The anomaly that is Chateau Palmer.

[Jayson_Cohen]

“Rankings” are personal here as is obvious from all these posts.

For me no question as to general preference of LMHB, Ducru, Montrose, PL > Palmer >>> LLC, Lynch Bages.

There are a large number of wines implicit in the “>>>” above, particularly if you are talking pre-spoof Bordeaux.

Jayson had always called it admirably very well and fair with the wines at off lines that I’ve had with him. However, this time I’ll disagree with his take on Palmer being >>> LLC. Even in 83 and 89, where Palmer hit it over the wall, I thought LLC still got hit 2nd and 3rd base hits. Moving on to the 90s, while Palmer did very well and kicked butt in '99 , I still think that LLC did better in all the other years in that decade, all the way to 2002.

Btw, I think Palmer’s 2004 is one of the wines of the vintage.

Fully expected and respected. Other people have big love for LLC that I keep trying to understand and can’t.

[Ed_Steinway]

I do not have a lot of experience with Chateau Palmer, but a bottle of the 1990 a few years ago was one of the best bottles of Bordeaux I have had. It was truly exceptional.

Ed

[RyanC]

An 04 Palmer recently was really good. But I agree that PLL etc are usually just as good or better.

[R_Frankel]

Fully expected and respected. Other people have big love for LLC that I keep trying to understand and can’t.

My POV (and I am one of those LLC big love folks) is that LLC is awesome but needs a lot of time. So perhaps harder to read because younger vintages are so tightly wound. Right now 1982 is amazing, 1989 is extremely good and 1990 is youthful but impressive. 1996 is not ready. Most of the other wines discussed here have much shorter aging curves.

The 1989 Palmer is lovely but at its current price I’d strongly prefer many other Bordeaux from that vintage (Pichon Comtesse, Pichon Baron, Angelus, Lynch Bages, La Conseillante, Troplong Mondot). LLC is a toss up.

[Jayson_Cohen]

Fully expected and respected. Other people have big love for LLC that I keep trying to understand and can’t.

My POV (and I am one of those LLC big love folks) is that LLC is awesome but needs a lot of time. So perhaps harder to read because younger vintages are so tightly wound. Right now 1982 is amazing, 1989 is extremely good and 1990 is youthful but impressive. 1996 is not ready. Most of the other wines discussed here have much shorter aging curves.

The 1989 Palmer is lovely but at its current price I’d strongly prefer many other Bordeaux from that vintage (Pichon Comtesse, Pichon Baron, Angelus, Lynch Bages, La Conseillante, Troplong Mondot). LLC is a toss up.

LOL. Like I said, I keep trying to understand and can’t. But to put my comments in context, I rarely drink Bordeaux younger than 1990. Too young.

And this statement doesn’t make much sense to me either: “Most of the other wines discussed here have much shorter aging curves.”

[R_Frankel]

Fully expected and respected. Other people have big love for LLC that I keep trying to understand and can’t.

My POV (and I am one of those LLC big love folks) is that LLC is awesome but needs a lot of time. So perhaps harder to read because younger vintages are so tightly wound. Right now 1982 is amazing, 1989 is extremely good and 1990 is youthful but impressive. 1996 is not ready. Most of the other wines discussed here have much shorter aging curves.

The 1989 Palmer is lovely but at its current price I’d strongly prefer many other Bordeaux from that vintage (Pichon Comtesse, Pichon Baron, Angelus, Lynch Bages, La Conseillante, Troplong Mondot). LLC is a toss up.

LOL. Like I said, I keep trying to understand and can’t. But to put my comments in context, I rarely drink Bordeaux younger than 1990. Too young.

And this statement doesn’t make much sense to me either: “Most of the other wines discussed here have much shorter aging curves.”

[yes, thread drift] Jayson, you listed these as ones you preferred: “Barton, Poyferre, Pape Clement, Domaine de Chevalier, Calon Segur, Gruaud, certain vintages of Rauzan Segla and certain vintages of Giscours.” My point was that these enter maturity earlier than LLC. Or did I minterpret your post?

[Howard_Cooper]

To me, the super seconds are LMHB, LLC, Palmer, Ducru and Montrose. Pichon Lalande can be at this level at its best, but IMHO it is less consistent than the ones listed above.

I like Lynch Bages a lot, but I cannot put it close to being a super second. I would excellent estates like Leoville Barton, Rauzan Segla and a few others above LB in addition to the super seconds. Not at all sure I would even put LB ahead of Grand Puy Lacoste.

[Howard_Cooper]

“Rankings” are personal here as is obvious from all these posts.

For me no question as to general preference of LMHB, Ducru, Montrose, PL > Palmer >>> LLC, Lynch Bages.

There are a large number of wines implicit in the “>>>” above, particularly if you are talking pre-spoof Bordeaux.

Jayson had always called it admirably very well and fair with the wines at off lines that I’ve had with him. However, this time I’ll disagree with his take on Palmer being >>> LLC. Even in 83 and 89, where Palmer hit it over the wall, I thought LLC still got hit 2nd and 3rd base hits. Moving on to the 90s, while Palmer did very well and kicked butt in '99 , I still think that LLC did better in all the other years in that decade, all the way to 2002.

Btw, I think Palmer’s 2004 is one of the wines of the vintage.

Fully expected and respected. Other people have big love for LLC that I keep trying to understand and can’t.

