Do first growth vines really create a better wine?

first of all you are confusing "first growth" and "old vines" which have different meanings

all "first growth," aka premier cru, means in this case is an arbitrary ranking of Bordeaux vineyards in the mid-19th century .... it doesn't have any direct correlation with whether those vineyards still produce quality today or not, it's really just a relic in a country that adores relics. in fact, it has not been unheard of for vineyards with a great ranking from THEN to slack off, rest on their reputation, and start producing less than stellar wine .... and yet for some reason this ranking still holds some value for some quasi-mystical types

now on the other hand, in general, anywhere in the world, old vines (in French, vielles vignes) produce better wines ..... most vines are replaced after about 40 years but a few exceptions are known to be over 100 years old (notably, zinfandel in California, growing without need of a trellis in fact, so thick are the trunks)

I am confused whether we are talking about the age of vines of the 'first growth' (premier cru / 1er) wines of Bordeaux.

There are only five 1er cru Bordeaux wines, the four designated in the 1855 classification, plus one addition in 1973 of Mouton-Rothschild

Chateau Latour

Chateau Lafite

Chateau Margaux

Chateau Haut Brion

Chateau Mouton-Rothschild

Are these wines better? Who judges? It is a matter of taste. But most experts say yes, they are some of the worlds best wines. And demand for them is so great that their prices are astronomical. Which means that the wineries spare absolutely no expense is having the best of everything to make their wine.

How old are their vines - average around 40 years old. Vineyards replace vines one by wine as they get diseased or too old. But wine from younger vines do not get used in the top wine, the 1er cru, but are sold on or used for a second label.

Are old vines better? Depends. Usually they are. The very fact that the vineyard manager hasn't replaced them means they are producing good wine. Why? Because their roots are deeper extracting more flavor, they produce fewer berries thus concentrating flavor and they often have thicker skins on the berries again with more flavor. As they get olderthey produce less and it is a commercial decision whether to keep them or replace them.

But some old vines can be worse than young vines, when the old ones are diseased for example. And new vines are maybe newer clones that produce better wine.

Its not a simple equation, it depends on the vine, the vineyard and ultimately the winemaker.

Vines need to be 4-5 years old at least before they are used to make vine -- they need time to develop theplant, out roots down etc.

There is no legal restriction on how old vines have to be when the label says 'old vines', but many people think they should be at least 35 years old. I think the back label should state the age and if it doesn't then I view the 'old vines' claim with a pinch of salt.

First growths are overpriced in my view. Why not save a bunch by taking a 2nd or lower. For 99% of wine drinkers (like myself) you won't know the difference. Other answer is right, a lot of it has to do with 100+ year old traditions.

Also note that there is no standard definition or rules for calling something "old vines". Wineries can call anything old vines.

Mature vines generally produce a better wine. It takes a vine five years to be considered mature. The first year all bunches are picked at first flower. This allows the vine to put all its energy into growing roots and strengthening the trunk. The next years the vine is allowed to bear alittle fruit.

Hey there,

I read many books about growing grape vines. This is the one that helped me the most: http://www.downloadita.it/r/rd.asp?gid=419

Cheers.

the grape only grows on new growth.every year they cut off all the vines from the main stalk.so the next year can start all over again.