Tom Blach made a very good point. I sometimes wonder why so many people flock to get hold of bottles from the so-called “great vintages” and neglect others that give much more pleasure even from let us carefully say “the start”. 2000,20001,2006 and 2007 gave me lots of enjoyment on the early side. Provided you stick to the good domaines but there are so many of them…The question “is it a great vintage” pops up far too often in my opinion when talking about wine. Of course 1999 is great but too many of them were drunk far too soon. I want, however, to quote the great Christophe Roumier here :“you either drink them shortly after bottling or leave them otherwise for many many years.” (on a visit to the domaine to taste the 96s and 1997s but talking about when to drink your Burgundies) Who am I to disscuss…
I would revise that and say buy earlier maturing vintages. I have found 2007 and 2017’s as earlier drinking in general compared to big vintages like 2005 and 1999. “Less good” does not necessarily translate to earlier drinking, sometimes they are just not good period. Also, I would avoid buying grand crus as in general they take the longest to mature, a village wine from an excellent producer can achieve great heights in my opinion, given enough time.
Agree Howard on 2004. I can’t remember who quipped “the best part about tasting 2004 red burgundy is spitting them out”, but they nailed my thoughts on the vintage!
In style, not at all Greg. I just lumped together diverse vintages that will repay patience - that’s their only link, I think… A Recent (summer) 96 Grivot Richebourg was the greatest wine of that vintage I tasted - simply fabulous. I could say better than La Tache in 96 - but I drank that LT more than 10 years ago - so not really a valid comparison.
If I can suggest… you/we all need to clarify what we’re talking about in rating vintages-- and wines. It’s very important to know the criteria you use…and how you rate a “great” vintage. It also depends on what you are buying…trophier wines only; across the board in a vintage; etc etc…
Re: Christophe Roumier’s statement: I think what he is saying is that they take forever to show their best. If you want to see them at a good stage you can try [ie, waste their potential] after bottling when they’re sitting around after bottling to rest before shipping out. But, what he’s really saying is give them many many years…whatever that means. I trust Christophe on this…I’ve known him since a visit in 1988; visited him many times (even took his house keys to Paris by accident in 1992; I offered to take him to Springsteen’s [terrific “Human Touch/ Lucky Town”] concerts there then as a amends, but…). He is particularly well versed on how wines evolve…as he travels and participates in tastings involving his wines and those of others in the region. The problem is with such things…is knowing how he likes them…and, whether he even likes to drink older wines in non-business situations. It’s all mindboggling…if you don’t figure out your criteria…and your goals. Finding the “perfect” time to drink something…is a concept…not a realistic goal, IMO. And, that assumes that you can appreciate that stage if you encounter it…not always the case.
But, figure out your goals and criteria first, I say. Don’t use others’ goals or collective goals or something you read about.
I’ve had many wines that I’ve aged that I’ve loved and hated…and some I’d wished I had drunk them a decade before, though they were fine when I tasted them (mainly whites)…
If you love really aged wines…that should help you figure out how to buy…and , especially, to backfill. I stopped buying after 2005 for this reason…later vintages were unlikely to get there in my lifetime of drinking wine. No regrets on that. And, then, there’s the whole issue of handling them at drinking…filtering, aeration, etc. to make the good experience more likely. Lots of variables to figure out…and we all doverge in some way or ways.
I’m amazed that 04s have even entered this discussion.
I couldn’t drink my Leroy 04s and sold them to someone who thought they tasted great.
I couldn’t drink my Engel 04s and sold them to someone (else) who thought they tasted great.
In both cases I tasted them on release and again 3 years later before I sold. The opened wines were not total losses as they made decent beef bourguignon!
Probably stupidly, I kept one Engel GE to, academically, taste when the wine is 20 years old. I say stupidly because of the worth of that wine now - I might still find another route for somebody else to enjoy that wine!
I had a sixpack of 05 Bourgogne from De Montille…know the producer well…and first bottles were horrible (I think it still has an 85 rating on CellarTracker). But I had faith and Lo! Fifteen years later and the Bourgogne is ready. Light, but very tasty and that Montille perfume is just lovely. Justified my $9.99, but also taught me about this crazy vintage. And I have some mags! Perhaps they will be for the grandkids…
Of course this thread is about 2005 but as far as 2004 is concerned I fully agree that most of the wines should have been declasssified as LALOU did. A few exceptions aside, they were a disgrace to the great reputation of the region. I first noticed the “greenish side” when drinking a SERVFELLE Chambolle premier cru on restaurant in Ghent January 2009. Barely drinkable. But still, enough said about that horrible vintage/ let us stick to 2005 and its deservedly (?) great reputation.
SINCERELY JOHAN
I didnt read the entire thread but we are talking about a wine that is only 15 years post vintage. We need another 5-10 yrs at the minimum depending on which wine you are holding.
So, are you saying it would be detrimental not to buy every year? Can I quote you when the lady of the house asks why I feel the need to buy another case (or ten)?
Put another way (due to having no cred with your wife) , how can you appreciate a great vintage if you only collect great vintages or trophy wines? The “lesser” vintages each have their own story…especially if one takes the winemakers’ criterion: across the board, at all levels of the AOC in that vintage.
But what I’m really saying is that it’s a pity to fixate on one vintage to the total exclusion of others. It’s a pretty pedestrian point, but if offered the choice between a cellar exclusively composed of 2002s, 2005s and 2009s on the one hand, and a cellar that also included plenty of 2001s, 2007s and 2008s in addition to those three “highly-rated” years, I would choose the latter; and I wouldn’t be averse to having some 2000s and 2003s (or some Engel 2004s, pace Bill) in there, too.
I haven’t even the slightest doubt now that there are many 2004s that will be utterly magical in twenty year’s time. The trick will be to survive to enjoy them.
Certainly!