How good is the 2005 Burgundy vintage

[Alan_Rath]

I feel 2005 is in the excellent-outstanding range but struggle to see in GOAT territory. To me, the finesse, purity and transparency in 2010, the best 2016s and probably 1999s trump 2005.

It’s a very muscular and powerful vintage. I’ve drunk through a few village wines and they’re all over the place, with frequent flashes of brilliance. More than anything, they display the non-linear ageing curve of Burgundy. One bottle of Grivot Vosne or Bachelet Gevrey VV can be stunning, the next awkward and gawky. I’ve mostly stopped opening them for a while but will try a Rouget Vosne tomorrow - always used to be a favourite of Paul Hanna, whatever happened to him???

I rather feel 2005 is a vintage from another era in that winemakers today are so much more accustomed to managing tannins, ripeness and extraction. It’s dangerous to claim contemporary winemaking is superior to that of the past (Jayer, Truchot…) but perhaps it’s fair to say the average bar is much higher?

All my ‘major’ 2005s are still in bond, and I’m a believer in the vintage, but I’m not 100% they’re the best I’ve ever seen. My money is on 2010 for that.

I think it’s also worth acknowledging that in Burgundy, as elsewhere in the world, this was the tail end of the era of extraction (enzymatic, heated post-fermentation macerations), impactful new oak (higher toast, much less 3-year seasoned wood than today) and pushing harvest dates (for historically good reasons that were ceasing to apply in warmer vintages). You are much more likely to taste chunky, extracted wines liberally veneered with new oak-derived vanilla / espresso roast / grilled meat in 2005 than you are in 2019, that’s for sure. This has less to do with the inherent quality of the vintage than how the wines were made.

Given the numerous “best of my career”, “best of my lifetime” plaudits, it’s hard to say it wasn’t overrated, even while acknowledging that it’s a fine vintage.

That is pretty consistent with a lot of 2005s I’ve sampled over the past year or two.

[Jayson_Cohen]

But how long do we wait? What happens in the meantime?

Aren’t you still waiting on a lot of 1999s? (I am.) So you probably wait at least that long.

To put the waiting game into context, didn’t you wait (patiently?) for 1970 and 1975 Bordeaux? Aren’t you still waiting (patiently?) for 1986 and 1995 Bordeaux?

What’s the big deal of waiting for the structured vintages if what you want is the real goods at the end of the wait?

To your credit I think of you as someone willing to be patient with structured vintages. And in the meantime drink something else.

[Pat_Martin]

What a crazy hobby we’ve all chosen. Let’s wait 30 years to find out if the beverage we’ve squirreled away lovingly (and expensively) is actually any good… if we live that long!

[Tom_Reddick]

But how long do we wait? What happens in the meantime?

Aren’t you still waiting on a lot of 1999s? (I am.) So you probably wait at least that long.

To put the waiting game into context, didn’t you wait (patiently?) for 1970 and 1975 Bordeaux? Aren’t you still waiting (patiently?) for 1986 and 1995 Bordeaux?

What’s the big deal of waiting for the structured vintages if what you want is the real goods at the end of the wait?

To your credit I think of you as someone willing to be patient with structured vintages. And in the meantime drink something else.

I have no trouble being patient- we are fellow Magdelaine fans after all .

For my part, I think 1999 was a very classic vintage. What worries me about 2005s are the extremes of extraction. And that concern translates into a certain apprehension about investing in the wines.

Also, I am just not a big buyer of the big vintages. I prefer 2001s and 2008s to 2005s and 2010s. I can do more with them in the normal course of my wine enjoyment. There are few times when I need to turn up with 4-5 bottles of big name, big vintage wines and these days I will just reach back and buy a mature or maturing vintage of a big year versus maintaining a large stock from release onward.

Not long ago I actually took my first strong position in 2005s- Ponsot Griotte which is now coming along, starting to open, has proven itself and should have a very generous drinking window. With the passage of time, I will probably obtain a few others here and there- but I never have and never would buy such a huge scaled vintage in quantity at release.

[Barry_L_i_p_t_o_n]

I sometimes think “dumb phase” on a wine that hasn’t come around after 20 years as applying to me when I bought it.

[Jayson_Cohen]

But how long do we wait? What happens in the meantime?

Aren’t you still waiting on a lot of 1999s? (I am.) So you probably wait at least that long.

