Sunday Times magazine article on St. Emilion classification

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/magaz ... f=magazine

Much better than the previous effort they published last week...

The journalist doesn't take position, which is just as well. There really can be no definitive answer.

The big question is about the future.
With enough foresight, I'm sure the winegrowers of St. Emilion will get around the current controversy.
However, time is of the essence!

I must admit I am surprised by Stéphane de Niepperg's comment, "Who needs classifications"?
This coming from someone who owns two classifed growths!!!
I realize that La Mondotte is not, but who could call this "typical"?

Classifications are hierarchies.
Consider them like good manners - something to use when called for, but not necessary all the time.
Or like the British monarchy - outmoded, but grounded in centuries of history and not without usefulness.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Oops, it didn't seem to copy the link right: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/magaz ... ine-t.html

Best regards,
Alex R.

I read the article earlier and found interesting. But, I was wondering what you thought about Guadet's wines? Are they indeed terrible? Did they deserve to be demoted? The article does a good job of discussing the larger issues and for that purpose I guess the specifics of one case are not relevant. But, do most people think the classifications are largely merited and relatively free of politics (unlike the AOC process)?

Rahsaan,

I used to know the wines of Ch. Guadet (which until very recently went under the name of "Guadet Saint Julien"), but am not familiar with more recent vintages.
In the past is was in the "OK, but hardly exciting" category.

My subjective take on this is that the St. Emilion classification includes a certain number of dull wines (even the 2006 one, which nevertheless went at things with a new broom) and excludes a certain number of wines that should, by all rights, be in there.
In other words, the St. Emilion classification is too caught up in a system. It is neither fish nor fowl, i.e., doesn't leave enough room for innovation, but leaves just enough to, on occasion, piss off the old-timers whom it rejects.

There are several issues at stake here.
The most obvious one is methodology. You can be damned sure that they will do the next classification, much, much more carefully.

Best regards,
Alex R.

My subjective take on this is that the St. Emilion classification includes a certain number of dull wines (even the 2006 one, which nevertheless went at things with a new broom) and excludes a certain number of wines that should, by all rights, be in there.
In other words, the St. Emilion classification is too caught up in a system. It is neither fish nor fowl, i.e., doesn't leave enough room for innovation, but leaves just enough to, on occasion, piss off the old-timers whom it rejects..

Ok, I suppose it is always tough to draw up these systems.

I would find the arguments of the erstwhile chateaux more convincing if they hadn't happily gone along with process as long as they kept classification. I find it particularly funny the argument that it is invalid because of unfairness that those classified in '96 were tasted separately. A good argument by chateaux that were trying to step up, but for those alreadty classified....