1999 Burgundies at their Peak?

[Ian_Sutton]

@Ken V

@Ian Sutton

@Karl K

I get John’s general point about wine reviewers.

That’s why it’s good to have ones like William!

I’d like him a whole lot more if he didn’t have an avatar in the form of my gardening nemesis

Wow, you must be really slow if you can’t catch a snail.

True, but they (and the slugs) seem to reproduce faster than I can encourage them on their path towards becoming Buddhist monks. We’re wondering whether we can offer the chooks next door some additional free range dining opportunities.

[Fred_C]

@William Kelley

@Fred C

Looking through my notes and current notes on CT, Bouchard MP, Pierre Morey MP, Bouchard La Cabotte, and Raveneau Valmur were underwhelming and on the decline. My Leflaive notes have been consistently good. Really liked a 99 Coche Enseigneres.

Jean-François Coche likes it a lot and draws certain comparisons between it and 2008, another favorite of his.

I guess the appraisal of the 1999 white Burgundies simply came in an era when wines were scored more conservatively. If you juxtapose notes and scores you could easily conclude that, e.g. 2009 was the better year.

It is interesting that you picked 09 as a comparison. Don Cornwell shared with us Jean-Marc Roulot’s take on 2010 vs 2009 Meursault:

“2009 grapes are cleaner and healthier than 2010 and, if not harvested too late, 2009 can show very a classic example of the appellation (it sometimes reminds me 1999).”

[Jayson_Cohen]

1999 was a very highly regarded white Burgundy vintage on release, the alleged best since 1996 (better in some ways) and the alleged best until 2002. Many wines showed well very young but seemed to have the structure to age. It was only later that premox was discovered and came to the fore. If your reference points years later in hindsight are “scores”, you are entirely missing the actual history as it unfolded.

Only looking back has 2000, largely overlooked and considered too soft and early drinking around release, emerged as a very good year, with wines not affected by premox drinking very well now. Beautifully structured and transparent.

Re: the reds they were not so expensive in retrospect. I bought a number in Europe within a year of release, and prices for those in particular were not so bad. I also bought in the US and while they seemed expensive at the time, the premium for 1999 after 1998 was not so great in today’s terms. I’m still waiting on my 1999 reds. No hurry.

[R_Frankel]

Agreed on ‘99s I have opened in the last year - not at peak, or indeed near it. I’m not even sure they will be at peak in 5 years, or 10. Probably they will be good then, but better to my palate even further out.

[Dan_Samsoe]

A recent 99 Simon Bize Fourneaux was very good. I’m not sure that wine will improve with more age. Other 99s I’ve tried are still in need of more time.

[Gerhard_P]

@Mark Golodetz

I was surprised by this comment by Steve Tanzer in Vinous:

“While many of the ‘99s I sampled with the producers this winter in the course of my tastings of ‘16s and ‘15s have gone through sullen stages in bottle, most of them have launched into their periods of peak drinkability.”

This is not what I have been experiencing. The major wines are a long way from being ready, and even village wines are barely out of diapers. In fact, I have not found one premier/grand cru which would not benefit from another decade plus of cellaring. In fact, it is a feature of the vintage’s quality that they remain so backward after nearly twenty years.

Mark, I agree with you.
Yes, there are a few wines that can be called “kind if mature” … some (but not most) Village wines, some 1er crus from “lesser” producers and/or “easier” sites … but the better wines are still not very developed reg. tertiaer aromatics and usually also quite structured. In most cases 5-10 additional years - and they will be where most 1993s and 1990s are now … (although different).

[Peter_Papay]

Aforementioned seems to be in line with my experience from last week. Maison Roche de Bellene Meursault started to show tertiary notes although primary, predominantly citrus based with pleasant tartness, still prevailed. Would not be surprised to see this go for several more years to reach perfect balance.

Premox is a significant issue and can not be ignored. The same wine few months back, different bottle(obviously), was filled to the rim with TCA. It sometimes is the luck of a draw, last week we were on top, next time …

[Robert_Grenley]

@William Kelley

@c fu

@Fred C

White burg yes.

Red burg still barely waking from the most recent sullen stage.

Don’t even think white burgs are

It’s turning out to be a really underrated white vintage. Ramonet’s BBM and, I guess it goes without saying, Coche’s CC were both stunning last month.

Interestingly, my 99 Ramonets, Batard and Ruchottes, were premoxed long ago…every bottle. I had heard somewhere that Ramonet had a “problem” with his 99’s in relation to premox, particularly with those two wines. And yet my friend Rick, who had his 99 Ramonets shipped over from the Caveau in Burgundy back then, every one of his has been pristine, including a Ruchottes opened recently that was glorious. Not sure what this means, other than it is puzzling to me and pisses me off.

[Stuart_BeauneHead_Niemtzow]

Almost all wines of both colors in 1999 were overly or highly cropped.

Lots of wine went out the backdoors of the domaines that couldn’t be legally labeled, as a result of the yields. The alternative was the distilliery.

I know, as I bought some in white from a fairly reknowned producer there. He even gave me papers to cover the transgression. A funny experience, indeed. All cash.

