Obviously a very vague statement, but principal is sound. Are the 3/4/5 th growths of today close to firsts of 40 or 50 years ago ? Or put another way have wine making skills developed enough to overide terroir and technique in that time ?
Maybe. It depends .
The tiers of crus are not a rank of quality.
??
What are they then
Some are better, some are worse. It would depend on the wine and the vintage.
First, the taxonomy dates to 1855 and has undergone almost no change. So even if it were based solely on quality when done, a few things have changed in the last 160+ years.
Second, even when it was introduced, the 1855 classification was based largely on price, not on quality.
But don’t you think there was, and is a relationship between quality and price, more often than not?
With respect to the 1855 classification in 1855? I can’t say; I am not that old. Surely, the top growth properties had the resources to invest in making better wine and many did.
If you are asking me whether, today, everything else being equal, a 1st growth is likely to be of higher quality than a 5th in a given vintage, I’d say that is probably true “more often than not,” and maybe even almost always. If you are asking me whether a 4th growth is “more likely than not” to be better than a 5th, or a 3d better than a 4th or 5th, no I don’t think I could say that.
The firsts are different. Below those 5 wines, I’d say the reliability of the 1855 classification as an indicator of quality is pretty dicey
Marketing
Undeniably true as of 1855
People are ignoring a very interesting question in the OP to get into a pointless debate about the 1855 classification. Everyone knows what was meant by the question. Is a Giscours or Calon Segur from a recent vintage the quality equivalent of Lafite or Latour from 1970? Has winemaking advanced that much? Or is it an impossible question because comparing apples and oranges?
Like probably many on the board I don’t have a lot of experience with the first growths, especially over time, and would love to see those who do opine on the question.
My own guess would be that the fruit concentration of a Giscours or Malescot today is probably greater than a lot of past first growths, but we don’t know how they’ll age. But I don’t really have the experience base to answer this question, hence my interest in hearing from those who do.
The OP’s question is literally about the 1855 classification. If that classification is not qualitative, the question makes no sense. It is also a strangely specific question about a vintage virtually no one has tasted. Lafite in 70 was a pretty mediocre wine. I’d be shocked if some of the 3ds in '16 were not better. In fact, I’d be surprised if some 5ths were not better.
But being as I have not tasted a single 16, I couldn’t say
Hasn’t climate change affected quality by now of what was the first growths predominant area?
Chinese hoax.
No, it’s not about the 1855 classification. He is just using “first growths” as a shorthand for the very best and most celebrated wines in Bordeaux. No matter what you think about the classification everyone knows Lafite, Latour, Haut Brion etc. are the best wines in Bordeaux. He’s asking if mid-range classed growths today are better than the very best wines made in Bordeaux in the 70s.
For the literal minded, let me rephrase the question: are classed growth Bordeaux that sell at $50-75 on futures today better quality wines than Bordeaux first growths were in the 1970s?
With all due respect, you have fundamentally changed the question, and if you know that when he said “first growth” and “third growth” in the OP he actually meant neither, you must have an Eden Rosetta Stone unavailable to the rest of us.
Which 2016 $50 bordeaux are you referring to and how did you like them? I haven’t tasted any, so I can’t answer your question (although I thought I came pretty close w/r/t the 70 Lafite). If your (new) question is whether I could find a better 2016 wine for $75 than the 70 Lafite, I’d say probably so, but it would just be a guess. Now, whether I could find one at that price better than the 70 Figeac? That is quite another question. Because 1970 Figeac was better than any of the firsts I have had from 1970.
By the way, since you generalized the question and opened it up to “the 70s,” instead of 5 specific wines from a specific year as in the OP, I’ll answer this way: I bet (having tasted none of the wines) every single 3d growth from 2016 is better than any wine from the 1855 classification made in 1971, 72, 73, 74, 76, or 77. Every damn one of them, or damned close to it. The 70s kinda sucked in bdx.
Now, you could not do the same thing if you picked the decade of the 80s
Nope.
You decided to change the post. If he meant something else he can tell us.
Marcus has my intent correct. Im just asking has winemaking improved enough over 40-50 years that todays $100 bottles ( 3/4/5 ths ) are better than first growths 40-50 years ago. Not sure why everybody is going off on tangents
Neal, you’ve violated what you said originally because you haven’t tasted any 2016s. Nor have I. But I’ll play your game with the vintages you list: Probably Wrong. Probably. Probably. Probably. Probably. Impossible to know yet but probably. Probably.
Also I’m very happy for people to continue to perpetuate the generalized view that the 70s in Bordeaux kinda sucked. You can send me all of your classified growths from 70, 71, 75, 76, 78, and 79 if you don’t want them, and I’d be happy to pick up the postage or even drive down to DC to pick them up.
If we talk 1970 itself, all of the first growths except the Lafite are excellent.
If we flip the question, I dare say I’d put a well stored, intact bottle of 1970 Ducru against recent First Growths, and I’d expect the Ducru would hold its own.