The Comprehensive Hypothetical Napa Classified Growth Lists (and what we might consider to be the current cult wines)

A while back, I remember when they tried to redefine the wonders of the world. In order to make sure the classifications were fair, they came up with multiple lists, like the natural wonders, and the medieval wonders, etc…

I’m sure there are other threads that have attempted this, but I thought we could put some structure around the different categories, here are my thoughts:

Should be limited to 5 specific wines (not wineries) per category. Also, to keep it simple, let’s keep it to bordeaux varietal (or pure cab) wines.

Should take into account: quality / secondary market performance / desireability & demand / vineyard source / demonstrated consistent performance within the specified time range:

Overall First Growth:

Screaming Eagle
Shafer Hillside Select
Colgin IX Estate
Lokoya Mt Veeder
Scarecrow

Overall Second Growth:

Harlan
Hundred Acre Few and Far Between
Lokoya Howell Mtn
Dominus
Hobbs To Kalon


Modern First Growth (2005 - Present) Current Cult Wines:

MacDonald
Christopher Tynan Meleagris Gallopavo
Realm Absurd
Schrader Old Sparky
Tusk

We can certainly add other categories, or expand the lists to Chardonnay / Pinot Noir / Rhone Varietals, etc… but I thought this was a good place to start! I will also take all the lists and count each name as 1 point to see if we can come up with a collective ranking.

Have fun!

Fun exercise to think about for sure. Wouldn’t the California First Growths be those along the lines of Beaulieu, Mayacamas, Chateau Montelena, Matanzas Creek, Mondavi, Inglenook, Charles Krug, Louis M. Martini, etc.?

[edit] Nevermind: I just reread the last line before your lists.

I will leave out secondary market and desirability.

Also going for a several decade performance history for my “classics” list. Some old favorites are gone, so listing ones that are still made.

First Growth:

Dominus

Mondavi Reserve

Diamond Creek, but I like all three of their usual bottlings, so just “Diamond Creek.”

Spottswoode

Ridge Monte Bello

Followed closely by second growths…

Dunn HM

Philip Togni

Peter Michael Les Pavots

Forman

Shafer Hillside

Chateau Montelena

New Stars Too short a track record but really fine right now…

Roy Piper

This may be wrong, it’s not a newbie, but Kapcsandy, either State Lane or Roberta’s Reserve (it can be my Pomerol!)

MacDonald

Pondering which Pott/Myriad

For the first and second growths, I tried to exclude ‘culty’ wines, they can tend toward fashion and social signaling rather than track record…for me.

List subject to change! I have the right to see someone else’s list and laugh at myself and jump on their bandwagon!!

Apologies to Beringer Reserve, Groth Reserve, Martha’s Vineyard, and other beloved classics.

Where would Diamond Creek fit on this list? I would put it as first or second growth. What do you think?

Also, as I ponder, wanting to choose wineries that use their own grapes.

1 Like

Not that I know anything about these wines, but isn’t the term “First Growth” associated with estate vineyards (the land) and not purchased grapes? Cheers!

Ridge MB is not Napa

1 Like

I like that thought if we call them “first growths.” First boughts does not have the same ring!

Heitz Martha’s needs to be a FG by any reasonable definition, right?

D’oh!

I skipped that part!

It makes it hard because I would almost think of doing it by vineyard?

Like all this, fun thread! Does Dalla Valle get in there somewhere? Maybe a 2nd growth? And Abreu? Bryant and Phelps Insignia also to be considered maybe.

EDIT: wrong thread

I think Phelps is useful to discuss a point. Are the “firsts” supposed to be at least somewhat accessible? I suppose Screagle is “great”, but if only a very few will ever see, much less drink a bottle, what’s the point. Phelps Insignia, Shafer Hillside, etc. can actually be purchased, and are often consumed.

With the Bordeaux firsts, they may be pricey, but if you want a bottle you can get a bottle.

2 Likes

Lokoya Mt Veeder over Harlan?

I (personally) wouldn’t put anything Lokoya has ever made in first or second growth…way overpriced and nothing special IMHO

1 Like

Different issues. The first growths in Bordeaux were only selected by their reputations and prices they fetched in England. They were not selected, nor were they designated by vineyards. Over the years the vineyard holdings associated with the chateaux changed, expanding and contracting as a chateau bought or sold parcels here and there. To be labeled as coming from one area or another, the only requirement is that the land be within the larger commune. It would be like exchanging vineyard properties between Far Niente, Caymus, Mondavi, and Cakebread as long as they are all in Oakville.

I would class them the way they are done in Bordeaux, i.e - wealthy owners who don’t get their hands dirty pruning vines or making wine, and reputation and price. So Grgich and Mondavi and Montelena couldn’t be part of it, since the owners actually made wine themselves. Harlan and Shrader OTOH, would fit.

The OP uses Classified Growths (Bordeaux) but then lists them by vineyard a la Burgundy. I think the Burgundian model works better here (ie: many folks make great wine from ToKalon, like many folks make great wine from Clos de la Roche)

*I also sense a 10,000 word Piper post coming soon!

David’s observations are great,
GregT nailed it, too!

William is spot on about how California works.

I will leave my list intact and call them “First Growth Houses.”

House Mondavi, etc.

Get some Dune and GOT nerds involved!

Kind of fun to look at the same place using both models. There’s certain wineries that are going to turn out top tier juice from any of their sites (or combination of).

There’s also vineyards that I would consider Grand Cru, such as To Kalon (which you could say has “grands” sections and lesser sections a la Echezeaux) and is sourced by many wineries, or the “monopole” Thorevilos.

Sadly House Mondavi was obliterated by House Harkonnen.

1 Like