The anomaly that is Chateau Palmer.

[Robert.A.Jr]

Super-Duper Second?

It would be my choice, generally, over the so-called Super Seconds.

[Bob_Hughes]

If I read Mark’s comment correctly, have to admit I’m pretty surprised anyone would call the '86 LLC disappointing.

Then again, probably more shocked that Jayson apparently thinks more highly of Giscours, so I guess one more example of how subjective palates can be.

The tasting that always sticks in my mind was a day years ago where I brought an '89 Pichon Baron and an '89 Lynch Bages, which are both nice wines that drank great that day. My buddy brought a '90 LLC that we flighted with my wines, and the LLC absolutely torched my wines - an opinion unanimous among the tasters that day. I just couldn’t fathom how a wine could show that much better than the two wines I brought.

[Joshua_Kates]

If I read Mark’s comment correctly, have to admit I’m pretty surprised anyone would call the '86 LLC disappointing.

Then again, probably more shocked that Jayson apparently thinks more highly of Giscours, so I guess one more example of how subjective palates can be.

The tasting that always sticks in my mind was a day years ago where I brought an '89 Pichon Baron and an '89 Lynch Bages, which are both nice wines that drank great that day. My buddy brought a '90 LLC that we flighted with my wines, and the LLC absolutely torched my wines - an opinion unanimous among the tasters that day. I just couldn’t fathom how a wine could show that much better than the two wines I brought.

That is indeed strange, Bob,
Though it may depend on timing. About maybe 5-8 years ago, I had the '82 LLC in a flight with the '89 Lynch-Bages. This was the best showing of the Lynch I have yet experienced and it left the LLC in the dust. But maybe it’s the old “only good bottles…”

[Ramon_C]

If I read Mark’s comment correctly, have to admit I’m pretty surprised anyone would call the '86 LLC disappointing.

Then again, probably more shocked that Jayson apparently thinks more highly of Giscours, so I guess one more example of how subjective palates can be.

The tasting that always sticks in my mind was a day years ago where I brought an '89 Pichon Baron and an '89 Lynch Bages, which are both nice wines that drank great that day. My buddy brought a '90 LLC that we flighted with my wines, and the LLC absolutely torched my wines - an opinion unanimous among the tasters that day. I just couldn’t fathom how a wine could show that much better than the two wines I brought.

While I’m crazy for good bottles of both '89 Pichon Baron and Lynch Bages, I’m glad to read that I’m not alone in singing the praises of the '90 LLC and although I’ve never done a head-to-head, not that surprised that it can beat out the two '89s.

[Mattstolz]

I have a fondness for Palmer, after reading in “Wine and War” that Palmer hid Jews during World War II.

That I didn’t know. That might get me to reassess my feeling that Palmer is always excellent but slightly too polished and silky to get me excited.

Might want to borrow that book. Never read it.

i just wanted to throw out another vote for wine and war. fascinating book.

[Keith_Levenberg]

Best way to define super-seconds is the same way the classification was originally done - price

Here are the second growths:
Rauzan-Ségla
Rauzan-Gassies
Léoville-Las Cases
Léoville-Poyferré
Léoville-Barton
Durfort-Vivens
Gruaud-Larose
Lascombes
Brane-Cantenac
Pichon Baron
Pichon Lalande
Ducru-Beaucaillou
Cos d’Estournel
Montrose

And here are the ones that cost more than a C-note:
Léoville-Las Cases
Pichon Baron
Pichon Lalande
Ducru-Beaucaillou
Cos d’Estournel
Montrose

Those are your super-seconds. This is not rocket science!

(Yes, an honorary membership case could be made for Palmer and LMHB, but it’s probably better form to say, “the super-seconds plus Palmer and LMHB,” kind of like “the first growths and Petrus”)

I’m late to the original topic of the post, but if I had to hazard a guess I would say it’s a combination of multiple factors:

• no other candidates in serious competition for “prince of Margaux” behind Ch. Margaux
• many other Margaux not only lagging behind Palmer & Ch. Margaux, but lagging behind their own historical reps
• anglicized name made it a longtime favorite of the UK trade
• iconic label
• tremendous reputation of the '61
• mega-price-inflation in the aughts when they started gunning for Parker points, and got them

[Bdklein]

A good friend of mine received a 1961 Palmer as a gift around 15 years ago, and it was purchased at that time . Any guesses what it cost then ? Or is there some (free) website out there for this ? We are both curious , thanks .

