Drinking Much 2003 Red Burgundy?

[Greg_K]

Is this a good sleeper vintage to buy for consumption today, provided you know your targets?

If you like Burgundy on the riper side, it could be. Even good producers made wines that are…not subtle. We had a 2003 Rousseau Mazy in February and while it was a good wine, it was definitely a big, plush wine that was lacking some acidity and structure. Waves of big fruit. If you like that style, you may well find quite a bit of wine that could be very good.

It is one of the many styles I can enjoy, but I wouldn’t go to Rome to visit the mosques, so I’ll pass!

Generally my view on the 2003s as well, but there are some people (including on this thread) like this vintage a lot more than I do. I think I’m down to 1 bottle.

[Pau1_M3nk3s]

I just checked CT. Over the last 14 years I’ve had 81 bottles of 2003 red Burgundy. Sure some variation, some clunky wines, some with the heat signature. But much more often really tasty wine that shows vineyard and region characteristics. I, for one, am happy at the number of collectors who bypass this vintage as that leaves a little window of opportunity for the rest of us. But even here, prices have really increased in recent years…

Thanks Peter. For the last couple of years do you see a trend or is it mixed?

[Dennis_Borczon]

Unfortunately my most recent experience has not been as positive. Has a M Ganoux Corton Reynards this past weekend and initially I got a nose of cooked prune/raisin. Gradually blew off but the profile was still dampened and the wine came across as a bit clunky and dense. Actually reminded of an aged higher alcohol Bordeaux. Completely lacked good secondary development. Was not really flawed per say, no TCA or oxidized character. Just seemed dull and simple. Not sure if this was due to the more traditional nature of the producer, vintage, or possible heat damage along the way. However was not inspiring.

[Matthew_King]

Is this a good sleeper vintage to buy for consumption today, provided you know your targets?

If you like Burgundy on the riper side, it could be. Even good producers made wines that are…not subtle. We had a 2003 Rousseau Mazy in February and while it was a good wine, it was definitely a big, plush wine that was lacking some acidity and structure. Waves of big fruit. If you like that style, you may well find quite a bit of wine that could be very good.

It is one of the many styles I can enjoy, but I wouldn’t go to Rome to visit the mosques, so I’ll pass!

That’s funny!

[A_Williamson]

I have mag of 03 La Romanee that I’m kind of dreading … high stakes prune roulette

[Howard_Cooper]

2nd worst red Burg vintage of the decade

Notes and when you drank the wines.

[Gerhard_P]

Apropos Brian’s question for 2005 but for the dreaded 2003 vintage: How do you think they’re doing … Bourgogne vs village vs 1er cru vs Grands Cru?
I just opened up a 2003 Chevillon Pruliers that was excellent. No hint of the stewed fruit detected when last tasted in 2013. And what have ye found?

Well imho 2003 is not “dreaded” - it depends. There are bad ones, good ones … and even outstanding ones.
If one only likes an acidity driven, bright red transparent Burg vintage - 2003 is the wrong one (take 2001).

Many 2003s have lost baby fat, “broadness” and (over-)ripe fruit - and gained more liveliness since the structure comes thru …
I would not call the better ones “fully mature” but already drinking nicely, with soft tannins and a “developing” fruit profile …
I much prefer a 2003 over (about any) 2004 …

Most will be better - and more lively still - in 10 years … no hurry …

(recently excellent 2003s: Mugnier Chambolle Village and Liger-Belair Colombiere)

[Pau1_M3nk3s]

Apropos Brian’s question for 2005 but for the dreaded 2003 vintage: How do you think they’re doing … Bourgogne vs village vs 1er cru vs Grands Cru?
I just opened up a 2003 Chevillon Pruliers that was excellent. No hint of the stewed fruit detected when last tasted in 2013. And what have ye found?

Well imho 2003 is not “dreaded” - it depends. There are bad ones, good ones … and even outstanding ones.
If one only likes an acidity driven, bright red transparent Burg vintage - 2003 is the wrong one (take 2001).

Many 2003s have lost baby fat, “broadness” and (over-)ripe fruit - and gained more liveliness since the structure comes thru …
I would not call the better ones “fully mature” but already drinking nicely, with soft tannins and a “developing” fruit profile …
I much prefer a 2003 over (about any) 2004 …

Most will be better - and more lively still - in 10 years … no hurry …

(recently excellent 2003s: Mugnier Chambolle Village and Liger-Belair Colombiere)

Thanks Gerhard. The “dreaded” appellation was in anticipation of posts such as Adrian’s. I looked back at Cellartracker and I have barely touched my bottles. The Chevillon was the first '03 since 2016. So I have been definitely waiting for the positive signs you note above.

[Peter_Hirsch]

I just checked CT. Over the last 14 years I’ve had 81 bottles of 2003 red Burgundy. Sure some variation, some clunky wines, some with the heat signature. But much more often really tasty wine that shows vineyard and region characteristics. I, for one, am happy at the number of collectors who bypass this vintage as that leaves a little window of opportunity for the rest of us. But even here, prices have really increased in recent years…

Thanks Peter. For the last couple of years do you see a trend or is it mixed?

