Underrated Burgundy Vintages

What will we see as underrated in time?

For me: 07, 12, 14, 17

I think 2013, which people were almost talking about as being as bad as 2011 but IME has a lot more substance than some were claiming initially. 2012 and 2014, especially 2012, got some love on release even though they weren’t seen as top vintages.

Interesting question whether either 2015 or 2016 will eventually be seen as either over or under rated as compared to 2009-2010 (which I think are pretty clearly established now as terrific vintages).

My feeling about recent vintages is this. 1999, 2005 (I hope) and 2010 are the great vintages. 2004 is a poor vintage and 2003 and 2011 are very uneven. Everything else since at least 1999 is at least pretty good, although they can be stylistically very different from each other. How to rank these vintages depends on what I have had lately. I probably have less confidence in what I have said above about where to fit in vintages 2015-2017 because they are so young (and none in 2018 or 2019 as I have not tasted any). Very young vintages tend to jump around a bit (for example, 2000 and 2007 turned out much better than I would have thought from the first time I tasted them; 2006 is probably less good than I thought it would be). I would have confidence that each of vintages 2015-2017 is at least pretty good, but where to rank them, I don’t know yet.

2012-14 for sure. All three are very good but somehow have gotten lost behind 09/10/15/16

2012 in particular. It’s a legitimate great vintage that I feel has gotten lost in the shuffle.

2014 is up there as well, and 2013 is a sleeper that can still occasionally be found for reasonable pricing.

Also 2009 in light of initial concerns re overripeness. But it’s not really underrated because opinion seems to have shifted and they’ve become rightly celebrated and are getting quite pricey (and harder to find).

1988

Yeah I think 13 is going to end up being pretty good and hope so as I have quite a lot of it. I don’t think it’s underrated, though, as I think most ppl thought it’d be good but not great. 12 may end up being better than 09 or 15 for those who prefer leaner wines (compared to those two vintages)

I am not as widely experienced as others on this thread I’m sure (have financial limitations to exploring the peaks of Burgundy), but in my limited experience 2009 belongs on the great vintages list too. As Ryan mentioned it has shed some of its puppy fat and revealed excellent structure under the fruit, while still retaining a vintage signature of great fruit.

2014 in red is super classic and transparent to me. Good acidity, well structured, but not notably ripe or monolithic like the 15s/05s. Love the wines, and pricing tends to be favorable compared to other recent vintages.

The 17 reds are beautiful now, but I think will age well too. Great complexity of fruit, and like the 14s they are generally true to place

I don’t think 2009 is a great vintage; it’s solid and currently pretty open, but the wines are definitely on the plusher side of the spectrum and even some really good producers made wines with a bit of heat on them.

I’m less confident making that call on 2005, as I have some concerns that it might go the way of 96 (though I really hope I’m wrong). I also think 2016 is a great vintage, personally.

What’s happening with the 96 vintage? I haven’t been buying Burgs for that long.

I’m very, very bullish on ‘16. But there’s so little of it out there.

A lot of them are tasting really good right about now but a lot of people drank them too young.

I don’t agree with that assessment at all. We had an accidental 96 horizontal a few weeks back with bottlers of Chevillon, d’Angerville and Roumier; some of those bottles had good noses, but all had impenetrable walls of acidity on the palate; none were even remotely close to being finished.

1 Like

Enough, I think, since the hype mostly went to 15, which I think is overrated.

With that set of preferences you’d think you’d be all over 13.

Difficult, but I would always say buy producer before vintage.

In regards to weaker vintages. I have had very tasty 2011 and 2013 recently, e.g. Vosne Beau from JJ confuron and Clos de la Roche from moine.

I have had many disappointing top vintages burgundies, simply too young. I actually think I drink Grand Cru too early, and store too little volume village wine, as they can be amazing much earlier.

FWIW in relation to whites I reckon 2013s might be a real bolster. Very early days of course.

I’m not sure that the ratings are likely to be that for off for many of these vintages. Looking at professional reviewers, 2011 and 2013 are not considered horrible, just inconsistent, which may turn out to be right. 2007 is an oddity because many here have seen the wines give a lot of pleasure in the last decade, and yet it’s lower on the reviewers charts. I think this is explained by the age worthiness of these wines, or lack thereof. Critics tend to give structured vintages higher ratings. 2012 is fairly highly rated, justifiably in my experience. 2014 doesn’t get the highest rating, but it’s one that Meadows has continued to push over the years for its classicism.

2006 perhaps is underrated. Low scores from critics but I adore the bottles I’ve been opening (2006 Mugnier Clos de la Marechale recently, e.g.). The jury is out on 2017 but I found the wines at La Paulee this year to be excellent - deep, structured, with lots of life ahead of them.

For those worried about 2005, please dump your wines on me! Just did a tasting with a handful of 1ers and they were consistently worthy of praise. Youthful sure, and could be more open, but showing lots of yumminess now and depth for the future.

I think 2017 is really lovely and will be achingly beautiful wines with time. We’ll miss years like 17 now that we have three straight years of hotter, riper wines to contend with afterwards.