Put me down as one with big love for LLC.

[jbray23]

One of the things not mentioned is that Palmer is a big import partner to the states…they deal with many more estates outside of Bordeaux and facilitate as a negotiant would. Their price is high because they control a big percentage of their wine imported to the states…

Their expensive Bordeaux pricing isn’t mutually exclusive to Palmer, but all the rest of the Bordeaux in their import portfolio…

[Jayson_Cohen]

My POV (and I am one of those LLC big love folks) is that LLC is awesome but needs a lot of time. So perhaps harder to read because younger vintages are so tightly wound. Right now 1982 is amazing, 1989 is extremely good and 1990 is youthful but impressive. 1996 is not ready. Most of the other wines discussed here have much shorter aging curves.

The 1989 Palmer is lovely but at its current price I’d strongly prefer many other Bordeaux from that vintage (Pichon Comtesse, Pichon Baron, Angelus, Lynch Bages, La Conseillante, Troplong Mondot). LLC is a toss up.

LOL. Like I said, I keep trying to understand and can’t. But to put my comments in context, I rarely drink Bordeaux younger than 1990. Too young.

And this statement doesn’t make much sense to me either: “Most of the other wines discussed here have much shorter aging curves.”

[yes, thread drift] Jayson, you listed these as ones you preferred: “Barton, Poyferre, Pape Clement, Domaine de Chevalier, Calon Segur, Gruaud, certain vintages of Rauzan Segla and certain vintages of Giscours.” My point was that these enter maturity earlier than LLC. Or did I minterpret your post?

I took your post to mean these are wines that mature and die on a quicker time scale. Not my experience. I’m also not sure of what maturity means here as these all can evolve for decades even if they start to open up, which is highly vintage dependent. Moreover, if one doesn’t particularly like where LLC ever gets to, it doesn’t matter how long it takes.

[James_Billy]

Pichon Baron?

[Jim_F]

So many persoanl tastes…which is fun and great, but still no real working definition? Does a super-second have to be a second? I would guess the consensus is “no”, but then again, you never know around here.

[Robert.A.Jr]

So many persoanl tastes…which is fun and great, but still no real working definition? Does a super-second have to be a second? I would guess the consensus is “no”, but then again, you never know around here.

Vieux Chateau Certan

[Joshua_Kates]

“Rankings” are personal here as is obvious from all these posts.

For me no question as to general preference of LMHB, Ducru, Montrose, PL > Palmer >>> LLC, Lynch Bages.

There are a large number of wines implicit in the “>>>” above, particularly if you are talking pre-spoof Bordeaux.

Jayson had always called it admirably very well and fair with the wines at off lines that I’ve had with him. However, this time I’ll disagree with his take on Palmer being >>> LLC. Even in 83 and 89, where Palmer hit it over the wall, I thought LLC still got hit 2nd and 3rd base hits. Moving on to the 90s, while Palmer did very well and kicked butt in '99 , I still think that LLC did better in all the other years in that decade, all the way to 2002.

Btw, I think Palmer’s 2004 is one of the wines of the vintage.

Fully expected and respected. Other people have big love for LLC that I keep trying to understand and can’t.

+1 I’ ve had older ones, '78 and '82, if I recall–just never seem that exciting.

[Howard_Cooper]

Pichon Baron?

Not for me. For me, this wine lacks a bit of elegance to be rated that highly.

[John_Morris]

I have a fondness for Palmer, after reading in “Wine and War” that Palmer hid Jews during World War II.

That I didn’t know. That might get me to reassess my feeling that Palmer is always excellent but slightly too polished and silky to get me excited.

I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the cepage: The vines are 47% merlot, 47% cabernet sauvignon and 6% petit verdot. I think that goes a long way to explaining the silkiness and polish.

[crickey]

So many persoanl tastes…which is fun and great, but still no real working definition? Does a super-second have to be a second? I would guess the consensus is “no”, but then again, you never know around here.

As the OP said, “The only Medoc super second that is not a second growth.”

To Mark’s question (ignoring his commentary on its quality or lack thereof), some of its pricing premium must be due to it being perceived as the second best (and often close to the best) wine in Margaux, similar to the premium La Mission Haut Brion enjoys, although the latter isn’t even part of the 1885 classification. I think that allows it to price at a small discount relative to the first growth in that appellation.

[Karl_K]

+1 to Crickey

Also +1 to notion that 04 is very good, though I say it’s just at the beginning of its open window.

[Ramon_C]

So many persoanl tastes…which is fun and great, but still no real working definition? Does a super-second have to be a second? I would guess the consensus is “no”, but then again, you never know around here.

As the OP said, “The only Medoc super second that is not a second growth.”

To Mark’s question (ignoring his commentary on its quality or lack thereof), some of its pricing premium must be due to it being perceived as the second best (and often close to the best) wine in Margaux, similar to the premium La Mission Haut Brion enjoys, although the latter isn’t even part of the 1885 classification. I think that allows it to price at a small discount relative to the first growth in that appellation.

A high praise to be put in the same context as LMHB. I do have some 90s and 20s of Palmer, and still maintain that it’s not in the same consistent quality level as LMHB, though.

[John_Morris]

I haven’t had a Palmer in many years, but the '61 and '66 in the 1980s certainly deserved Super Second status, and the '79 and '83 were truly memorable.

No comments on the very high merlot content?