To put the waiting game into context, didn’t you wait (patiently?) for 1970 and 1975 Bordeaux? Aren’t you still waiting (patiently?) for 1986 and 1995 Bordeaux?

What’s the big deal of waiting for the structured vintages if what you want is the real goods at the end of the wait?

To your credit I think of you as someone willing to be patient with structured vintages. And in the meantime drink something else.

I have no trouble being patient- we are fellow Magdelaine fans after all .

For my part, I think 1999 was a very classic vintage. What worries me about 2005s are the extremes of extraction. And that concern translates into a certain apprehension about investing in the wines.

Also, I am just not a big buyer of the big vintages. I prefer 2001s and 2008s to 2005s and 2010s. I can do more with them in the normal course of my wine enjoyment. There are few times when I need to turn up with 4-5 bottles of big name, big vintage wines and these days I will just reach back and buy a mature or maturing vintage of a big year versus maintaining a large stock from release onward.

Not long ago I actually took my first strong position in 2005s- Ponsot Griotte which is now coming along, starting to open, has proven itself and should have a very generous drinking window. With the passage of time, I will probably obtain a few others here and there- but I never have and never would buy such a huge scaled vintage in quantity at release.

I’m with you, which makes it easy for me to throw the patience flag. I bought very few 2005s on release. And no heavy hitters. I didn’t see the point for my palate. Still don’t. I won’t regret it.

That said, Keith did bring a very nice Fourier MSD Clos Sorbe to town last year. It seems like a very good vintage for Fourrier’s m.o.

[Greg_K]

Aren’t you still waiting on a lot of 1999s? (I am.) So you probably wait at least that long.

To put the waiting game into context, didn’t you wait (patiently?) for 1970 and 1975 Bordeaux? Aren’t you still waiting (patiently?) for 1986 and 1995 Bordeaux?

What’s the big deal of waiting for the structured vintages if what you want is the real goods at the end of the wait?

To your credit I think of you as someone willing to be patient with structured vintages. And in the meantime drink something else.

I have no trouble being patient- we are fellow Magdelaine fans after all .

For my part, I think 1999 was a very classic vintage. What worries me about 2005s are the extremes of extraction. And that concern translates into a certain apprehension about investing in the wines.

Also, I am just not a big buyer of the big vintages. I prefer 2001s and 2008s to 2005s and 2010s. I can do more with them in the normal course of my wine enjoyment. There are few times when I need to turn up with 4-5 bottles of big name, big vintage wines and these days I will just reach back and buy a mature or maturing vintage of a big year versus maintaining a large stock from release onward.

Not long ago I actually took my first strong position in 2005s- Ponsot Griotte which is now coming along, starting to open, has proven itself and should have a very generous drinking window. With the passage of time, I will probably obtain a few others here and there- but I never have and never would buy such a huge scaled vintage in quantity at release.

I’m with you, which makes it easy for me to throw the patience flag. I bought very few 2005s on release. And no heavy hitters. I didn’t see the point for my palate. Still don’t. I won’t regret it.

That said, Keith did bring a very nice Fourier MSD Clos Sorbe to town last year. It seems like a very good vintage for Fourrier’s m.o.

Fourrier is basically always open though

[Greg_K]

But how long do we wait? What happens in the meantime?

Aren’t you still waiting on a lot of 1999s? (I am.) So you probably wait at least that long.

To put the waiting game into context, didn’t you wait (patiently?) for 1970 and 1975 Bordeaux? Aren’t you still waiting (patiently?) for 1986 and 1995 Bordeaux?

What’s the big deal of waiting for the structured vintages if what you want is the real goods at the end of the wait?

To your credit I think of you as someone willing to be patient with structured vintages. And in the meantime drink something else.

I don’t mind waiting (all my 05s are in storage, not that there are a ton), but as Tom said there’s a concern that while we wait the wines never make it. Some people are still waiting for 96s to come around, whereas I think that vintage is nothing but acid at this point.
I also don’t like my Burgundy as old as my Bordeaux, though I expect that’s also influenced by the exigencies of storage issues and Pinot’s more delicate nature.

[James_Billy]

Bookmarking so I can check back on this in 2025.

Not sure how 4 years will make much difference.

[Tomas_Costa]

What a crazy hobby we’ve all chosen. Let’s wait 30 years to find out if the beverage we’ve squirreled away lovingly (and expensively) is actually any good… if we live that long!

Another interesting topic would be whether today’s wines (and I’m not being specific about any wine region) will require the same waiting time just to come around.

