Are 2016 3rd growths as good as 1970 firsts ?

WINE TALK
21

Since we are past the silly bickering stage, let’s try to start in with an answer to the question. Although it was intended more generically, let’s use 1970 as at least 1970 was a decent vintage; this would be easy if we were using, say, 1972. Using Parker’s ratings on 1970 as a proxy (people with different experiences can substitute theirs) and politely including Mouton Rothschild as a first growth, although it didn’t get that rank until 1973:

Haut Brion: 85
Lafite: 85
Latour: 98+
Margaux: 76
Mouton: 93 (described as “irregular”)

If we want to use 1982, a great vintage, we see:

Haut Brion: 94
Lafite: 100
Latour: 100
Margaux: 98+
Mouton: 100

Or 1990, another good vintage and long enough ago to see some effect of change:

Haut Brion: 96
Lafite: 92
Latour: 98
Margaux: 100
Mouton: 87

So to compare the second growths in 2016 to the first growths. These are my opinions; others can chime in: that was the point of opening the discussion. (NB: the comparison for the first growths is sort of an average; for instance, nothing is going to beat 1990 Margaux or 1982 Latour, but I didn’t want to type that every single time.)

Rauzan Segla: Much better than 1970, not as good as 1982, almost on par with 1990.
Rauzan Gassies: Maybe better than 1970, not in the same league as 1982 or 1990.
Leoville Las Cases: Much, much better than 1970, on par with 1982, better than 1990.
Leoville Poyferre: Much, much better than 1970, nearly on par with 1982, better than 1990.
Leoville Barton: Much better than 1970, close but not quite as good as 1982, on par with 1990. Also a good value.
Durfort Vivens: Better than 1970, not as good as 1982, not as good as 1990.
Lacombes: Better than 1970, not in the same league as 1982 or 1990.
Gruaud Larose: Much better than 1970, not as good as 1982 (maybe not as good as its 1982 counterpart), on par with 1990.
Brane Cantenac: Much better than 1970, not in same league as 1982 or 1990.
Pichon Baron: Much, much better than 1970, nearly on par with 1982, better than 1990 (maybe not as good as its 1990 counterpart).
Pichon Lalande: Much, much better than 1970, nearly on par with 1982 (maybe not as good as its 1982 counterpart), better than 1990.
Ducru Beaucaillou: Much, much better than 1970, nearly on par with 1982, better than 1990.
Cos d’Estournel: Much, much better than 1970, close but not quite as good as 1982, on par with 1990. Yes, I am aware the 2016 received 100 points from the WA.
Montrose: Much, much better than 1970, on par with 1982, better than 1990 (maybe not as good as its 1990 counterpart).

Because this was a lot of work, I’m skipping to the fourth growths.

St Pierre: Better than 1970, not as good as 1982 or 1990.
Brainaire: Better than 1970, not as good as 1982 or 1990.
Talbot: A little better than 1970, not in the same league as 1982 or 1990.
Duhart-Milon: Much better than 1970, not as good as 1982 or 1990.
Pouget: No idea, so probably not as good as anything back then.
La Tour Carnet: A little better than 1970, not in the same league as 1982 or 1990.
Lafon Rochet: Better than 1970, not as good as 1982 or 1990.
Beychevelle: Much better than 1970, not as good as 1982, close but not as good as 1990. Unclear if the 2016 was an exception or they can sustain the quality.
Prieure Lichine: A little better than 1970, not in the same league as 1982 or 1990.
Marquis de Terme: Better than 1970, not as good as 1982 or 1990.

Several of the fifth growths have clearly moved up in the ranks, so highlighting them.

Pontet Canet: Much, much better than 1970, nearly on par with 1982, better than 1990.
Grand Puy Lacoste: Much, much better than 1970, close but not as good as 1982 or 1990 (maybe not as good as either its 1982 or 1990 counterpart).
Lynch Bages: Much, much better than 1970, close but not quite as good as 1982, better than 1990 (maybe not as good as its 1990 counterpart).

HTH.

22

Because it’s not what you asked. Makes sense to clarify.

23

Two related perspectives: Are the 2016 first growths better than 2016 2nd-5th growths (or other Bordeaux wines which were not part of the 1855 classification system) and would you rather drink a 1970 first growth today or a 2016 2nd-5th growth? The answer to the first is apparently, yes, but they cost an exorbitant amount of money. The answer to the second depends on your tastes; guessing from Alan’s other posts, I think he would hate the 1970 Bordeaux wines. Me: I’m not particularly interested in drinking either today, although if someone put any of them in front of me, I would drink it.

24

Shame on you for actually reading his post.

70, 75, 78 and 79 produced some good to excellent wines. In my experience one can’t really say the same about 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, or 77. But my experience isn’t as exhaustive as some and I would be happy to learn about where I am wrong.

