They are superb- and from day 1 I never had any notions about them being long term agers. The great appeal of 2001 for me was the prospect of transparent terroir with less waiting time plus the wines being wonderfully approachable all their lives.
I have not been disappointed in my early expectations as I have revisited the wines with age- especially with DRC, Grivot and Roumier. DRC RSV is a wonderment- and Roumier Charmes and Grivot Richebourg are marvelous. And all these- and many more- have shown beautifully at various points of evolution.
This has been- and will continue to be- a most useful and wonderful vintage. The notion of issues of color- from release or now- or “premature aging” (that one really cracks me up- have you all now figured out exactly when burgundies should be mature?) are totally foreign to me. I cannot comment further since the great divide between such remarks and my broad experience is too great for me to fathom.
FWIW, the 1983 reds are a case in point about color not meaning much of anything. Many have been brownish since the early years after release. Some people thought they were dying; others saw it as an indication of widespread rot. (And, FWIW, I’ve encountered very very few bottles from 1983 that I felt were affected by rot…and almost none in the last 15 years…so, I’m not sure that even those bottles were affected.)
The bottom line, for me, though, is that the vintage , at its best, is as good as any vintage I know of…and its “best” is a large group of wines from 1er cru up.
I was not around when 1983 was released, but I avoided them like the plague as I started reading up on older vintages. However, inevitably they would show up at various dinners with the local burgundy tasting group- and while I have only had a few, they were all outstanding and quite memorable. Same goes for 1986- with some advanced airing they can be great. 1986 Leroy Clos Vougeot and Rousseau Chambertin are two that are really something today. The Rousseau I remember because I got 2 in a Zachy’s auction back in 2008- I think I paid $325 plus BP for the pair. The 1985s in that same auction just a couple of lots away were going for 4 digits apiece. I have not had 1985 Rousseaus, but taking my overall experience into account, I am still astonished at the price difference for those two vintages that day.
2001s have been similar bargains all along- if not quite on that scale.
I am not saying it should be verboten- not my place to suggest such a thing in the first place. I am saying I am not understanding a concern which I am interpreting from some posters to read as a problem.
It is great to revisit vintages and discuss their evolution- one of the most valuable things a board like this can do. I am just saying that from day 1 I never expected these to be long term agers, and that 1- I do not see it as a problem per se, and 2- I am not understanding the issue with color. 2001 Grivot Richebourg, for example, is still incredibly deep red- ala the 2003- just as it was at release (TNs at release and about 3 years ago.)
My concern is about a fairly objective point (color in this case) on which my experience varies drastically with some other posters. And again, maybe it is how I reading the post, I sense a concern about the wines being problematic (the term “premature aging” versus maturing sooner than expected etc.) over and above a useful discussion that lets owners of 2001s know where the vintage stands maturity-wise.
Maybe I am just being touchy lately, I don’t know. But rest assured I was not trying to shut down the discussion- just state that the chasm between many experiences here seems unusually wide.
My concern with color was more about the wide variation within the vintage.
They all started off all fine, then some have gone brown and seem advanced currently (yes, I realize this may be a phase), whilst some are still young and tight looking, and very red in color.
Is this just a variation of different producers within the vintage, or is it part of another real problem like say, prolonged mild heat damage???
'86 was, for me, another “sleeper” vintage. Almost never disappointed: Daniel Rion, Rousseau,Roumier, Georges Mugneret, Truchot…and others…all made wonderful wines, IMO. In many cases, better than their '85s…and, certainly, better than their '87s.
From last night, I can attest that Ghislaine Barthod’s 2001 Les Fuees is vibrant and youthful, thrilling to drink but better in 3+ years.
And last week, Bruno Clavelier 2001 NSG Aux Cras was also tight and young, from a bottle with seepage and probably a slight degree of heat damage to the wine.
2001 Bruno Clavelier wines seem to be young and tight in general, if a recent Vosne Aux Brulees can be taken as indicative. Which, perhaps, it cannot. But it’s the only experience I have.
Had the 2001 Rousseau Clos St. Jacques and 2001 Arnoux Suchots. Both drank well but neither was close to what I’d term full maturity. In fact I’d wait a few more years for both.
Having had a number of Truchot 2001s over the past several years, I think the Grand Crus and the Combottes are too young, but that the other premier crus are drinking beautifully. I esp. like the MSD Ruchotts.
Had a beautiful Barthod CM Beaux Bruns recently. More advanced than the les Cras.
Right now, my strategy is to drink 1996s, 1998s, 2000s, 2001s, 2002s, 2004s, virtually everything to keep my hands off of my 1999s for a few more years. That is a special vintage.
At the La Paulee tasting, when it had just been bottled, it was one of the standouts. Bought a couple of bottles based on that tasting, so hope it’s closed rather than flawed.
Howard, I agree that it is wise to hold most 1999’s longer, a very special vintage. My early fears about the evolution of the wines due to the high yields has abated, for sure.
Not mine, Lew. Still think that vintage (1999) is going to turn out to be irregular, depending on the yields the producer harvested…and the level of the hierarchy. In many cases, the yields shot beyond that allowed by law to be bottled. The wine in the bottle is the same as that that exceeded that limit. And, in many cases, the wines were bottled anyway, though “off the books”.
I haven’t had enough recent experience with 1999 to get rid of my “early” suspicions. The vintage certainly needs time. Whether it turns out to be “very special” accross the board…as is required for me to consider a vintage “very special” remains to be determined. Fingers crossed.
One more data point: 2001 Bertheau Bonnes Mares is drinking well now, but seems set for a decade or two on longevity. Opened up with a dull, cloudy, orange/red color, but a bit of air turned it more to red, brighter and limpid. Exceptional quality IMO, a delicate, ethereal Bonnes Mares.
And another: 2001 Cathiard Vosne Malconsorts, drunk last week, had aromas and palate of sweet, black and dark red fruits, with muted spice notes; the tannins were smooth but modestly firm. Overall, the wine still seemed too young and not completely giving. I won’t open another bottle for, at least, two years and four would probably be better.
![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}
WTF? It’s a wine discussion board. Why should a topic such as this be verbotten, top wines that someone thinks may be advancing rapidly at 10 years?