Hyped Vintages that Disappointed

[Neal.Mollen]

The British critics by and large were very negative about 2003 in Bordeaux in the early stages.

This is absolutely true, but did anyone care at the time?

Not in the US.

The US critics – including most prominently Parker – called it a profoundly heterogeneous and atypical vintage, with some monumental (if unusual) wines and a lot of flawed dreck. I don’t remember any of the major critics claiming it was a great or even very good vintage.

[Neal.Mollen]

For a few:

California 1997
Bordeaux 1995, 2003 and for me 2009 and 2010
Burgundy 1983, 1990, 1995, 1997
Germany - what are the hyped vintages? The only ones I think of as really being hyped are 1971, 1975, 1976, 1990, 2001 and 2015. All of these are fabulous vintages, at least in the case of some pradikats (see 1976). Is 1989 as good as the hype, really depends on what regions you are talking about (some great wines from the Saar, Ruwer and Nahe) and how much you think it was hyped. The only really hyped vintage I can think of that is not as up to the hype is 1983 and there are some great wines in that vintage like from Prum and Grunhaus.

This is not true for all of the vintages named, but the IMHO the most common eventual flaw in the vintages above are very hot and not enough acidity.

The British critics by and large were very negative about 2003 in Bordeaux in the early stages. Jancis Robinson wrote a pretty scathing column about overripe wines. As I recall, she said something about them possibly appealing to American palates. Parker extolled them.

90 red burgs are admittedly variable, but they offer far too many absolutely stunning wines to be considered hugely disappointing overall. 1990 Jayers and Rougets–particularly echezeaux–are unbelievably good. 90 Rousseaus are glorious. 90 Mugnier Amoureusses has been lovely recently, as has Bachelet Charmes. 90 Leroy Beaux monts is a stunner. The list goes on and on. 90 lafarge clos de chenes is beautiful. 90 Meos can be excellent. 90 DRCs are at least quite good.

05 Bordeaux would be my pick. I haven’t tasted all of them recently, but the half dozen or so i’ve had lately, particularly left bank, have been pretty forgettable.

I would have thought the 05s were at least 5-7 years away from showing whatever they have to show. It may not be much of a vintage, but I am not sure I’d be able to tell one way or another ATM

[Steven_Dilley]

1997 Piedmont
1993 Burgundy

I thought 1993 had a reputation young as overly tannic and underfruited. I certainly don’t recall it being hyped at the time of release. I thought it’s positive reputation only developed over the last decade or so.

I think you’re mainly right, but I believe Claude Kolm was an outlier and lauded the '93 vintage on release.

[David_Glasser]

2007 Chateauneuf
1998 Barossa Shiraz

[Joshua_Kates]

I would have said '97 generally in Italy; and is '96 Burgundy the elephant in the room? They were really being talked up when I was there when they were released and not just by the old ladies sitting in the cellars where we visited. I’m still waiting on most of mine–and the ones I had, most notably Jadot Richebourg, are definitely not bringing it. Bordeaux '05 could be another–waiting to see there also.
’

[John_Morris]

This is absolutely true, but did anyone care at the time?

Not in the US.

The US critics – including most prominently Parker – called it a profoundly heterogeneous and atypical vintage, with some monumental (if unusual) wines and a lot of flawed dreck. I don’t remember any of the major critics claiming it was a great or even very good vintage.

I think you’re right, but wasn’t Parker ecstatic about a bunch?

[John_Morris]

I would have said '97 generally in Italy; and is '96 Burgundy the elephant in the room? They were really being talked up when I was there when they were released and not just by the old ladies sitting in the cellars where we visited. I’m still waiting on most of mine–and the ones I had, most notably Jadot Richebourg, are definitely not bringing it.

There have been lots of previous discussions of 96 Burgundies. I’m in haven’t-given-up-hope-yet camp. But I’ve been sitting on mine.

What did you think of them at the time? I’m curious. I tasted there for several days with Claude Kolm in November 1998, visiting top properties, and I thought the 96s were terrific— concentrated, structured and balanced.

[Neal.Mollen]

Not in the US.

