Nope. Just pointing out an obsolete listing.
I am not sure why you want to inflict a classification on the good wines of Napa.
Far from being a good thing, the 1855 classified growths has held the region back. By making it about brand rather than land, it soon became totally out of date, and only survives because of entrenched interests that keep it going.
At best it is a possible indication of quality, but can be incredibly misleading. For example in many instances, the land from the classification is completely different to the land it now holds. And of course, we all can point to wines which should be classified differently. When I did my own survey, I would reclassify around half of them.
Sadly, it has devolved into a marketing tool, and a pretty poor net at that. And if we look at other classifications, they are either irrelevant (Pessac/Graves) or incredibly litigious. As a fun mental exercise, fine, but hopefully, nobody will ever try and do this seriously.
I couldn’t agree more. It’s an intellectual game, but I certainly hope there’s no serious move to do classifications of that nature in the US. They’re just a way for the current players to entrench themselves. The US wine industry has done wonderfully well without classifications or rules regarding what can be grown where. That’s a fine way for things to remain.
1 Like
I’m kind of surprised there is no mention of Viader. It’s been a long time since I have purchased the proprietary red, but it’s always held cult status.
It has been interesting reading the thread. I have had a handful of these wines at most
Same here, interesting.
Additionally, for me, I would not even want to drink most of them again (I have had the great majority at least once).
I agree that Lokoya is a bold choice, but I could say the same thing about Harlan, that’s it’s way overpriced and while good, it’s nothing special these days. Hence I included it on my 2nd Growth List.
I agree completely with your idea that the Burgundian model potentially works better here. However, with the exception of the Realm Absurd, each one of the wines I chose was from a specific vineyard source.
i think there was a thread awhile back that attempted to rank the best vineyards in Napa and other places in CA.
No MacDonald?
There are not even 10 vintages of MacDonald out there. Not even close to a long enough track record to be ranked.
I would argue that for cult status, MacDonald checks all the boxes that Screaming Eagle / Harlan / Maya / Bryant / Grace / etc… all checked 15-20 years ago.
Lack of track record is a disqualifier, unless the exercise is a complete joke.
If you read the OP, you’ll notice I also created the opportunity for a modern list for wines that don’t quite have the 10+ year track record. Hence, I tried to classify them as Modern Cults
Nope.
The previous 50 years gets rolled into To Kalon’s fame and stature.
So, another price increase for 'Crow? ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
Cult and first growth are very different things. Fads don’t interest me.
BS
Always good to be on the opposite side of Tex.
Nope. Not even close. There are a lot of pricey wines today. Those were more expensive relative to other wines and more importantly, they were awarded 97, 98, 99 or 100 points by Parker himself, in addition to being made by some of his favorite wine makers like Helen Turley. And he was consistently effusive in his praise for those wines. He’d say that a wine will be redefining Cabernet, or will be the envy of anyone in Bordeaux, etc.
Nobody in Napa is competing with Bordeaux any more. And nobody today has the influence Parker had, so no matter how many 99 or 100 point scores the wine gets from all the writing rabble these days, there’s not going to be the same demand.
Not that it’s a bad thing - the MacDonald is good wine and doesn’t need to be priced at those levels.
This is very interesting. What if they were classified by QPR?
This is an awesome topic and I have some thoughts to consider.
- Let’s not forget how Bordeaux came up with their rankings.
From most accounts, the Growths were determined simply by the powerful merchants roughly rank-ordering them (often by price) at what would today be called a “World’s Fair.” Voila! They did not spend much time thinking about vineyards or winemaking or raw materials. At the date of the ranking, they did not even know how malolactic fermentation occurred and much of winemaking was either tradition or myth or trial and error. They probably simply assumed that the most expensive wines were the best (they still do this to some degree) and this probably meant they had the best sites. So to some degree the whole process when applied to Napa is wholly unrelated to BDX. If we rank them simply by price, I doubt most of us would be satisfied.
- The most predictive relationship to quality in Cab is neither soil nor price, but winemakers.
