Asimov on vintages

[Kaushik_B]

I am becoming more focused on specific producers, and regions, so I assume I agree with Asimov’s (can’t access article) and your general premise.

First 10 articles every month are free. But you’ll need to register.

[Greg_K]

Greg…here is what I wrote : There is no bad vintage in Burgundy if you buy wines from you prefer producers.

Yes, that’s wrong.

[Greg_K]

If you now taste an '11 you passed on, from a favorite producer, and enjoy it now - sure it’s light, and pales in comparison to the '05 version, which won’t be ready for 15 years - but, you can buy some for $40 and enjoy it immensely as a casual drinker, a Tuesday wine, and the '05s are $200 special occasion wines. Well, that’s a point of the article.

I had a longer post written, but discretion is the better part of valor, so I’ll just respond to this specific point. I’m clearly not responding to the article, but to the claim that “if you buy your favorite producers, there are no bad vintages”. Plenty of my favorite producers made bad 11s, many of them extremely green. For example - I didn’t buy Hudelot Noellat in 11 (other than a few bottles of Murgers) because they tasted green. Last summer, I was served an 11 Hudelot Noellat Suchots blind that was…extremely green. I don’t want to buy them now because they’re light or pale in comparison to 05, I don’t want to buy them because they’re green and undrinkable - it was a bad vintage for Hudelot Noellat, whose wines I otherwise typically buy. Because sometimes, great producers have off vintages. And when it’s an especially challenging vintage, a lot of good producers can struggle at the same time.

[David_K_o_l_i_n]

To taste a region’s or producer’s wines across the spectrum of vintages, both “good” and “bad”, is, to me, the only true way to understand them. You get a sense for how grapes in a region behave depending on the vintage conditions as well as how producers adjust to the various challenges unique to each growing season.

Almost complete agreement, except there are not really many “bad” vintages these days. Maybe “less good” at worst, with rare exceptions.

Agree entirely, particularly with respect to producers

[Freelon_F_Hunter]

Which critic rated 2013 Bordeaux better than 2011?

Exactly. Was not an Eric fan before, even less so now.

[Andy_Sc]

I generally agree with “don’t listen to the critics,” at least without the benefit of significant hindsight. But - especially in the old world IME - there are objectively terrible vintages. I think the practical upshot of this is, especially if you’re buying at auction/secondary, don’t buy the overhyped “vintage of the decade” because it almost never lives up to the hype (while it is priced to the hype) … just focus on the unremarkable - but not terrible - vintages, and buy from good producers.

Not my experience and not something that is supported by “empirical evidence” (CT notes). The best vintages are usually the best and indeed live up to the hype.

What I wrote before is not just true for Cheval but for many other verticals. And again, that doesn’t mean that “unremarkable but not terrible” vintages cannot produce great wines.

I‘ve done my fair share of blind verticals and the top vintages always come out top, usually simply because of their depth (more so than the structure). That doesn‘t mean that the Cheval Blanc 2011 isn‘t great but just not as good as 82, 90, 09, 10, 15 or 16 (but on par with 00 (overhyped vintage) and 05 (they need time)).

[Peter_Chiu]

Greg…here is what I wrote : There is no bad vintage in Burgundy if you buy wines from you prefer producers.

Yes, that’s wrong.

Greg…your example of *not drinking a tainted bottle of wine *…is about certain number of bottles of wine made by your favourite producers from a certain year and of course they are bad. For example, a few bottles of the Chambertin 2003 by producer X were tainted and you could not drink them. Does it mean that the vintage 2003 is a bad vintage ?

In any event…let us agree that we disagree . No harm is done for friendly discussion.

[Greg_K]

Greg…here is what I wrote : There is no bad vintage in Burgundy if you buy wines from you prefer producers.

Yes, that’s wrong.

Greg…your example of *not drinking a tainted bottle of wine *…is about certain number of bottles of wine made by your favourite producers from a certain year and of course they are bad. For example, a few bottles of the Chambertin 2003 by producer X were tainted and you could not drink them. Does it mean that the vintage 2003 is a bad vintage ?

In any event…let us agree that we disagree . No harm is done for friendly discussion.