25

1971 made some really good wines, especially on RB. And Graves. But even if limiting to Medoc I think the Latour is stunning (and Les Forts is damn good), Lafite (at least from mag) is excellent, and there are some strong other wines like Giscours.
I’ve had drinkable '74 and '76s but nothing to seek, can’t remember an enjoyable 72, 73, 77

26

It was pretty clear from what I read.

27

Neal, you should come visit NY and we can try to put together a ‘71 horizontal although it’s a little harder and more expensive to source than it used to be. I was at an astoundingly good ‘71 horizontal last year. John Gilman wrote up the notes in View from the Cellar if you have access to it.

28

1970 was a good to excellent vintage in Bordeaux if I understand well. The Latour and Petrus are absolutely stunning. I can’t imagine that other first growths wouldn’t have been at least excellent in 1970 despite the Parker scores. There is no 3rd growth that can compare for sure with the first two I mentioned even in the greatest vintage ever.

29

Well since he opened it up, 1971 Petrus was $25 and is still amazing (I have had it three times in the last five years). I would drink it over a huge % of top current Bordeaux.

30

I’m not very TCA sensitive, but have gotten hit with it twice in the last month, and in one dimension from my limited perspective where new seems to better than older is that I get hit less with corked wines for modern versus older vintages.

Maybe that’s just cellar practices. Or time/temp causing brett bloom and other stuff.

31

so you’ve compare them to themselves, but what about these specifics compared to the wines from the first growths around the 70s?

Because the way I read this question was something along these lines:
Has the average quality of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th growths over the last (decade? insert some shortish amount of recent time here) been better than the average quality of the first growths over some similar time frame in a period of time before what most people would consider modern winemaking techniques came around?

I think the question is partly about worth of the 1st growths, partly about whether knowledge has allowed lesser growths to close the gap, and partly about how much the previously mentioned marketing aspect of 1855 Classification plays into what we think of and how we price the wines now.

32

Don, good bottles of Mouton are very good, but it is quite variable and most I’ve had have been on the harsh side. Haut Brion is very good. Lafite and Margaux were in the doldrums and their wines reflect it. Neither are First Growth caliber for a good vintage and I find that positive reactions generally come from people who know that are drinking First Growths.

33

I was comparing the 2016 of the other classified growths to the first growths from the various years, so I was trying to answer (in my opinion) the answers to your (and Alan’s) questions. Sometimes I would point out how they compared to their older counterparts, so for instance, the 1982 Pichon Lalande is probably better than the 2016 version (which is apparently very good), which was meant to indicate that some of the non-first growths have been producing top-level wines for some time.

34

That assumption is part of the point. The first growths were more variable back then, so you can’t assume, as you can today, that they all produce comparable wines. Margaux in particular was sucky, and I say that with regret as it is my favorite first growth.

Palmer is a third growth and probably can reach those heights in a great vintage, although it is now priced like an elite wine.

35

that was about how I read it I guess looking back again. I haven’t had the experience with the classified Bordeaux wines that a lot have but I would say it makes sense to assume that a lot of the lower classified growths have closed the gap over the years. especially as they all change hands and swap winemakers and go to the same schools and grow vines on (relative to other wine regions at least) relatively flat land (I know this is a gross generalization though)

36

Your intent was clear. But it’s fun to pretend apparently.

I think the biggest change is consistency. If the weather was good, the first growths of old were of similar quality to the firsts today I think. In that respect the 1970s might not be the best comparison point given the number of poor years.

In a less than stellar vintage, it’s no contest IMO. The 3rd growths of today are far better than the old firsts.

37

The 1970 first growths were not uniform and 2016 third growths will not be uniform. Lafite was underperforming in 1970 and so it is not very good. . Likely a number of 2016 wines would be better. By contrast, 1970 Latour is fabulous. I doubt 2016 3rd growths would be better with one caveat. Haut Brion also was quite good in 1970.

What makes the question hard to answer is Palmer, a third growth. 1970 Palmer is a great wine - up with most 1970 first growths. I have not had 2016 Palmer, but would not be surprised if it was as good or better than most 1970 first growths.

38

They could all produce great wines in a great vintage, but I think 1970 didn’t produce great wines across the spectrum. The Latour is astounding, but HB is only good, Mouton ordinary (though with my favorite label of all) and Lafite and Margaux were flat out bad, as they often were in that era. Further down the results weren’t much better.

Maybe a better comparison would be 1966 vs, say, 2008. In '66 all the firsts except Lafite were very good. The third growths of 2008 are, on average, a fraction better though, at least to me.

39

The problem with the OP is that it is not only inarticulate, but also misleading. With the exception of Latour, it is pretty clear that the First Growths in 1970 were not as good as the better non firsts such as Montrose, Palmer, Pichon Lalande, Giscours, Lynch Bages etc. If we accept that, then the whole question becomes nonsensical.

40

1971 Cheval Blanc about 7 years ago was lithe and enjoyable, with a noticeable Cab Franc flavor. 1976 Haut Brion in 2005 more warm red earthy and very nice, if not earth shaking.