When a region is on its 5th vintage of the century since 2000, but the term cease

[Howard Cooper]

to have meaning. I mean really, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2009 and now 2010 have been touted as vintages of the century. Really?

OK, Jeff, defend.

[Howard Cooper]

I take it bashing Bordeaux won't get me post of the week.

[Jeff Leve]

Hi Howard... It's good to see you here! We need your Burgundy postings to keep us honest and offer variety. 2000 and 2005 Bordeaux wines are truly worth the vintage of the century title. Great wines were produced in every appellation at all price levels from top to bottom in both vintages.

2003 has never been called vintage of the century by anyone I can think of that is a well-respected taster. That being said, some of the wines from 2003, especially from the Northern Medoc, Pauillac and St. Estephe should not be seen as anything other than stunning! But the vintage lacks consistency. 2003 is poor in Pomerol. It is not consistent in St. Emilion, Pessac Leognan or Margaux.

2009 is more consistent than 2003. While each appellation has its stars, some wines did not perform as well as they have in other vintages. Pomero and the Medoc produced wines of stunning quality! St. Emilion is sketchy with some of the wines showing a lack of acidity that makes them feel flabby. But the top wines from vintage, located in Pomerol and the Medoc, as well as in Pessac Leognan are worthy of being considered as future legends. The style of the best wines is unique. It is not for everyone, but I loved the wines!

It is far too early to tell what 2010 Bordeaux wine will be like, or their level of consistency. Based on all I've read and heard from different Bordeaux chateaux, the vintage might be best in the Medoc. That is just a guess. It will be interesting to taste the wines in April and see what all the different and varied opinions of the wines.

I have a question for you. How many great vintages of Burgundy have been produced over the last decade?

[Jim Cowan]

Now gentlemen . . .
. . . can we not simply agree that 'vintage of the century' is a marketing term; especially when we are but one tenth of the way into it?
Best, Jim

[Howard Cooper]

I have a question for you. How many great vintages of Burgundy have been produced over the last decade?

I would say over the last decade, one - 2005. My view of the great vintages of Burgundy over my adult life are probably 1978, 1985, 1993, 1999 and 2005. I reserve judgement for now on 2009 as I have not tasted enough 2009 Burgundy.

[Howard Cooper]

Now gentlemen . . .
. . . can we not simply agree that 'vintage of the century' is a marketing term; especially when we are but one tenth of the way into it?
Best, Jim

I don't get to tweak Jeff?

[Jeff Leve]

I don't get to tweak Jeff?

Of course you can! Fun posts like this make me miss the good 'ol days.

[Christer Byklum]

Many in Bordeaux are starting to be a bit embarrassed of the term....

[Izak Litwar]

I've never considered 2003 as a vintage of the century. Too irregular, too hot fruit even it's not cooked, taste of licorice, dry tannins. But I love Sauternes & Barsac in this vintage for its extravagant style combined with extremely high remaining sugar level.

2000 and 2005 vintages are masterpieces but 2000 had very high yield and 2005 normal one.

2009 is close to be vintage of the century but I'm worried by its balance, freshness and quality of tannin. Several winemakers had overdone this vintage. And this speedy maturation after lack of water and downpour in mid September caused the gap of 3 weeks for phenolic fermentation to catch up with already ripe grapes inside. So short ripening isn't good.

2010 is different story as ripening of the grapes inside and outside went slowly and at the same time. Acidity was higher than in 2009 meaning more freshness, tannins were fatter, more ripe and better composed than in 2009 and the yield was 30% lesser on average than 2009. I believe vinemakers weren't caught by surprise this time and vinified carefully.

2010 vintage being 3rd vintage of the century? Even if it's 2.5 weeks to my journey to Bordeaux, I've a sneaking suspicion that 2010 will surely be it!

[Philippe Larche]

Well, I simply think that the 'extraordinary' is simply getting more and more commmon in Bordeaux ? For the simple reason that we have better climatic conditions (warmer temperatures = riper grapes, very important especially with cabernets), all cellars are now fitted with top winemaking facilities, professional people (cellarmaters, technical managers, oenologists, consultants) have better and better knowledge and can more or less control almost anything they want to.
A bad vintage 15 years ago would now make a medium vintage : I think we're just one level up ? 1991-1992-1993 could no longer happen now, even if you can not prevent frost, or hail, or can not make an exceptional vintage from a rainy year. But a

[Steve Webb]

Much sense here - climate change is certainly having an effect in the short to medium term. Let's all hope it doesn't go too far!

Izak has already mentioned 2003 for Sauternes but how about 2001 and 2007 to add to 2009 and 2010 for this region? In fact there hasn't been a really bad Sauternes vintage since 1994 when in the past they were lucky not to have several every decade.

