Underrated Burgundy Vintages

[alan_weinberg]

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.

true, true. Clive Coates and Tanzer correctly called the vintage; Parker missed it. And Parker’s call of 93 let the rest of us scoop up those babies at fire sale prices. Cote de Nuits was rated 73, Cote de Beaune 67, later upward-revised by Rovani, but still too little.

[Marshall_Manning]

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.

Greg, I’m not sure I get the comparison between the two vintages. 1996 was a less-ripe, high acid vintage that showed a lot of purity on release, where 2005 was riper, with more tannic structure but less acid. I’d say that 2005 is more like 1995, although with more ripeness, but I think they both had a lot of obvious structure when young.

[maureen_nelson]

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.

Greg, I’m not sure I get the comparison between the two vintages. 1996 was a less-ripe, high acid vintage that showed a lot of purity on release, where 2005 was riper, with more tannic structure but less acid. I’d say that 2005 is more like 1995, although with more ripeness, but I think they both had a lot of obvious structure when young.

And structure in burgundy (at least pinot noir) was something Parker couldn’t understand. But true Burgundy lovers know strucure is the key to beautiful burgundy. It is all about the shape.

[Greg_K]

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

Why?

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

I think 13 is the most variable vintage of the more recent good run; some are already aging somewhat questionably.

[Greg_K]

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.

Greg, I’m not sure I get the comparison between the two vintages. 1996 was a less-ripe, high acid vintage that showed a lot of purity on release, where 2005 was riper, with more tannic structure but less acid. I’d say that 2005 is more like 1995, although with more ripeness, but I think they both had a lot of obvious structure when young.

The hope is that you’re right, the fear is that you’re wrong. 2005s have plenty of acidity.

[Greg_K]

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.)

We just had two Chevillons and both weren’t very good. The d’Angerville was the best of the bunch based on the nose.

[M_Meer]

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!).

I see a common thread in the wines. I think winemakers and viticulturists, in general, are better equipped to accommodate vintage variation and adapt to challenges. '13s seem to have more tender acidities compared to '08s, which can be a bit harder. Will that make '08s better wines and longer lived 15 years from now? How much of that is mother nature vs human intervention? I think '13s might be more friendly and enjoyable earlier in comparison, which isn’t a bad thing for me.

I’m still pretty high on '08 & '13 and would backfill certain producers. I’d go '95 and '98 before '96, though I do hope what '96 I have in the cellar will ultimately be enjoyable.

[Greg_K]

1988

birth year! ill take it!

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

FYI, I had a bottle of 88 Lafarge Mitans a few months back that was pretty good.

[MChang]

Why?

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

I think 13 is the most variable vintage of the more recent good run; some are already aging somewhat questionably.

which are those? I’ve mostly found they just haven’t been ready. I have had some nice ramonet reds from that vintage and kevin did just post a nice note on the 13 roumier cras. I have a bunch of barthod, rousseau, roumier, drc, etc from 13 so I hope they come around sooner than later but I guess we’ll see.

[Keith_Levenberg]

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.

Greg, I’m not sure I get the comparison between the two vintages. 1996 was a less-ripe, high acid vintage that showed a lot of purity on release, where 2005 was riper, with more tannic structure but less acid. I’d say that 2005 is more like 1995, although with more ripeness, but I think they both had a lot of obvious structure when young.

The hope is that you’re right, the fear is that you’re wrong. 2005s have plenty of acidity.

2005s have everything. It’s as close as you can get to a sure thing in wine. Comparing it to '95 just sounds craaaazy to me. '95 has had hard tannin forever and some of them lost their fruit before they even got on the boat. '05 is made of pure silk. It’s also one of those vintages where the growers were in awe of the quality of the grapes as they were bringing them in, unlike those years that claw their way up the vintage charts with comments like, “Growers were pleasantly surprised by how much weight the wines put on in barrel…” I remember being in Burgundy during the '05 harvest and one of the estate managers remarked how excited he was looking forward to the season’s cheese, because even the grass was perfect. You never have to worry about those years when everything goes right. Timetable is another issue. Definitely not a year for the Boomers.

[Greg_K]

Greg, I’m not sure I get the comparison between the two vintages. 1996 was a less-ripe, high acid vintage that showed a lot of purity on release, where 2005 was riper, with more tannic structure but less acid. I’d say that 2005 is more like 1995, although with more ripeness, but I think they both had a lot of obvious structure when young.

The hope is that you’re right, the fear is that you’re wrong. 2005s have plenty of acidity.

