Might it be tougher now, with all the increased fervor over top Burgundies, to get bottles of 10-15 year old wines, unless one happens to own them? Then owing them is a huge financial investment.
I definitely hear what you’re saying. Speaking personally, I try to get to 100 tasting notes before I publish a batch as an “Up From the Cellar” report, which means, even at my no doubt excessive rate of consumption, that it is a twice or three times per year affair. I’m also trying to do more verticals, and not just of “trophy” Burgundies, fun though such things are to write. Realistically though, as David points out, doing a “10 years on” tasting that is in any sense comprehensive is going to depend on getting samples from producers. And my experience is that everyone loves disinterested criticism when the scores are good; not so much when they are critical (unless a lot of time has elapsed: hence why I started doing a 40 year retrospective every year). So it would not necessarily be a format conducive to especially hard hitting commentary. Perhaps a more general annual recap on “how recent vintages are showing today” would be an interesting exercise, though.
Having said that, looking at cellar tracker, apparently in 2017 I have 92 different Burgundies… so I could actually do a quite decent “in house” ten years on horizontal in due course 
PS - by way of apology for hijacking a thread about Allen, here is my review of his book which appeared in TWA in 2020:
“I wanted to take this occasion to single our two important books that merit our readers’ attention, and which I have very much enjoyed this year.
“The first is Burgundy Vintages: A History from 1845 by Allen Meadows and Doug Barzelay, a work of considerable thoroughness and erudition that chronicles every Burgundy vintage back to 1845. Of course, there’s a litany of tasting notes, but for me, it’s the historical introductions that accompany each chapter, decade by decade, that make Burgundy Vintages so special. Too often, books on this great region begin with a cursory account of its past, before passing on to an interminable enumeration of villages and domaines. By contrast, Meadows and Barzeley succeed in explaining how the social and economic history of Burgundy shaped—and continue to shape—the wines Burgundy has produced over time. And this contextualization is realized with sophistication and nuance. In short, Burgundy Vintages is an admirable work of enduring value that I consider the most important book on Burgundy published in 20 years.”
2 Likes
Except for all the 2004s I bought based on his scores. I learned my lesson. Still regard him highly but far from foolproof.
More than interesting, it would be very useful!!
Lost a lot of respect for AM when we saw him drunk and passed out in a tasting room in Woodenville.
Thanks, William, for you reply.
I do realize that doing extensive verticals and comprehensive vintage retrospectives is difficult to engineer…requiring either producers coming forth with sample bottles from a past vintage (as Steve Tanzer did 3 times in years past in his Vinous articles on the 1999, 2001, and 2002 vintages, and I suppose Clive Coates did with his retrospectives), or collectors with deep Burgundy cellars holding massive tastings that you are invited to.(as Allen has occasionally published, though they are more commonly “trophy” wines…interesting, though not always as useful to us plebeian collectors). And in the days of pandemic, such gatherings of course have been restricted.
What I have imagined, perhaps incorrectly, is that wine writers have at least as much opportunity as I have to taste Burgundies from previous vintages, whether at a restaurant in Burgundy, from their own cellars, or from gatherings with friends and tasting groups (though perhaps not during the pandemic). Even amongst my own little wine group, the 5 of us may open several Burgundies each month separately, and now once again together.
As I have suggested, and I am sure several on these boards are sick to death of me saying this, it would be interesting and useful to read tasting notes on such wines a few at a time, casually presented, appearing more frequently, perhaps at least monthly. I realize that the tendency is to save the notes up hoping to organize them into an article with a common theme (such as a vintage retrospective or all wines from a single producer), or at least to collect a large enough number to make them seem worthy of an “article”. I maintain that saving them up is not critically necessary, and that I would rather see more frequent posts, as one sees on CellarTracker, but from a writer such as you whose palate I trust.
1 Like
Johan, I said that and did Not know about the Parker connection, having never had a subscription to his newsletter.
Came up with that on my own and wasn’t ‘aping’ anybody. ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
1 Like
This was my impression as well. I sometimes wonder why read the reviews at all, since they are predictable based on the Burgundy hierarchy. A good machine learning algorithm would predict their scores from year to year, I suspect. On the other hand, Tanzer falls into this as well. IN their defense, it is partly because the Burgundy producers DO perform at their designated levels, i.e., they let the vineyards speak.
Still, it is refreshing to see a critics like Bill Nanson and William Kelley venture outside or beyond the strict hierarchy.
1 Like
Was this really necessary?
1 Like
By implication, we must all loathe ourselves.
“Perhaps a more general annual recap on “how recent vintages are showing today” would be an interesting exercise, though.”
Yes, William, yes indeed it would be interesting!