Probably not that different from what it is now; around $1500 with a possible 50% increase depending on provenance. I used a bottle in a 2000 tasting from my own collection for a millennium event and charged $1500.

Gotcha thanks .

[Jayson_Cohen]

If I read Mark’s comment correctly, have to admit I’m pretty surprised anyone would call the '86 LLC disappointing.

Then again, probably more shocked that Jayson apparently thinks more highly of Giscours, so I guess one more example of how subjective palates can be.

The tasting that always sticks in my mind was a day years ago where I brought an '89 Pichon Baron and an '89 Lynch Bages, which are both nice wines that drank great that day. My buddy brought a '90 LLC that we flighted with my wines, and the LLC absolutely torched my wines - an opinion unanimous among the tasters that day. I just couldn’t fathom how a wine could show that much better than the two wines I brought.

I don’t remember what I said. Let me see if I agree with it.

[Jayson_Cohen]

If I read Mark’s comment correctly, have to admit I’m pretty surprised anyone would call the '86 LLC disappointing.

Then again, probably more shocked that Jayson apparently thinks more highly of Giscours, so I guess one more example of how subjective palates can be.

The tasting that always sticks in my mind was a day years ago where I brought an '89 Pichon Baron and an '89 Lynch Bages, which are both nice wines that drank great that day. My buddy brought a '90 LLC that we flighted with my wines, and the LLC absolutely torched my wines - an opinion unanimous among the tasters that day. I just couldn’t fathom how a wine could show that much better than the two wines I brought.

I don’t remember what I said. Let me see if I agree with it.

I agree with myself.

[Bdklein]

A good friend of mine received a 1961 Palmer as a gift around 15 years ago, and it was purchased at that time . Any guesses what it cost then ? Or is there some (free) website out there for this ? We are both curious , thanks .

Probably not that different from what it is now; around $1500 with a possible 50% increase depending on provenance. I used a bottle in a 2000 tasting from my own collection for a millennium event and charged $1500.

Gotcha thanks .

It was purchased retail in NYC from a prominent , reputable place . Nots sure specifically which one .

[K_Tran1]

Best way to define super-seconds is the same way the classification was originally done - price

Here are the second growths:
Rauzan-Ségla
Rauzan-Gassies
Léoville-Las Cases
Léoville-Poyferré
Léoville-Barton
Durfort-Vivens
Gruaud-Larose
Lascombes
Brane-Cantenac
Pichon Baron
Pichon Lalande
Ducru-Beaucaillou
Cos d’Estournel
Montrose

And here are the ones that cost more than a C-note:
Léoville-Las Cases
Pichon Baron
Pichon Lalande
Ducru-Beaucaillou
Cos d’Estournel
Montrose

Those are your super-seconds. This is not rocket science!

(Yes, an honorary membership case could be made for Palmer and LMHB, but it’s probably better form to say, “the super-seconds plus Palmer and LMHB,” kind of like “the first growths and Petrus”)

Vinfolio’s definition has all 6 + Poyferre and LMHB

Vinfolio Blog | Wine Posts - Industry News & Collector Resources

Jeff’s definition has all 6 + poyferre, LMHB, Pontet Canet, Palmer.

Guide to Super Second Bordeaux Wine Producer, Chateaux Profiles

In term of original classification criteria, LMHB should be first growth.

Liv-ex 2017 Bordeaux Classification - Left Bank

Palmer, LLC; Montrose, Cos, Ducru are the 5 most expensive wines after the first growths. I really don’t know how the prices for SHL and Lynch Bages are higher than the Pichons since I have never seen any wine stores selling the Pichons less than those other 2 in any given new release. Also, Cos is always more expensive than Montrose in new releases going back so long. Don’t know how it is so close here.

[Keith_Levenberg]

Nope. Poyferre is not a super-second. What would that make the others? Super-duper-seconds?

