the bottom end was not at all bad in 93. i've had brilliant generics, fixin, st aubin, chorey, ladoix -- not to mention that roty marsannay that you plied me with before the holidays. 'course, you had to drink the lower 93s at the right time (which was often later than usual) but that's not new. the "93 made some great wines but otherwise it is all crap / inconsistent" line is something the assbags who called the vintage wrong made up to retrospectively try to cover up for all the shite they were talking at the time. allowing for the normal vicissitudes of the cote d'or, i'd say the failure rate for 93 is lower than usual, not worse, even from lesser sites.
as for lafarge bourgogne, it is always a tough call. for example, the 01 tasted herbal and underripe when it arrived, and it turned into one of my favorite editions of this wine ever (despite the reputation of the vintage in the area, what with hail and everything), whereas the 02 was ripe at the get go and closed down into a blocky tannic mess that i've been surreptitiously dumping on sideboards at parties for years now (yeah yeah, i know it'll come round, but i'm never going to love the style). fwiw, i think the passetoutgrains is a reasonable index for the lafarge bourgogne. whenever the former has been lean or shrill, i've liked the latter (given a bit of time). otherwise, in these days of climbing temperatures, i find a little bit of gamay goes a long way.
fb.