Wine Enthusiast 2020 Vintage Chart

I know you’ve all been anxiously awaiting the Wine Enthusiast 2020 vintage chart, so with no further ado, here it is:
https://253qv1sx4ey389p9wtpp9sj0-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Wine_Enthusiast_Vintage_Chart_2020.pdf?utm_source=vintage_chart_page&utm_medium=vintage_chart_pdf

For 2018, they have most of France a bit higher than I have read in other places and most of Cali a bit lower than I’ve read in other places.

I guess I prefer “off” vintages.

Everything made in the US from before 2010 is in decline / past peak??

I am really surprised Sonoma Pinot Noir wasnt scored higher. I was under the impression of it being a legendary growing season.

Looks like they weren’t that impressed with the 2013 or 2016 vintages in Barolo/Barbaresco. Seems like they were nice, but it seems like the WA is a bit “ho-hum” for a vintage that people from the region and tasters that I really respect are saying that it fantastic across the board.

SO many weird calls here. Let’s see, in red Bordeaux –

1998 right bank, possibly the best right bank vintage of the past two decades, is rated above average but not great, on par with 2008
2001 left bank rated equally to 2000 left bank. I like 2001 but come on.
2013 left bank, a horrible vintage, rated significantly better than 2002, on par with 1999, and just a hair lower than 2003 and 2004

In red Burgundy, 2003 rated 94 points, better than 1999 and just a hair behind 2010 (95 points)
Again in red Burgundy, 2005 rated below 2002 and 2009, and then 2015 rated above everything (best vintage of the past 25 years!)

In white Burgundy, which admittedly I am not expert on (who is these days), there are basically no bad vintages – last ten straight vintages, from 2009 to 2018, rated 94 to 96 and 2009 rated higher than 2014

In California cabernet there is the previously mentioned weirdness that everything older than 2010 “may be past prime”

I mean, it’s not random, the famous vintages are higher ranked than the so-called “off vintages”, but some very weird choices made when you look at the details here. Maybe in part the weirdness of trying to slap a single score on a whole vintage, but still.

What happened to South Africa??

2004 was an excellent vintage for Red Burgundy? Dunno about that one.

Not sure what you mean. It’s there, towards bottom of Southern Hemisphere section, red only which is a pity as recent whites are excellent.
Or is there something in the data?

I’m a bit of a dumbo, obviously, because I’ve never heard of these enthusiasts. I did look on their website but didn’t see any names I recognised either. So are they any good or should one just politely ignore them? I must say that I’ve never got the point of these vintage chart things anyway.

Oh, I see it now. Mendoza was divided out better, as it looked like it was part of Australia-NZ.

Yea … some of these calls are nonsensical. But I actually think this kind of info can be useful to someone who is not very familiar with a region, and looking to get started or sample. How do you begin before you are expert with WB, CT, WSPro and can take a look at Burghound, Vinous, etc.? This chart plus a conversation with a knowledgeable sales rep might not be a terrible beginning.

For folks on this board, this content is pretty much useless, or even worse than useless. Downright wrong or misleading. When I think about buying/drinking back vintage wine that I’m not very familiar with, I do find vintage analysis to be helpful, but only when combined with actual analysis, like I can read on the web sites I mention above. I don’t find ANY content on WE to be worth reading, or at all relevant to my wine experience.

Based on the title of this thread, I thought this was predictive, which would have been very, very impressive. The wine version of a Farmer’s Almanac.

LOL, missed that one. [wow.gif]

Vintage charts are about as nonsensical as drinking windows. The person who did this one obviously hasn’t drunk much 1999 red Burgundy.

I’m a bit surprised they rated the last 3 Mosel vintages the same.

Some of those Port vintage ratings are on the dubious side too.

I never paid much attention to Wine Enthusiast. Sounds like they badly missed a few calls here.

Prior to the internet, the only value of vintage charts was to improve the odds when choosing from a list of unknown wines in a restaurant. I used to keep the Spectator’s pocket version in my wallet when traveling. With availability of WB and CT on my phone, vintage charts are useless.

I have tasted pretty extensively, and they are all quite good, but for very different reasons.

I always thought Parker’s vintage chart was closer to census. If you look at the currently available WA chart (not WE) it makes more sense.