How good is the 2005 Burgundy vintage

[Howard_Cooper]

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.

One of my favorite wines was a 1980 DRC Grands Echezeaux (paid $35 for it).

I understand the idea of buying from multiple vintages, etc., and it makes a lot of sense, but is 2004 really the vintage for which you want to make that point? Sure there are a few good wines there, but there are so many dogs and from top producers.

[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-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.

One of my favorite wines was a 1980 DRC Grands Echezeaux (paid $35 for it).

I understand the idea of buying from multiple vintages, etc., and it makes a lot of sense, but is 2004 really the vintage for which you want to make that point? Sure there are a few good wines there, but there are so many dogs and from top producers.

It was not the 2004 vintage as a whole that I wanted to use to make my point, but the Engel wines in particular. I remember a friend in Burgundy, who has worked at the Domaine de la Romanée-Conti, d’Angerville etc, telling me that the most memorable Burgundy she had ever drunk was the 2004 Clos Vougeot from Engel, and wondering what she had been smoking. Then, a few years later, I drank some 2004 Engel wines, and I understood her excitement. If the ultimate desideratum in this passion for wine we all share is opening moving bottles, then my experience has been that it is not infrequently the exceptions to the rule that deliver this. And I think the tendency to fixate on vintage—as so perfectly exemplified by the way 2005s were collected a decade ago—is part of a mentality that closes our minds to those “exceptions to the rule”, to our detriment.

[Mark_Golodetz]

Logically, the vintage should define what is possible. So in a cold, rainy year, a winemaker won’t be able to make opulent wines. We may keep finding interesting exceptions, but making wines when weather conditions are poor, forces the winemaker to be on the defensive, limiting the wines he can and can’t make.

[Howard_Cooper]

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.

One of my favorite wines was a 1980 DRC Grands Echezeaux (paid $35 for it).

I understand the idea of buying from multiple vintages, etc., and it makes a lot of sense, but is 2004 really the vintage for which you want to make that point? Sure there are a few good wines there, but there are so many dogs and from top producers.

It was not the 2004 vintage as a whole that I wanted to use to make my point, but the Engel wines in particular. I remember a friend in Burgundy, who has worked at the Domaine de la Romanée-Conti, d’Angerville etc, telling me that the most memorable Burgundy she had ever drunk was the 2004 Clos Vougeot from Engel, and wondering what she had been smoking. Then, a few years later, I drank some 2004 Engel wines, and I understood her excitement. If the ultimate desideratum in this passion for wine we all share is opening moving bottles, then my experience has been that it is not infrequently the exceptions to the rule that deliver this. And I think the tendency to fixate on vintage—as so perfectly exemplified by the way 2005s were collected a decade ago—is part of a mentality that closes our minds to those “exceptions to the rule”, to our detriment.

Would you recommend that people buy 2004s blind, even knowing the producer, without the specific recommendation of someone like you or of a friend who has worked at the Domaine de la Romanée-Conti. I mean, from a really good producer, I might take a flier on a 2007 or a 2008 or a 2012 or a 2014, but a 2004?

[William_Kelley]

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.

Now that is for sure. And one of the ironies of contemporary wine culture is that the people with the money generally don’t have the time, and the people with the time don’t have the money.

I think Lalou’s remark was more to the effect that time in the cellar can supply “ripeness” that wasn’t acquired by time on the vine, so that lean, angular, compact vintages will sweeten with time. So I think she would have had in mind years such as 1996, 1993, and, yes, 1980. And if, looking at more recent years, one were to argue that the best 2008s will need more time than the best 2007s or best 2009s, I think that would be right. To change regions, 2002 Bordeaux seem to me an example of the same phenomenon.

I’ve had some great experiences up and down the hierarchy in 1980 in the last twelve months, admittedly mainly at the top, but notably Roty’s Gevrey AOC, without lieu-dit designation, and for example Guillemot’s Serpentières and Henri Boillot’s Volnay AOC, comparatively modest Côte de Beaune bottlings in what is known as “a Côte de Nuits vintage”.

Next year, I’ll do an article on 1981, which is even more forgotten, and even more heterogenous than 1980, and it will be fascinating to see the results, going into tasting the wines with a very open mind, without any desire to champion a particular year but also with no intention of “marking down” the wines because “everyone knows it wasn’t a very good vintage”, which I think happens.