1. My response regarding TCA was about your “all the wines are like my children” comment. That isn’t true, we don’t love all wines equally. Unless some of your children are tainted?
2. My comment regarding vintages is, again, to be clear, that sometimes there are vintages where my favorite producers make wines that aren’t great. In 2004 most of my favorite producers made wines I don’t like very much. Yes, it’s a bad vintage. Even if I only bought from my favorite producers. Let’s use a practical example - let’s say Hudelot Noellat was my favorite producer and I bought the wines every year (which is pretty close to the truth). Would every vintage be a good vintage? No.

[Mark_Golodetz]

The idea of wines transcending the weather is a hard one for me to agree to. You can certainly have glorious wines in off vintages, and I have been lucky to drink many, but the weather in the hands of even the most careful and rigorous winemaker will determine and limit the quality of the wine he can make.

[David_Bu3ker]

The idea of wines transcending the weather is a hard one for me to agree to. You can certainly have glorious wines in off vintages, and I have been lucky to drink many, but the weather in the hands of even the most careful and rigorous winemaker will determine and limit the quality of the wine he can make.

Depends on how extreme the weather is.

[Peter_Chiu]

Greg…very nice discussion and thank for your rely. I agree with many of your view points which I respect.

My conclusion is : we do have different view points about many things - including the children - who are tainted.

Here is my opposite view point of the following :

*****Let’s use a practical example - let’s say Hudelot Noellat was my favorite producer and I bought the wines every year (which is pretty close to the truth). Would every vintage be a good vintage? No. ****

Let say because I personally did not like it, I would not call it a good vintage but I would not call it a bad vintage either. I would call it …a vintage…does not fit my personal taste.

[Sarah_Kirschbaum]

Anybody else notice the swipe at 2005 Burgundy?

As for vintages, I love the variations. I may buy less or more based on conditions, but I tend to be an annual buyer of the wines I enjoy. I like seeing what happens under different circumstances.

Yes. Me, too.

I recently posted something very much to this effect on another thread, though I wasn’t nearly so succinct.

[Mark_Golodetz]

The idea of wines transcending the weather is a hard one for me to agree to. You can certainly have glorious wines in off vintages, and I have been lucky to drink many, but the weather in the hands of even the most careful and rigorous winemaker will determine and limit the quality of the wine he can make.

Depends on how extreme the weather is.

Are you suggesting that you can make wine better than the weather allows?

[David_Bu3ker]

The idea of wines transcending the weather is a hard one for me to agree to. You can certainly have glorious wines in off vintages, and I have been lucky to drink many, but the weather in the hands of even the most careful and rigorous winemaker will determine and limit the quality of the wine he can make.

Depends on how extreme the weather is.

Are you suggesting that you can make wine better than the weather allows?

No, but I am suggesting that there are not many total disasters anymore, and excellent producers can overcome reasonable obstacles.

[larry_schaffer]

Such an interesting article - and an interesting discussion as well. It’d be interesting to see Matt Kramer write about to the same topic, and Rober Parker, and Jeb Dunnuck, etc. I think they may all have different takes on specific vintages but share the same overall opinion that it’s a bit of a ‘landmine’ to depend upon overall vintage ratings.

And this does not even take into account regional differences within vintages as well. I clearly remember meeting with Steve Heimoff in 2011 on Halloween Day - and he asked how harvest went, since Napa and Sonoma and even Paso were completely picked out because they had had massive rainstorms in October. I looked at him - and said that the vintage is far from over down here in SB County for rhone varieties because we did NOT have the massive rains that they had elsewhere and therefore things were moving along nicely. And I absolutely ADORE the majority of rhones that have come out of our area. Pinot and Cab - maybe not so much.

So not only is there regional differences, but there are varietal differences based on weather issues that arise within harvest itself. In the aforementioned 2011 vintage, we had a heat spike over Labor Day. This had very little effect on rhone varieties, but Pinot blocks, that were already light due to spring frost, saw sugars rise precipitously, leading to producers scrambling as quickly as possible - and many not able to pick until after that heat spike. In many cases, sugars were high but flavor development was not there . . .

2020 will be a similar story - the vintage to many has an asterisk next to it for all of CA - but our harvest was relatively unscathed down here other than the 118 degree weekend we experienced.

Why are ‘vintage charts’ and ‘vintage ratings’ used? Because most consumers want and need to rely on ‘experts’ to guide them - same as they do with point scoring, right? I get it - but all should be weary of overly wide takes on any issues when it comes to vintages.

