St-Emilion classification: the bloodletting begins
September 21, 2006
Stephen Brook
The right bank is embroiled in rows over the new St-Emilion classification, with legal action against the judging commission looking a possibility.
At issue is the commission's interpretation of the complex rules of the classification. Chateau owners are disgruntled – and in some cases outraged – at what they perceive to be illogicalities in the system.
One St Emilion veteran said it would not be surprising if 'some of the affected properties [mounted] some kind of legal challenge.'
More than bruised egos are at stake. Demotion can mean loss of distribution networks, plummeting prices, and devaluation of land.
Chateau Figeac owner Thierry de Manoncourt is understood to be extremely unhappy that his application to be promoted from Premier Grand Cru Classé
B to Premier Grand Cru Classé A was rejected on the specific grounds 'that Figeac does not sell at the same level of price as Cheval Blanc or Ausone'.
Chateaux Cheval Blanc and Ausone are the only two Premiers Grands Crus Classés A.
Had Figeac's application been rejected on grounds of quality, says Manoncourt, he would have had to grin and bear it.
But he and others think that although the commission is within its rights to consider price as a factor, it is illogical, since it discriminates against properties such as Figeac that maintain reasonable prices.
The Grand Cru Classé Chateau Grand Mayne sought promotion to Premier Cru, but was denied for the same reasons.
Other disagreements with the system are rising to the surface. Guy Meslin of Grand Cru Classé Chateau Laroze supports the system, but pointed out another potential flaw in a letter to the Syndicat Viticole of St Emilion.
A property must submit the ten most recent vintages to the commission, but in the case of a recent change of ownership, since any improvement in quality will only be evident in the most recent vintages, the owner could be penalised for mediocre wines for which he was not responsible.
This seems to refer to Chateau Cadet-Bon, demoted from Grand Cru Classé even though new owner Guy Richard, who has spent a fortune renovating the property, has only been in charge since 2001.
At Bellevue, also demoted, superstar winemakers Stéphane Derenoncourt and Nicolas Thienpont have greatly improved quality since 2000, but their efforts have been dismissed.
Meslin writes, 'Is demoting them for the errors of their precedessors the best way to welcome them into our community?'
He also points out the huge economic costs of demotion: 'For a demoted property there follows ten years of misery. Overnight, its commercial distribution network is destroyed, and prices plummet.'
In contrast, other voices are muttering about the swift promotion of Fleur-Cardinale, where the new owner has only been in place since 2001. This means the promotion was earned on the basis of a handful of recent vintages.
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
I had previously been strongly in favour of the St. Emilion system for reclassification - a much needed kick for the underperformers. It does seem unfair, however, to penalise new owners for vintages over which they had no control. Some hefty investments in improving properties may have gone to waste as prices fall and returns on those investments dwindle. It just doesn't seem a particularly clever way of encouraging new blood to come in and drive change. Let's face it, there are still a fair few "under-achievers", even now. The committee could easily have recognised the significant improvements made by some properties since 2000, but who can tell what politics came into play (can anyone enlighten us)? David Crossley
I was interested to see that Thierry de Manoncourt was a tad miffed about his Château Figeac not being promoted to Premier Grand Cru Classé A status in the recent re-jigging of the St-Emilion hierarchy. When I was at school I was hoping for straight A's but in reality I got mostly B's & C's and occasionally worse. As such I didn't go to Cambridge University; I wasn't recruited by M.I.6; I didn't become the next 007; and I didn't save the planet! Likewise Figeac, though I have certainly enjoyed your wines for many years, you are neither Cheval-Blanc nor an Ausone. Like my school report used to say, 'could do better'. Tuggy Meyer, Kensington, UK
The idea that Thierry de Manoncourt is a generous altruist is charming but ridiculous. Figeac does not sell for the same price as Ausone/Cheval Blanc because it's simply not as good. And maybe forcing newcomers to wait for 10 years is not such a bad thing when, after all, St Emilion at this level should need a good decade to show its best. As for prices, I do not note previously 'underclassified' wines such as Valandraud, Angelus or Mondotte suffering too much from an inability to charge high prices! Adrian Latimer, Paris, France
These correspondents wholly miss the point made by Stephen Brook in his article. The ONLY reason Figeac was not promoted was that it was not selling for such a high price as Ausone or Cheval Blanc. I have
seen the letter saying 'le motif' for not promoting was price. The
clear and only meaning of giving that and no other reason is that
quality was not a reason so for correspondents to suggest that it was
is flying in the face of the evidence.
Some of those who have responded may prefer the present PGCC As just
as some may prefer Figeac — especially when they can have two or three
bottles of it for the price of one of the others — but given their
respective cépages and, in the case of Ausone particularly,
differences of terroir, comparisons of quality are somewhat difficult
to maintain in serious or informed debate and the Commission's reason
can only support that view. Tim Hartley
Might I suggest something irreverend? Why don't the French overcome their obsession with hierarchies and let the public, that is consumers and critics, decide (I know, ... "le marche" !). Spyros, London
Price was what determined the 1855 Bordeaux classification. Far from being illogical, it is the only logical way to classify. Mr. Everybody may be wiser than Mr. Anybody. True, there are too many fools from whom money is soon parted, but the truth will always out. Lewis C. Taishoff, New York, USA
I supppose those who support the market price as the only, or even a major, factor in determining classification would like to see the same "logic" as applies in the art world where a work suddenly becomes more "valuable" when it is discovered to be that of a well known artist. Does it become any more beautiful by this discovery? Does wine become any better when it is "discovered" or recommended by Robert Parker - no, it simply commands a higher price. The argument that "Mr Everybody" knows best, assumes that he is exercising his own skill and judgement - notoriously difficult with young claret - and that he is not simply following trends set by one or more others and/or looking
for a label with which to impress his friends. Tim Hartley
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.
I had previously been strongly in favour of the St. Emilion system for reclassification - a much needed kick for the underperformers. It does seem unfair, however, to penalise new owners for vintages over which they had no control. Some hefty investments in improving properties may have gone to waste as prices fall and returns on those investments dwindle. It just doesn't seem a particularly clever way of encouraging new blood to come in and drive change. Let's face it, there are still a fair few "under-achievers", even now. The committee could easily have recognised the significant improvements made by some properties since 2000, but who can tell what politics came into play (can anyone enlighten us)? David Crossley