Thankfully the Atlantic influence stills seems to be producing vintages of great character and variety - the fact that there are more of them is surely a bonus?

[Christer Byklum]

I've had some beautiful and very fresh 04 Sauternes as well.

[Alan Zielinski]

I would say over the last decade, one - 2005. My view of the great vintages of Burgundy over my adult life are probably 1978, 1985, 1993, 1999 and 2005. I reserve judgement for now on 2009 as I have not tasted enough 2009 Burgundy.

You don't include 1990 in your list of great Burg vintages? really? The few I have had from 90 have been outstanding. Most I speak with regarding Burgundy all indicate 1990 to be one of the best , if not the best vintage in the last 25 years. I am not claiming to be an expert, but I would like to hear your reasoning as to why 90 is not part of your list. Thanks.

[Howard Cooper]

You don't include 1990 in your list of great Burg vintages? really? The few I have had from 90 have been outstanding. Most I speak with regarding Burgundy all indicate 1990 to be one of the best , if not the best vintage in the last 25 years. I am not claiming to be an expert, but I would like to hear your reasoning as to why 90 is not part of your list. Thanks.

There certainly are very excellent 1990s, but for me a number have not aged as well as might have been expected.

[Alan Zielinski]

There certainly are very excellent 1990s, but for me a number have not aged as well as might have been expected.

Howard, thanks for the response. Of the vintages over the last 25 years, which ones do you believe are the most age worthy and if you were going out to buy vintage Burg's today, want vintages would you concentrate on. I have had considerable mixed results navigating the Burgundy landscape. I have been leaning towards 93 and 96 with more success then other vintages. I have had some 78's that went in both directions. As I am mostly into Bordeaux, I am still learning ropes in regards to Burgundy (tried my first burg about a year and a half ago). I would welcome any input from the members as I am a bit frustrated with the number of so-so bottles I have had in the last six months.

[Howard Cooper]

Alan,

I think that buying Burgundy by vintage is a mistake. Burgundy is much more variable than Bordeaux is as to style and quality and you really need to be experimenting with producers to find the styles of wines you like. With Burgundy, the most important thing is the producer, by far.

The two superstar vintages of recent times to me (as I stated above) are 1999 and 2005. Neither are anywhere near ready to drink and the 2005s esp. are really very primary right now and are not, except at a lower appellation level, all that great to drink right now.

Two vintages that are drinking pretty well right now and have the advantage of being cheaper and more overlooked are 1998 and 2000. These are variable vintages, and what I just said does not apply to all producers.

2001 and 2002 are really nice vintages. 2001s are really harmoneous well balanced wines that are just beautiful classic Burgundy. 2002s are fleshier and flashier.

2003 and 2004 are really variable vintages and I would avoid them unless you know what you are doing with producer.

2007 is a lighter style vintage. Some nice wines, but I have not had any great ones.

2006 is a much richer vintage than 2007, with some of the wines having the elegance of 2001 (when I tasted the 2006s young I was really impressed by their balance), but a lot of the wines are really closing up right now and they can taste harsh. I think that all they need is time and that they will eventually be quite good, but the wine will have the last word.

2008 is a hard one to generalize. The good ones are really good, but there are wines without enough fruit that just taste hard.

Note that as I said PRODUCER should come first. In every vintage I mentioned, for example, Mugneret-Gibourg made outstanding wines.

[Alan Zielinski]

Thank you Howard, I have heard the "buy producer" mantra before and I have settled into a few , but wasn't sure which vintages are worth seeking out. I have stuck to the 89,93, 96, 98 vintages, which have seen very mixed results (the minefield?). Some have proven to be extraordinary experiences. I am mostly looking for wines to drink now while trying to avoid some pitfalls that I have experienced.

[Howard Cooper]

Alan,

Those are all good to outstanding vintages. If you are finding mixed results, you should either find wines that have been stored better or new producers. FYI, some of the producer's whose wines I have the most of are Truchot (has not made wine since after 2005), Mugneret-Gibourg, D'Angerville, Rossignol-Trapet (may be better in more recent vintages like later 90s on), Clos des Lambrays (from 98 on), Jadot, Faiveley, Bachelet, Bouchard (from about 2002 on), and Drouhin. If you ever find wines from say Mugneret-Gibourg, D'Angerville or Bachelet a minefield, you may just not like Burgundy (like Leve).

[Alan Zielinski]

Alan,

Those are all good to outstanding vintages. If you are finding mixed results, you should either find wines that have been stored better or new producers. FYI, some of the producer's whose wines I have the most of are Truchot (has not made wine since after 2005), Mugneret-Gibourg, D'Angerville, Rossignol-Trapet (may be better in more recent vintages like later 90s on), Clos des Lambrays (from 98 on), Jadot, Faiveley, Bachelet, Bouchard (from about 2002 on), and Drouhin. If you ever find wines from say Mugneret-Gibourg, D'Angerville or Bachelet a minefield, you may just not like Burgundy (like Leve).

