|
Relegate Mouton, promote Las Cases: Cornell study
July 3, 2008
Howard G Goldberg in New York
Chateau Mouton-Rothschild should be demoted to Second Growth, with Leoville-Las-Cases taking its place in the first division, a Cornell University study argues.
In 'An Analysis of Bordeaux Wine Ratings 1970-2005', the New York State university's School of Hotel Administration calls for revision of the 1855 Bordeaux classification.
'It is widely accepted today that in any given year there are châteaux that do not produce at the level of their ranking,' the report observes.
The study would change the categories of more than half the 61 classified estates. Inclusion of top Pomerol and St. Emilion properties 'would broaden the usefulness of an updated classification,' it said.
In 1855, the five-tier classification was based on wines' reputations and market prices. Cornell's recommendations are based on an analysis of common ratings of 1970-2005 wines by critics Robert Parker and Steven Tanzer and by Wine Spectator.
This approach limited the researchers' database to 399 wines from 44 of the 61 châteaux. Seventeen estates – including Haut-Brion and Margaux – were omitted because common ratings could not be obtained.
In Cornell's imagined 2008 classification, Leoville-Las-Cases would move to First Growth from Second; Palmer and Calon-Segur go to Second from Third; Lynch-Bages and Pontet-Canet move to Second from Fifth; Grand-Puy-Lacoste, Clerc-Milon and d'Armailhac move to Third from Fifth; Branaire-Ducru shifts to Third from Fourth; Haut-Batailley and Batailley go to Fourth from Fifth.
Although 'a major shakeup of the 1855 Classification is unlikely to occur, in reality the market is already considering these changes, as indicated by the relative prices of wine from the various châteaux,' the report says.
As evidence for this conclusion it cites Leoville-Las-Cases 'which sells at over three times the average price of the other 1855 second growths'.
Given its rating in the data set, Cornell suggests, 'Leoville-Las-Cases must be viewed as a relative bargain.'
Have your say...
To post your comment on this story, email us at news@decanter.com, making sure the relevant headline is in the subject field
 Interesting, but absurd. Cornell's conclusions are based on ratings by Parker, Tanzer, and the Wine Spectator. Although I, and many others, may personally agree with some of the conclusions (elevate Lynch-Bages to a 2nd Growth, for example), to base a change in the 1855 Classification on ratings by critics is ridiculous. With all due respect to the critics, the assumption by the researchers is that these critics are somehow possessed of powers that other people who taste, evaluate, and perhaps most important, love wine, are not. While a rating of 93 by the critics in question may definitely help to sell a $20 Merlot or $30 Cabernet, do we really think that Mouton-Rothschild sells out year after year because of relatively high or relatively low ratings? Also, allow me to point out that all of the critics cited are males. Women taste and evaluate wines, too, but not in this sampling.
The Cornell methodology is flawed, as it makes as much sense as if the researchers tackled the question in reverse, which would be: "why are these critics so wrong?" Neither approach holds water, or in this case, wine.
Steven Kolpan, Professor, Wine Studies, The Culinary Institute of America, Hyde Park, NY
I have had the opportunity to read the entire Cornell study and can characterize it as a poor first step at best. Something to note is that the rankings are skewed heavily towards 1995 and later vintages. Furthermore, the classification is based on the numerical rankings of Parker, Wine Spectator and Tanzer, not on auction prices which means it is only looking at reputation and not results. The authors also pick the highest score of each wine by a single taster. The classification of 1855 was based on reputation and auction prices. (See David Peppercorn's Bordeaux for a discussion of 1855 and earlier classifications.) The authors wind up comparing apples to oranges. The authors also don't mention Haut-Brion despite its presence in the 1855 classification and their article's title which refers to Medoc and Graves. As for the conclusion that Chateau Leoville-las-Cases should be elevated to First Growth status and Chateau Mouton-Rothschild should be relegated, this should be considered premature at best. Chateau Leoville-las-Cases in 2008 occupies a no man's land as Chateau Mouton-Rothschild did in 1855. Its price is well above that of the other second growths but it is not at the level of the First Growths.
Here is an idea, put together a study with the following factors, performance at auction (change between en primeur price, and price at auction at 5/10/15 year intervals), and scores. A minimum threshold of production should be established, say 1000 cases so as to exclude gargiste wines. It would be also worthwhile to add in a set of U.K. tasters, (Jancis Robinson, Michael Broadbent and Clive Coates) as well as French tasters (Hachette Guide) to see how the wines fair and to see how different the U.K/U.S./French palates are. The correlation of prices to scores over an extended period of time (25 years minimum) would provide a more reliable guide.
Joel Thompson, Toronto, Canada
The very idea of wine critics determining the placement of the famed Bordeaux wineries is utterly appauling, and reveals nothing more than a complete lack of respect, and disregard for something truly special, which in my humble opinion has worked very well for a longer time than Cornell has even been in existence! Wine critics spit out wine, I happen to enjoy drinking wine with food, and sharing it with friends, the way wine was intended to be utilized, as a great pleasure that life offers up. Perhaps I'm wrong and the wine critics know the true meaning of life, as the people at Cornell would have us believe.
Anon
Not to bring any chauvinism in the matter and with all due respect for Mr. Parker and Mr. Tanzer, I don't think that two master critics from the United State should have anything to do with the change of classification in Bordeaux. Ratings are a great tool to help anybody to judge a wine without trying it and even if most buyers in the world only sware by these ratings, I don't see what it has to do with the 1855 Classfication.
One should know by now, that this classification is there to serve the few Chateaux's that are at the top since day one. And should the classification changes, I hope that it will not be based on ratings given by critics since 1970!
In most case, the Fine Wines of Bordeaux are not recognised for their classification, but for their reputations. And these come from hundreds of year of winemaking and yes of course some vintages Leoville Las Case deserve a first growth macaron but French do it the French way...So whether the rest of the world like it or not, I can foresee that the 5 stars shining above the rest will not let it go without a fight... and why should they?
The world around us has seen to many legends fallen, it will be a real shame that the wine world will lose them too...
Quentin C
It is curious that you have elected to publish the article "Relegate Mouton, promote Las Cases: Cornell study". As your readers will be aware, the 1855 classification of the wine producing chateaux of Bordeaux was based on their selling price, and not on critics' ratings. The important distinction is that the former criteria is objective, while the latter is subjective. While the question of the validity of the 1855 classification is a just cause for debate, it is surprising that Decanter has suggested that the ratings of rival critics should be used as the means of evaluating this classification.
Charles Curtis MW
I think this is a rather tunnel visioned point of view. We are taking the notes and scores of 2 people over the last 35 years and to make a decision of re-classification. I honestly think you would have to use the scores of more experts then just 2 people opinions and scores. Rather a silly statement to bring out.
Dom
Though this is probably a well thought out and analytically correct assessment of the current wines in the 1855 classification. I could never fo one moment imagine that there would be any pressure for change from Bordeaux and the Chateau themselves. The recent debacles over the Cru Bourgeois classification and the St Emilion classifications are testimony to this. The Bordelais just do not like change!
Anon
What is overlooked in all this can be answered with a simple question: Which wine would you rather collect and drink over time if the prices were exactly the same? I think Mouton would be the choice.
John C Dvorak
|
|
Register on decanter.com absolutely free for news alerts delivered direct to your email inbox, and our fortnightly newsletter with advance notice of what’s coming up in Decanter magazine, offers, competitions and more.
PLUS registration is a one-stop shop for the Decanter magazine Archive and Decanter Fine Wine Tracker. |
Search for similar news stories
Back to index
|