I read an article many years ago that pointed out the best predictor of wine scores (a proxy for quality for many) is not terroir, but simply who the winemaker is. And therefore the best way to rank “Growths” is to apply it to winemakers and not brands or vineyards. This may seem silly but if you look at scores, it’s actually the most accurate method. Who would First Growth Winemakers be if we went this route? The data would be easily sortable… First Growth: Thomas Brown, Brad Grimes, Phillipe Melka, Paul Hobbs, Paul Draper. That was easy! The fact it is so easy points to a truth many might find uncomfortable, and that is that great winemakers seem to make great wines and do from from various sources and various brands. Much of that success is their demand that they use great grapes. But Chris Carpenter (Lokoya) makes epic wine from every AVA he touches. His record is almost 100%. The record for even a great vineyard like ToKalon is probably just 50%, at most. So, what should we be ranking if accuracy and predictability of a classification is paramount? Shouldn’t it work for the everyday consumer?
- Not all vineyard blocks are created equal, even in great vineyards.
We all know this. It has always been true in Bordeaux too. When a First Growth buys the vineyard land of a neighbor and integrates it into their wine, that block becomes a First Growth by nature of the wine being such. That shows some theoretical shortfalls of having the wine be the item that is classified. This is currently also causing headaches in Napa. What is ToKalon? It is already much larger than the original Crabb ToKalon. Although it is a truly great site, if you add up the portions owned by Beckstoffer, Constellation, MacDonald, Detert, Opus and UC Davis, it probably approaches 700 acres, or more than a square mile. The variations within that mass of vines range from First to Fifth Growth in my opinion, yet anyone using the ToKalon name immediately commands $200+. Conversely, some people get bigger scores and charge more money from “good” blocks than others with perhaps the best blocks, due to name, packaging, oak treatment, scores or sheer force of will.
- How does one define “great?”
Scores and price are objective data. But “quality” is not. For example, very few would argue that Paul Draper is not one of the great winemakers ever in the USA. Yet he has far less scores over 98 than at least ten winemakers I can think of even though he has been at it for decades. But because he has been at it for decades and because his wines age so well and he has accomplished so much not just with Cab but also with Zin, he would always be on such a list. Tony Soter’s is on my list of the all-time greats even though his own Etude Wines rarely exceeded 94-points in his time here. Certain Cab styles grate some the wrong way despite their popularity and scores. Of course, this problem is true in BDX too. No system will keep everyone happy.
My General Thoughts
I am pretty much in-line with Segui’s thoughts… the Vineyard Cru system would probably work better than a Classified Growth system where wines themselves are grouped. And since Napa is actually fairly small, I think it could be organized as such with enough effort. It’s something I have said before I might consider doing, someday. That was before I was married and now I wonder where I would find that time!
In my own winemaking experience, I find that the better the vineyards I use and the better vineyard management, the better my wines get. My own growth as a winemaker (and understanding of vineyards and viticulture) also help. But I simply cannot get better than my raw materials. I may cook a great steak, but if I use a Green Egg to perfection on a Safeway steak, it simply can’t be as good as a quick pan-cooked Flannery. The same is true for wines. So I think underneath great wines are… great vineyards. And thus if we really want to get to the core of the inherent greatness, I think Burgundy is a strong model to consider.
This would face serious pushback, of course. I broached the subject with a legendary winemaker a few months ago at a formal dinner party and it got a bit heated. My first step, I claimed, was I would declassify the majority of Napa, itself. I feel Napa starts where Carneros ends in the south, is between the Mayacamas and Vaca Range and ends where Calistoga ends in the north. Yet Wild Horse Valley, Chiles Valley and Conn Valley get to use the Napa moniker. My obvious question is… “Why should they be called Napa Valley when they are not… Napa Valley? Especially when their fruit goes for much less per ton than Napa, in general? Shouldn’t we start by just getting the valley itself, straightened out?” Welllllll… this person has decades of winemaking experience and his family had over a century in the valley and his response was “If you do that, many of those families and people who helped build the Napa name will be cast out forever from something they built. Is that right?”
He may have a point. Although I feel my argument is also valid, there might be more at stake. I think Pontet Canet is a legit Second Growth since Vintage 2000, but is languishes as 5th Growth status no matter how hard it works. Because a bunch of people who might have no more legitimacy than judges at a regional fair might have handing out “gold medals” made a decision in 1855. Meanwhile, there are Marguax estates with Second and Third Growth status that can’t touch Pontet. So putting anything in stone may have adverse consequences that last longer than its utility. Historical tidbit… I believe Thomas Jefferson was the first person to rank BDX growth and he did it in 1787.
If the SHTF just for trying to decide what “Napa” should be, wait until people try to classify vineyards and wines themselves. That does not mean it might not be worth doing, though.
4 Likes