Howard
Thanks for the advice. I definitely like Burgundy. When it is good, it is excellent. I have had some excellent wines from C. Dugat, Girardin, Jadot, Leroy and a couple of others, I am looking to expand, while trying to minimize the mediocre experiences. I will keep an eye out for your other recommendations.

[Jeff Leve]

I think that buying Burgundy by vintage is a mistake. Burgundy is much more variable than Bordeaux is as to style and quality and you really need to be experimenting with producers to find the styles of wines you like. With Burgundy, the most important thing is the producer, by far.
Hi Howard... I purchase producer and vintage meaning, I buy the wine. Each vintage has a unique signature. For me, that is the main reason for collecting a variety of vintages. In different years, every wine maker handles those weather signatures in a different way. For example, most recently, in 2009 in the Northern Medoc, every Bordeaux wine maker should have made an amazing wine, yet a few dropped the ball when compared to their neighbor. Buying producers for my palate would not work.

Take the cooler years, even the best producers could make a wine with some green flavors. If I do not like green flavors, buying producer without taking the vintage into account means, I am going to experience green flavors. But that is just me. Others might like those sensations.

Regarding 1990 Burgundy, are the wines too ripe and roasted for you?

[Howard Cooper]

Hi Howard... I purchase producer and vintage meaning, I buy the wine. Each vintage has a unique signature. For me, that is the main reason for collecting a variety of vintages. In different years, every wine maker handles those weather signatures in a different way. For example, most recently, in 2009 in the Northern Medoc, every Bordeaux wine maker should have made an amazing wine, yet a few dropped the ball when compared to their neighbor. Buying producers for my palate would not work.

Take the cooler years, even the best producers could make a wine with some green flavors. If I do not like green flavors, buying producer without taking the vintage into account means, I am going to experience green flavors. But that is just me. Others might like those sensations.

Regarding 1990 Burgundy, are the wines too ripe and roasted for you?

Jeff, as to 1990, I have had some really outstanding ones, including Truchot Clos de la Roche and Charmes Chambertin and Bachelet Charmes Chambertin. I have had others I do not like as well. I would not call them too ripe, as in the case of certain California Pinot with high alcohol levels. I would say more that the ones I have liked less have lacked in clarity and have flavors a bit more muddled.

As to vintages, I think that I have found a lot to like in most Burgundy vintages since about 1995 or so. I have liked fewer in 1997, 2003 and 2004 and so would say those are vintages I don't really like, although there are exceptions.

I really think vintage is more important to you because you like bigger wines than I do. European wines only get the fully ripe flavors you are looking for in some vintages. I tend to like more elegant wines.

Also, a piece of this is where the values are. I know that you are willing to pay almost anything to get what you consider to be the very top wines. But, if you limit yourself to a price point, say $50 or whatever, are the best values in Bordeaux in the 2000s, the 2005s or the 2009s? To me, these vintages are overhyped and priced too highly (so far in Burgundy this has only really happened in 2005 and only with respect to certain wines). I am not talking about off vintages. But there have been a lot of very good vintages like 2001, 2004, 2006 and 2008 recently. Would you avoid those vintages? Would you rather have a $50 classified wine from 2004 or a cru Bourgois from 2005? If you are buying 2000s, 2001s, 2003s, 2004s, 2005s, 2006s, 2008s and 2009s are you really buying by vintage?

[Jeff Leve]

Jeff, I really think vintage is more important to you because you like bigger wines than I do. European wines only get the fully ripe flavors you are looking for in some vintages. I tend to like more elegant wines.

Howard... I prize elegance as well. But you are correct, I also like wines with concentration of flavors. That is one of the quality marks I look for in wines.

If you limit yourself to a price point, say $50 or whatever, are the best values in Bordeaux in the 2000s, the 2005s or the 2009s? To me, these vintages are overhyped and priced too highly...

Part of the problem with your point is, except for 2009, the other vintages are older and values on many wines have increased. In 2000 and 2005, there were numerous values at under $50. Of course the selection was greater in 2000. Bordeaux does a few things well. One of them is, they produce a lot of great wine in large amounts that can be purchased for under $50. My dad does not want to spend over $30 and I find him very good wines all the time. IMO, Bordeaux is the leader in the $15-$50 market segment pairing price with quality.



I am not talking about off vintages. But there have been a lot of very good vintages like 2001, 2004, 2006 and 2008 recently. Would you avoid those vintages?


I bought a lot of 2001 Bordeaux wine and several wines from 2004 and 2008 as well. I bought a lot less from 2006.

