I wonder if anyone is interested in a simple way to determine into what classification (if any) a left bank red Bordeaux wine should be put, depending on the wine’s score and the Wine Advocate Vintage Rating for the area and year.
Although there are not many views and as yet no replies to my post about classifying left bank red Bordeaux according to the wine’s score and the Wine Advocate Vintage Rating for the year, I will reply to my own post.
In the following, W.A.V.R. = Wine Advocate Vintage Rating for the year.
I am sure that there are valid arguments against the method, but it is very easy to use and should be reasonably accurate on average.
Estimated average top score of the top 2 wines in an area (e.g. Latour and Lafite in Pauillac) = (100 + W.A.V.R.)/2
Estimated bottom score for first growth quality = (100 + W.A.V.R.)/2 - 2.5
Estimated bottom score for second growth quality = (100 + W.A.V.R.)/2 - 5.0
Estimated bottom score for third growth quality = (100 +W.A.V.R.)/2 - 7.0
Estimated bottom score for fourth growth quality = (100 + W.A.V.R.)/2 - 8.5
Estimated bottom score for fifth growth quality = (100 + W.A.V.R.)/2 - 10.0
(For W.A,V.R.s below 90 I substitute 90 as the W.A.V.R., so that the figure for a wine of fifth growth quality is never below 85.0)
In case anyone is wondering how I derived the figures for differences between classifications for various classes in my first reply to my own email, for the second through the fifth growths I used the figures in a mid-2004 (I think) article no longer on the internet. The article was titled “Reclassifying Bordeaux according to Wine Advocate Ratings” (or something like that). I call the article “Grundeken” as I think grundeken was part of its email address. The only wine scores used were those of Robert Parker (RP). The period covered was 1982 through 2003 (excluding 4 poor years). Presumably the 2002 and 2003 ratings were from cask rather than bottle.
I worked out the average ratings for many left bank red Bordeaux from 2002 to 2014 (excluding the poor year 2013), using RP ratings through 2012 and those of his designated successor Neal Martin (NM) for 2014.
Empirically I noticed that the average of the two highest rated left bank red Bordeaux wines, Latour and Lafite was extremely close to 100 - 1/2 (100 - Wine Advocate Vintage Rating). If Wine Advocate Vintage Rating = W.A.V.R., this expression = (100 + W.A.V.R.)/2 .
For the period the average for Latour and Lafite was 96.0, and the average W.A.V.R. was a rounded 92. (100 +92)/2 =96 also.
For the Grundeken period the lowest rated official first growth, Mouton Rothschild, averaged 92.9, and a minimum of 92.5 was suggested for first growths.
For the later period the lowest rated official first growth, Mouton Rothschild, averaged 93.9, so by analogy a minimum of 93.5 is suggested for first growths.
96 - 93.5 = 2.5, suggested as the difference between the top and bottom first growths.
Yet another “post to myself”, but maybe it will get viewed.
Further to my last reply to myself, the average Wine Advocate Vintage Rating for Pauillac etc. for the Grundeken period 1982-2003 (excluding 4 poor years) with 2002-3 cask ratings was a rounded 90.
For the later period 2002-2014 except 2013 (all bottle ratings) the average Wine Advocate Vintage rating was a rounded 92 for the same area.
92 - 90 =2. 1/2 of 2 =1, the suggested increase for first growth status (as well as for other growths) from the first to the second period.
I think you’re onto something.
36 hours in and no one has objected.
2 Likes
Many thanks for your kind email. I find the simple calculations very useful in practice.
Of course some valid objections can be made, but I disregard the answer if my taste buds disagree.
RTPL
Both "new topics "and replying to my own post seem very user-unfriendly to me. Granted, I am very old and know little of computers. I am so frustrated that I will send several short messages rather than one long one.
I wonder if anyone is interested in the subject “Sensible pricing of left bank red Bordeaux.” Recently I posted much of the following to the “wine collecting!” of stephnie.m, with many typos, etc., as I was very tired.
I am in a Medical Center and don’t have access to my source material, so I must depend on my imperfect memory.
A few years ago the most I would have paid before taxes and shipping for a left bank red Bordeaux which I gave 100 was $160. I would consider $ 170 today. I would divide the price by 1.108 for each point down, and divide it by 1.0524 for each half-point down.
