If the critics get it wrong sometimes then certainly we do too. What vintages did you totally misjudge?
For me it has to be 2009 red Burgundy. I tried a number when they first made it over to the USA and I was horrified at how fluffy, ripe and lacking in delineation they were. I found many of them outright unpleasant. Turns out a couple years in the bottle have tamed them down considerably. I totally called it wrong. I still think 2008 is more to my liking but many 2009s seems to be drinking great now.
I bought way too much California 2006, particularly pinot. And it’s turned out to be the worst vintage, particularly as the wines age (that’s a general statement, not to say there aren’t exceptions like Arcadian).
I wouldn’t say I misjudged the vintage, as I don’t think I had an opinion of it per se at the time, but it was sort of right at the first big peak of my mailing list and other buying, so I just ended up with a lot of it as part of an overexuberant buying spree.
I keep trying to find those and open them now, since they’re mostly going downhill, and the ones that are lousy I just don’t want to waste the storage room on.
2003 Napa. I thought it totally sucked back in 2006 and I even banned them from CLONYC dinners. Time has been kind to this vintage and after about age 7/8 it started to shine a bit, some even blossoming, like 2003 Pride Reserve, a beautiful expression of Napa cab if ever there was one.
I maintain 1998 Napa sucks and 2000 Napa sucks a bit less so, but suck nonetheless. I know there are exceptions to this but that’s my stance.
2003 in Northern Piemonte. I ended up with a couple of bottles of Gattinara almost by accident (it being a vintage in Europe that I’ve liked little I’ve tasted), then some Ghemme. It seems the torrid summer elsewhere translated into a great one up there. Now just need to find some Aostan wines to really test the theory!
2009 California Syrah. I liked the '07’s and '08’s a lot so I loaded up on the '09’s. They aren’t bad, but nothing like the prior two years. Time isn’t really helping much either.
1983 Red Burgundy…I didn’t buy enough. I succumbed to the constant criticism of “rampant rot” (something I’ve never experienced in the vintage, though the color got brown pretty early)…and that it was heading nowhere good. For me, it is the Burgundy vintage that delivers the most memorable stuff when it is good, which is often.
I didn’t make that mistake with 1990…ignored people who said it was too jammy, too hedonistic, etc…but…I was too swayed by others re: 1983.
2000 Burgundies. I thought they were light and thin and did not initially buy much. They really have been nice drinking wines over the years.
2004 Burgundies. I never really liked them but bought some. But I really never anticipated how bad many of them from top producers would turn out to be.
Agree with you guys on 2010. Ive stopped opening them because they seem to be grumpy right now but at release they were amazing from top to bottom. Ive come to really appreciate vintage diversity but the 2010s are nearly perfect.
2007 CdP. I was pretty new into wine, really new into wine outside of CA, and fell into the Parker hype. I didn’t buy too terribly much, but I haven’t been overly impressed by a single bottle. They’re not bad, of course, but just don’t do much for me.
By far the biggest mistake I made was 2003 CDP. With a few exceptions (Clos Des Papes, Pegau, Mon Aiuel), the wines have been a disaster. Taste like prunes, cooked, BLEH.
2007 CdP. My palate has mostly shifted away from Southern Rhone anyway but these wines are undrinkable to me. I did not buy many btls but dislike seeing the few I have in the cellar.