Well, the 2004 Gouges Porrets is decent drinking right now.
But I get the sense that I should lay off my '99 Chevillon Les Vaucrains?
I simply say that I disagree heavily - and that time will proof you wrong.
The problem with 1999 is that most (the best) wines are NOT yet ready … and many are in a state of evolution where they are neither foreward fruity nor completely closed nor really open … but somewhere in between - so very easy to underestimate …
IMHO 1999 is the best (overall and at the very top) vintage between 1990 and 2005 … although 2002 is not that far ahead but less concentrated and powerful … (but often with superb balance).
16 years is far too young for a great Burgundy vintage.
I agree with Gerhard about '99.
I agree with Al about a more approachable style at Gouges.
I’m pretty agreeable for a Monday.
Group hug?
Agree with both these statements though count me with the group that believes the '99s just need a lot more time.
'99, IMO, does have an achilles heel: overcropping. The yields in 1999 on both cotes were crazy high. And…everybody sold everything they made as the conditions were very good. If there’s a vintage with higher yields, I don’t know it…in white and red. That has to affect the quality of the wines at some level and some wines, IMO. Not making them terrible…just less than the greatest “accross the board” vintage.
For me…'99 comes just after 2005, 2002 and 1990 in overall, across the board, “greatness”. I would expect some examples, just like Gouges wines, that will never come around. Probably not from producers we all talk about regularly (though some of the whites from them are a bit dilute) but…age won’t be a pancea for this vintage in every case. Of course, it is too early to evaluate what the wines will be like with “maturity” in any case at a little over 15, so patience is still mandatory.
I do wonder, reading of Gouges so often, if their yields are high …or were…in the 90s and later? That could account for their never showing well, too.
Stuart,
Have you tasted many wines that have shown any lack of concentration because of the high yields? I can’t say I have, but my recent tastings are somewhat limited because I have had so many “dumb” bottles, I haven’t dared open too many.
When I tasted the wines from barrel, they showed far more depth than I would have expected from a vintage with a reputation for overcropping.
I remember the Wasserman tasting for the 99s and those wines had all the depth and concentration one could ask for.
99 remains my favorite vintage since 90, but I confess to a lot less samples post 05.
We recently opened various Gouges wines with Gilman at dinner at my house. The 1990 Vaucrains was particularly good, quite red-fruited for vaucrains. Well, so too was the 2009.
Personally, I don’t think the Gouges transformation has been nearly as drastic as Faiveley’s. En primeur, most of the 2013 Gouges samples were still un-drinkably reduced, whereas Faiveley were lush and approachable. Of course, that probably has as much to do with how the samples were prepared than how the wine will present upon release.
Faiveley has gone the high-polish route, which seems to make many here happy (I miss Tom Blach for his dissent!). Gouges might be evolving, but it is more gradual, and I’d still put them in to the old-school category. Again, all IMHO.
I don’t buy current release Faiveley or Gouges, but will happily drink others’. 
I can’t say that I would have pegged any lackings specifically to high yields-- had I not been told by several winemakers that the yields were too high to make this a great vintage. (And, to winemakers, they are talking almost always about “accross the board”; that’s why to most of them 1990 is a benchmark vintage, though some people complain about their ripeness at the trophier levels.)
I looked at my notebooks this morning in response to your question. I tasted “the vintage” (as much as I can get from 15 or so visits to domaines in white and red) in barrel twice: Xmas week, 1999 and March 2001. My M.O. has long been to concentrate on a group of producers that are spread out over the geography of both cotes…with a few of the producers being predominantly white wine producers. Then, I’ve pretty much bought a core group, with additions and subtractions, from 1988 through the 2005 vintage, when I stopped buying reds. So, the neighborhood I’m tasting in is high-rent.
What struck me reading my notes was a good deal of inconsistency (though a couple of domaines I thought had simply overcropped…on the Cote de Beaune mainly), particularly at the “lower” levels of those domaines’ stables. I noted some wines that were “tannic” and “astringent”…and of questionable concentration. (I had not really heard of the overcropping issue until the 2001 trip…when winemakers had lots to sell.) BUT, for the most part, the wines were terrific and highly concentrated at these high end estates. And, I noted the impressive concentration in those wines, which were the large majority. However, I think I found at least a wine or two at each place (except a few places; one of which was using RO by then)…that were questionable. (And, I couldn’t say more than that…I could only raise the issue.)
Since 2001, I 've had only a few 1999s and they were and are too young to really analyze, though I will look at my notes. But, I do think that some of the wines…might show too much structure for their concentration levels…and it won’t just be a matter of time. The overcropping is not a secret…and the yields were way high…even higher than the usual extra tonnage per acre that one can apply for. (In white, I 've assumed that this has also affected the premox issues; I know of one producer in white and red…in fact, one who told me of the overcropping issues, whose whites are almost all premoxed…and whose reds are good, not great…but certainly pleasant enough, if it weren’t for their high appellations (Les St. Georges, among them…
So, I can’t say specifically wheter I’ve experienced overcropping; just a bit of inconsistency at places that are usually very consistent accross the board.I do prefer 2002 and 2005 for their consistency, though.
FWIW
Hi,
I visited Gouges last month.
I am aware of Gouges’ reptuation for being very tight for years, but the younger generation is changing that, and the wines are more friendly now without having to wait for décades.
I must get around to writing up and posting my report…
All the best,
Alex R.
