Making the List: the 1855 Bordeaux classifications

[Gifted Gourmet]

article from Slate Online

The birthday has been met with dubious fanfare. As the anniversary approached, there was speculation that the French authorities might use the milestone as an occasion to overhaul the system ...  There is, of course, a larger issue here: Do we still even need a formal Bordeaux hierarchy? The 1855 classifications were drawn up at a time when the wine business was not globalized—and when there were no critics, magazines, and chat rooms to help steer consumers to the best wines.

To our eGullet wine afficianados, assuming that this is not so much new as simply of interest ...

Feedback? Daniel Rogov, you might have some thoughts on this to share ...

[Vinfidel]

Hmmm.. very dubious. The wine world is a market, like any other, and while in many years both the quality and price of the First Growths may be exceeded by lesser growths or even non-classified wines, overall they still have a lot of meaning when attempting to determine quality.

Because wine is a market, and we have a lot of choice as to what we will drink and what we will cellar, if the classified growths produce poor wines, the market will not pay for them. There is an automatic incentive for them to make better wines since none of the classified growths lives alone - they have peers. If the owners of the Chateaux do not care, then they will allow crappy wines to be released, as is the case with some of the classified growths. But there is certainly no shortage of quality wine to buy on the market.

Its true that there are glaring ommissions such as La Mission but as you can see from the price of the bottle - the market makes up its own mind! The same goes for Le Pin, Pétrus, Cheval Blanc, etc. I'm sure that Christian Moueix does not lose sleep at night, haranguing the INAO to get his grape juice onto the list of classified growths.

The original list of first growths was based on market price at the time; those were the wines that consistently commanded the highest prices, and the market was limited to noblepersons and business people.

As to whether or not there will another change to the classification, I think the idea is ridiculous, especially in the context of the 150th anniversary. France is nothing but for tradition, and to change a tradition on an important anniversary flies in the face of tradition itself.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Edited June 17, 2005 by Vinfidel (log)

[jackal10]

The classifications reflect the quality of the soil and the position of the vineyard; those don't change.

[Really Nice!]

Well said Vinfidel.

I've said this before on this board but if anyone is interested in reading about how the classification came to be, pick up 1855 : A History of the Bordeaux Classification by Dewey Markham. It's truly a facinating read. I pick it up about once a year and read through it again; it's that enjoyable.

[Really Nice!]

The classifications reflect the quality of the soil and the position of the vineyard; those don't change.

←

Actually they reflect the prices the wines fetched in the market place. Check out the book.

[Brad Ballinger]

The classifications reflect the quality of the soil and the position of the vineyard; those don't change.

←

Actually they reflect the prices the wines fetched in the market place. Check out the book.

←

John is correct here. The classification was based on price more than vineyard location, vine quality, etc. And this was in a time where there was more truth in the relationship between quality and price. Nowadays, there may be more illusion than truth.

Regarding the classification in general, some wines still belong where they are. Others deserve promotions. Others deserve demotions. But the whole process is probably more obsolete than meaningful any longer.

[JohnL]

Ya know--off the top of my head: I'd have to say the classification still holds up fairly well.

Yes Pomerol and to a lesser degree St Emilion got short shrift but in terms of overall quality over the years......

Seems most of the errors were of omission.