2005s have everything. It’s as close as you can get to a sure thing in wine. Comparing it to '95 just sounds craaaazy to me. '95 has had hard tannin forever and some of them lost their fruit before they even got on the boat. '05 is made of pure silk. It’s also one of those vintages where the growers were in awe of the quality of the grapes as they were bringing them in, unlike those years that claw their way up the vintage charts with comments like, “Growers were pleasantly surprised by how much weight the wines put on in barrel…” I remember being in Burgundy during the '05 harvest and one of the estate managers remarked how excited he was looking forward to the season’s cheese, because even the grass was perfect. You never have to worry about those years when everything goes right. Timetable is another issue. Definitely not a year for the Boomers.

It’s possible that I’m just a terrible taster, but we just did a dinner a few months ago with a bunch of 05s, and the clear winners were two non 05 ringers. Even wines as plush and typically open as Mugneret Gibourg’s Fueselottes need 3 hours or more to open up. (On pop and pour a few weeks earlier it was just a wall of structure.) When after 15 years the response to a great vintage is to just keep waiting, the question of “but seriously, when will they actually be great” feels quite warranted. The same thing is true for 05 Bordeaux, by the way. I recall having an 05 Barthod a few years ago that was a complete acid bomb, so when I hear they don’t have a lot of acidity, I, again, wonder if I’m just drinking different bottles.

And again, my point is not “05 is 96 redux”, it’s “I HOPE it’s not”. The other 2 earlier great vintages of this century, imho, 2002 and 2010 haven’t been shut down hard for 15 years.

[Greg_K]

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

I think 13 is the most variable vintage of the more recent good run; some are already aging somewhat questionably.

which are those? I’ve mostly found they just haven’t been ready. I have had some nice ramonet reds from that vintage and kevin did just post a nice note on the 13 roumier cras. I have a bunch of barthod, rousseau, roumier, drc, etc from 13 so I hope they come around sooner than later but I guess we’ll see.

Roumier’s 13 Cras is very good, Barthod is undrinkable at the moment (what else is new). It’s my second least favorite Fourrier vintage after 2005 (2008 is the other) and a Groffier Sentiers I had was just awful. Whereas I’ve also had some lovely 13s (a Chezeaux Suchots was terrific recently). It’s an uneven vintage. I don’t buy DRC or Rousseau, so couldn’t tell you.

[Keith_Levenberg]

It’s possible that I’m just a terrible taster, but we just did a dinner a few months ago with a bunch of 05s, and the clear winners were two non 05 ringers. Even wines as plush and typically open as Mugneret Gibourg’s Fueselottes need 3 hours or more to open up. (On pop and pour a few weeks earlier it was just a wall of structure.) When after 15 years the response to a great vintage is to just keep waiting, the question of “but seriously, when will they actually be great” feels quite warranted. The same thing is true for 05 Bordeaux, by the way. I recall having an 05 Barthod a few years ago that was a complete acid bomb, so when I hear they don’t have a lot of acidity, I, again, wonder if I’m just drinking different bottles.

And again, my point is not “05 is 96 redux”, it’s “I HOPE it’s not”. The other 2 earlier great vintages of this century, imho, 2002 and 2010 haven’t been shut down hard for 15 years.

15 years post-harvest has never been enough time for a great vintage. 25 is a good rule of thumb and even that’s really just the bare minimum to get into the zone of bona fide mature.

[Greg_K]

It’s possible that I’m just a terrible taster, but we just did a dinner a few months ago with a bunch of 05s, and the clear winners were two non 05 ringers. Even wines as plush and typically open as Mugneret Gibourg’s Fueselottes need 3 hours or more to open up. (On pop and pour a few weeks earlier it was just a wall of structure.) When after 15 years the response to a great vintage is to just keep waiting, the question of “but seriously, when will they actually be great” feels quite warranted. The same thing is true for 05 Bordeaux, by the way. I recall having an 05 Barthod a few years ago that was a complete acid bomb, so when I hear they don’t have a lot of acidity, I, again, wonder if I’m just drinking different bottles.

And again, my point is not “05 is 96 redux”, it’s “I HOPE it’s not”. The other 2 earlier great vintages of this century, imho, 2002 and 2010 haven’t been shut down hard for 15 years.

15 years post-harvest has never been enough time for a great vintage. 25 is a good rule of thumb and even that’s really just the bare minimum to get into the zone of bona fide mature.