Part 2 of Sensible Pricing of Left Bank Red Bordeaux.
A QPR article about the prices of left and right bank red Bordeaux in the early 2000s gave an average price of $25 for an 85 point wine {bottom of 5th growths per Grundeken, see later} and an average price of $34 for an 88 point wine {bottom of 3rd growths per Grundeken}. It is true that both left and right bank red Bordeaux wines are considered, but I sometimes drink right bank red Bordeaux and equal scores should mean equal quality. (34/25) to the power of 1/3 equals 1.108 .
When the wine scores in the article become higher the amounts paid for each point become disproportionately higher and so they are ignored as being out of line.
Part 3 of Sensible Pricing of Left Bank Red Bordeaux.
“Grundeken” refers to a mid-2004 (I think) article titled “Reclassifying Bordeaux According to Wine Advocate Ratings” (or something like that). I call it Grundeken because I think grundeken was part of its internet address. The period the article covered was 1982 through 2003 (excluding 4 poor years) and only Robert Parker (RP) scores were used (2002 and 2003 scores were from cask rather than bottle).
For Grundeken the 1.108 worked very well, within 1% for each class (see later re Andre Simon book).
Part 4 of Sensible Pricing of Left Bank Red Bordeaux.
In his book “Wines of the World” Andre Simon writing (I think) concerning c. 1820 says that a second growth brought about a quarter less than a first growth, and lesser growths brought about a quarter or a fifth less than the next higher growth. At the time there were no fifth growths, only “deuxieme quatriemes” (“second fourths”) so I have used a simple average of the fourth and fifth growths. (The 1.108 worked very well here too.)
In his book “Bordeaux” Clive Coates writing about the unofficial 1845 classification stated something like “so a lowly fifth would bring 40% of a Chateau Lafite.” At the time Lafite was the second ranked first growth. Per Grundeken the second ranked first growth averaged 94.1 and the lowliest fifth averaged 85.1. The difference is 9 points.
0.40 to the power of 1/9 = 1/1.107 .
Part 5 of Sensible Pricing of Left Bank Red Bordeaux.
I worked out the average ratings for many left bank red Bordeaux wines for 2002-2014 (excluding the poor year 2013). Due to higher average Wine Advocate Vintage Ratings for the period as opposed to Grundeken one point was added to the minimum for each growth category. RP ratings were used except for 2014, rated by RP’s then
designated successor. Neal Martin.
Paired comparisons were closer to 1.109 per point than 1.108 .
Thus 1.108 per point works really well. It is very possible that the DIFFERENCE in points between properly ranked classes has stayed relatively constant.
You’ve put a lot of thought in this!
Your thoughts about sensible pricing interest me. I’m always searching for left bank wines which give me great pleasure which I can also afford to buy in case quantities. At my budget level that only gets me up to some 4th growth properties. I have to be very selective when choosing wines of higher classification.
There’s an effort on Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts forum to work out a revised classification.
Thanks, though I did most of the thinking a few years ago. RTPL
For Chris Foley: Thanks, I should look at the Wine Enthusiasts . Gloria and Siran are not classified though they probably should be. Some of the Pauillac fifths perform way better than their classification, but the market has recognized this. In Pessac-Leognan, Malartic Lagraviere and less expensively Haut Bergey can be reasonably priced. I love the 2010 Cantemerle and quite often bought D’Armailhac, I am fortunate in liking several different styles but should consume rather than buy wine now. RTPL
I think the lack of discussion stems from the fact that most people here eschew critic ratings.
I go by my own taste buds, but I find certain critics useful in suggesting what to try. RTPL
Assuming that people generally rate their own wines, I would think that they would find relative values useful, but perhaps they have their own systems. RTPL
I’ Not sure I get all the numerical details in your posts, but I do enjoy what I regard as sensibly priced Bordeaux. 2010 Cantemerle being one of my favourites, especially in 375 format x almost ready to drink and around £40 for a full bottle.
1 Like
The 2006 Cantemerle has some merit and is ready to drink (My wife and I have a lot more of the 2010 but it should keep improving).