You’re right about provenance being an equalizer regarding 1982 reds in particular, as some are still delicious sur place (Gouges Clos des Porrets and Ponsot CdlR were lovely recently, which Pousse d’Or 60 Ouvrées was surprisingly pedestrian but no where near too old), but which are mostly extremely fragile. 1979 reds, especially from the Côte de Beaune, are also quite often fabulous, perfumed, texturally sumptuous wines when opened in the region, but not necessarily bottles I would be excited to drink after they have travelled 5,000 kilometers.

But to answer your question a bit more directly, if you were to say, can one find 1980s that are better than 1978s?, or 1981s that are better than 1985s?, I would answer “yes”, while still acknowledging the overall superiority of '85 and '78. And what a pity it would be to miss out on the modern day equivalents of those exceptions to the rule today! One of my motivation to start a “40 years on” retrospective series for TWA was to juxtapose contemporaneous commentary from all quarters with how the wines actually taste today, with a view to hopefully at least avoiding making the same journalistic mistakes twice, and this has been one of the more interesting lessons that the exercise has reaffirmed.

[William_Kelley]

One of my favorite wines was a 1980 DRC Grands Echezeaux (paid $35 for it).

I understand the idea of buying from multiple vintages, etc., and it makes a lot of sense, but is 2004 really the vintage for which you want to make that point? Sure there are a few good wines there, but there are so many dogs and from top producers.

It was not the 2004 vintage as a whole that I wanted to use to make my point, but the Engel wines in particular. I remember a friend in Burgundy, who has worked at the Domaine de la Romanée-Conti, d’Angerville etc, telling me that the most memorable Burgundy she had ever drunk was the 2004 Clos Vougeot from Engel, and wondering what she had been smoking. Then, a few years later, I drank some 2004 Engel wines, and I understood her excitement. If the ultimate desideratum in this passion for wine we all share is opening moving bottles, then my experience has been that it is not infrequently the exceptions to the rule that deliver this. And I think the tendency to fixate on vintage—as so perfectly exemplified by the way 2005s were collected a decade ago—is part of a mentality that closes our minds to those “exceptions to the rule”, to our detriment.

Would you recommend that people buy 2004s blind, even knowing the producer, without the specific recommendation of someone like you or of a friend who has worked at the Domaine de la Romanée-Conti. I mean, from a really good producer, I might take a flier on a 2007 or a 2008 or a 2012 or a 2014, but a 2004?

No, manifestly not! I wouldn’t really recommend anyone doing anything blind in Burgundy, except perhaps tasting. But I would also say that anyone who sees an Engel 2004 on a wine list and doesn’t order it because of the vintage has missed out on a beautiful experience.

But my comment was really an attempt to get a bit more (perhaps too) philosophical about the way we think about vintages, rather than to give buying advice or whatever (the 2005 ship has sailed at this stage in any case).

[William_Kelley]

Logically, the vintage should define what is possible. So in a cold, rainy year, a winemaker won’t be able to make opulent wines. We may keep finding interesting exceptions, but making wines when weather conditions are poor, forces the winemaker to be on the defensive, limiting the wines he can and can’t make.

I think the aptitude, resources and volition of the producer are much more often the limiting factor in wine quality than the vintage.

[Stuart_BeauneHead_Niemtzow]

It is, IMO, crucial to keep in mind how the winemakers view vintage quality: character and how widespread the quality is. If one if drinking only DRC, Rousseau, Leroy, etc etc. trophy wines…almost any vintage can be a great experience…that’s why, in part, they are trophy wines/ grand crus. This is true with almost any vintage I know, except 2004. In that vintage genetic taster sensitivities figure in the mix. When someone says they had a great 2004, I think the best they can say is they had a great experience with a 2004. Are they lucky? Is the wine good? Who knows. And, I would avoid the issue entirely if I had a choice.

FWIW, also , and I started paying attention to Burgundy (and Alsace) in 1983 after our honeymoon partly in those regions…1980 was always billed as a good/very good vintage…in the old, pre-1989, style. (1983 is one of my favorite red vintages of all time…because of the wines, not the memories of my honeymoon. Parker, in fact, at the time, dissed 1983…and said 1980 was the best vintage from 1977-1984. I have no doubt he was right…I always grabbed any opportunity to experience a 1980, though I’ve never experienced any of it trophier wines. Judging vintages in the “old” (made by pre-Boomers) style…is a very different task.

And, I know of no better method for a non-winemaker to assess a vintage than to taste them in barrel. Though much is unknown, the vintage character and the concentration and length of finishes can be divined. They are, to me, the best indicators. And, to try to assess a vintage any other way…as well…is not really possible. The sample size will be much smaller in any alternative sample.

