What's up with Wine Spectator's red Burgundy vintage charts?

I was recently reading the new one with Carmelo on the cover and a feature on 2018 burgs. I was struck by how off the vintage chart seems vis-a-vis collector perceptions. Am I missing something? I view 2010 as a top notch structured vintage that is head and shoulders above the others here except possibly 2009. These ratings just seem out of whack and, although I’ve never viewed WS as having the pulse of more serious enthusiasts, it’s surprising.

Cotes de Nuits Reds
2017 94 Drink or hold Balanced, fresh and approachable wines with purity; the best have the structure to age 20 years
2016 97 Drink or hold Fresh, juicy and elegant, revealing dark fruit flavors; spring frosts drastically reduced yields in some areas
2015 98 Drink or hold Spring rains offset the hot, dry summer, resulting in lush and ripe yet balanced reds at all levels
2014 95 Drink or hold Juicy cherry and berry flavors, with freshness and tension; lower alcohol. The best have added depth and energy
2013 92 Drink or hold Low yields resulted in crisp, light-bodied Pinot Noirs with vibrant acidity and ripe fruit flavors
2012 95 Drink or hold Dense, concentrated reds, with pure fruit, elegance and freshness; the best should age very well
2011 91 Drink or hold Elegant, perfumed wines, with vibrant acidity, pure fruit and juicy textures for near- to medium-term enjoyment
2010 94 Drink or hold Ripe fruit and tannins, with vivid acidity; vibrant, charming reds with balance and focus
2009 95 Drink or hold Charming and fluid, with ripe, pure fruit; some wines soft, overripe, for early drinking

Cotes de Beaune Reds
2017 93 Drink or hold A good crop following the previous vintage’s frost; fruity, balanced and charming reds
2016 94 Drink or hold The best are better than 2015, but tiny yields where frost hit; elegant and expressive, vibrant and juicy
2015 95 Drink or hold Ripe and fleshy, with some assertive tannins in the wines from areas where hail struck the previous three vintages
2014 92 Drink or hold Third consecutive year of hail resulted in low yields, yet the best are complex, juicy and ageable
2013 89 Drink or hold A more challenging harvest due to hail, with tiny yields in the affected areas and some wines with dry tannins
2012 91 Drink or hold Less consistency than Côte de Nuits due to hail, resulting in less harmony and finesse overall, with some surprises
2011 90 Drink or hold Open and charming wines, full of pure aromas and flavors of red fruits and spice
2010 91 Drink or hold Fruity, ripe and vibrant; more rain than Côte de Nuits, so quality is less consistent
2009 93 Drink or hold Charming and fluid, with ripe, pure fruit; some wines soft, overripe for early drinking

I’ve noticed two things with WS’s vintage ratings:

  1. They are contemporaneous with the release of the vintage and thus don’t reflect how opinions change over the years as the wines evolve (positively or negatively).
  2. General inflation just like with ratings of individual wines.

Doesn’t feel too far off from my limited experience. Maybe 2011 is a bit high, but then again, there are some lovely 2011’s out there

I like how everything is “Drink or hold”.
You have to understand WS is a trade publication and they want you to consume. It is not in their (or their advertisers) interests to sit out a vintage.

Those seem reasonable to me, even if I don’t entirely agree with them. It’s not like a dinner a few years back where a somm waxed poetic about the great 2011 red burgundy vintage and my friend and I looked at each other the way my dog usually looks at me.

One important thing to consider about all WS ratings is their California palates. They started out loving big fruit forward wines, and as new reviewers were signed up, the tastes fit in with group.
They profess to enjoy a wide variety of wines, and often praise “elegance”, but overall their bias comes out. It is not surprising that they prefer the '09s over the '10s.

Nothing really wrong with preferring 15 over 16 or 09 over 10.

Not wrong. It is just always useful to know the preferences of critics as a reference point.

A dumb look without much emotion?

They rate 2010 as a slightly below average CdN vintage over the last decade. 2009, 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2016 are all rated higher and 2017 is rated equally. So that puts 2010 in a tie for 6th out of the last 10 vintages (they rated 2018 a 93). That seems kind of weird to me, it doesn’t seem weird to you?

Not much different here:
https://253qv1sx4ey389p9wtpp9sj0-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Wine_Enthusoast_Vintage_Chart_2021.pdf

I think it’s weird people are taking WS seriously.

1 Like

Tilted head, confused stare.