Though I can’t really argue about these vintages, without some criteria of what we are talking about, I remain very interested in the effects of the high overcropping in 1999, especially at the lower levels of the hierarchy and the CdBeaune. Too many winemakers seemed concerning by this at the time the vintage was in barrel and before to ignore the issue. Of course, the top wines would be less affected. And, I’ve really like the 3-4 '99s I’ve opened in 2018. So, I remain curious.
FWIW, I have been becoming less and less impressed with 2001, based on the ones I’ve had since last year.I don’t find them that concentrated…and…they are seeming to mature quicker than I had expected. Anyone else thinking about 2001 recently?
Complete opposite with me. Recently had an 01 Hubert Lignier MSD that was stellar. The grand crus I’m finding are still in a closed phase from Dujac CDLR and CSD to Rousseau Beze. DRC Ech and RSV are open for business while the others still seem closed (sample size of only 1-2). Plenty of fruit and structure left in them so I don’t think it’s a matter of tannins outlasting the fruit yet.
I’m also loving the whites that aren’t premoxed. Especially Roulot.
I believe this is the definition of irony. Me telling Stuart he needs to give his wines more time.
I think the idea behind a 99-02-05 dinner could be really fun…all close together and all strong vintages. If we wait a few years I’d be happy to throw in some of my 02’s or 05’s for something around the Boston area.
I personally don’t think 02 fits with the others. A 99, 05, 10 tasting makes more sense, but best to do in 10 or 15 years. A 90, 99, 05 tasting makes some sense in 5 years, but I’d almost rather use 93 than 90.
Not sure I would put 1990 in even the same tier as ‘99. 1999 is great from top to bottom as Jeremy reports; there is a significant number of 1990s that have been disappointing
Agree 93s in general are longer lived than 90, but I think Alan and Fred were referring to a La Tache tasting of 90-99-05 vintages. The 90 La Tache is a stunning wine and and was better than the 93 the one time I tasted them side by side. I’ve only tasted the 90 twice and both times it was amazing, but would love to try it alongside 99 and 05.
We had a 1er Cru tasting of many 1999 Vosne few years ago. Nice wines albeit very young. OTOH, few 1999 GCs such as Dujac CdlR and Rousseau CdB looked super open ( although they would go on for decades) .
While normally i buy lots of village (and lower) according to CT of the 30 cases of 1999 red burgs I bought only about one case was village. I suspect, however, that some “lesser” 1999s were simply already consumed before I transitioned from a hand written inventory system to CT. In any event i have drunk all of my bachelet gevrey, roumier chambolle and MG vosne so we will have to drink premier cru when you are next in dc.
The interesting thing is when 1999 came out, and growers were asked, they mentioned that it was very good possibly a great vintage, but the harvest was enormous, and the wines might end up a little dilute. Have not seen it, but i have not tasted many village wines, where I would expect to see it.
Are the 05s in any position to be evaluated? It would surprise me if one could learn a great deal from opening them now, and certainly it would seem to be an unfair competition with earlier vintages that have really begun to stretch their legs
While normally i buy lots of village (and lower) according to CT of the 30 cases of 1999 red burgs I bought only about one case was village. I suspect, however, that some “lesser” 1999s were simply already consumed before I transitioned from a hand written inventory system to CT. In any event i have drunk all of my bachelet gevrey, roumier chambolle and MG vosne so we will have to drink premier cru when you are next in dc.
I don’t have much at all either. A couple bottles each of Roumier and Mugnier Chambolle left.
Not that I have noticed. But, Jeremy drinks a lot of Burgundy and I cannot imagine that Jeremy’s views are based purely on this tasting. Thus, the posts by others on how can one reach this conclusion based solely on DRC, Rousseau and Leroy are way off base.
I know that when I first tasted 1999s young, I thought it was the best vintage of Burgundy I had ever tasted young. This would include vintages like 1985, 1990 and 1993, but not 1978, which I did not taste young. Today, I still absolutely love the 1999s, but at least very young my favorite vintage ever has become 2010. I hope to spend my later years drinking 1999s, 2005s, and 2010s and arguing with friends about which is the best because they are all truly great vintages.
In the last year, my Truchot Bourgogne Rouge has finally gotten to a point where it is mature and drinking really well. I have not tasted much else in the way of 2005 Burgundy where I could make that statement.
By the way, I am really enjoying drinking a lot of 2001s right now. I am not really disappointed that they are tasting pretty mature at 17 years old. One that I have tasted recently that is not mature and needs at least five more years is the Rossignol-Trapet Chambertin, although their Latricieres is really in a good place right now.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}