[Dan_Kravitz]

IMO LMHB is in a class by itself, better than any of the ‘Super Seconds’ (including Palmer, which I love immoderately). Or, put another way, it’s at least in a class with Mouton, which rarely seems to make wine that justifies the political promotion it received in 1973.

While I like Keith’s list and criteria, it doesn’t take into account the lower-rated wines that now sell in triple digits. Pontet Canet, Lynch Bages, is there anybody else?

Dan Kravitz

[Jayson_Cohen]

IMO LMHB is in a class by itself, better than any of the ‘Super Seconds’ (including Palmer, which I love immoderately).

It’s so consistently, undeniably great.

[Chris_Foley]

,
While I like Keith’s list and criteria, it doesn’t take into account the lower-rated wines that now sell in triple digits. Pontet Canet, Lynch Bages, is there anybody else?

Dan Kravitz

Calon Segur

[Marcu_Stanley]

Keith’s list was limited to second growths, hence “super seconds”. Not sure he gets to do that in a thread that started out with the premise that Palmer is a super second, but it is a consistent and reasonable definition.

If you wanted to re-classify Bordeaux based on price, like redo 1855, that would be an interesting exercise and yes Pontet, Lynch, Calon might be grouped together with some of the super seconds on that basis. Certainly Palmer.

There are two discussions going on in this thread, one being, which wines does the poster personally feel are worth the now exorbitant prices for the best non-first growth producers, and the other being how does the market hierarchy work.

Re Palmer, I think they benefited enormously from being a merlot-heavy wine that was able to shift to a very rich/succulent/Parkerized style. They definitely rode that as far as it would take them and milked all the price appreciation they could get out of it. Even though I can’t afford them any more I don’t blame them. I suspect they handled that transition better than a lot of the right bank producers that ended up making wines that are real messes. I tried a 2009 Palmer at a tasting and it almost could have been a Chateauneuf du Pape. But not in a bad way, it was still terrific!

[Marcu_Stanley]

Pichon Baron?

Not for me. For me, this wine lacks a bit of elegance to be rated that highly.

Disagree – since 2000 PB has been on a roll and isn’t rustic at all. More consistent than Lalande IMO.

[Ramon_C]

I tried a 2009 Palmer at a tasting and it almost could have been a Chateauneuf du Pape. But not in a bad way, it was still terrific!

With Châteauneuf-du-Pape needing all the help they can get in marketing themselves these days, tasting like Chateau Palmer could be the ticket to regaining some respectability.

[Mark_Golodetz]

First and foremost, the 1855 classification has outlived its usefulness. We don’t just rate properties, we score them based on the actual wine in any given year. No classification can match that degree of accuracy. It is still used and relevant only for the first growths, and which chateaux are classified.

Second: not only is the classification now redundant, but it continues to be a trap for the unwary. It won’t be scrapped, but it should never be allowed to influence anybody’s buying decisions. The classification has skewed pricing, so that First Growths have been for most of the twenty first century between three and five times the cost of the super seconds, a far cry from the less than 50% premium in 1855.

Third: the first growths are in a golden age, but so too are the next ten to fifteen wannabes. I would argue that the like of Ducru, Montrose and Pichon Lalande are every bit as consistent and interesting as Margaux Mouton etc. No reason for that ridiculous price disparity.

[John_Morris]

…
Re Palmer, I think they benefited enormously from being a merlot-heavy wine that was able to shift to a very rich/succulent/Parkerized style. They definitely rode that as far as it would take them and milked all the price appreciation they could get out of it. Even though I can’t afford them any more I don’t blame them. I suspect they handled that transition better than a lot of the right bank producers that ended up making wines that are real messes. I tried a 2009 Palmer at a tasting and it almost could have been a Chateauneuf du Pape. But not in a bad way, it was still terrific!

Bingo! I think the high proportion of merlot (50% now according to Jeff Levy’s site) is a big reason they can be so outstanding. Or could be. I haven’t had one in years, so I don’t know about any Parkerization. But I vividly remember '61, '66, '79 and '83, which had a caressing quality, which I’m sure stems in part from the merlot.