Burgundy vintages this decade??

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey
Someone elsewhere asked me...

Do you agree that 02 and 05 burgundies are the best years in this decade?
[END QUOTE]

And after some thought, I said...

It is always difficult to generalize, but to answer your interesting question...

Among the red Burgundies, the '05 vintage is clearly superior in my mind, followed by '02 and '03.

Among the whites, it is a pretty close call between '02, '04, and '05.
[END QUOTE]

Any agreement or disagreement?

. . . . . . Pete
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
For reds, I agree that 2005 is the top. I like both 2001 and 2002 a lot -- which will be better, time will tell. They certainly are different. I am not wild about most 2003s I have had with exceptions (Truchot and Mugneret-Gibourg). 2000s are probably the best drinking wines right now -- they are really surprisingly good. 2004s are hit or miss -- some are real good -- others are not. I think 2006 will be another 2001, so I like them a lot.
 
For whites, I think 2000 is an underrated vintage. I am not as sure as many are about 2004 and I like the 2002s and 2005s I have had. Some good 2001s also. 2003s are not Burgundy, IMHO.
 
I don't think this decade is over yet (as far as releases go).
Nor has there been sufficient time to judge the best wines of each vintage.
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by Florida Jim: I don't think this decade is over yet (as far as releases go).Nor has there been sufficient time to judge the best wines of each vintage.
Click to expand...

Jim, When the guy asked me my opinion as to the '02 and '05, my first inclination was to reply something similar to what you say.

Then I decided to venture forth with my current thinking and follow up with what folks here might think.

. . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Tom Blach:
All good except 03.
Click to expand...

Pretty much my line, too. I'd drink '00 over any of the other years right now, but if I'm putting something away for the future, I'd be looking at '01 CdN, '02 and '05 and maybe select '06. '02 and '05 probably are more across-the-board consistent than the others, but is that was is meant by a good year? I'm talking about red wines, as I don't drink enough white Burgundy to have a credible opinion.
 
Good for what?

It's a silly question, really. Plenty of famous wines are useless today. Plenty of unsung wines are great today from "lesser" vintages. What's for dinner?

The abstract ranking of the entire region by whole years is of only the most limited utility, unless you're a total newb faced with an utterly unknown list.

And then said newb buys the big '05 and wonders why it only says, "talk to the hand."

Good for what? That's the question.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
Good for what?

It's a silly question, really. Plenty of famous wines are useless today. Plenty of unsung wines are great today from "lesser" vintages. What's for dinner?

The abstract ranking of the entire region by whole years is of only the most limited utility, unless you're a total newb faced with an utterly unknown list.

And then said newb buys the big '05 and wonders why it only says, "talk to the hand."

Good for what? That's the question.
Click to expand...

Now there's my boy!
 
Good for drinking, of course. All burgundy vintages provide wines that are good for drinking, it's just a question of which and how and when and how much they cost.
 
originally posted by Marc Hanes:
originally posted by SFJoe:
Good for what?

It's a silly question, really. Plenty of famous wines are useless today. Plenty of unsung wines are great today from "lesser" vintages. What's for dinner?

The abstract ranking of the entire region by whole years is of only the most limited utility, unless you're a total newb faced with an utterly unknown list.

And then said newb buys the big '05 and wonders why it only says, "talk to the hand."

Good for what? That's the question.
Click to expand...

Now there's my boy!
Click to expand...
originally posted by Thor:
'git 'em, Joe.
Click to expand...
originally posted by SFJoe:
I mean, fer chrissake.
Click to expand...

It's a Lynch mob!
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
Good for what?

It's a silly question, really. Plenty of famous wines are useless today. Plenty of unsung wines are great today from "lesser" vintages. What's for dinner?

The abstract ranking of the entire region by whole years is of only the most limited utility, unless you're a total newb faced with an utterly unknown list.

And then said newb buys the big '05 and wonders why it only says, "talk to the hand."

Good for what? That's the question.
Click to expand...

This goes back to an argument I had with doghead (and probably everyone else) years ago.

It is useful insomuch as you are interested in a certain level of explanation (generalization). Everything is a generalization of some sort, we're just haggling over level.

You can drill down into detail about particular wines from particular producers in a particular vintage; however, information on producer and vintage can be useful. And if you don't know anything about a producer, then vintage generalizations can be useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top