The US critics – including most prominently Parker – called it a profoundly heterogeneous and atypical vintage, with some monumental (if unusual) wines and a lot of flawed dreck. I don’t remember any of the major critics claiming it was a great or even very good vintage.

I think you’re right, but wasn’t Parker ecstatic about a bunch?

Define “a bunch.” He certainly gushed about the St Estephe wines and the firsts (or at least most of them), and famously loved the Pavie “everyone” else hated. My memory is not as vivid as it once was. But he panned a ton of classified growths.

EDIT: on his vintage chart he rated Pomerol 84, Margaux 88, Pessac/Graves 88, St Emilion 90, and St Julien/Paulliac/St Estephe 95

[Patrick_Stella]

The British critics by and large were very negative about 2003 in Bordeaux in the early stages. Jancis Robinson wrote a pretty scathing column about overripe wines. As I recall, she said something about them possibly appealing to American palates. Parker extolled them.

90 red burgs are admittedly variable, but they offer far too many absolutely stunning wines to be considered hugely disappointing overall. 1990 Jayers and Rougets–particularly echezeaux–are unbelievably good. 90 Rousseaus are glorious. 90 Mugnier Amoureusses has been lovely recently, as has Bachelet Charmes. 90 Leroy Beaux monts is a stunner. The list goes on and on. 90 lafarge clos de chenes is beautiful. 90 Meos can be excellent. 90 DRCs are at least quite good.

05 Bordeaux would be my pick. I haven’t tasted all of them recently, but the half dozen or so i’ve had lately, particularly left bank, have been pretty forgettable.

I would have thought the 05s were at least 5-7 years away from showing whatever they have to show. It may not be much of a vintage, but I am not sure I’d be able to tell one way or another ATM

Neal,

I agree–time will tell. But I’ve tasted wines in the past couple months that I would have thought would be rounding into form at least–Pichon Baron, the leovilles, etc. To my taste, they aren’t threatening to develop anything good. I’ve been skipping the 1st growths on your logic, but what I’ve tasted down the price spectrum has been scary.

[Joshua_Kates]

I would have said '97 generally in Italy; and is '96 Burgundy the elephant in the room? They were really being talked up when I was there when they were released and not just by the old ladies sitting in the cellars where we visited. I’m still waiting on most of mine–and the ones I had, most notably Jadot Richebourg, are definitely not bringing it.

There have been lots of previous discussions of 96 Burgundies. I’m in haven’t-given-up-hope-yet camp. But I’ve been sitting on mine.

What did you think of them at the time? I’m curious. I tasted there for several days with Claude Kolm in November 1998, visiting top properties, and I thought the 96s were terrific— concentrated, structured and balanced.

Yes, John, I was also very impressed. But at the time, I was very much a newbie. Before that we had been “Pinotphiles,” drinking lots of Pinot from California, mainly Sta Maria, but also Oregon. We visited Burgundy when living a France for a few months and got to know the area and the wines. We bought about 40 generally inexpensive bottles that we drank during the remainder of our stay. But I did not really have anything to compare them to; later on, before the vintage shut down, I had more experience and they seemed promising. As I said, I, too, am holding on.

[Robert_Sand]

1997 Piedmont
1993 Burgundy

I have to disagree about 1993 Burgundy. There are an awful lot of fabulous 1993 Burgs.

… and also an awful lot of quite disapointing ones - so mixed overall (and therefore disapointing).

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

What about 2000 Piedmont? At least it was hyped by Spectator and I thought Parker loved it, too. I’d rather have '99 or '01 by just about any producer.

Plus 1

2000 Piedmont is one of my least favorite vintages in the region.

[MikeL238]

California reds, 1997.

All red California wines from 1997, which I had privilaged to taste were outstanding or great, here are my examples:

• Ahlgren Bates Ranch Reserve Cabernet ( 92/100)
• Caymus Special Selection Cabernet (95/100)
• Staglin Estate Caberent ( 97/100)
• Forman Cabernet ( 94/100)
• Newton Unfiltered Merlot (96/100)
  So based on my (little) experience this is benchmark vintage for California North Coast reds.

