I thought this would be an interesting topic, for the sake of posterity, if for no other. I would think enough bottles have been unplugged and tipped that some judgement could be rendered. These wines are 15-25 years along.
I was discussing this (circa 2009) with the proprietor of my LWS. He has a nice selection, travels there to taste and goes back a good ways. He said it’s simple - buy every third year: 1990, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005 and 2008 (there may be a seed of truth in there after all, as far as it goes). I’m not so sure it’s that simple.
I’m comfortable based upon my experience with the last 15 years. My sample size prior thereto is limited. I’ve tried a few 1993s and 1996s from his shop and had enough 1999s to know it’s a great vintage. How would you rank them?
The white burgundy chart seems somewhat short circuited, but feel free to comment. The mental chart is probably: 1990-1995 - the golden age and 1996-1999 - premox.
Im sure that most people would out 99 at the top of the list (and that’s probably right at the end of the day) but I have to say that 1993 just totally rocks my world. Whenever I try a 1999 I think “This is probably going to be really good one day” but when I try 1993s I think “Holy f*ck this is good!” And its not like 1993s are mature and 1999s are primary. Most 1993s Ive had still taste really young. Even lower 1ers.
The great thing about Burgundy is how different people can have different preferences on producer, vineyard and vintage, just based on what rocks your world and how each of us can be correct, for us.
99, 93, 90, 91, 98, 96, 97, 95, 92, 94 - Though feel like I could flip a coin on second place, so many good experiences with 90, 91, and 93 Burgundy. Same goes with last place, not a lot of memorable experiences with 92 and 94. Too many 95 tasted seem a little disjointed, high acidity not quite in balance with leaner fruit. Would be curious how others rank the 70’s and 80’s!
LOL. You are the Ernest Hemingway of our times. Good stuff. Thank you.
I’m surprised there is so much consensus at the top. Things were much more heated when we were arguing the 2000s. Time seems to have settled much of this. It supports my thinking that when I see the stray 1999 for sale that it’s a good vintage to shop.
I’m with you on the 96s. I love them and they’re really starting to drink beautifully. I’d put them equal with the 93 but otherwise agree with your order. Everyone else is just wrong.
If we’re talking about highlights…vs. accross the board consistency(which is how I rate vintages) I have no idea. But…for across the board…IMO, 1990 is the “winner” followed by 1999 (still too early to tell; some inconsistency due to very high yields, though) , 1996, 1993 (lots of bad wine made due to rains, but lots of excellent wines made too, of course), , 1991 (rarely had wines that really excited me, but decently consistent), 1995, 1998(still too early to tell, though having one tonight and think the vintage will rate higher when more mature) 1994 (which is not all that bad), 1992, 1997.
![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}