If the 1855 Classification is to be reformed in the future, who should lead it? What should the criteria be? (e.g., blind tasting, price, expert panel?)

If we were to reform the 1855 Classification, who should lead it? How should the standards be defined?

Hey there! I'm a big fan of Bordeaux wines and enjoy researching classification systems. The 1855 Classification is an old Bordeaux system dating back to 1855, primarily ranking châteaux from First to Fifth Growths (mainly in Médoc and Sauternes) based on their reputation and price at the time. If we want to reform it now, we need to consider fairness and practicality. Below, I'll share my thoughts on who should lead the reform and how to define the standards, keeping it conversational and easy to understand.

Who should lead the reform?

This classification is Bordeaux's "crown jewel," so reform can't be haphazard. It needs reliable leadership. In my opinion, it should be led by a neutral, authoritative body—not the châteaux themselves, as that could lead to bias. Possible options include:

Bordeaux Wine Council (e.g., CIVB) or French government agencies: They understand the local context best and can represent the entire industry. It's like having a trusted neighborhood association manage affairs. But we must avoid conflicts of interest, such as large châteaux dictating the fate of smaller ones.
Independent expert panel: Assemble a group of international wine experts, critics, and journalists—think big names like Robert Parker or professionals from various countries. Why? They have no direct stake, ensuring greater objectivity. The ideal leadership would be hybrid: the Council organizes, while experts set the standards.
Why not the châteaux themselves? If châteaux vote or lead, it could become a case of "money talks," disadvantaging smaller estates. External oversight is crucial—like revising school rules with input from both teachers and parents.

In short, whoever leads must ensure transparency and fairness. Reform won’t happen overnight; it’ll take years of consultation, possibly including public hearings.

What should the standards be?

The original 1855 Classification focused on price and historical reputation, but the wine world has evolved. Climate and winemaking techniques have advanced, so standards need updating. We can’t rely solely on past glory; modern elements must be integrated. I believe standards should be diversified, not based on a single factor. For example:

Blind tasting as the core: This is the fairest approach! Conceal labels and let experts score purely on taste, aroma, and balance. Why? It eliminates brand bias and identifies truly improving châteaux. Organize large-scale blind tastings every 5-10 years to select top performers.
Price as a reference, but not the sole factor: The original system used market price, which can still be included—but averaged over recent years. Don’t just focus on auction highs; include prices accessible to everyday consumers. High prices don’t always mean quality, but they reflect market demand.
Comprehensive evaluation by an expert panel: The panel shouldn’t just taste; they should assess factors like sustainability (e.g., eco-friendly viticulture), consistency (year-to-year quality stability), and innovation (new varieties or techniques). Use a scoring system: 50% blind tasting, 20% price, 30% other factors like reputation and history.
Other potential standards: Incorporate data-driven metrics like soil analysis, yield quality, or consumer feedback (via apps or surveys). But avoid overcomplication—standards must be practical.

For instance, after reform, a Fifth Growth proving exceptional in blind tastings could rise to Third Growth. Conversely, a First Growth underperforming in recent years should be downgraded. Review standards every decade to keep them dynamic.

Reform isn’t about starting over; it’s about making the classification more relevant, helping consumers choose great wines. If you ask me, this should be a gradual process—no rushing. What do you all think? Feel free to share your ideas!