I think mixed. I’ve had good ones, great ones, bad ones recently. Like other Burg vintages, though maybe this one is more variable. One thing I find interesting is if you look on CellarTracker and do a search for 2003 Burg tasting notes, more often than not the note starts with “This 2003 doesn’t carry the vintage heat signature that others have, it’s an excellent Burgundy, true to it’s producer and vineyard” or something like this. So if so many don’t carry the 2003 vintage heat signature, is there a 2003 vintage heat signature or is this just something that we’ve been sold by the pundits? I agree that this is a lower acid and higher fruit vintage, and I’m ok with that, also agree that if ‘balance’ is 50% (not saying it is, just using this as a base), maybe 2003 is 70% fruit and 30% acid vs 2001 which is probably 40% fruit and 60% acid or something like that.

[Howard_Cooper]

I just checked CT. Over the last 14 years I’ve had 81 bottles of 2003 red Burgundy. Sure some variation, some clunky wines, some with the heat signature. But much more often really tasty wine that shows vineyard and region characteristics. I, for one, am happy at the number of collectors who bypass this vintage as that leaves a little window of opportunity for the rest of us. But even here, prices have really increased in recent years…

Thanks Peter. For the last couple of years do you see a trend or is it mixed?

I think mixed. I’ve had good ones, great ones, bad ones recently. Like other Burg vintages, though maybe this one is more variable. One thing I find interesting is if you look on CellarTracker and do a search for 2003 Burg tasting notes, more often than not the note starts with “This 2003 doesn’t carry the vintage heat signature that others have, it’s an excellent Burgundy, true to it’s producer and vineyard” or something like this. So if so many don’t carry the 2003 vintage heat signature, is there a 2003 vintage heat signature or is this just something that we’ve been sold by the pundits? I agree that this is a lower acid and higher fruit vintage, and I’m ok with that, also agree that if ‘balance’ is 50% (not saying it is, just using this as a base), maybe 2003 is 70% fruit and 30% acid vs 2001 which is probably 40% fruit and 60% acid or something like that.

Peter, could you list some of the producers where you have really liked or disliked the wine? I agree that this is a variable vintage but would not mind trying some from time to time (if they are around) but would prefer limiting it to the good ones. I think the heat signature was there early, and I don’t really have a good sense of whether it is still there for a lot of producers. I find this easier to discuss with specific wines and producers than in generalities.

[billnanson]

The bad 2003s fell-over and died in their first 3 years or-so.
What is left (and still alive) drinks quite well now in a time-capsule kind of way - they have hardly changed (only plateau’d) in the last 10 years.
Early on, some had an amazing depth of tannin - I remember the DRC GE tasted like you were sucking fruit through sand - I must revisit that particular wine!
They shocked with their sweetness at the time, but with palates now accustomed to the sweetness of 2015-2018, the 2003s seem very tasty - possibly the reason for notes now beginning ‘not showing the vintage’ - but as noted, hardly budging, so far, in terms of maturity.
I’ve not yet met a closed one and am sad that it was a vintage that I bought sparingly - even rare whites have more than academic interest - I bought much more from 2004 (klutz!)

[Pau1_M3nk3s]

I’ve not yet met a closed one and am sad that it was a vintage that I bought sparingly - even rare whites have more than academic interest - I bought much more from 2004 (klutz!)

Bill,
Are you referring to 2004 whites? I had a lot of issues with the straw to dried flower continuum with a number of them early on. Those I’ve hung onto have been pretty tasty as of late.

[billnanson]

Nope, only referring to 2003 whites
I bought too many 2004 reds - practically all re-sold in 2008…

[Peter_Hirsch]

Thanks Peter. For the last couple of years do you see a trend or is it mixed?

I think mixed. I’ve had good ones, great ones, bad ones recently. Like other Burg vintages, though maybe this one is more variable. One thing I find interesting is if you look on CellarTracker and do a search for 2003 Burg tasting notes, more often than not the note starts with “This 2003 doesn’t carry the vintage heat signature that others have, it’s an excellent Burgundy, true to it’s producer and vineyard” or something like this. So if so many don’t carry the 2003 vintage heat signature, is there a 2003 vintage heat signature or is this just something that we’ve been sold by the pundits? I agree that this is a lower acid and higher fruit vintage, and I’m ok with that, also agree that if ‘balance’ is 50% (not saying it is, just using this as a base), maybe 2003 is 70% fruit and 30% acid vs 2001 which is probably 40% fruit and 60% acid or something like that.

