Nah...just disordered.85 Past prime...
What? No 87? A fleshy vintage that provided me with a few nice bottles, mostly consumed by 1996
88-93 88's I've never cared for (tannic and austere, rather hard)
89's were ripe and fleshy, but I would have consumed them by now.
90 took on a ripe roasted character, mirroring Bordeaux. Disappointed with most of what I had (but most of these were Guy Accad wines, too, so...)
91's were lovely and balanced
92 pass...
93's Delicious wines as well that are probably drinking nicely now,
if not beginning to go downhill
95 Really too young and angular, even many village wines [agree]
96 no experience with
97 Now [agree]
98 No experience yet - 1 bottle in the cellar
99 Many surprisingly open. [Yep. Excellent wines that never really shut down.
voluptuous vintage to my tastes]
00 One of the best vintages for current drinking, and surprisingly good
[Agree, but on the lighter side]
01 Too young [They've closed. Were alright first couple of years and then shut down hard]
02 Too young [closed now, as well]
03 No clue and no interest [Perfect year if you like Santa Rita pinot :)]
04 Drink now...they are not going to improve but will last longer than many people think.
05 Frighteningly tough, from top to bottom. [Oh yeah!! Cellar candidates.]
As I write this, I wonder - did we just post on this? Did I post on this?
Yes, and 'Thank You'.
Am I confused?
originally posted by Bill Bounds:
John,
Is your take on the 2005 Marechal Bourgogne that it is still too early for drinking? I bought all the 2002 Bourgogne that I could find; it was such a great drinking wine (although the last few bottles have been uneven). But the 2005 doesn't seem to drink very well. Am I just too impatient?
bill
I agree about how the 2005 is showing right now. I think it will be very good with some more time. We'll see. I am more optimistic about the 2005s than fatboy.
originally posted by .sasha:
Fascinating discussion regarding 2004.
I think we'll have to start a separate 2004 Burg thread as I plan on opening a few in the next few weeks to see what's going on. There's some good deals out there and I've picked a few things up that may warrant getting more to stash away. Some Trapet and a Chevillon "Vaucrains". I was impressed with the village Chambolle-Musigny from Roumier when I had it a few months ago.originally posted by scottreiner:
originally posted by .sasha:
Fascinating discussion regarding 2004.
recently i've been drinking a lot of rollin 04 pernand-vergelesses. the basic villages is so beautiful now. feminine with such delicate fruit. an absolute pleasure.
originally posted by .sasha:
I agree about how the 2005 is showing right now. I think it will be very good with some more time. We'll see. I am more optimistic about the 2005s than fatboy.
I had the pleasure of facing his Fatness on the opposite side of a table last night, and unless the 92 chardonnay from Brundlmayer had completely messed up my powers of comprehension, he has nothing against the vintage other than the fact that he does not plan to be around long enough to enjoy it
originally posted by .sasha:
Fascinating discussion regarding 2004. I might get a chance to taste a whole bunch by end of February, will report if I do.
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by .sasha:
Fascinating discussion regarding 2004. I might get a chance to taste a whole bunch by end of February, will report if I do.
Are you in the D.C. are, .sasha? Need a tasting assistant? Will work for pours.
It's widely (and correctly IMO) considered the worst red wine vintage since 1984, without any competition. Nevertheless, there were good wines made -- I just didn't think they would last this long. But recently in Burgundy I had affirmatively good 1994 Pommard-Rugiens from de Montille and 1994 Mercurey Montets from de Villaine. There's more to these vintages than meets the eye -- from the right producers.originally posted by Bwood:
The '94 Prieur-Roch wines are pretty decent now.
And '94 is widely considered the worst vintage in the last 15 years.
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
It's widely (and correctly IMO) considered the worst red wine vintage since 1984, without any competition. Nevertheless, there were good wines made -- I just didn't think they would last this long. But recently in Burgundy I had affirmatively good 1994 Pommard-Rugiens from de Montille and 1994 Mercurey Montets from de Villaine. There's more to these vintages than meets the eye -- from the right producers.originally posted by Bwood:
The '94 Prieur-Roch wines are pretty decent now.
And '94 is widely considered the worst vintage in the last 15 years.
Heavy rain in the middle of September. Lots of problems both with rot and with unripe grapes.originally posted by Bwood:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
It's widely (and correctly IMO) considered the worst red wine vintage since 1984, without any competition. Nevertheless, there were good wines made -- I just didn't think they would last this long. But recently in Burgundy I had affirmatively good 1994 Pommard-Rugiens from de Montille and 1994 Mercurey Montets from de Villaine. There's more to these vintages than meets the eye -- from the right producers.originally posted by Bwood:
The '94 Prieur-Roch wines are pretty decent now.
And '94 is widely considered the worst vintage in the last 15 years.
What made 1994 such a tough vintage for producers?
originally posted by Cole Kendall:
Just had a 96 Mugnier Chambolle-Fuees tonight and it was open for business. A recent conversation with Maureen indicated that many 96s are fine now and this was a confirming data point.
Cole