CWD: A pedantic, somewhat predictable, but still interesting question re Burgundy vintages

B

BJ

BJ
I'm curious what everyone's take is on various red Burg vintages for current drinking, recognizing of course these are generalizations. Here's mine:

85 Good now
88-93 Good now
95 Really too young and angular, even many village wines
96 Many are good, many are still closed or at least too young
97 Now
98 Some are ok now, but will get better, but generally still closed in
99 Many surprisingly open. 1ers and gc will get better, as will many village
00 One of the best vintages for current drinking, and surprisingly good
01 Too young
02 Too young
03 No clue and no interest
04 Some are actually fresh as early drinkers now, but will improve, and probably not close
05 Frighteningly tough, from top to bottom.

As I write this, I wonder - did we just post on this? Did I post on this?

Am I confused?
 
Brad, I mostly agree. 00 was a great turnaround for something so very unpromising. But I'd say that the 01s are starting to drink well or even very well, whereas the 99s are closed very firmly.

98s in general are tannic crapola, but that is a personal response (perhaps shared).

I have had some pretty surprises with 97. (OK, two. Not god's gift to vintagery.)

And though I would never, never, never have credited it with anything, the 04s do seem to be smoothing beyond the greenery. We shall see.
 
My Burgundy group recently did 2000 and it was actually the best tasting we've had. Not a super terroir year, but not overly so and some very nice wines.

I have had some really nice 98s (Pavelot SlB, for one), but others (such as several different Trapets) seem like tannic crapola right now, tho I am really hopeful for these in 4-5 years.

I have not understood the anti 04 undercurrent from the start - I have really enjoyed a number of wines, and man, it's something you can find cheap. I actually like some of the green tones and acids tho I haven't noticed it in that many wines. A recent B. Morey Maranges Fussiere was terrific.
 
My take:
2000 very uneven
2001 my favorite, drink the villages from good producers. Great balance of weight and flavor
2002 very good bourgogne and villages, still too early for 1er and Grands. Big preference issue is how much weight do you want in a burgundy.
2004 great drinking bourgogne and villages. I personally love the light body and intense flavor and haven't had issues with the vegetal flavor that some have observed. Great opportunity for value.
2005 Still real early except for some bourgogne, esp. S. Esmonin & Billard. Heavier body similar to 2002 but stronger tannins. It's going to take a while.

To my taste, the 2001s offer the best opportunities if you find affordable ones, not so likely these days. 2004 is much more realistic with some great drinking wines if you like intense flavor and light bodies. And there are definite values still out there.
bill
 
originally posted by Brad L i l j e q u i s t:
A lamely eBobish question re Burgundy vintagesI'm curious what everyone's take is on various red Burg vintages for current drinking, recognizing of course these are generalizations. Here's mine:

85 Good now
88-93 Good now
95 Really too young and angular, even many village wines
96 Many are good, many are still closed or at least too young
97 Now
98 Some are ok now, but will get better, but generally still closed in
99 Many surprisingly open. 1ers and gc will get better, as will many village
00 One of the best vintages for current drinking, and surprisingly good
01 Too young
02 Too young
03 No clue and no interest
04 Some are actually fresh as early drinkers now, but will improve, and probably not close
05 Frighteningly tough, from top to bottom.

As I write this, I wonder - did we just post on this? Did I post on this?

Am I confused?
Click to expand...

88 Some yet need time
89 Past their best
91 Drinking well
92 Most wines probably past their best
93 Village wines drinking well, and some 1ers
94 Mostly past their best
95 Yes, too young
96 Mostly too young
 
Vintage is not the most important variable when choosing Burgundy, but I think Brad's generalisations are mostly good. I'd add that plenty of 85s have seen better days, there are lots of really enjoyable 86s and 87s, less ripe 88s are just beginning to get there , 89s tend to softness but still please, 90 I can't really generalise, most 91s are for current drinking except the top ones,good 92s are full of joy, 93 should be left, 94 is starting to show surprisingly well in some cases, 95 and 96 to be left, 97 seem to be improving from a low base, 98 has so many wines that I adore, my favourite young vintage at the moment, 99 to be left, 2000 is OK and at GC levels has some delights. The ones that are still good will get better, 01 closed or closing, 02 to be left, 03 I don't know, and of course anything after to be left.
Although I drink quite a lot of this stuff the sample size over the last year is still too small for this to be anything other than fun.
 