[Mike_Miller]

It’s like Chairman Mao’s reply when he was asked whether the French Revolution was successful: “Its’s too early to tell.”

[Stuart_BeauneHead_Niemtzow]

Once again, it gets back to how one assesses a vintage. As I’ve gotten older, unfortunately, my belief in how long a vintage takes to reach some level of maturity gets longer. I think a decent vintage needs 20 years minimum. 2005 certainly does…so many vintages have. So, I’ve not tried too many 2005s in recent years…and stopped paying attention after 2006, as I stopped buying wines.

But, in the way almost all winemakers in the region assess vintages: across the board at all levels… only 1990 and 2005 reach the greatest heights. So…I’m comfortable it will be a great one by those criteria. And, I tasted lots and lots in barrel and in bottle before deciding what to buy, so…I think that does give an advantage.

'99 , which is nearing ready…many are…has an achilles heal to it: overcropping. So, IMO, there are some less than greatly concentrated red wines out there…mostly from Cote de Beaune and the “lesser” appellations. Several winemakers told me that at the time it was a new vintage.

If you judge a vintage by highest highs…that’s a different analysis. '99 is up there; for me, so is 2002…maybe the loveliest character of fruit I’ve ever experienced in “modern”, ie, post 1988 vintages. 1990 does have a lovely, silky character, too and is very seductive. Some, but only a few '93s do, too.

The fruit character of 2005, as it ages out,is TBD. It’s all there…and the heights are the biggest outstanding question for me…what will its character…which was big and hedonistic early on…morph into. Can’t tell yet, IMO. FWIW

[A_Gillette]

It’s hard to describe how remarkable the wines were on release. I agree with those who prefer 2010 but the promise of 2005 when it came out justified the hype. As for the wines, last night I drank an ‘05 Giroud Chambertin and an ‘05 Ponsot Griotte. Both were outstanding and while there is no doubt that they will go much longer, they were both worth opening now. The Ponsot was the first time I’ve ever opened a griotte and actually gotten a burst of cherries - kind of eye opening - and the Giroud was a deep, brooding Chambertin - not on the level I expect the Rousseau that I tasted early in its life, but a Chambertin and a grand cru in every way nonetheless. I’ve got a few other 05s sitting in the fridge that I intend to drink over the next few weeks.
A
A

[Keith_Levenberg]

Wish I had clipped the threads from the old board from the height of the '05 buying frenzy when many people wisely predicted, “You know, in 10 or 15 years these are going to be shut down tight and you’re all going to call them overrated”

[Mark_Golodetz]

The big question in my mind right now is not how good 2005 is, but how good 2015 is relative to surrounding vintages. That’s the most relevant question for purchasers right now. Meadows hailed 2015 as best since 2005 (better than 09/10) and another GOAT candidate but I’m not sure I see it yet. Perhaps we should start another thread on vintages more generally.

That is when I stopped reading Burghound.

[Mark_Golodetz]

The 2005s I have had recently seemed pretty harsh. I suspect they will come round with time, but they seem more of a long term project than 1999.

[Howard_Cooper]

The 2005s I have had recently seemed pretty harsh. I suspect they will come round with time, but they seem more of a long term project than 1999.

I have hopes for 2005 but as of right now I would say the best vintages I have tasted since say 1990 or so have been 1999 and 2010.

[Kris_Patten]

2005s when tasted young showed great, ripe fruit, ripe tannin (albeit tannic), and great balance…wi th underlying power. Fast forward to 2009/10 and they shut down hard. I still think it will be a great, and long lived vintage, but it’s a decade away from showing any of that and longer for some wines. Patience required.

[William_Kelley]

Wish I had clipped the threads from the old board from the height of the '05 buying frenzy when many people wisely predicted, “You know, in 10 or 15 years these are going to be shut down tight and you’re all going to call them overrated”

So the apologia was built into the plaudits?

I think we taste and scrutinize ripe vintages much more critically than was the case fifteen years ago—sometimes, indeed, too critically. I wonder how 2005 would be received today? Especially were it to have emerged in a context where—as was the case until a few days ago in the US—honestly labelling of alcohol levels was actually incentivized.

Several of the best red Burgundies I drank this year were from the 1980 vintage. On release, it was panned by the press—to the extent that there was a press—and shunned by the négociants. Forty years later, it looks as if the 1980 La Tâche might be the best of the decade, and I’m not convinced that the 1978 would surpass it side by side. Meanwhile, how did the celebrated 1976s fare?