My 2 scents.

[Michael_S_Monie]

2005 Mugnier Marechale is showing beautifully right now.

[Larry_Link]

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.

One of my favorite wines was a 1980 DRC Grands Echezeaux (paid $35 for it).

I understand the idea of buying from multiple vintages, etc., and it makes a lot of sense, but is 2004 really the vintage for which you want to make that point? Sure there are a few good wines there, but there are so many dogs and from top producers.

It was not the 2004 vintage as a whole that I wanted to use to make my point, but the Engel wines in particular. I remember a friend in Burgundy, who has worked at the Domaine de la Romanée-Conti, d’Angerville etc, telling me that the most memorable Burgundy she had ever drunk was the 2004 Clos Vougeot from Engel, and wondering what she had been smoking. Then, a few years later, I drank some 2004 Engel wines, and I understood her excitement. If the ultimate desideratum in this passion for wine we all share is opening moving bottles, then my experience has been that it is not infrequently the exceptions to the rule that deliver this. And I think the tendency to fixate on vintage—as so perfectly exemplified by the way 2005s were collected a decade ago—is part of a mentality that closes our minds to those “exceptions to the rule”, to our detriment.

I just checked and 2004 Engel Clos Vougeot shows an auction price of $765, so I guess a few people are in on the secret and are driving up the price.

William have you tasted the 2004s from Domaine Leroy, and if so what’s your opinion on them? Do they defy the vintage reputation?

[William_Kelley]

William have you tasted the 2004s from Domaine Leroy, and if so what’s your opinion on them? Do they defy the vintage reputation?

Yes. They are among the better 2004s but one can see why Lalou declassified them.

[John_Morris]

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? …

Lots of 70 Bordeaux drank beautifully in the mid-80s – and I mean beautifully. Palmer, Lynch-Bages and Pichon-Lalande come to mind.

[Jerry_Hey]

2005 Mugnier Marechale is showing beautifully right now.

Agree and I’m not a Mugnier fan.

[Greg_K]

2005 Mugnier Marechale is showing beautifully right now.

I’ve had this wine a few times recently, and compared to Mugnier’s Chambolle it’s still pretty tight to me. But then, it’s Mugnier; post 2000, it’s incredibly rare to have a closed bottle. A bit like Fourrier in that regard.

[Michael_S_Monie]

2005 Mugnier Marechale is showing beautifully right now.

I’ve had this wine a few times recently, and compared to Mugnier’s Chambolle it’s still pretty tight to me. But then, it’s Mugnier; post 2000, it’s incredibly rare to have a closed bottle. A bit like Fourrier in that regard.

The one I had today was smooth as silk with gobbs of fruit, but not much tertiary.

[Tomas_Costa]

Since we’re on the subject, I’d love to know how Chandon de Briailles’ wines from the vintage are showing… I own the Clos du Roi.

[William_Kelley]

2005 Mugnier Marechale is showing beautifully right now.

I’ve had this wine a few times recently, and compared to Mugnier’s Chambolle it’s still pretty tight to me. But then, it’s Mugnier; post 2000, it’s incredibly rare to have a closed bottle. A bit like Fourrier in that regard.

The one I had today was smooth as silk with gobbs of fruit, but not much tertiary.

Yes, it is very demonstrative! I remember drinking a bottle of it in 2016 with Becky Wasserman, and my initial surprise that anyone would have the temerity to open a 2005 was rapidly assuaged by how delicious it was. It will be brilliant in a decade, and the 2015 from barrel was a dead ringer for the 2005.

[A_Gillette]

2005 Mugnier Marechale is showing beautifully right now.

The 2005 mugnier marechale and chambolle are so lovely right now that I was tempted to open a Fuees but decided to hold back.

[Tom_Blach]

As a very broad generalisation, if one really wants to enjoy red burgundy without waiting thirty years one should buy the less ‘good’ vintages.

[Stuart_BeauneHead_Niemtzow]

Can’t argue with you, Tom. The 1990 vintage is now, IMO, at its best. The '93 (I’m not as keen on this vintage as a great one; just had a '93 Clos St. Denis that was pretty acidic and the fruit ok+); the '99s just, arguably, maturing/mature…barely; beyond that…still too much potential to “waste them”. Wish I had known all this…in 1983 or even in 1993— but…long age is what morphs the best vintages into greatness…and, to me, has done the same for 1983…prob not a “great” vintage …as it was inconsistent…as, IMO, was 1993, ie, not universally good.