I don’t need bona fide mature, I need “showing something”. 2010s and 2002s have been showing plenty already. Even 2005 villages aren’t in a very accessible place right now, imho. I am hardly suggesting all grand crus from 2005 should be drinking phenomenally now.

[Howard_Cooper]

The hope is that you’re right, the fear is that you’re wrong. 2005s have plenty of acidity.

2005s have everything. It’s as close as you can get to a sure thing in wine. Comparing it to '95 just sounds craaaazy to me. '95 has had hard tannin forever and some of them lost their fruit before they even got on the boat. '05 is made of pure silk. It’s also one of those vintages where the growers were in awe of the quality of the grapes as they were bringing them in, unlike those years that claw their way up the vintage charts with comments like, “Growers were pleasantly surprised by how much weight the wines put on in barrel…” I remember being in Burgundy during the '05 harvest and one of the estate managers remarked how excited he was looking forward to the season’s cheese, because even the grass was perfect. You never have to worry about those years when everything goes right. Timetable is another issue. Definitely not a year for the Boomers.

It’s possible that I’m just a terrible taster, but we just did a dinner a few months ago with a bunch of 05s, and the clear winners were two non 05 ringers. Even wines as plush and typically open as Mugneret Gibourg’s Fueselottes need 3 hours or more to open up. (On pop and pour a few weeks earlier it was just a wall of structure.) When after 15 years the response to a great vintage is to just keep waiting, the question of “but seriously, when will they actually be great” feels quite warranted. The same thing is true for 05 Bordeaux, by the way. I recall having an 05 Barthod a few years ago that was a complete acid bomb, so when I hear they don’t have a lot of acidity, I, again, wonder if I’m just drinking different bottles.

And again, my point is not “05 is 96 redux”, it’s “I HOPE it’s not”. The other 2 earlier great vintages of this century, imho, 2002 and 2010 haven’t been shut down hard for 15 years.

From the very beginning it was clear that 2005 was going to be a vintage that was going to take a very long time to come around. If you didn’t have the patience to wait, you either should not have bought the wines or should sell them now and buy something softer that would be more to your liking. IMHO, a lot of village 2005s are starting to taste quite good and the better wines are starting to soften but not yet show any signs of mature flavors. Cases in point would be a 2005 Drouhin Clos St. Denis and a 2005 Jouan Clos St. Denis that I had together earlier this year - note that rumors at least are that Drouhin gets his Clos St. Denis from Jouan. These wines were not closed but were primary.

Look, vintages like 2002, 2009 and 2015 are more crowd pleasers than more structured wines from vintages like 1996, 2005 and even 2010, which wines have a good bit of acidity as well, but are nowhere near as high acidity as are the 1996s. I don’t see that much similarity between 1996 and 2005, other than I like both a lot), but if you don’t like them you should sell them as they have appreciated a good bit. There are no requirements that everyone like the same wine.

[Howard_Cooper]

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

Again, with whites, I would say that the real underrated vintage is 1993. Parker trashed both the reds and whites from this vintage, but the wines from both colors are really good. I also agree with the comment that for whites 2000 is an underrated vintage.

And, however good you think 2014 is for whites, it is probably better. Does this make it underrated?

[Greg_K]

2005s have everything. It’s as close as you can get to a sure thing in wine. Comparing it to '95 just sounds craaaazy to me. '95 has had hard tannin forever and some of them lost their fruit before they even got on the boat. '05 is made of pure silk. It’s also one of those vintages where the growers were in awe of the quality of the grapes as they were bringing them in, unlike those years that claw their way up the vintage charts with comments like, “Growers were pleasantly surprised by how much weight the wines put on in barrel…” I remember being in Burgundy during the '05 harvest and one of the estate managers remarked how excited he was looking forward to the season’s cheese, because even the grass was perfect. You never have to worry about those years when everything goes right. Timetable is another issue. Definitely not a year for the Boomers.

It’s possible that I’m just a terrible taster, but we just did a dinner a few months ago with a bunch of 05s, and the clear winners were two non 05 ringers. Even wines as plush and typically open as Mugneret Gibourg’s Fueselottes need 3 hours or more to open up. (On pop and pour a few weeks earlier it was just a wall of structure.) When after 15 years the response to a great vintage is to just keep waiting, the question of “but seriously, when will they actually be great” feels quite warranted. The same thing is true for 05 Bordeaux, by the way. I recall having an 05 Barthod a few years ago that was a complete acid bomb, so when I hear they don’t have a lot of acidity, I, again, wonder if I’m just drinking different bottles.