Tasting Burgundy from barrel is a very tricky business, and as time passes, and the wines evolve, our tastes change too.

The problem is that vintage reputations become self-sustaining. How many people reading this have vastly more '05s in their cellar than '06s, '07s or '08s? To say nothing of '04s. Yet how many 2005s are as exciting to drink as Engel’s 2004s? But once a vintage is established as “great”, excuses are made, whereas the “weaker” vintages are seldom revisited and reappraised. I am all for forgetting age-worthy wines in which one has faith in the cellar, so these observations are made more in support of other lesser years than to disparage 2005, but at the end of the day, there is a lot to be said for buying some wine every year and not fixating unduly on vintage.

[Keith_Levenberg]

Wish I had clipped the threads from the old board from the height of the '05 buying frenzy when many people wisely predicted, “You know, in 10 or 15 years these are going to be shut down tight and you’re all going to call them overrated”

So the apologia was built into the plaudits?

I think we taste and scrutinize ripe vintages much more critically than was the case fifteen years ago—sometimes, indeed, too critically. I wonder how 2005 would be received today? Especially were it to have emerged in a context where—as was the case until a few days ago in the US—honestly labelling of alcohol levels was actually incentivized.

Several of the best red Burgundies I drank this year were from the 1980 vintage. On release, it was panned by the press—to the extent that there was a press—and shunned by the négociants. Forty years later, it looks as if the 1980 La Tâche might be the best of the decade, and I’m not convinced that the 1978 would surpass it side by side. Meanwhile, how did the celebrated 1976s fare?

Tasting Burgundy from barrel is a very tricky business, and as time passes, and the wines evolve, our tastes change too.

The problem is that vintage reputations become self-sustaining. How many people reading this have vastly more '05s in their cellar than '06s, '07s or '08s? To say nothing of '04s. Yet how many 2005s are as exciting to drink as Engel’s 2004s? But once a vintage is established as “great”, excuses are made, whereas the “weaker” vintages are seldom revisited and reappraised. I am all for forgetting age-wines in which one has faith in the cellar, so these observations are made more in support of other lesser years than to disparage 2005, but at the end of the day, there is a lot to be said for buying some wine every year and not fixating unduly on vintage.

Lots of interesting topics in there! 2005 did come in the middle of a shift in fashion back towards classicism, a part of which was a renewed appreciation for elegance and transparency over concentration and weight (though, as I mentioned above, I think '05 has both qualities in spades). That pendulum continued to swing and I have no doubt that if we saw a repeat of the vintage there would be many folks on the wine boards trying to buy some street cred with “I prefer the lighter, more elegant vintages…” posts, which I guess we did see w/r/t 2015, which is the most 2005-like vintage since 2005. But we’ve all had great Burgundies from lighter, more elegant vintages and great Burgundies from big, ripe vintages and the most important thing in having that great Burgundy experience isn’t what kind of vintage they are, but catching them at the right time. We all knew going in that the right time for 2005 was going to be measured in terms of decades (and tried to warn the Boomers away from buying them up but the damn fools wouldn’t listen…).

Now your point about 1980 is where things get very interesting because if you’re playing the “try to catch them at the right time” game, you wouldn’t ordinarily bank on a widely panned vintage blooming at the 40-year mark. (Though I recall there was a whole thread a while back about a Lalou Bize-Leroy remark to the effect of poor vintages needing more time than good ones, which was one of those things so provocative you want to believe it just because it makes life more interesting.) Now, 1980 La Tache is a no-brainer because it had a reputation as a great La Tache + a great value for La Tache going back forever, but if you’re having great experiences further down the hierarchy, that definitely falls into the “man bites dog” category. Do you think 1980 in particular was misunderstood or do you think you’d have similar experiences with other panned vintages from that time, say 1977 or 1982? In the latter case I might chalk it up to the leveling effect of pristine provenance. Harder to come by this side of the pond so I’m not sure the experience would be replicable here - but when you do have pristine provenance, there’s no level of greatness that really surprises me. A few folks here have commented on a jawdropping '81 La Tache we had from the Bern’s cellar & I’ve also had Bordeaux from that cellar showing wonderfully with a hundred years of age where I honestly had to hit the books to remind myself whether they were great vintages or lousy ones - and they often turned out to be lousy ones.