Not sure why you say '02 doesn’t “fit” with the others???
To my taste and criteria (accross the board , at all levels)…only 2005 is a better vintage than 2002…of those I tasted at the wineries…(2006 being the last one.)
Also…though, maybe/perhaps/possibly some of the heights 1993 reached are better…than 1990…I remain of the opinion that 1993 needs to be carefully chosen…especially below the grand cru levels.
So, I’m curious what you’re implying…?
Love both the information and the light razzing going on in this thread ![[grin.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/5/53ba06e9b6e4b370ae7e3d7b3702ad1bda0a2d8e.gif "grin"){kind=small}
Of your 3 vintages, Howard, I’ve had much more 05 and 10. I like 05 and absolutely adore 2010. I wish I could go back in a time machine and have more 99s, for sure. I am one who also has thoroughly enjoyed 2001 for both red and white burg.
If you’ve done this in a different/previous thread, Jeremy, apologies for the next question, but your greatest white burg vintage? Curious to know!
Maluhia
Mike
I like many wines from 2002, but agree that it is not in the same bracket as 1999 and 2005. I think if I could find a word that summarizes the vintage, it would be “easy” pretty wines that are friendly but not profound or terroir driven.
Agree with your assessment on 02 with 1 exception that I know of: the 02 Dujac CSD is gorgeous, profound, and has the structure to improve even more.
Dujac CSD is almost always gorgeous (prefer to CDR almost all the time) , but when we did a vertical of around 20 vintages, it was as I said pleasant enough but slightly lost in all the complexity around it. In fact, it was one of my data points when I made the comment about the vintage.
I think the 2002s I’ve had in the last year are anything but “easy” or not “terroir driven”…ie, anonymous pinot noir. Until 2005 it was the best (and most delicious) vintage I’d ever tasted in barrel…with incredible finishes and good structure showing. (And, I tasted 1990 and 1999 in barrels and early in bottles, as well as 2005.) For it’s time, 1979-1990) 1990 was an amazing vintage. IMO , it still is…and one is always, reliably a treat: both complex and delicious. Some of the winemakers still think 1990 is the greatest vintage of their careers…even after 2005.
Don’t take this to mean that I dislike 1999 in any way, particularly. I’ve been holding off on it, but the ones I’ve had, particuarly the 1er crus…have been lovely. Of course, my buying was not random…and I tasted in barrel all I bought…so…I evened the odds a bit.
But…for me…2002 is a super exciting vintage…so different…and so much potential. A fruit character as appealing as any vintage I’ve tasted young.
We shall see. Again, I don’t make my vintage assessments on grand crus. They are “grand crus” because they do well in almost every year. So, we are likely talking about different criteria here.
Best white vintage for me is a little trickier. I base my thoughts on Côte de Beaune and Chablis combined.
From older vintages I have had wonderful bottles from ’47, ’62, ’73, ’78 and the early ‘80’s but I have not drunk enough from any of these vintages to form an experienced opinion.
I really like ‘88’s and have had some excellent ‘90’s. ’92 is a vintage that I admire very much and despite the botrytis, or maybe because of the botrytis, the wines still drink very well today. The ’92 Coche CC is one of the greatest wines I have had and Raveneau’s ‘92’s are awesome. I didn’t buy many ‘93’s but Leflaive’s ’93 Monty is probably the best white I have had. ‘96’s in both CdB and Chablis are scintillating when not oxidised. I quite like ‘95’s and ‘99’s in the CdB for their richness and depth.
Now for the shortlist. I simply love ’00 in the CdB and Chablis. ’02 is very good in both. I also love ’07 in both and ’08 is also very good in both. On release I thought ’07 had the edge over ’08, over time I reckon ’08 may be slightly more consistent. ’10 in both was brilliant on release. I now find that there is a bit of botrytis in the CdB wines showing and they can be a little heavier than I thought they would show at age 8. ’11 is drinking wonderfully well from the CdB but I generally dislike this vintage in Chablis. ’13 is a sleeper in the CdB and very good but Chablis is just ok. Now to ’14. 2014 is the most brilliant young vintage for white Burgundy in the CdB and Chablis. I rate it alongside 2000 as my favourite white vintage from the past 30 years.
+1
+1
Agreed. 2002 was the vintage that turned me on to Burgundy. I can’t afford to drink the famous grand crus so I may not have the overall perspective, but I’ve always found 2002 to be a wonderful and charming vintage. It isn’t a formidable, imposing, majestic vintage like 99/05/10 but it’s beautifully ingratiating and draws you in while still having a sneaky depth and complexity to it.
