|
Bordeaux futures, En Primeurs Wines
Classification of the best 2006 Bordeaux wines
at the best price
The TOP Price / Quality
wine deals
|
Statistically valued, the best
2006 Price to Quality Bordeaux by region
|
|
|
|
This heading is for the aficionado seeking, at the same time, the best quality for the lowest possible price possible, or the best of two Worlds!
We have come up with a
specific formula of calculation (a linear regression) which determines with a mathematical precision
by region what are the best
Bordeaux Futures Price to Quality deals!
On the
table below, the most interesting wines correspond to the highest negative value of the
Fair Price v.s. their market price, i.e. if Wine A has a -35% price differential to the
market, it has a better price to quality ratio than Wine
B with a -10% value. In other words, it means that the Wine A is
currently undervalued by 35% to the market price.
Only the wines whose average ratings are equal or higher to 85/100,
and a standard deviation equal or below 6 meaning there was relative a consensus between the
critics, are taken into consideration.
The prices used for our calculations are provided by
VinorumCodex, the largest
French database for wine pricing.
Once again, Winemega has nothing to sell, therefore the prices indicate, at the most,
a general tendency of the En Primeur Bordeaux prices in France and
should, in no way, be considered or construed as an offer or reference of retail prices in any specific country. These prices do not take in consideration
any local taxes or other rules and regulations governing the wine business that may exist in certain countries.
|
|
|
|
Haut Médoc |
Pauillac |
Saint-Estèphe |
Castillon |
|
Médoc |
Margaux |
Pessac |
Saint-Emilion |
|
Listrac-Médoc |
Saint-Julien |
Sauternes |
Pomerol |
|
|
|
TOP Price / Quality
2006
Bordeaux analysis
Related headings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Region |
Wine |
Average score / 100 |
Difference between Fair price
and Market price |
|
Côtes de Castillon |
|
DOMAINE DE L'A |
90.6 |
-38% |
| |
CLOS PUY
ARNAUD |
89.0 |
-24% |
| |
JOANIN-BECOT |
88.2 |
-6% |
|
VEYRY |
88.1 |
-3% |
|
TOP |
|
Haut Medoc |
| |
CISSAC |
89.6 |
-53% |
|
ARCHE (D') |
88.4 |
-36% |
|
BEAUMONT |
87.0 |
-25% |
|
LAROSE TRINTAUDON |
88.0 |
-18% |
|
LAMARQUE |
87.5 |
-16% |
|
CITRAN |
88.0 |
-16% |
|
AGASSAC |
88.2 |
-12% |
|
MALESCASSE |
87.4 |
-10% |
|
CHARMAIL |
88.2 |
-8% |
|
CAMBON LA PELOUSE |
87.6 |
-5% |
|
LANESSAN |
87.6 |
-4% |
|
TOP |
|
Listrac - Medoc |
| |
MAYNE
LALANDE |
89.6 |
-60% |
|
BELGRAVE |
89.4 |
-16% |
|
TOP |
|
Margaux |
|
BOYD
CANTENAC |
90.2 |
-37% |
| |
MONBRISON |
89.1 |
-34% |
|
DAUZAC |
89.8 |
-31% |
| |
GURGUE |
87.2 |
-27% |
|
TERTRE (DU) |
89.4 |
-24% |