Would you rather have a $50 classified wine from 2004 or a cru Bourgois from 2005?

I admit, I buy very llitte cru Bourgois. It woud be on a wine by wine basis. I purchase a lot of smaller St. Emilion as well as other Right Bank wines from Cotes de Castillon etc...

I like this conversation and our exchange of views. It reminds me of the good old days. :D

[Christer Byklum]

I totaly agree with you Jeff, everyone is shouting about the high prices of Bordeaux, and it's true with the very best, but DRC and Leroy is not very cheap either, but nobody ever says this about Burgundy.

From $10-30 I would say that barely any district in the world makes better quality for money than Bordeaux, many interesting wines, that even age very well, that can hardly be said about Burgundy.

[Howard Cooper]

Jeff,

I am not disagreeing with you about the quality of Bordeaux or about the presence of good values in Bordeaux. All I was doing is discussing the fact that you are buying most vintages of Bordeaux, a fact to which you agree. You said "Each vintage has a unique signature. For me, that is the main reason for collecting a variety of vintages." I think that too many people only buy wines in the "top" vintages - they buy 2000, 2005 and 2009 Bordeaux, 2005 and 2009 (time will tell if this is a great vintage) Burgundy, etc. I do not disagree with you that vintage makes a difference. Each vintage does have its unique signature. Similarly, terroir makes a difference.

But, the first thing to me is to figure out what producers to buy. I find too many people buy wine (esp. Burgundy) by vintage and score without bothering to figure out what they like. You know what you like. Doesn't mean that there is not some variety in the types of wines you like, but you know you like x estate generally more than y estate, even if both are rated 95 points. I do too. Doesn't mean I don't get surprised, but the odds are really with me if I buy producers where I have enjoyed wines before.

I just think if someone (as Alan said above) is finding wines from a region to be inconsistent, he either (1) hasn't yet figured out what he likes in the region or (2) really does not like the wines from the region with the exception that we all like great wines or something similar. If it is (2), you should stop buying wines from the region unless you have tasted them before. But, if it is (1), I submit that you are better off concentrating on finding producers you like first. If you just buy by vintage, I doubt you will be able to learn to buy wines you will consistently like. As you said, it is good to collect a variety of vintages. Vintages matter to people like you who have established their tastes - you like Bordeaux (generally on the riper side) and you cannot stand Burgundy with the rare exception of certain wines that really are not that indicative of Burgundy. But to someone just learning a region, to me vintage is less important than most make it out to be.

I have found too many people who buy a great vintage like 2005 and just open them thinking the wines must be great. Well, right now those wines are not the best wines to drink - many are hard and not showing much development. Think 1986 in Bordeaux. If they want Burgundy to drink now, they are better off buying 1998s, 2000s, or 2001s, which do not rank as high on a vintage chart but are drinking better now.

Similarly, with Bordeaux, I am old enough to still have some 1982s and 1990s to drink. But if I did not, I would rather be drinking now most classified 2001s than classified 2005s. Do you disagree?

[Christer Byklum]

I agree, and if you only buy 00, 05 and 09, you are missing out on a huge number of beauties from 01 and 04, and there will be some from 06 and 08 as well, and many 03's are starting to drink nicely, and I've had many a good (and cheap) GCC from 97 and 94 that are rally drinking perfectly at the moment.

I buy producer, and rarely buy vintage, if I like the producer, I tend to find something to enjoy in every vintage as well. I'm not buying too much 02 and 07 as I find them to close in price to 01, 04, 06 or 08, even 98 and 99, and I find more pleasure in the other vintages compared to price.

[Joao Rico]

I would say over the last decade, one - 2005. My view of the great vintages of Burgundy over my adult life are probably 1978, 1985, 1993, 1999 and 2005. I reserve judgement for now on 2009 as I have not tasted enough 2009 Burgundy.

Right on spot.
I do think that 2002 gave some great wines.
Had last week the La Tâche 1999. How much better can any wine be better than this? Tremendous Wine.

Regards

[Jeff Leve]

Howard... How did you manage to turn our nice Bordeaux thread into a discussion on Burgundy? What happened? :D

[Joao Rico]

2008 is a hard one to generalize. The good ones are really good, but there are wines without enough fruit that just taste hard.

Note that as I said PRODUCER should come first. In every vintage I mentioned, for example, Mugneret-Gibourg made outstanding wines.

Well, i love 2008 and i think i will love them more than 2009. I think the best will live so long..
I am really a fan of Mugneret-Gibourg. A Ladies Domaine...

Regards

[Howard Cooper]

Howard... How did you manage to turn our nice Bordeaux thread into a discussion on Burgundy? What happened? :D

Jeff,

If you go through the thread, you will notice that it is not my fault. I guess Burgundy is just a much more interesting subject. You really need to get with the program.