I came up with the list because I have been shocked to see these listed by others on this board as off vintages. I agree that none of these are off vintages. But, look at how many people are voting for these as off vintages. Please keep posting the difference between these vintages and real off vintages.
Never had a VCC, tbh, but I would suggest that the âaverageâ vintage performance is a big driver of what is a prime time vintage.
Price aside, I bet youâd take a prime 2015 VCC over 2014 or 2011 any day of the week? Of course one of the big things is the time itll take to age something like 2015, versus 14/11.
Wines and vintages are about style and character. The character is shaped by the vintage and choices during the growing season and the cellar. It really depends on what you are seeking in a style. Personally, I prefer 2015 VCC over 2014. Robert would not agree, and that is just fine as we look for different qualities in a wine.
Knowing Robertâs tastes, I bet he would take the â14 over the â15 even were both at full maturity. Frankly I would join him in that. Not everyone craves the big years.
Fair enough! Iâve never had the pleasure (yet) of drinking wine with Robert (if you ever find yourself in the UK, let me know).
I have enjoyed wines from these vintages back to the 1975, before that I cannot comment, but none of the above seem off to me in the same way as 1992 was.
How have X people voted for 1994 but only X-1 say they voted by checking the box at the end? I think Howard is not going to be able to figure out how many people actually voted. If possible, Iâd add a none of the above selection for those of us who donât consider any of these off vintages.
Now people are going to the super-contrarian side of implying there is no difference between non-peak and peak vintages. Itâs true that itâs about style and not just a single measure of âhow goodâ, but Iâm not sure Iâd go all the way to saying that these good but uncelebrated vintages are as good as the top ones. Wouldnât you be more excited to be served a 1989 or 1990 of your favorite Bordeaux than a 1988, even though 1988 is not really a bad vintage? Or, for more recent vintages, wouldnât you generally prefer a 2000 to a 1999 or 2001, even though 1999 is not bad and 2001 can be surprisingly good?
I know it gets tougher with younger wines, there are definitely 2004s Iâd prefer to 2005s right now. But in 2030 or 2035, do you anticipate that 2011 or 2014 will be performing as well as 2015s? Or has improved winemaking wiped out the difference and itâs all about style now?
2 Likes
My only quibble with Jeffâs take is that I am still enjoying lots of mid-tier wines from 83, 88, and 94 â not exactly âearly drinking,â and Iâd say that 99 and 04 (and of course 11, 12, and 14) still have some way to go. 14 in particular strikes me as a vintage that will reward patience (but then I think I generally like wines more aged than Jeff)
1 Like
I gotta say that I love/loved the 2001 vintage. coming off 2000, it was ignored and forgotten. It was the last time i got 1st growths under $100 and the right bank wines were amazing. I much prefer the 2001 cos to the 2000, and thats not the only wine i like over the 2000âs. the style of 2001 just fit perfectly into my wheel house. I still pick up the odd 01 when I can find them
john
I took the definition âoffâ to mean decent vintages that were under appreciated at release, but generally got better with time. Second to third tier.
That is opposed to âbadâ vintages, that were rated poorly at release and never aged into anything of note. Bottom 25%. None of the vintages mentioned were âbadâ, so I didnât vote on that basis.
I don´t get it!
If a vintage is âdecentâ it is NOT OFF. Decent means OK, acceptable - right?)
For me âoffâ means a vintage of problematic quality when the majority of the wines are below avarage and potential and value are questionable.
(that doesn´t exclude some rare outstanding wines to be found).
If any less than great vintage is called âoffâ we have only âgreatâ and "off-"vintages ⌠which would be absurd.
2 Likes
I agree totally, Neal. The 2014 vintage is one where I went deep, it hit my mark as my kind of vintage. Calling it âearly drinkingâ - IMHO, of course - misses the vintage. Heck, even the lowly Crus like Lanessan are structured for age. Now if someone means 15 years, then yea, I concur! This vintage will indeed reward patience, no different I think than how well some 2004s and 2001s are drinking right now.
I had '04 VCC recently and concur that it is a lovely wine.
Are you planning to drink any wines in 2021 or just in 2030 or 2035?
Hi Neal⌠As to your last point, Iâm not so sure. I drink a lot of old wine, old meaning over 35 years of age.
Part of my view on what goes into a great vintage for example, 2015 vs. 2014 is the number of good wines from each vintage. Having tasted over 600 wines from both years, 2015 is strong in every appellation, from top to bottom. 2014 is strongest in the northern Medoc. The lack of ripeness and dilution will become more apparent as the wines age.
As for my early drinking comment on for example, 2014, I think most wines will show well before hitting 10 years of age. The best can age 2-3 decades, but theyâll be fun early in life.
Itâs ingrained in conventional wine hierarchy that wine that lasts longer or peaks later is generally superior, even if itâs hard as nails for much of its life.
If I have to wait 30 years for a wine to drink better than another wine, I donât think of the former as superior. Iâd rather have the latter, even at the same price. 30 years is a hell of a long time.
There are plenty of 2001s that drink well now, drank well ten years ago, and will last at least a decade or more. Iâd rather have had those ten years ago than be sitting with a case of 2000 Mouton where all Iâd be doing is admiring the label for decades.
On top of this the long lived vintages can go for the more exorbitant prices. Paying for a product that will be drunk decades from now makes the financial proposition much worse.
For me, 2001 > 2000 and 2014 > 2016.
When Iâm doddering around in my old age with my 2014s and my rival in the retirement home bests me in a blind tasting with his 2016 - sure, I will be appropriately humiliated, but at least by then Iâll have had a lifetime of drinking rather than waiting behind me.
1 Like
I guess it all depends on how one defines an âoffâ vintage. In the 1990âs, I believe that 90, 95, 96, 98 were all very good to excellent. I feel 91, 92, and 93 were poor to below average. I believe 94, 97 and 99 were average. I did check 94 as an âoff vintageâ but I actually adore many of those wines on the left bank. 94 Leoville Barton, Pontet Canet, Pichon Lalande, and Mouton, Margaux and Latour, for my palate, are classic and outstanding wines, and represent good valueâŚwhere well stored! Bought several mixed cases of those 6 wines a few years ago, from the same cellar at auction, and I have loved every single bottle. Wish I had bought more! 88 Bordeaux is in the same ballpark for me as 94, although the highs are a bit higherâŚand they cost more!
Howardâs poll and the ensuing comments may illustrate the differences in how we define âoff vintageâ as much as personal preference for the wines themselves. For some itâs in relation to the top vintages. For others auction/resale value is a factor.
I donât see comments that any of the listed vintages resulted in widespread production of poor wines not worth drinking.
Iâm with what appears to be a plurality who chose none of the vintages as âoffâ because we feel they all produced enough good wines to qualify as decent, solid vintages. Even if they are not stellar, some are very good vintages indeed and offer great value. They are âoffâ only in comparison to the superstars.
Definition seems to be a common problem -
Similar to:
almost all Americans are short, because there are very few taller than 2 meters (6´7") ![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}