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

OK, i'll bite. But since I cannot afford grand cru, I am rating Village/1 er crus here.

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?
Nah...just disordered.
 
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
 
Fascinating discussion regarding 2004. I might get a chance to taste a whole bunch by end of February, will report if I do.

There are some differing opinions expressed here with respect to individual vintages, but I think they are all valid, as people seem to align their interpretation of the vintages with their personal tastes in a most reasonable fashion. If I had to caution in one area though, despite personal taste considerations, it would be concerning the 1999s. I just have trouble believing we've seen anything from those wines yet. Plenty of extract which may give some superficial pleasure now, but I think what we'll get at the end of the day is totally hidden now.

And I see 1986 is not on the list. Had a stunning Meo-Camuzet Vosne Brulee last night. Thank you, fatboy :)
 
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.
 
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
 
I completely agree with .sasha on 99, a vintage evolving even at bourgogne level at a glacial pace. The ones that it's possible to drink with pleasure are those yet to close.
 
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 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.
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 .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

Hmmm, yeah, that might be fairly close to my memory of his explication of his '05 theory. Thinking that the wines might take decades to come around, but to me he seemed on the fence about whether they would even with decades of waiting. Of course he was primarily advancing his fattheory that people would be pouring '05s down their fatsinks for decades to come, and I had consumed quite a bit of wine by the time I heard the complete digression. So who knows what was really said.

Maybe he will give us some more detail in this thread.
 
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.
 
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.

unfortunately, I am not. But I might be next year, as I am keeping my fingers crossed for a Kabinett appointment.

OK, that was really lame.

they usually drag me away to these huge burgundy tastings, don't know where for sure - i am blindfolded during the entire trip, but i think it's somewhere in the north because it usually gets cold after a few hours of travel

and i have to choose between a blue and red pill, too, when i get there
 
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
 
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 Bwood:
The '94 Prieur-Roch wines are pretty decent now.

And '94 is widely considered the worst vintage in the last 15 years.
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 Claude Kolm:
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.
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.

What made 1994 such a tough vintage for producers?
 
I recently had a 94 Chateau de la Tour Clos Vougeout VV that I was convinced would be great, but it was God-awful. But I understand what I was dealing with.
 
originally posted by Bwood:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
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.
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.

What made 1994 such a tough vintage for producers?
Heavy rain in the middle of September. Lots of problems both with rot and with unripe grapes.
 
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

A 1996 Barthod Beaux-Bruns in September was still not there, but had made a bit of progress. Enough for me to feel OK about other bottles.

1996 Cornu Bressandes is showing pretty well and good bottles of Courcel Epenots can be very good now.

Has anyone had 1996 Lignier Baudes or Morey 1er VV lately? I have just 1 or 2 bottles of each and was thinking about diving in.
 
Back
Top