Should Angelus and Pavie have been promoted to Premier Grand Cru A alongside Cheval and Ausone
0 voters
It is now almost two years after the classification. Curious to see whether people feel it was deserved.
Yes, without reservation. Pavie has one of the greatest terroirs in the world, let alone St Emilion
Remember post 1982 vintage when Chateau Latour was “lightish” for about 6 vintages (83-89)? That was a temporary aberration. Great terroir is timeless
“Terroir alone does not a good wine make” said Confucius. I have tasted good to great Pavie and Angelus but nowhere close to the level of Cheval or Ausone.
I was thinking the same thing.
The best Pavie I have tasted was the 1998. The old regime made good wines occasionally excellent ones (1964 and 1982) but never great ones. Perse fired Alain Raynaud who made the 1998, and then proceeded to make, well Perse wines ( I loved my autocorrect that changed Perse into Purse). Not sure terroir is relevant any more.
The 2001 Pavie is outstanding in my view. And the 1999 is pretty nice too.
But I have to say I can generate absolutely no interest in this subject (no offense, Mark). The “classification” has no more impact on my buying habits than the color of the winemaker’s hair. Utterly, completely irrelevant to me. The only thing the elevation might have meant is higher prices, I suppose (but doubt), and I am not buying Pavie or Angelus since the price escalations of the mid 2000s anyway.
I just don’t care.
Back in my early days of wine drinking I liked the 01 Pavie quite a bit, then one day I had it along side of a 01 Pride Reserve Cab and I couldn’t tell them apart. Wines like those helped me appreciate the older style of wine making and I haven’t looked back.
Mark, is “great” better than “excellent” in your lingo?
So you have the proverbial palate of a yak! 
I guess so. ![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
Yes. Greatness is the wine of the vintage or close, excellence is in the pack following.
Neal you should care.
I would agree with you entirely as far as the consumer is concerned. In fact, I did some articles on some chateaux in St. Emilion, and consider myself reasonably knowledgable about the area. But off the top of my head, I didn’t know where estates such as Fonplegade and Trottveille were classified, had to look it up.
But to the locals, there are financial implications as well as social ones: the price of vineyards, the status within the community, and recent performance are all measured by the classification. And most important of all, it justifies an increase in price.
Also, it rewards current fashion, and by extension penalizes those who don’t follow it. Look at Figeac. It’s a bit of an old warhorse, making great, very traditional St. Emilions. Thanks to the classification, it has completely changed direction. The old management is out, in comes Rolland (although it will be interesting to see how much he will be allowed to do) but the goal is obviously a promotion to take its place alongside Cheval, Ausone, Pavie and Angelus.
What about Angelus? Tell me you haven’t abandoned them! 
I’m still a huge fan of the 89’s-98’s with the jury out on the 2000. Not a big fan of anything is the 2000’s and despite the big scores the 05 got, I don’t get it.
Mark, you make an important point about traditionalists like Figeac changing direction. My question is whether this would have happened anyway. I believe that Pavie and Angelus were selling for more than Figeac prior to the promotion. Granted, the elevation to Classe A will accentuate that, making those wines less accessible to the average consumer. But who’s to say that ownership wouldn’t have been sufficiently motivated to change by the pre-promotion price differential?
If modern sells better to a larger demographic, there will be pressure to go modern. Whether consumer preference is driven by shifting palate preferences, high point scores from critics, or promotion to Grand Cru Classe A status makes no difference. IMO, in today’s market, palate preferences and point scores are likely to influence consumer demand more than classification. Consumer demand will push prices up regardless of the cause for that demand, and will in turn influence owners.
Let’s assume (not without basis) that I would like to dip Figeac (and other traditionalists) in amber and preserve the good old ways. Do you really think the classification has any impact on that (David and I are on the same wavelength). My guess is that Figeac has done what it has done because it would like to sell its wine at a higher price, and it perceives that the market wants more Rollandish St Emilions rather than what they’ve been offering.
But do you think anyone – anyone at all – is buying wines based on this classification? I can tell you if they kicked Pavie to the curb and invented a new, higher tier for Figeac alone it would not alter my buying habits at all.
David,
You make a good point about points trumping classification, but there are markets where points matter much less or not at all.
In Saint-Emilion, getting bumped up in the classification has an immediate effect on the price of the land, in any event.
Furthermore, the question remains: who will take up Robert Parker’s mantle, especially with regard to Bordeaux (since that is what is concerned by this thread)?
What I mean to say is that there will always be some kind of unofficial hierarchy, and powerful critics - but can there ever again be any one person who has as much clout as Parker?
I don’t think so - and that’s fine by me.
That would mean that several influential critics will get their licks in - and scores will be more flexible and less dogmatic (greater spread).
One can always hope 
.
Best regards,
Alex R.
Well,
my problem in evaluating this question is that the track record with mature wines for (the new) Pavie isn´t there, actually … not even the 1998 is really mature, far less vintages like 2000 and younger …
and the (graceful) ageability would be one of the major indications for a top classification …
On the other hand ther are already fine vintages for Angelus, I love the 1989 and also 1990, that are close to maturity - and they are really very fine.
Moreover Angelus is - IMHO - definitely more sucessful than some traditional 1er Crus, I only mention Trottevieille, but also Canon, Belair, Madeleine (which now has disappeared), Clos Fourtet in the 90ies …
So Pavie is definitely impressive, but with a ? (questionmark) -
but Angelus is certainly on a higher level than most of the (ordinary) 1er Crus … if it can stand the test against Ausone and Cheval blanc with time has to be seen.
It is hard to know what is going on behind the scenes, but I am pretty sure that the promotions of Pavie and Angelus were responsible for the departure Eric D’Aramon.
It was always the ambition of Thierry Manoncourt who was Aramon’s father-in-law to see Figeac promoted, in fact, he was quite vocal that Figeac should have been in 2006. His widow was probably all right as long as nobody else made it, but then Pavie and Angelus were raised, and I suspect it was seen as a slap in the face in the face, hence the changes.