Fun discussion - keep it going . . .

Cheers.

[Howard_Cooper]

Like most of us, I tend to have more definitive views when I taste them. I happened to have and very much like the 2011 Ridge Montebello at the winery when it was young, so I was not surprised he liked the wine. In fact, I think it is a bit misleading to lump this wine in with Napa wines as I understand the vintage is much better generally in Santa Cruz than in Napa, although the Ridge is the only one from the area I have tasted.

Similarly, with other regions, if I get to a tasting of the vintage I tend to do better with it, although I am not always good with young vintages. When I used to go to a barrel sample tasting of California Cabs put on by MacArthurs, sometimes I was correct in my preferences, but not always. For example, I think I way overrated some 2007s.

I get to taste more Burgundies young than anything else. In more recent years, I went there in 2011, 2013, 2016 and 2018. Then, I tend to go to Paulee Grand Tastings every other year (I go to the ones in NYC but not the ones in California). Generally, I have more confidence in my views of the wines I taste in some of these visits than in wines where I have not had such an opportunity. For example, to this day, I feel like I know 2010 Burgs much better than 2009s because I had so many as barrel samples during my 2011 visit and then at the Paulee. Loved them both times so I bought a lot more than I purchased 2009s - thus I still tend to drink a lot more of them. By contrast, I really did not like most 2004 reds when I went to the Paulee and it made me much more cautious in buying them - still probably bought too many.

2017 in Burgundy was a strange one where I liked the wines in barrel, but did not think they were great. They got a lot better when I tasted them at the Paulee last March. I was amazed at how different some of the same wines I had tasted in barrel had gotten.

With respect to Burgundy vintages, I think I have found only one really general rule. When the wine tastes good young, a lot of people will tell you it won’t age - see 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2010, 2017. This is virtually always wrong and the wines age much better than anyone thinks.

[P_L_owet]

1. I find general descriptions of vintage characteristics helpful. That doesn’t imply that producer doesn’t matter.
2. I find overall vintage scores much less helpful.
3. Info about vintage (description or score) is less helpful when “region” is large and heterogeneous.
4. Overall vintage scores are even less helpful if you disagree with a particular critic’s tastes. For example, Wine Spectator has tended to love warm Piedmont vintages. That’s a subjective choice, just like the ratings of the many individual super ripe wines that are (more easily) produced from these vintages. Don’t follow WS if you subjectively prefer a different profile.
5. Part of the reason that vintage scores are less helpful is that critics have limited ability to project a wine’s evolution. That’s even more true with anomalous wines.
   Regards,
   Peter

[Peter_Chiu]

With respect to Burgundy vintages, I think I have found only one really general rule. When the wine tastes good young, a lot of people will tell you it won’t age - see 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2010, 2017. This is virtually always wrong and the wines age much better than anyone thinks.

Exactly…Howard. All the 5 vintages - mentioned above - the 2000s and 2007s never close down.

Since I seldom buy from the producers - whose style I did not care much - it was a mistake that I did not buy more…

[R_Frankel]

With respect to Burgundy vintages, I think I have found only one really general rule. When the wine tastes good young, a lot of people will tell you it won’t age - see 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2010, 2017. This is virtually always wrong and the wines age much better than anyone thinks.

What a great perspective, thank you Howard. This matches my (much more limited) experience with Burgundy aging. In the mid-2010s I was really focused on buying 2000 and 2001 because they were relatively less expensive than other vintages and I kept enjoying the ones I found. Naturally there are a lot less of those in the market now as people like us keep drinking them! I find predicting age-ability very challenging but just about any well made Burgundy seems to have a very long life.

I can’t remember where I read it (probably multiple times) but I really like the idea that a good wine - especially a wine that has aging potential - should always taste good. Yes, there may be tannins clogging your mouth or an over-abundance of youthful fruit, but if it doesn’t have good qualities now, I’m a lot less confident that it will have good qualities in the future. Closed up wines are a challenging exception of course.

[Jay_Miller]

Anybody else notice the swipe at 2005 Burgundy?

As for vintages, I love the variations. I may buy less or more based on conditions, but I tend to be an annual buyer of the wines I enjoy. I like seeing what happens under different circumstances.

"in the case of 2005, never quite developed as anticipated. "

So far they are developing exactly as I anticipated since I didn’t think they’d show well at age 16.