| |
PRIEURE-LICHINE |
90.0 |
-23% |
|
KIRWAN |
90.0 |
-19% |
| |
ISSAN |
90.1 |
-18% |
|
GISCOURS |
90.3 |
-17% |
| |
MARQUIS DE
TERME |
89.5 |
-16% |
|
LABEGORCE
ZEDE |
88.3 |
-13% |
| |
BRANE
CANTENAC |
89.9 |
-11% |
| |
RAUSAN SEGLA |
91.3 |
-11% |
| |
FERRIERE |
88.6 |
-10% |
| |
LABEGORCE |
87.6 |
-7% |
| |
MARQUIS
D'ALSEME BECKER |
88.0 |
-3% |
| |
MALESCOT
SAINT-EXUPERY |
89.8 |
-2% |
|
TOP |
|
Medoc |
| |
ROLLAN DE BY |
89.5 |
-43% |
| |
BELLEVUE |
89.4 |
-37% |
| |
TOUR DE BY |
87.8 |
-22% |
|
TOP |
|
Pauillac |
| |
GRAND PUY LACOSTE |
92.1 |
-43% |
|
LYNCH-BAGES |
92.4 |
-39% |
|
PONTET CANET |
92.4 |
-35% |
|
HAUT-BATAILLEY |
89.8 |
-32% |
| |
HAUT-BAGES AVEROUS |
89.0 |
-31% |
|
BATAILLEY |
90.0 |
-29% |
| |
DUHART-MILON |
90.3 |
-28% |
| |
CLERC-MILON |
90.1 |
-21% |
| |
HAUT BAGES LIBERAL |
89.2 |
-20% |
| |
PICHON LONGUEVILLE
BARON |
92.8 |
-17% |
| |
ARMAILHAC (D') |
89.2 |
-12% |
|
TOP |
|
Pessac - Léognan - Graves
(Red) |
|
CLOS FLORIDENE |
90.5 |
-76% |
|
CHANTEGRIVE |
89.0 |
-55% |
|
DOMAINE DE CHEVALIER |
91.6 |
-41% |
|
BROWN |
88.8 |
-31% |
|
HAUT BAILLY |
92.2 |
-26% |
|
TOUR MARTILLAC |
89.1 |
-24% |
|
CARBONNIEUX |
89.3 |
-20% |
|
RAHOUL |
89.1 |
-17% |
|
FIEUZAL (DE) |
88.9 |
-12% |
| |
BOUSCAUT |
88.0 |
-11% |
| |
SMITH
HAUT-LAFITTE |
91.3 |
-9% |
| |
LARRIVET HAUT BRION |
89.1 |
-5% |
| |
HAUT BERGEY |
88.5 |
-1% |
|
TOP |
|
Pomerol |
| |
CROIX (LA) |
90.0 |
-53% |
| |
CABANNE (LA) |
89.9 |
-47% |
| |
FLEUR PETRUS |
92.7 |
-45% |
| |
ENCLOS (L') |
89.3 |
-44% |
| |
PETITE EGLISE |
88.8 |
-41% |
| |
TROTANOY |
94.2 |
-40% |
| |
PLINCE |
88.7 |
-37% |
| |
GAZIN |
91.2 |
-32% |
| |
LAGRANGE |
89.3 |
-31% |
| |
VIEUX CHATEAU CERTAN |
94.6 |
-31% |
| |
POINTE (LA) |
89.5 |
-29% |
| |
CLOS RENE |
88.4 |
-27% |
| |
BEAUREGARD |
89.3 |
-26% |
| |
FEYTIT-CLINET |
90.3 |
-24% |
| |
CROIX DE GAY |
88.5 |
-20% |
|
BONALGUE |
89.3 |
-20% |
| |
ROUGET |
89.1 |
-19% |
|
CLINET |
91.2 |
-17% |
| |
CONSEILLANTE |
93.0 |
-15% |
|
HOSANNA |
92.4 |
-15% |
| |
NENIN |
90.4 |
-10% |
|
LATOUR A POMEROL |
89.9 |
-7% |
| |
CERTAN DE
MAY |
92.1 |
-3% |
|
TOP |
|
Saint Emilion |
| |
LAROZE |
90.5 |
-60% |
| |
MATRAS |
88.9 |
-58% |
| |
ARROSEE (L') |
92.0 |
-54% |
| |
DOME (LE) |
92.2 |
-52% |
| |
SERRE (LA) |
88.9 |
-50% |
| |
CLOS DES JACOBINS |
90.6 |
-48% |
| |
PAVIE MACQUIN |
92.6 |
-47% |
| |
CLOS DE L'ORATOIRE |
90.9 |
-47% |
| |
SIMARD |
88.6 |
-46% |
| |
MOULIN-SAINT-GEORGES |
90.9 |
-43% |
| |
CADET-PIOLA |
89.9 |
-41% |
| |
TERTRE DAUGAY |
89.6 |
-38% |
| |
DOMINIQUE (LA) |
90.5 |
-37% |
| |
GRAND CORBIN DESPAGNE |
88.8 |
-37% |
| |
LARCIS DUCASSE |
91.3 |
-36% |
| |
BEAUSEJOUR DUFFAU-LAGAROSSE |
91.5 |
-34% |
| |
PRIEURE (LE) |
86.9 |
-31% |
| |
CANON |
92.2 |
-30% |
| |
FONROQUE |
89.0 |