It’s ok for folks to love the 2002 wines. They have wonderful high toned fruit. But for me they lack the lower registers that help complete the vry best years like 99, 05, and 10. I also find a certain “sameness” to the wines. Nonetheless I certainly enjoy them.
1990’s were absolutely delicious young. Now I find a background raisiny quality to a lot of wines which downgrades the vintage overall fir me.
Yes, 1999 is better than 1990. At least a few years back and probably more so today. TN’s from 3 years ago.
DRC 1999 - A complete horizontal tasting at Franzén, 14th of November, 2015.
vs.
DRC 1990 - An almost complete horizontal tasting at home, 4th of December, 2015. This rare opportunity emerged thru a wine tasting society in Stockholm. These wines were bought on release at our stately owned monopoly in November of 1993, and has never been moved since then.
1999 DRC Echézeaux
Ripe, elegant and dark fruit scented, with tar and dried flowers, vanilla beans and toasty oak. Silky and sleek on the palate with grippy tannins, sweet red berries and the feeling of forest floor on an autumn walk adding complexity, this is long, spicy and rewarding, dry and exotic with severe length. Stunning. 95 p.
1990 DRC Echézeaux
Decadent and almost Syrah-like with its opulent smokiness and allspice aromas, hinting at well-aged beef stock and dying violet flowers. Medium-bodied on the palate with sweet, grainy tannins, spicy Christmas cake flavors, partially dried dark berries and a salty, sexy Soy sauce addition on the finish, where alcohol sadly shines thru. Still very, very impressive. 93 p.
1999 DRC Grands Echézeaux
Slightly volatile on the nose at first with red berries, dried flowers, somewhat subdued and not very expressive, with gentle vinegary overtones, slowly escaping with aeration. The palate is medium-bodied and still tight with dried fruit and heat shining thru on the finish. Spicy, unripe red berries take center stage on the close, which lacks intensity but rewards black pepper fanatics. Initially, I wrote NR, but after two hours in the glass, its wonderfully elegant and graceful, but most likely not showing its best. 92 p.
1990 DRC Grands Echézeaux
N/A
1999 DRC Romanée St Vivant
Complex and ripe, this is dark fruited, laced with minerality, integrated oak showing mocca, bitter chocolate and underbrush aromatics. Medium-bodied, fresh and elegant, this is spicy, positively dry and doubtlessly mineral-driven, still tannic and youthful, revealing red berries, true elegance and great length on the lovely finale. Give it a few more years. 95+ p.
1990 DRC Romanée St Vivant
Beautiful on the nose; this stunningly pure yet rich, fruity and mature nose is classic with its red berry profile and complex herbaceous additions. The complex nose flows gracefully into an elegant and refined palate with strict tannins and refreshing acidity, where dried summer berries expands greatly on the savory finish. 95 p.
1999 DRC Richebourg
Exotically spicy and sweet on the inviting nose, where toasty oak, red licorice, ripe dark and red berries intermingle with freshly ground coffee notes. Almost full-bodied, loaded with spice and concentrated dark fruits, cinnamon, vanilla and fragrant peppers; very complex, long and layered, this is dry and demanding, showing Indian spice and strong, sweet tannins on the finish. Best from 2022. 98+ p.
1990 DRC Richebourg
Exotic and sweet spice dominated, with fading flowers and amazing forest floor aromas; lovely! Fresh, elegant, still holding serious structure, where cherries, tart peppers, complete dryness and chalky minerality provide complexity and its acidic spine is impressive. This will stay with us for many years to come. 98 p.
1999 DRC La Tache
Exotic and just amazing on the nose, pushing the variety to new levels of excitement, brimming with pure red berries, perfectly integrated oak treatment aided by a herbaceous twist. Almost full-bodied, silky sweet and powerful, yet supremely elegant, super-long and offering a plethora of exotic spice on the still youthful and surprisingly sleek finish. It’s like a controlled Casbah market. 99 p (with sincere potential to score 101 points once ready). Give it 10 more years. Amazing.
1990 DRC La Tache
Evolved, gently sour aromas of Cherry Hering liquor, dried herbs, porcini mushrooms and careful spice. Fresh, lively acidity are at once dominant here, with tart red berries and sincere tannins providing an acoustic background to its perfectly sculptured, sweet raspberry fruit, gently fading into a layered finish where raw minerality and pan-fried thyme emerge. The alcohol is evident and it doesn’t really stretch out, so better drink sooner than later. 96 p
1999 DRC Romanée Conti
Red and dark berries, hints of iron and salty spice, autumn leaves, underbrush and violet flowers, this is lactic, elegant and expressive. Super-elegant on the palate, tightly tannic and very fresh and wonderfully balanced, with an interesting orange rind addition adding complexity on the finish. Impressive and immensely Terroir-driven stuff, where chalky, spicy minerality lingers effortlessly before it slowly, slowly goes away. Highly individual and femininely elegant stuff. A true honor to taste. 99 p.
