On St. Emilion

It’s
a shame that the St. Emilion Grand Cru Classe Classification
was suspended this past April. It was challenged, as I
understand it, because of a problem with the people
administrating it, not the classification itself. And not so
surprising, it was the Chateaux that were demoted that were
responsible for said challenge. This week I will drink a
toast to the 2OO6 Classe in remembrance. Classifications are
perhaps not always a good thing, but if you were to use one,
I think the St. Emilion is the one to use as a benchmark.
Why? If the judges are fair, which was the subject of the
challenge, then the classification encourages excellence and
calls out mediocrity for what it is. And that’s exactly how
it should be. The Classification is reviewed every 1O years,
the wine must come from the estate only, and the wine must
be considered St. Emilion Grand Cru AOC quality seven times
out of ten vintages. So it reflects professionally-assessed
quality within the past decade. Chateaux have been promoted
or demoted accordingly every ten years and they have the
option when they achieve the Grand Cru appellation if they
want to apply for the Classe Classification. And not only
must the wine be good, it must be consistently so. These are
but only a few of the standards that are required to be a
part of the St. Emilion Classification.

In contrast, its
better-known cousin, the 1855 classification, was drawn up
mostly by merchants, with the Crus defined by how much the
market paid for it. With the exception of Mouton-Rothschild
in 1973, it has not been modified since the World Fair. As a
result, you have fifth growths that perform on par with
third or even second growth level wines, and there is a
third of the growth which simply no longer exists. The
classification, with the exception of the 1st Growths, is
therefore outdated to say the least. And yet this is the
most famous classification in the history of
wine.

Around the
world, classifications that go beyond the level of
appellation typically classify by vineyard. But in some
ways, I think applying the concept of classifying by
producer within an appellation instead of by the vineyard
would be interesting in some parts of the world. The
appellation and vineyard certainly represent the raw
potential of what the wine can be, but the producer who
makes it is definitely the final deciding factor in the end
result and how good the wine will be. I’ve tasted a Le
Montrachet from a certain negociant, that I won’t name, that
wasn’t worthy enough to clean my floor. There is something
inherently wrong with having a grand cru and a producer that
consistently makes garbage with it, yet gets the benefit of
the grand cru “brand”.

It would be
difficult to apply a St. Emilion classification to an area
like Burgundy or even Germany, where it has been defined by
vineyard terroir, but for somewhere else that is a prestige
appellation like Ribera del Duero, the Napa Valley or even
Barossa, there would be merit to having a similar
classification in these areas. By having a unifying and
unbiased voice from the area in question to solidify levels
of quality instead of only that year’s score out of 1OO from
a wine reviewer, you can better-establish standards of
quality to paint a more complete picture of the whole
appellation. And if quality is assessed primarily on a
year-to-year basis, as in the popular press, reputations can
benefit by one outstanding review despite fair reviews in
any other year. Emerging areas that have established quality
and even further potential but no classification beyond
appellation would also benefit from a form of
classification, including Chile’s Central Valley,
Argentina’s Mendoza and even Washington State.

Some would argue
that classifications are negative because they become the
dictator of taste. I would disagree by looking again at the
1855 classification. There is a strong market, for example,
for the “super 2nds” and Lynch-Bages, a 5th Growth that
outperforms quite a few 3rd Growths in quality and market
demand. Thus the classification is informative, but at
present, the majority of influence on popular taste comes
from today’s wine writers. This could be the topic of
another article entirely. The opinions of these experienced
and well-learned professionals should be significant in the
world of wine, though perhaps not the only voice.

But getting back
on topic, one might point out that some appellations that
are mostly in Europe already require wineries to submit to
tasting panels to maintain their appellation status.
However, these are to maintain minimum standards, not to
inspire or to achieve greatness. And at the highest levels
of appellations, isn’t greatness the aspiration? I’m sorry
to see the St. Emilion classification disappear for the time
being, and hope to see it, and something like it, emerge
elsewhere.