originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Every vintage in Burgundy these days has lots of really good wines (well, 2008 wouldn't have had the north winds not come in 2008). It's better to think of the styles of the vintages than to try to construct a ranking of which vintage is "better" than which other vintages.
2005 is strong across the board so that if you're buying blind, arguably you do better in 2005 than in other vintages.* OTOH, if your're buying Burgundy blindly, you shouldn't be buying Burgundy. And at Nuits-St-Georges, to choose one example, the wines are clearly superior in 2006 to 2005 -- virtually** every one that I can think of.originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Every vintage in Burgundy these days has lots of really good wines (well, 2008 wouldn't have had the north winds not come in 2008). It's better to think of the styles of the vintages than to try to construct a ranking of which vintage is "better" than which other vintages.
While I totally agree, and have also been around to know that even excellent vintages have their failures two critics whom I hold in fair regard have said that 2005 is the strongest vintage across the board they have ever seen.
Now, I don't really care about this except it makes wines I usually buy, in this case Mugneret, prohibitively expensive so that I don't own any.
I think the idea is that you could buy broadly and expect very good results in the cellar.
My experience leaves me with no reason to doubt this, but I didn't practice it myself.
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
2005 is strong across the board so that if you're buying blind, arguably you do better in 2005 than in other vintages.* OTOH, if your're buying Burgundy blindly, you shouldn't be buying Burgundy. And at Nuits-St-Georges, to choose one example, the wines are clearly superior in 2006 to 2005 -- virtually** every one that I can think of.originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Every vintage in Burgundy these days has lots of really good wines (well, 2008 wouldn't have had the north winds not come in 2008). It's better to think of the styles of the vintages than to try to construct a ranking of which vintage is "better" than which other vintages.
While I totally agree, and have also been around to know that even excellent vintages have their failures two critics whom I hold in fair regard have said that 2005 is the strongest vintage across the board they have ever seen.
Now, I don't really care about this except it makes wines I usually buy, in this case Mugneret, prohibitively expensive so that I don't own any.
I think the idea is that you could buy broadly and expect very good results in the cellar.
My experience leaves me with no reason to doubt this, but I didn't practice it myself.
* I think a strong case can be made, though, that 1999 is even more regular across the board; however it may well be that there will prove to be more very great wines in 2005 than in 1999 -- but you'll have to wait a lot longer for them.
** "Virtually" is just to cover my ass; off the top of my head, I can't think of any exceptions, certainly not for the Prmeaux and Nuits sectors.
can you tell us how to do that?originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
testingThis is some text1
blah
blah
This is a footnote back
originally posted by kirk wallace:can you tell us how to do that?
AH!!originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by kirk wallace:can you tell us how to do that?
Check his notation by hitting reply.
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Every vintage in Burgundy these days has lots of really good wines (well, 2008 wouldn't have had the north winds not come in 2008). It's better to think of the styles of the vintages than to try to construct a ranking of which vintage is "better" than which other vintages.
Please do not advise others to splash around in the deep end of the techno-geek pool if neither you nor they knows how to swim.originally posted by Rahsaan:
Check his notation by hitting reply.
originally posted by Nicolas Mestre:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Every vintage in Burgundy these days has lots of really good wines (well, 2008 wouldn't have had the north winds not come in 2008). It's better to think of the styles of the vintages than to try to construct a ranking of which vintage is "better" than which other vintages.
My impression is that there are many very good wines in the 2006-2008 triad.
I fear that very few will take the chance of importing the wines, especially the 07s and 08s, based on many factors: the shitty economy, the lack of interest from mainstream critics, and anticipation for the 2009s to name three.
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
2005 is strong across the board so that if you're buying blind, arguably you do better in 2005 than in other vintages.* OTOH, if your're buying Burgundy blindly, you shouldn't be buying Burgundy. And at Nuits-St-Georges, to choose one example, the wines are clearly superior in 2006 to 2005 -- virtually** every one that I can think of.originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Every vintage in Burgundy these days has lots of really good wines (well, 2008 wouldn't have had the north winds not come in 2008). It's better to think of the styles of the vintages than to try to construct a ranking of which vintage is "better" than which other vintages.
While I totally agree, and have also been around to know that even excellent vintages have their failures two critics whom I hold in fair regard have said that 2005 is the strongest vintage across the board they have ever seen.
Now, I don't really care about this except it makes wines I usually buy, in this case Mugneret, prohibitively expensive so that I don't own any.
I think the idea is that you could buy broadly and expect very good results in the cellar.
My experience leaves me with no reason to doubt this, but I didn't practice it myself.
* I think a strong case can be made, though, that 1999 is even more regular across the board; however it may well be that there will prove to be more very great wines in 2005 than in 1999 -- but you'll have to wait a lot longer for them.
** "Virtually" is just to cover my ass; off the top of my head, I can't think of any exceptions, certainly not for the Prmeaux and Nuits sectors.
Assuming that 2009 continues to garner a high quality reputation -- the producers I talk to continue to show measured enthusiasm, as opposed to the unrestrained enthusiasm they had for 2005, 2002, 1999. For importers, it almost surely will be necessary to purchase 2007 and 2008 to get 2009 from estates with reputations (but remember, quantities of 2007 and 2008 are small). For the consumers, not so certain, especially for those that have access to gray market wines. The quantity of 2009 is huge -- only 1999 was larger -- and worldwide demand is still quite slack. As for 2007 and 2008, there should be some interesting closeouts.originally posted by VLM:
Problem is, if you pass on 2007 and 2008, you just won't get 2009. That's the way they roll. As well they should.
originally posted by Jeff Grossman: the deep end of the techno-geek pool
Heh. In re the technology of this board that is available to end-users, yes.originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Jeff Grossman: the deep end of the techno-geek pool
That's the deep end?!?
originally posted by kirk wallace:
Is there no way to get real footnotes on these posts?
Kinda like reading real books, magazines, and newspapers?originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
originally posted by kirk wallace:
Is there no way to get real footnotes on these posts?
Not to diminish Jeff's always on-point contributions, but there is a certain analog charm to asterisks.