1990 DRC Romanée Conti
Ripe red and dark berries, orange rind additions, soft spice, vanilla and wet autumn leaves brings happiness to my nostrils and thrills my mind. Medium(+)bodied and explosive on the palate with great presence of red fruits and chalky minerality; this is still framed by impressive tannins and balanced by clean and racy, cherry infused acidity which allows flavours to linger effortlessly. It leaves with a drying sensation which demonstrates its maturity, but also its ability to age for another 20 years easily. Emotionally moving stuff. 100 p.
1999 DRC Montrachet
Gently enveloping aromas of candied peach, honey, hazelnuts and elegant Madagascar vanilla, this is amazingly seductive and complex, with powdery sugared oranges adding a floral twist. Full-bodied, musky and exotic with spicy vanilla, 23 years old Pappy van Winkle’s Family Reserve, white peach, caramel, and wet chalky stones, this second-to-none Chardonnay alters the delimitations of whats even possible with this variety. Left me speechless. 100 p.
1990 DRC Montrachet
N/A
Repost from EBOB 12-04-2015.
When I think of 2002…I think of the word “crystalline” . It does not have the stuffing …and…opulence of the 90-99-05. But, for me…it’s that opulence which often blurs the nuances of the various terroirs ("surmaturite"?) …into a vintage character. ( A fine one, of course!) But…crystalline, to me, means that the underlying “terroirs” show through better…and…they are subtle to begin with. I used to find amusing Burghound’s term “transparency of terroir”, as nobody really knows what the “terroir” is, without the overlay of the grape juice. But…2002 comes closest to what I imagine he was talking about.
Time will tell…but, to me, 2001 is “blurry” and 2002 “crystalline”…and crystalline is very appealing.
Hi all. Long time, no see.
What is this obsession with “best”? Doesn’t this miss the entire point of Burgundy?
Isn’t it more fun to understand and appreciate differences in vintages rather than make blanket proclamations on quality?
99, 02, 05, 09, 10, 15 are all profound vintages, but less so without understanding the vintages in between. Which is the best? I dunno.
And how best to compare vintages? Just the top wines? 1er crus? Villages? Again, I dunno. I suspect the top wines are too consistently good. Does comparing across the spectrum provide a better picture?
Anyway, hi all. Love those 99’s! Wish I had more. But tonight’s '08 helped me truly appreciate what Burgundy has to say. Part of which was “let the Bordeaux fans obsess over best, we have more to say.”
Among older white vintages that are still sometimes drinking well, '69 and '79 need to be included, the first rich and lavish, the second very classic in profile. René Lafon’s 1979s are my reference for Meursault. 1982 is also a superb white vintage, with Leflaive’s '82s being the best wines from Leflaive I have tasted. '85 and '88 are both superb, with '88 the firmer and more structural of the two, with '85 maybe a bit more harmonious. Ramonet’s '85 Bâtard in magnum the other day was one of the best white I’ve had this year. I would rank 1999 and the best 1996s above anything in the 2000s with the exception of some 2008s.
Agree with the love for 1999 in red that many are espousing in this thread, but greatest? There was a lot of toasty oak, enzymatic extraction and fertilizer in play in 1999. If the question is “what is the greatest DRC vintage” for a long time, then 1999 is certainly the answer, but taking in Burgundy as a whole, from the top of the food chain to the bottom, I would say that it’s more heterogenous in quality than one would ascertain from reading this thread. And even at the top of the food chain, 1999 has plenty of competition. Tasting Lalou’s 1999s from d’Auvenay and Leroy next to the 2010s, the 2010s were clearly superior for the Domaine Leroy grands crus. Christophe Roumier’s 2010s are more refined, with more integrated barrel signatures, than his 1999s.
On a more positive note, Lafarge’s 1999 Clos des Chenes is finally beginning to open up, based on a bottle last night - a fleshier version of the 1993. No rush though.
Great post about Burg appreciation and the fallacies of reductionist thinking, and then in a short phrase, you sweepingly diss all Bordeaux!!
Having met Jeremy and having read his notes for many years, my strong guess is that he has drunk wines from many if not most vintages. I would assume that he understands the vintages in between.
Hi Howard,
Yep, that was my point exactly. Truly the entire point of my post. I wanted to demonstrate that Jeremy has little knowledge of lesser vintages. You got me. 