-30% |
| |
COUTET |
89.4 |
-29% |
| |
PIN-BEAUSOLEIL (LE) |
88.3 |
-28% |
| |
ROL VALENTIN |
90.2 |
-27% |
| |
COTE DE BALEAU |
87.6 |
-27% |
| |
BEAUSEJOUR BECOT |
91.3 |
-26% |
| |
CAP DE MOURLIN |
88.8 |
-24% |
| |
LUCIA |
90.3 |
-24% |
| |
FONPLEGADE |
89.9 |
-22% |
| |
GRAND PONTET |
89.1 |
-22% |
| |
BELAIR |
89.8 |
-21% |
| |
CLOS FOURTET |
91.1 |
-21% |
| |
CLOS D'AbbA |
90.3 |
-21% |
| |
SAINT GEORGES-COTE PAVIE |
88.1 |
-20% |
| |
TOUR FIGEAC |
89.1 |
-20% |
|
DASSAULT |
89.0 |
-17% |
| |
MONBOUSQUET |
90.1 |
-17% |
|
DESTIEUX |
89.1 |
-16% |
| |
CLOS BADON |
89.6 |
-15% |
|
BELLEVUE |
90.2 |
-13% |
| |
BERLIQUET |
89.0 |
-13% |
|
FRANC MAYNE |
88.9 |
-12% |
| |
TRIANON |
87.4 |
-11% |
|
FAUGERES |
88.8 |
-9% |
| |
GRAND MAYNE |
89.0 |
-9% |
|
BELLEFONT-BELCIER |
88.6 |
-7% |
| |
COUVENT DES JACOBINS |
88.8 |
-5% |
|
LYNSOLENCE |
90.3 |
-5% |
| |
BALESTARD LA TONNELLE |
88.6 |
-5% |
|
GRANDES MURAILLES |
89.4 |
-2% |
| |
FIGEAC |
91.9 |
-1% |
| |
FOMBRAUGE |
88.3 |
-1% |
| |
JEAN FAURE |
88.6 |
-1% |
|
TOP |
|
Saint Estephe |
| |
TOUR DE PEZ |
89.3 |
-46% |
| |
TRONQUOY
LALANDE |
87.7 |
-26% |
| |
CALON SEGUR |
92.2 |
-26% |
| |
MARBUZET |
89.9 |
-8% |
| |
ORMES DE PEZ |
89.2 |
-5% |
| |
COS
D'ESTOURNEL |
94.0 |
-4% |
| |
BOSCQ (LE) |
88.6 |
-3% |
| |
MEYNEY |
88.9 |
-2% |
|
TOP |
|
Saint Julien |
| |
LEOVILLE BARTON |
92.9 |
-37% |
| |
LAGRANGE |
90.6 |
-21% |
| |
GRUAUD LAROSE |
91.0 |
-20% |
| |
GLANA (DU) |
87.4 |
-18% |
| |
LEOVILLE POYFERRE |
91.8 |
-14% |
| |
LEOVILLE LAS CASES |
95.1 |
-3% |
|
TOP |
|
Sauternes |
| |
RIEUSSEC |
92.7 |
-38% |
| |
LAFAURIE PEYRAGUEY |
91.0 |
-36% |
| |
DOISY VEDRINES |
90.4 |
-34% |
| |
COUTET |
91.3 |
-31% |
| |
CLIMENS |
93.7 |
-29% |
| |
GUIRAUD |
91.1 |
-26% |
| |
RABAUD PROMIS |
90.0 |
-24% |
| |
RAYNE VIGNEAU |
90.0 |
-22% |
| |
MALLE (DE) |
90.0 |
-21% |
| |
RAYMOND LAFON |
91.2 |
-21% |
| |
TOUR BLANCHE |
91.0 |
-13% |
| |
DOISY DAENE |
89.8 |
-12% |
| |
CAILLOU |
88.6 |
-7% |
| |
CLOS HAUT PEYRAGUEY |
90.2 |
-6% |
| |
ARCHE (D') |
89.1 |
-5% |
| |
SUDUIRAUT |
91.5 |
-5% |
| |
MYRAT |
88.9 |
-3% |
| |
SIGALAS
RABAUD |
89.5 |
-1% |
|
|
|
Bordeaux 2006 analysis
1. Vintage effect
The table below provides the answer to the following question:
"How much more expensive (in %) are wines in a given year, relative
to the cheapest year on record (2003), after taking into accounts the
ratings and the growth premia?" |
|
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
|
22.7 |
0.2 |
28.9 |
72.4 |
102.3 |
42.1 |
0 |
45.5 |
67.1 |
43.3 |
|
|
This table means that in 2006, the regression calculation indicates that
for growths with the same grade and from the same region, the prices are
43.3% higher in 2006 than in 2003. However, the accuracy of this effect
