Which they do. I only ever thought Magdelaine and Figeac were even close.
1 Like
Agree 100%
Agree 87%. I love both Magdelaine and Figeac, but there is still a small but important gap between them and the other two.
I thought this was a rather crude translation.
Arenât we saying the same thing? Because I think we agree that they are not on the same plateau.
Well, according to another thread, terroir and wine quality do not matter as much as having a large carpark and a secretariat/receptionist to be promoted from grand cru to 1er grand cru⌠I suppose Angelus has the largest car park of them all!.. They got the a classification after allâŚ
A grand cru were told their quality was easily good enough for 1er grand cru⌠but were told they needed a bigger carpark and a receptionist⌠while I understand these are necessary to accomodate customers,
I find it difficult to accept that not complying with carpark request means you remain in the lower category. After all, I thought this was all about qualityâŚ
+1
Jayson,
CB and Ausone are superb wines. No doubt. But as a convinced promotor of blind tasting it would be interesting to organize one of 8 top St. Emilion from vintages 1998, 2000 and 2005 to proof the superior quality of both superstars. I experienced too often myself that the results of those tastings did not reflect the expectations. And when the results were surprising I also experienced that the quality of tasters was more in discussion than the wines.
None of those vintages is ready. Ausone historically is notoriously tight for decades. The last one I tried, Ramonâs bottle of 1979 last October, was all potential. And not ready for prime time drinking. But wonderful in its way. Also I canât recall a blind or non-blind horizontal Bordeaux tasting where Cheval was included and it wasnât a favorite.
Generally Iâm not a fan of blind tasting except for fun but thatâs a well-worn topic on the interwebs. Would prefer not to drift that direction here.
Ridiculous - everyone knows they need a helipad (and a dock for personal/narco subs).
Jayson,
so you suggest to do the tasting in 2040? Sorry â I can not promise I am alive then.
One wonders how many deserving left bank chateaux were lowered in the 1855 classification due to the size of their cartparks.
1 Like
Weâve conducted blind tastings of the 2000, 2009 and 2010 Bdx vintages in the past 3 years (around 50 reds).
The group results for St. Emillion were:
2000 (8 St. Emilions tasted): #1 Pavie, #2 Cheval, #3 La Mondotte, #4 Valandraud, #5 Ausone
2009 (10 St. Emilions tasted): #1 Cheval, #2 Angelus, #3 Ausone, #4 Beausejour Duffau Lagarosse, #5 Troplong Mondot
2010 (11 St. Emilions tasted): #1 Cheval, #2 Angelus, #3 Pavie, #4 Troplong Mondot, #5 Le Dome, #6 Ausone
The Ausones were indeed a bit more difficult in 2000 and 2010 and would have needed a long decant (non of the wines were decanted) but Cheval, on the other hand, was awlays one of the top wines of the vintage (#10 in 2000, #2 in 2009, #5 in 2010).
Andy,
The fact that Pavie does well particularly the 2000, which I have tasted a number of times, and the 2009 and 2010 both of which I have tasted twice, suggests a certain bias towards modern wines. The 2000 which we had a couple of months ago, was tasted blind and borderline undrinkable. Certainly nobody went back to it.
My experience of 2010 is actually worse. It is incredibly overextracted, bitter on the palate, and completely lacking in elegance. I did not like the 2009 either, and ten years later, it resembled the Incredible Hulk in a particularly foul mood.
This is no reflection of your group, just an indication of why Saint Emilion is such a problem, and so hard to figure out. Too many palate biasâ and why I never take other peopleâs notes at face value.
1 Like
For those talking about a blind tasting - Shouldnât the measurement of a great estate be how well they do (or donât) in a poor year/vintage? Isnât that how the quality level of a producer should be measured? Producers at this level should be able to make something great with a great starting point.
Thereâs something to be said for working with poor vintages but Iâd be more interested in average vintages to really see the differences in caliber. Worst vintage of the decade isnât much better than vintage of the century where you can do no wrong.
![[whistle.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/87d24eb81ec6dc01d84f3d6c19fa9a357e90218e.gif "whistle"){kind=small}
I have to do with a lot of assessments, ratings and judgements âŚ
If I really want I can get ANY results if I just select the right jury âŚ
itâs that simple, even in blind ratings.
On the other hand with the wrong jury even THE BEST might have no chance.
Very telling is the story of Jancis Robinson which made headlines about 10 or 15 years ago. She tasted Pavie (I think it was the 2003) En Primeur and wrote everyone who likes this wine needs a brain transplant. Parker gave it a high score 
. Then â a few years later â she liked it in a blind tasting very much. And Jancis is known for having a traditional english palate. Needless to say that this caused a huge controversy on the old Parker board and elsewhere. If my memory serves me well she even apologized to Parker.
Blind tasting is not fun. It is very demanding and frustrating for those with strong prejudices. It is the only tasting format with some objectivity.
In blind tastings I experienced Cheval and Ausone did always very well. Were they the best wines by a distance? No, they were in the top group with others. I love both wines but the price for a bottle today is prohibitive.