And again, my point is not “05 is 96 redux”, it’s “I HOPE it’s not”. The other 2 earlier great vintages of this century, imho, 2002 and 2010 haven’t been shut down hard for 15 years.

From the very beginning it was clear that 2005 was going to be a vintage that was going to take a very long time to come around. If you didn’t have the patience to wait, you either should not have bought the wines or should sell them now and buy something softer that would be more to your liking. IMHO, a lot of village 2005s are starting to taste quite good and the better wines are starting to soften but not yet show any signs of mature flavors. Cases in point would be a 2005 Drouhin Clos St. Denis and a 2005 Jouan Clos St. Denis that I had together earlier this year - note that rumors at least are that Drouhin gets his Clos St. Denis from Jouan. These wines were not closed but were primary.

Look, vintages like 2002, 2009 and 2015 are more crowd pleasers than more structured wines from vintages like 1996, 2005 and even 2010, which wines have a good bit of acidity as well, but are nowhere near as high acidity as are the 1996s. I don’t see that much similarity between 1996 and 2005, other than I like both a lot), but if you don’t like them you should sell them as they have appreciated a good bit. There are no requirements that everyone like the same wine.

You don’t appear to have read my post closely Howard, so I will make my point clearer. My problem is not a lack of patience, as I have been letting nearly all my 2005s sleep. I do not need to drink them now. I am, however, concerned that my patience will outlive the wines, as it has for the 1996s that I own (and owned). The point is not that “I don’t like them”.

We seem to have run this into the ground, so you’re welcome to have the last word.

[Howard_Cooper]

It’s possible that I’m just a terrible taster, but we just did a dinner a few months ago with a bunch of 05s, and the clear winners were two non 05 ringers. Even wines as plush and typically open as Mugneret Gibourg’s Fueselottes need 3 hours or more to open up. (On pop and pour a few weeks earlier it was just a wall of structure.) When after 15 years the response to a great vintage is to just keep waiting, the question of “but seriously, when will they actually be great” feels quite warranted. The same thing is true for 05 Bordeaux, by the way. I recall having an 05 Barthod a few years ago that was a complete acid bomb, so when I hear they don’t have a lot of acidity, I, again, wonder if I’m just drinking different bottles.

And again, my point is not “05 is 96 redux”, it’s “I HOPE it’s not”. The other 2 earlier great vintages of this century, imho, 2002 and 2010 haven’t been shut down hard for 15 years.

From the very beginning it was clear that 2005 was going to be a vintage that was going to take a very long time to come around. If you didn’t have the patience to wait, you either should not have bought the wines or should sell them now and buy something softer that would be more to your liking. IMHO, a lot of village 2005s are starting to taste quite good and the better wines are starting to soften but not yet show any signs of mature flavors. Cases in point would be a 2005 Drouhin Clos St. Denis and a 2005 Jouan Clos St. Denis that I had together earlier this year - note that rumors at least are that Drouhin gets his Clos St. Denis from Jouan. These wines were not closed but were primary.

Look, vintages like 2002, 2009 and 2015 are more crowd pleasers than more structured wines from vintages like 1996, 2005 and even 2010, which wines have a good bit of acidity as well, but are nowhere near as high acidity as are the 1996s. I don’t see that much similarity between 1996 and 2005, other than I like both a lot), but if you don’t like them you should sell them as they have appreciated a good bit. There are no requirements that everyone like the same wine.

You don’t appear to have read my post closely Howard, so I will make my point clearer. My problem is not a lack of patience, as I have been letting nearly all my 2005s sleep. I do not need to drink them now. I am, however, concerned that my patience will outlive the wines, as it has for the 1996s that I own (and owned). The point is not that “I don’t like them”.

We seem to have run this into the ground, so you’re welcome to have the last word.

Point one, I like the 1996s and you don’t.

Point two. You think the 2005s are developing like the 1996s. I don’t think the vintages are all that similar, but if you are right, that is ok with me but not with you.

Point three. This isn’t math or science. I can like different wines from you without either of us being right or wrong, a concept you seem to be having severe problems with.

Point four. I am holding onto my 2005s because based on what I have been tasting I think I will really like them in a few more years. Why are you holding on to yours?

[Jay_Miller]

Point four. I am holding onto my 2005s because based on what I have been tasting I think I will really like them in a few more years.

If by a few you mean 10 then I concur.

My concern has always been that I might be dead before I’d enjoy drinking them.

[MChang]

I’ve only had a couple 05 but they’ve been pretty great; Angerville Champans, Lambrays, and especially Nicolas Rossignol Chevrets