I have good notes for:
Bertheau ‘Amoureuses’
Groffier ‘Amoureuses’ and ‘Bonnes Mares’ and ‘Chambertin CDB’
Perrot Minot (Charmes Chamb, Mazo Chamb, NSG Riche VV) - This in a bigger, more ‘calif’ way
Ponsot ‘CM Charmes and Chapelle’
Drouhin ‘Amoureuses’
Cathiard ‘Malconsorts’
Clos de Tart
Arnoux ‘Suchots’
Fourrier (CSJ and Griotte)
Roty ‘Charmes Chamb’ - Same as Perrot Minot.
Mortet ‘LSJ’
Roumier ‘Bonnes Mares’ - really young 5 years ago.
Serafin ‘Charmes Chamb’

Some others I haven’t liked as much of course…


Peter, could you list some of the producers where you have really liked or disliked the wine? I agree that this is a variable vintage but would not mind trying some from time to time (if they are around) but would prefer limiting it to the good ones. I think the heat signature was there early, and I don’t really have a good sense of whether it is still there for a lot of producers. I find this easier to discuss with specific wines and producers than in generalities.

[Howard_Cooper]

I think mixed. I’ve had good ones, great ones, bad ones recently. Like other Burg vintages, though maybe this one is more variable. One thing I find interesting is if you look on CellarTracker and do a search for 2003 Burg tasting notes, more often than not the note starts with “This 2003 doesn’t carry the vintage heat signature that others have, it’s an excellent Burgundy, true to it’s producer and vineyard” or something like this. So if so many don’t carry the 2003 vintage heat signature, is there a 2003 vintage heat signature or is this just something that we’ve been sold by the pundits? I agree that this is a lower acid and higher fruit vintage, and I’m ok with that, also agree that if ‘balance’ is 50% (not saying it is, just using this as a base), maybe 2003 is 70% fruit and 30% acid vs 2001 which is probably 40% fruit and 60% acid or something like that.

I have good notes for:
Bertheau ‘Amoureuses’
Groffier ‘Amoureuses’ and ‘Bonnes Mares’ and ‘Chambertin CDB’
Perrot Minot (Charmes Chamb, Mazo Chamb, NSG Riche VV) - This in a bigger, more ‘calif’ way
Ponsot ‘CM Charmes and Chapelle’
Drouhin ‘Amoureuses’
Cathiard ‘Malconsorts’
Clos de Tart
Arnoux ‘Suchots’
Fourrier (CSJ and Griotte)
Roty ‘Charmes Chamb’ - Same as Perrot Minot.
Mortet ‘LSJ’
Roumier ‘Bonnes Mares’ - really young 5 years ago.
Serafin ‘Charmes Chamb’

Some others I haven’t liked as much of course…


Peter, could you list some of the producers where you have really liked or disliked the wine? I agree that this is a variable vintage but would not mind trying some from time to time (if they are around) but would prefer limiting it to the good ones. I think the heat signature was there early, and I don’t really have a good sense of whether it is still there for a lot of producers. I find this easier to discuss with specific wines and producers than in generalities.

Thanks. I find it much easier and more useful to discuss specific producers than to discuss a vintage in its entirety.

[scamhi]

2nd worst red Burg vintage of the decade

93 points? 2004 might be #1

[William_Kelley]

I find it much easier and more useful to discuss specific producers than to discuss a vintage in its entirety.

This!

I have enjoyed some 2003s recently. Best bottles of the last 18 months were Leroy Richebourg and Kalin Bourgogne Côte de Beaune Les Pierres Blanches.

As others have noted, the wines that didn’t go into rapid decline are aging gracefully. The fruit is certainly atypically sweet, but that is also true of 1947 red Burgundies. Personally, I’m following them with interest and will be curious to see where they get to in another two decades.

[Howard_Cooper]

I find it much easier and more useful to discuss specific producers than to discuss a vintage in its entirety.

This!

I have enjoyed some 2003s recently. Best bottles of the last 18 months were Leroy Richebourg and Kalin Bourgogne Côte de Beaune Les Pierres Blanches.

As others have noted, the wines that didn’t go into rapid decline are aging gracefully. The fruit is certainly atypically sweet, but that is also true of 1947 red Burgundies. Personally, I’m following them with interest and will be curious to see where they get to in another two decades.

I wish I had tasted more. It would help me decide if I should try vintages like 2018. Certainly, all vintages are different, but one has to analogize the best you can.

[Pau1_M3nk3s]

I find it much easier and more useful to discuss specific producers than to discuss a vintage in its entirety.

This!

I have enjoyed some 2003s recently. Best bottles of the last 18 months were Leroy Richebourg and Kalin Bourgogne Côte de Beaune Les Pierres Blanches.

As others have noted, the wines that didn’t go into rapid decline are aging gracefully. The fruit is certainly atypically sweet, but that is also true of 1947 red Burgundies. Personally, I’m following them with interest and will be curious to see where they get to in another two decades.

Groan. I didn’t buy enough 2003!

[Josh_Grossman]

Recently opened a 2003 Ballot-Millot & Fils Volnay 1er Cru Santenots. It currently had zero tertiary development and was still big. It was mostly balanced (a bit light on acid) and had a wonderful finish but not there yet for how I like my meat hung.