is good with those 20% coupon, and every time I tried it, I regretted it. The classification is the only reason I picked them up to try.
I am a little confused by this post. Figeac 1998 is about the same as Pavie and less than Angelus. And 1998 Pavie is very different from any other wine made under Perse ownership. If you can afford thevPaviecand Angelus, you can afford the Figeac.
I consider CellarTracker without knowing participants, the wine equivalent of yelp. Completely and utterly devoid of anything useful.
Great and boring are not the stuff of three star Michelins. And great wines cannot by definition be boring. Greatness demands something special.
You can’t demote Grand Cru; there is nothing lower. You can throw them out, I suspect, but you would have to read the small print in the classification. Both wines that you mention have been underperforming for years.
As always, my advice is to taste so you can decide what YOU like, not some critic dude, or some unknown schlepper on CellarTracker, or some arcane classification that is subject to political and legal pressure.
1998 Figeac lowest on WS $225, 92.7 average score on CT
1998 Pavie $265, 93.7
1998 Angelus $449, 93.7
How is Figeac better than the other two in any given year? Sure, CT is yelp equivalent for a lot of wine at a lower starting point. I assume newbie don’t drink Pavie and Angelus and post notes on CT. These people at least should have some exposure to Bdx so their take on the wine can be somewhat valid. I can afford Figeac from time to time when it’s under $200, but I cannot justify paying $400+ for Pavie and Angelus. They are not priced in the same ball park.
Have you dined at Paul Bocuse in the past 10 years? I can think of at least 5 other places that I’ve been and they are not interesting at all. Great food, yes, best in their class, maybe, interesting and special, not really.