[chetkern]

A vintage with a nearly record amount of days with sunshine. This did not serve the whites particularly well, and yes Boney is correct re the huge quantities of wine both red and white harvested.

[William_Kelley]

@Jayson Cohen

1999 was a very highly regarded white Burgundy vintage on release, the alleged best since 1996 (better in some ways) and the alleged best until 2002. Many wines showed well very young but seemed to have the structure to age. It was only later that premox was discovered and came to the fore. If your reference points years later in hindsight are “scores”, you are entirely missing the actual history as it unfolded.

Only looking back has 2000, largely overlooked and considered too soft and early drinking around release, emerged as a very good year, with wines not affected by premox drinking very well now. Beautifully structured and transparent.

I guess my point was that, now that some time has passed, 1999 is relatively underrated / neglected today.

Of course, given the incidence of premox, defining ‘underrated’ might well be tricky…

[Peter_Kleban]

Back to the reds: just loved this one (in 2014, actually I had one in 2013 too and liked it as well)

• 1999 Robert Ampeau & Fils Volnay 1er Cru Santenots - France, Burgundy, Côte de Beaune, Volnay 1er Cru (3/15/2014)

---

C: Red-brown
P: Just beautiful–elegance, interest, length, balance, depth and lightness all at once. No tannins, heat or acidity. Impeccably made. Gorgeous.

Posted from CellarTracker

[Stuart_BeauneHead_Niemtzow]

I guess my point was that, now that some time has passed, 1999 is relatively underrated / neglected today.

I think, '99 like many such vintages…is only “neglected” today because it still is asleep for the most part. And, I don’t think it’s “underrated”; it’s held in high esteem by most people , especially in red, I think. Maybe more than it deserves given the obscene yields. TBD. But, I’m optimistic on the “ritzier” reds…

[mark_rudner]

a louis latour grancey from last weekend was glorious albeit still a bit primary
was a perfectly stored bottle from release

[paul_hanna]

We drink quite a lot of GC '99 reds, as it is a benchmark vintage that we almost always see in any line up of wines from the last 20 plus years, and always blind of course.

The wines look great, always have, because they are great.

Almost never dissapoint (I can’t really ever remember saying - that’s the '99, wow, what an ordinary wine), and they usually are pretty easy to pick, generally being the most dark, dense and still usually closed up.

Most GC’s I have had really need 10 years plus still before you could even really consider them to be in their “drinking window”.

So unless Tanzer is drinking village or lower level wines, and that’s what he is referring to, I’d say he has NFI, as usual.

[Marcus_Dean]

@paul hanna

We drink quite a lot of GC '99 reds, as it is a benchmark vintage that we almost always see in any line up of wines from the last 20 plus years, and always blind of course.

The wines look great, always have, because they are great.

Almost never dissapoint (I can’t really ever remember saying - that’s the '99, wow, what an ordinary wine), and they usually are pretty easy to pick, generally being the most dark, dense and still usually closed up.

Most GC’s I have had really need 10 years plus still before you could even really consider them to be in their “drinking window”.

So unless Tanzer is drinking village or lower level wines, and that’s what he is referring to, I’d say he has NFI, as usual.

You are correct,
But Tanzer does cover his ass on the notes for individual wines by pretty much admitting that they need another decade, as usual it’s encoded in double speak

[Stuart_BeauneHead_Niemtzow]

So unless Tanzer is drinking village or lower level wines, and that’s what he is referring to, I’d say he has NFI, as usual.

Paul, that implies that the villages/bourgognes mature more quickly. I do not think so, though they are often sacrificed as canaries in the mines…or because people believe that…or the cost makes the risk more palatable. To me, they mature just as slowly…they just have different potentials when they are mature. Theoretically.

[Robert_Grenley]

@Marcus Dean

@paul hanna

We drink quite a lot of GC '99 reds, as it is a benchmark vintage that we almost always see in any line up of wines from the last 20 plus years, and always blind of course.

The wines look great, always have, because they are great.

Almost never dissapoint (I can’t really ever remember saying - that’s the '99, wow, what an ordinary wine), and they usually are pretty easy to pick, generally being the most dark, dense and still usually closed up.

Most GC’s I have had really need 10 years plus still before you could even really consider them to be in their “drinking window”.

So unless Tanzer is drinking village or lower level wines, and that’s what he is referring to, I’d say he has NFI, as usual.

You are correct,
But Tanzer does cover his ass on the notes for individual wines by pretty much admitting that they need another decade, as usual it’s encoded in double speak

Well, when Tanzer wrote: “While many of the ‘99s I sampled with the producers this winter in the course of my tastings of ‘16s and ‘15s have gone through sullen stages in bottle, most of them have launched into their periods of peak drinkability”, he may not have meant that the wines have reached their peak, but instead that most of them are finally just entering a window of drinkability after a very long wait. That does not mean that many of them might not benefit from further time, as his individual notes on the better wines state. I think his use of the word “peak” in this sentence was not a good one, and it’s implication is not supported by all of the notes that follow, which would lead me to believe that he did not mean that they have reached their peak as we usually understand the term to be used. But, whatever, the notes are the meat of the article.