Underrated Burgundy Vintages

[Marcu_Stanley]

My feeling about recent vintages is this. 1999, 2005 (I hope) and 2010 are the great vintages.

I’m less confident making that call on 2005, as I have some concerns that it might go the way of 96 (though I really hope I’m wrong). I also think 2016 is a great vintage, personally.

I have all kinds of confidence in 2005. Just tannic and needs age at the higher levels. But the balance is there for sure.

[Greg_K]

My feeling about recent vintages is this. 1999, 2005 (I hope) and 2010 are the great vintages.

I’m less confident making that call on 2005, as I have some concerns that it might go the way of 96 (though I really hope I’m wrong). I also think 2016 is a great vintage, personally.

With that set of preferences you’d think you’d be all over 13.

Why?

[JBrochu]

Anyone have thoughts on 2006 reds? I’ve never had any from that vintage, but just took a flyer on a few 2006 Domaine Raphet Clos Vougeot Vieilles Vignes.

[Danius_Barzdukas]

Maybe 1991 is another one?

[Howard_Cooper]

If we are now going back in time, I am going with 1993.

[Jeremy_Holmes]

In reds '91, '00 and '14. Some journo’s seriously under-rated '99 on release, looking at yields and not the wines. This has turned out to be perhaps the greatest red Burg vintage of my lifetime.

In whites '00 and then some of the warmer years have been better than expected. '03 can be interesting and '09’s and '12’s drink well now. Not a warm vintage but '11’s are really good, I tend to enjoy them better than '10.

[M_Meer]

2013 > 2008 > 1996, but if one doesn’t like the style, probably best to skip.

I agree with the idea that the duds have been few and far between, speaking strictly of vintages in recent memory.

[jason_stein]

In reds '91, '00 and '14. Some journo’s seriously under-rated '99 on release, looking at yields and not the wines. This has turned out to be perhaps the greatest red Burg vintage of my lifetime.

In whites '00 and then some of the warmer years have been better than expected. '03 can be interesting and '09’s and '12’s drink well now. Not a warm vintage but '11’s are really good, I tend to enjoy them better than '10.

I really like 15 whites and they are drinking really well even in youth

[A_So]

I don’t agree with that assessment at all. We had an accidental 96 horizontal a few weeks back with bottlers of Chevillon, d’Angerville and Roumier; some of those bottles had good noses, but all had impenetrable walls of acidity on the palate; none were even remotely close to being finished.

That has generally been my experience with 1996 as well.

[Mattstolz]

1988

birth year! ill take it!

now if I can just track down a few with good provenance…

[MChang]

I’m less confident making that call on 2005, as I have some concerns that it might go the way of 96 (though I really hope I’m wrong). I also think 2016 is a great vintage, personally.

With that set of preferences you’d think you’d be all over 13.

Why?

Less ripe, complex, probably will age well, good acidity.

[john_stimson]

I don’t agree with that assessment at all. We had an accidental 96 horizontal a few weeks back with bottlers of Chevillon, d’Angerville and Roumier; some of those bottles had good noses, but all had impenetrable walls of acidity on the palate; none were even remotely close to being finished.

That has generally been my experience with 1996 as well.

I’m on Howard’s side with regard to 96. Acid and structure don’t scare me. You have to give the wines the wines a chance, though. Many have taken 20 or more years to come around, and you’ve got to give them at least a couple of hours of air to wake up. Recent Chevillon LSG and Bachelet Charmes have been stellar. (note CdB wines have been more spotty from 96, so it’s a little harder to vouch for d’Angerville.)

[Keith_Levenberg]

2013 > 2008 > 1996, but if one doesn’t like the style, probably best to skip.

1996 tasted better young than 2008 or 2013, and 2008 tasted better young than 2013. If the hierarchy now is 13>08>96 that only reflects that the last two are aging badly (and the first might be the next to age badly!).

A couple years ago I would have had '08 on my underrated list, now I’m not sure what’s happening to them. Hopefully they’ll come out in a better spot than where they are now.