I agree-'97 California reds have been great in my opinion. Victor, what '97 Cali did you think was bad?

[MikeL238]

California reds, 1997.

Hmm interesting-I’ve had many great '97 California cabs. Any specific ones that you remember that were bad?

[Victor_Hong]

Not bad. Just a bit too ripe and sweet for my personal preference, despite the early touting of the vintage. Parkerization was taking hold, then.

[Greg_K]

90 red burgs are admittedly variable, but they offer far too many absolutely stunning wines to be considered hugely disappointing overall. 1990 Jayers and Rougets–particularly echezeaux–are unbelievably good. 90 Rousseaus are glorious. 90 Mugnier Amoureusses has been lovely recently, as has Bachelet Charmes. 90 Leroy Beaux monts is a stunner. The list goes on and on. 90 lafarge clos de chenes is beautiful. 90 Meos can be excellent. 90 DRCs are at least quite good.

05 Bordeaux would be my pick. I haven’t tasted all of them recently, but the half dozen or so i’ve had lately, particularly left bank, have been pretty forgettable.

I would have thought the 05s were at least 5-7 years away from showing whatever they have to show. It may not be much of a vintage, but I am not sure I’d be able to tell one way or another ATM

Neal,

I agree–time will tell. But I’ve tasted wines in the past couple months that I would have thought would be rounding into form at least–Pichon Baron, the leovilles, etc. To my taste, they aren’t threatening to develop anything good. I’ve been skipping the 1st growths on your logic, but what I’ve tasted down the price spectrum has been scary.

I think it depends on your time horizon. I have a case of 2005 pichon baron and I haven’t been remotely tempted to open even a single bottle based on the structure of the vintage. Like 05 northern and a lot of 05 red burgundy, I don’t think it would be a worthwhile effort to open some of the bigger framed wines.
That said, you may well be right - but I also think it’s way too close to call.

[lleichtman]

Given all of the discussion around the 2019 Germany vintage, wanted to hear from the more experienced collectors on the board on vintages in Old World regions that were hyped before/at release but didn’t hold up to the hype after 10-20+ years and why that was.

I’ve lost count of all the vintages which were going to be the ones of the century. Most did not hold up.

[H_Wallace_Jr]

Napa 2007, Nor Cal 2012

[Victor_Hong]

Given all of the discussion around the 2019 Germany vintage, wanted to hear from the more experienced collectors on the board on vintages in Old World regions that were hyped before/at release but didn’t hold up to the hype after 10-20+ years and why that was.

I’ve lost count of all the vintages which were going to be the ones of the century. Most did not hold up.

When the Vintages of the Century exceed one hundred, critics should critically re-assess.

[Patrick_Stella]

I would have thought the 05s were at least 5-7 years away from showing whatever they have to show. It may not be much of a vintage, but I am not sure I’d be able to tell one way or another ATM

Neal,

I agree–time will tell. But I’ve tasted wines in the past couple months that I would have thought would be rounding into form at least–Pichon Baron, the leovilles, etc. To my taste, they aren’t threatening to develop anything good. I’ve been skipping the 1st growths on your logic, but what I’ve tasted down the price spectrum has been scary.

I think it depends on your time horizon. I have a case of 2005 pichon baron and I haven’t been remotely tempted to open even a single bottle based on the structure of the vintage. Like 05 northern and a lot of 05 red burgundy, I don’t think it would be a worthwhile effort to open some of the bigger framed wines.
That said, you may well be right - but I also think it’s way too close to call.

Time is the remedy collectors always hope will cure any fault in wines. Since it’s the only thing we can do, I think it’s only natural that we lean on it. And of course, some of the time it works. Lots of wines do come around with age. But it might be worth getting a couple extra bottles as tasters if you don’t want to crack your solid cases. See if you feel that structure and youth are what is holding a wine like 05 Pichon Baron back. I found it flat and, if anything, sort of unstructured. But maybe it will come together.

For me personally, just given my own mix of variables like age, budget, time horizon etc., I’m shifting away from 05s and more toward 00s and then some 10s and a lot of 16s. But who knows–maybe i’ll be saying the same thing about 16s in 10 years.