'98 is a vintage where the fanciest sites did much better. It's a tough vintage for lower level wines IME. But there are great wines.
 
I've been dipping into my stash of Bourgogne/village-level wines and have generally liked them, although I suspect the 1er will take a lot more time to smooth out. Am actually drinking a reasonably fresh, forward, slightly lean S. Esmonin Bourgogne tonight. Not too bad, and much better than the bottle last year.
 
well, thanks to Tom for mentioning 86s and 87s. There was a stretch, in the mid to late 1990s when you almost could not miss with the 87s, from the best producers, of course (vineyard classification seemed to be much less important ). But at this point, bottle variation will play a much bigger part.

Of all the vintages which I could have bought on release, thus making the cellar-and-drink exercise theoretically affordable, the one I want to be drinking right now is unquestionably 1991. I am a complete idiot for not buying enough of them or for drinking them too early ( or some combination of the two ). So, in the absence of sufficient 1991s in my cellar, I have naturally resigned myself to drinking the somewhat austere but otherwise electrifying 1998s.
 
Thinking about exquisite modest 98s from the last year or so the following spring to mind-
Maume, Bourgogne, Gevrey and En Pallud
Grivot Bourgogne
Fourrier MSD Clos Solon and Chambolle
Mugneret Bourgogne and Vosne
Laurent Bourgogne, Beaune, Gevrey and Chambolle
Lafarge Volnay
Bachelet Gevrey VV
Burguet Gevrey VV
Dujac Morey
Lamarche Hautes Cotes De Nuits
Lignier Morey
Barthod Chambolle

This vintage in such hands seems to have a particular cut and sapidity not found elsewhere, though it's only for food,of course, and not for those who prize de luxe rather than precise mouthfeel.
I think the thing about it only being good in the top sites was a misleading initial impression.
 
I think the thing about it only being good in the top sites was a misleading initial impression.
Click to expand...

But that's all SFJoe buys and drinks.

Sorry, could not resist :-)
 
These are my impressions so far:

85 Good to great now
88 Many good but some still tannicly brutal
90 Some good surprises, more for the hedonist than the terroirist
91 Many good and even great
93 Good now
95 Really too young and angular, even many village wines, though with some airtime several recent ones have opened nicely
96 Many are good, many are still closed or at least too young
97 For the hedonist but still nice
98 Many GCs are good to great, and some 1ers as well, lots of shrill acidity on the Villages - buy with the producer!
99 Many surprisingly open. 1ers and gc will get better, as will many village
00 One of the best vintages for current drinking, and surprisingly good
01 Drinking really well now, a fleshier version of the 1998s
02 Too young
03 Bleh for the most part
04 Some fresh as you said, but I can't get past those greenie meanies (I get them all the damn time)
05 Frighteningly tough, from top to bottom, though with decanting a 2005 Morot Beaune Toussaints was gorgeous this past weekend

Just my $0.20 (inflation).

Again, the old adage in Burgundy stands: buy the producer, not the year, but if you can get the two, hallelujah.
 
I really like the "green" in many 2004s. I think that's most likely to be viewed as a problem mostly if you have been drinking Cal pinot for the past five years. I think some of the 2004s have already gone through or are going through a phase like some 2004 Beaujolais went through - gorgeous early, a little green a year later, and then emerging with nice complexity. However the problem for the 2004s, as first pointed out by the VLM-TR (I am VERY sad to admit this), is that the alcohol levels in some of the wines make me wonder how those wines will age. I plan to drink even my few '04 Rousseau wines early.

I sold my '96s over the past 5-6 years.

The '97s I had aged fast.

I drank my 1998s. Unfortunately my local retailer (now defunct) got a bunch of cooked 98s so I think my results are more disappointing than that of many.

I am cautious about opening any 1999s now, other than villages wines. I suspect a very long aging curve.

I've almost finished off most of my 2000s. Nice early drinking vintage. Some did taste like they were from elsewhere and evolved quickly.

I love the 2001s (ok, maybe some hail-damaged areas weren't that great). Some great wines were made. (Btw, the Vissoux 2001 Cuvee Traditionelle would be in my top 5 of all-time favorite Beaujolais, too.)

I don't know about the 2002s yet. The better 2002 volnays were incredible young.

Disliked most 2003s I tried. Given prices, I didn't try many.

Hope i live to drink my 2005s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top