The Saint-Emilion classification runs into more trouble

I know the classification of the Médoc by heart and have pretty much memorized the ones in Sauternes and Pessac-Léognan too. But Saint-Emilion is another story. There are more châteaux (81 versus 61 in the Médoc), some of the wines have only a tiny production and are hard to find and, most importantly, the classification changes – in theory every 10 years.

My English and American friends say that they pay little or no attention to the Saint-Emilion classification in their purchasing. Indeed, most consumers do not know there is a distinction between “grand cru” and “grand cru classé”, whereas there is a big price differential – and supposedly in quality too. This is made even murkier by the fact that the greatest classified wines have the same appellation contrôlée as a “grand cru” selling for 10 euros a bottle. It’s a very confusing system indeed. I once asked the winegrower’s association how many unclassified “grands crus” there were. No one could tell me. In fact, the definition is so elastic that lots from the cooperative cellar can be sold as grands crus.

Based on an innovative, modern, rational concept, the updating of the Saint-Emilion classification, first made in 1954, has instead led to a hopeless imbroglio. This started with legal challenges by châteaux stricken off the list in 2006.
Some of the parameters for inclusion seem rather arbitrary. The most controversial is the lesser importance given to tasting results for the first growths. Why should this be?

The story is long and involved, but the latest chapter is that Hubert de Boüard and Philippe Castéja, big cheeses in Bordeaux, who had been found innocent of “unlawful taking of interest” have just been called before the magistrate’s court by an investigating judge who overturned that verdict.
In a nutshell, de Boüard (part owner of Château Angélus and other Right Bank estates, as well as a former president of the Syndicat Viticole de Saint-Emilion and member of the INAO executive board) and Castéja (head of the powerful négociant firm of Borie Manoux, owner of Saint-Emilion first growth Château Trottevieille alongside prestigious vineyards in the Médoc, and former president of the CIVB Bordeaux Wine Council) stand accused of being “judge and jury” since they were involved in establishing the new classification – that included their own wines.

The elevation of Angélus and Pavie to “Premier Grand Cru A” status, on a par with Ausone and Cheval Blanc, in 2012 raised more than a few eyebrows. This was due not only to de Boüard’s troubling dual role, but also the fact that many Bordeaux lovers felt that the promotion was not deserved. Curiously, Gérard Perse of Pavie had his improved classification ranking engraved in huge letters on the pediment of his new wine cellar – a rather strange thing to do when one considers that this is not immutable!

In short, the Saint-Emilion classification is a mess. Having run into trouble in 2006, and again in 2012, I think the appellation probably has only one more chance before the entire thing is discredited. I sincerely hope the appellation puts their house in order in everyone’s best interest

Best regards,
Alex Rychlewski
www.bordeauxwineblog.com

Alex,
You are right, it is complicated, and I am now officially as confused as the clarification itself. Were Boüard and Castéja found innocent of self dealing and then reindicted?

Also, I can understand Boüard’s original indictment, but what did Castéja gain? Did he take a position in Pavie before the announcement?

This is all of some historical interest to me - really low interest in that respect - but to be candid, in my years of buying Bordeaux, the St Emilion classification has never once entered into my buying equation. Like you, I really cannot even recite who stands where, unlike the 1855 Medoc classification, which I can recite decently. Pavie and Angelus getting elevated over Figeac was pretty much a joke, in my book; and a sad one at that, as shortly thereafter Figeac - a traditional and unique stalwart - felt compelled to hire Rolland. To me, that was the biggest travesty of the reclassification. I have to concede that outside the First Growths, whether the wine is a 2nd, 4th or 5th does not really influence me buying, either. It’s what’s in the bottle and their performance over time that prevails. Some of my favorite Bordeaux are not even classified.

The St. Emilion classification has exactly as much influence on my wine buying as the Berserkers thread on “Most Overrated Band” has on my music buying - exactly zero.

Robert,
You have the luxury of every wine that is of interest being scored by critics. In the early eighties, Parker was just beginning, and the only other criticism was by the Brits, many of whom were merchants, which a) went to a tiny percentage of the wine buying public and b) had far too many conflicts of interest themselves. At one stage Serena Sutcliffe in her pre Sotheby’s days, and a journalist called Andrew Barr were locked in a legal fight over just just this.

As a result, classifications in those early days, were important. It was one of few games in town, and wine buyers were forced to buy on reputation and any gossip they heard.

In Saint Emilion, classifications still are. Apart from bragging rights, they become part of the equation as how much one can charge for your wine, and the value of your land.

The last classification was fascinating, and while you may decry that Figeac was not promoted, nobody was surprised. Figeac could not break out of their price range, which was way below Pavie and Angélus. They tried hard by raising the price for 2009, but it could not be sustained and now trades ten years later at two thirds of its opening price. The ousting of existing management, close family, was followed by a new more corporate regime. I must say, I kind of like the new Figeac, but the wines made under D’Aramon had a wonderful sauvage quality I miss.

If there is another classification, and I seriously doubt it (Alex you probably know the local gossip on it, so please chime in) I have little doubt that with the addition of Rolland gloss, and some of the best terroir in Saint Emilion, Figeac will be promoted.

Money buys accolades.

What a circus. At this point, I don’t think the system serves any commercial purpose at all. At least, not in a meaningful way regarding consumer decisions.

+1

Agreed, Mark. It was the 1990s when I got into wine, and the market had multiple critics, including Parker and the Wine Spectator. Fast forward to now, and the classifications have far less relevance to consumers.

The Classification of Saint Emilion is not a factor in most people’s buying habits, with the exception of the 4 Classe’ A estates. But it does matter for land values as each step in the classification equates to value and selling price.

I’m not a huge fan of many of the different classification systems throughout France, but this one is by far the worst… A complete joke and sadly when I was buying for a restaurant led me away from Saint-Emilion completely, outside of the top known names. I didn’t want to add some crap wine labeled “Grand Cru” unless it was up to pair with what a true Grand Cru should be…

Château Simard was classified in 2008 as a “Saint-Émilion Grand Cru”.

This topic should now be Dead At Retail.

Victor,

God, if even the people at the SAQ, one of the largest buyers of French wine on the planet, can’t get a handle on this, what hope is this for the average Joe?

Alex R.

I will not serve it at even my noodle shop…and we manage to serve some pretty bad stuff to googly-eyed Noo Yawk tourists.

by far my least favorite part of this classification system is the fact that is in part based off the chateau experience when visiting. partially because in my experience that translated to “we need to have professional tour guides who aren’t involved in the winemaking process” and partially because why would I wanna pay more for a bottle because some person in Bordeaux had a good snack on site after their tour?

Alex,
Can you please clarify what is happening with Bouard and Casteja. I couldn’t make it out; were they cleared, and then a magistrate decided to look into it again?

Looks like they were acquitted “at trial” and that “verdict” was reversed on “appeal.”

.

Perhaps it will collapse, as it should. It’s crap.

I do give them some credit for having a system that, at least in theory, allows vineyards to be promoted/demoted. I think there have been very few changes to the 1855 classification. To me it makes it more of a meritocracy. Why is Pontet Canet a 5th growth? Crazy. Should be promoted. In the “revisit every 10 years” system, they would have a shot at getting an upgrade.

But this story is an obvious example of how failed execution ruins it