is relatively limited and thus not extremely significant. We mention it
here as a purely informative trend. Interesting to point that the same
analysis conducted on the "Top wines" alone gives 1997 as the least
expensive year. |
|
|
|
2. Rating effect The analysis allows answering to the following
question:
"How much, on average, does a rating increase of one point (say, from
89 to 90) raises the price (in %)?" |
|
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
|
10 |
12 |
9 |
15 |
12 |
12 |
11 |
16 |
23 |
15 |
|
|
In 2006, every one point increase on the rating impacts the price by
15%. For the "Top wines" the effect is more than double (32%)! The
market clearly discriminates the "Top wines" segment. |
|
|
|
3. Growth (or Wine Growing Region) effect The table below
provides the answer to the following question:
"How much more expensive (in %) are wines from a given region in a
given year, relative to the cheapest region in that year, after taking
into accounts the ratings?" |
| |
Misc. Right Bank |
Pessac |
Margaux |
Medoc
Haut-Medoc |
Pauillac |
St-Estephe |
St-Julien |
Pomerol |
St-Emilion |
Sauternes and Barsac |
|
1997 |
21.8 |
75.8 |
77.4 |
0 |
83.5 |
50.5 |
92.5 |
97.5 |
82.3 |
44.1 |
|
1998 |
23.1 |
54.4 |
63.8 |
0 |
82.8 |
38.6 |
76.9 |
51.2 |
72.5 |
48.0 |
|
1999 |
39.4 |
62.6 |
59.3 |
0 |
91.6 |
72.3 |
84.6 |
104.1 |
79.7 |
64.1 |
|
2000 |
25.6 |
43.9 |
47.6 |
0 |
48.4 |
25.4 |
56.7 |
79.1 |
62.5 |
35.9 |
|
2001 |
3.5 |
43.2 |
46.2 |
0 |
48.2 |
19.9 |
45.5 |
62.5 |
44.9 |
0.4 |
|
2002 |
18.0 |
44.9 |
41.3 |
0 |
41.0 |
14.6 |
37.5 |
77.3 |
53.3 |
13.8 |
|
2003 |
23.1 |
63.0 |
57.9 |
0 |
39.7 |
22.4 |
54.1 |
94.0 |
69.4 |
50.3 |
|
2004 |
17.5 |
40.5 |
37.3 |
0 |
34.8 |
29.5 |
39.1 |
52.9 |
40.2 |
49.0 |
|
2005 |
8.6 |
25.6 |
39.1 |
0.9 |
51.5 |
10.4 |
34.8 |
58.3 |
58.6 |
0 |
|
2006 |
8.4 |
23.6 |
42.3 |
0 |
41.5 |
12.2 |
25.9 |
48.4 |
41.6 |
23.2 |
|
Average |
18.9 |
47.7 |
51.2 |
0.1 |
56.3 |
29.6 |
54.8 |
72.5 |
60.5 |
32.9 |
|
|
The price difference within the regions is somewhat limited in 2006. Is
this effect due to a greater homogeneity of the quality within the
areas? It should be noted that price differences tend to increase for
regions with very famous growths. It is probably less due to the area's
effect than to the public image of these very famous growths. |
|
|
|
Charles Wyplosz and Alain Bringolf for Winemega.com |
|
Related headings..
Bordeaux
2006 - TOP classification by regions
Bordeaux
2006 - TOP absolute classification
Bordeaux 2006 harvest
Our strategies
to subscribe to Bordeaux futures
Advanced
wine topics - by Lauriann Greene-Sollin
Bordeaux wine tasting by topic
Bordeaux wine tasting by Chateau
The
French alternative solution to Winemega
|
| |
|
|
TOP |
|
|