Alex,
Did you, per chance, ask anyone why their wines reputedly show that way…and/or what they have done to make them more friendly/fruit forward? I am curious why they have this solid reputation. Overcropping is one possible explanation for this…and has been the problem at another fairly well known NSG estate (where the previous generation used to brag about a “bon cinquante”…50 hl/ha yields). I once told this to Clive Coates and he inquired and wrote about it later. I’m told they lowered their yields and probably made sure there was more forward fruit in the mix.
Whatever you found out would be interesting.
Hi Folks,
The big change at Domaine Gouges is that they have a new chais and have reorganized the cellars so as not to have to pump the wines anymore- they are now all moved by gravity. This was completed in time for the 2009 harvest, so perhaps some of the observations about a change in style here are simply reflective of the gentler texture to the (still formidable) tannic structures of the young wines. There is probably an effort underway here to make the Bourgogne rouge and Nuits AC a touch less structured out of the blocks than was the case in the past, but the premier crus remain very much as they have been made since the 1930s. The Gouges family has never cropped at high yields. The wines also see very little new wood- only 20% for the premier crus, which tends to make them more reductive when tasting out of barrel (or from barrel samples shipped to London). Stylistically, they remain true to the house style that made the Gouges name famous first in the 1930s and they continue to make some of the longest-lived wines in all of Burgundy. When they are ready, they are brilliant wines, but figure on a minimum of twenty-five years for a premier cru in a top vintage- more in an inherently slow evolving vintage like 2005. But, once they are ready to drink, they are refined, elegant and beautifully complex wines that rival the very finest made in the Cote de Nuits- one just has to wait (or find older vintages at auction). Without tasting a mature example from Domaine Gouges, it is very hard to hypothesize how good the wines will ultimately be while tasting something in its sturdy and grumpy adolescence, as these are proper Nuits wines and do not show a lot when under the imperious rule of their tannins. 1990 and 1991 are probably the only recent vintages to have gotten into their apogees of peak drinkability (the domaine’s 1990s are terrific examples of the vintage), as even the 2000s are on the young side today and bound up a bit behind their structural elements.
The 1999 red vintage in Burgundy is great in both the north and south. Yields were high in both regions, but the berries were uncharacteristically small, so the skin to juice ratio was perfectly “correct” despite the large number of bunches on the vines. I have never encountered a vintage like this, where the high yields had no deleterious affect on the quality of the wines, as the vines seem to have had no difficulties ripening their large number of bunches to perfect maturity. It is equally fine in both the Cote de Nuits and the Cote de Beaune, but the Cote de Nuits wines are still adolescently primary and not really a good idea to be opening today, as their real quality will not be seen for a good decade. But, they will be brilliant in due course. For my palate, it has to be ranked up with the very finest red Burgundy vintages between 1978 and 2010, alongside 1993 and 2005, with no preference between any of the three, which are different primarily in stylistic terms, rather than ultimate quality (though perhaps 2005 will ultimately prove to be the “finest of the finest” of these three in due course).
All the Best,
John
I had a '99 Chevillon Vaucrains, last September. While it was approachable, it definitely could have used another five-to-ten years, unfortunately.
John, you obviously aren’t ranking vintages by “accross the board/vintage” criteria if you rank 1993 that high. So, what criteria are you using…other than stylistic preferences? Best at the top of the heap wines?
Serious question…as I have no doubt that the “best” wines of 1999 are really grand. It’s the vintage’s ultimate consistence at the “lesser” 1ers and below…that have me concerned in 1999…not the top of the pyramid.
I think 1993 is maybe the most inconsistent “good” vintage I know of using “accross the board” criteria, though it surely hit some heights on the Cote de Nuits.
So…what are your criteria?
Agree for 1999, but I have also my doubts that 1993 will ever be in the top rank of vintages … overall I wasn´t really impressed from cask nor from bottle in 1995/96 - nor since when tasting now and then … WITH exeptions of course (Leroy for instance … but not DRC).
1993 is certainly a good to vg vintage, but it posesses lots of (sometimes dry) tannins AND lots of acidity on one hand, but lacks real sweetness and fullness on the palate … so even the few examples (mostly Villages) where I´d say they were not far from maturity were not singing …
There are certainly some great wines, but for me the vintage is more in the league of 95/96 (if different) than 1990/99/02/05 …
(all IMHO)
Alan,
You beat me to it. Just what I was thinking.
Stuart–you are becoming a one trick pony. Trust us–1999 is and will continue to be a great vintage. Your requirement of all the way across the board seems to be an odd requirement. I would think if most all of the quality estates made great wines, then it’s a great vintage. I think 1999 qualifies in both cote de nuits and cote de beaune. Name me a great estate that made crummy wines in 1999.
No, thanks, John. No need to crack your conviction that 1999 is great…and no interest in doing it either.
Accross the board is how I (and every winemaker I’ve ever spoken with about it) judge vintages. You can use whatever criteria you want-- your option. But, by estoric criteria any vintage can be great-- or terrible by some criterion. I prefer to use a broader criterion for greatness.
I don’t “trust” you (or whoever “us” is)…why should I? That seems silly when I have my own opinions from tasting the vintage twice in barrel and speaking to various winemakers about it. I have no idea of the basis of your opinions, let alone the validity of them. So…that would be silly.
But, I can’t argue with such opinions…so, I don’t bother. “If…most all of the quality estates made great wines” criterion…says nothing to me, frankly…as a criterion. ![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}
The “answer” here is years away…the wines are 15 years old now…and this vintage, IMO, will require a full 20 to hope for “answers”, maybe more. Anyone who thinks they have them-- re: “greatness” from tasting infants and pubescent examples, I think, is wasting bottles…potentially “great” bottles, too. At this point, it’s all about opinions. And, I’ve offered mine, with my reasons.