It’s hard to think of underrated burgundy vintages because burgundy drinkers are too polite to malign vintages. Overrated vintages are much more common! However, one year I’ve had consistently appealing wines from that nobody talks about as especially good is '89.

[john_stimson]

You know, my opinion is that every vintage goes thru phases. Great vintages, you hardly notice, because the wines are so good, but the less than great, but OK vintages, the phases are more noticeable. 2001 for quite a while would seem to go in and out of being “closed” then Open, then back to closed. 2008 may be doing the same thing. I wouldn’t give up on any of them in terms of not aging the way you want them to.

[C_Mc_Cart]

It’s hard to think of underrated burgundy vintages because burgundy drinkers are too polite to malign vintages. Overrated vintages are much more common!

Bingo.

[David_Bu3ker]

Rating a vintage implies that vintages can be assessed as a single entity. That makes zero sense.

[maureen_nelson]

You know, my opinion is that every vintage goes thru phases. Great vintages, you hardly notice, because the wines are so good, but the less than great, but OK vintages, the phases are more noticeable. 2001 for quite a while would seem to go in and out of being “closed” then Open, then back to closed. 2008 may be doing the same thing. I wouldn’t give up on any of them in terms of not aging the way you want them to.

Exactly. People are too impatient. A wine - or vintage - shuts down and people write it off. This is what happened with 1988s - beautiful and delicious when first in bottle and then the fruit went to sleep and people - most notably Parker, who never understood Burgundy (although has apparently now realized this) - revised their opinions of the vintage, downgrading them significantly. Even the 2005 vintage, which every wine critic that loves Burgundy raved up, is now out of favor (although many retain hope). The wines have shut down! True of 1988 until a very few years ago, true of 1993, very true of 1996 and to some degree 2008. Drink other vintages and be patient.

[Jayson_Cohen]

2013 > 2008 > 1996, but if one doesn’t like the style, probably best to skip.

1996 tasted better young than 2008 or 2013, and 2008 tasted better young than 2013. If the hierarchy now is 13>08>96 that only reflects that the last two are aging badly (and the first might be the next to age badly!).

A couple years ago I would have had '08 on my underrated list, now I’m not sure what’s happening to them. Hopefully they’ll come out in a better spot than where they are now.

It’s hard to think of underrated burgundy vintages because burgundy drinkers are too polite to malign vintages. Overrated vintages are much more common! However, one year I’ve had consistently appealing wines from that nobody talks about as especially good is '89.

Keith, I think we have had this conversation before, or it’s deja vu, but 2000 strikes me as the most underrated vintage in red (also white) since ‘89. Whereas many lovers of traditional Burgs always knew that vintages like 1991, 1993, 2001, 2013, and 2014 had real potential, and even a vintage like 2007 was thought to be charming right away even if ageability was probably under-appreciated, nobody thought the 2000 reds would be really good, young or old. Until a few years in the cellar showed they were very good among many domaines. And they continue to be very good at age 20.

[Jayson_Cohen]

You know, my opinion is that every vintage goes thru phases. Great vintages, you hardly notice, because the wines are so good, but the less than great, but OK vintages, the phases are more noticeable. 2001 for quite a while would seem to go in and out of being “closed” then Open, then back to closed. 2008 may be doing the same thing. I wouldn’t give up on any of them in terms of not aging the way you want them to.

Exactly. People are too impatient. A wine - or vintage - shuts down and people write it off. This is what happened with 1988s - beautiful and delicious when first in bottle and then the fruit went to sleep and people - most notably Parker, who never understood Burgundy (although has apparently now realized this) - revised their opinions of the vintage, downgrading them significantly. Even the 2005 vintage, which every wine critic that loves Burgundy raved up, is now out of favor (although many retain hope). The wines have shut down! True of 1988 until a very few years ago, true of 1993, very true of 1996 and to some degree 2008. Drink other vintages and be patient.

Patience is so key. It’s a long game.

[Stephen_Williams]

FWIW in relation to whites I reckon 2013s might be a real bolster. Very early days of course.

I agree, certainly at the upper end. I had an extraordinarily good 2013 Bernard Moreau Grandes Ruchottes a few weeks ago, and Ramonet’s '13s have always been super.