Well I would move 97 to below 95 but otherwise i like this order.
I agree with Maureen’s change to Jeremy’s list, though I might move 97 even one more step to below 92. Unfortunately, I haven’t drunk enough 97s and 92s to have a clear preference for third-to-last.
It was the best of times…it was the worst of times …
Not sure 1999 is that great across the board. It was a GC top producer vintage.
For Red Burgundy :
Best = 99 , closely followed by 90 . Des années solaires . Then 93 .
The best of 96 will be great , but need at least 10 more years . 95 may need even more time ( according to Henri Jayer , I hope he is right , they do not drink well today )
I like 91 more than most of you . They are more fun to drink today than any of the above , save for the 99ers who’s best wines are sweet and dense and have never closed up .
92 and 97 are softer and offer pleasure but are by no means great . Don’t know about 98.
Don’t like 94 .
99, 93, 96, 91, 90, 98, 95, 92, 97, 94
Any generalization is difficult, there are great wines in mean vintages, and weak ones in fine vintages … but overall:
1999
1990
1996
1991
1995
1993
1997
1992
1998
1994
I´m absolutely sure I will remain in the minority with some opinions, e.g. regarding 1993, 91, 97, 92 … but what looks good on paper isn´t always in the bottles. Moreover some vintages aren´t even mature …
Reds - I agree with you Maureen - and taking the snapshot of the last 12 months, almost all 92s are tastier (more pleasant!) than 95s. Like Herwig, I find it hard to find 94s I genuinely like…
What makes Burgundy so tough and frustrating (and fun) is that the answer to the question very often changes depending on a combination of the level of the wine and specific time for drinking… Much more so I think than any other region. Then throw in producer to the mix…
How 'bout defining what people are even talking about when “ranking…vintages” like on this thread, Dan. It would be nice to know the answer to that question…as a preliminary. I have no idea when I read any given response-- other than they like vintages in a particular order.
Makes it frustrating to read this thread…without understanding a poster’s criteria.
Good idea . . . ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
1970s
1980s
Jury is still out on many of these years. '99 is the easy bet to come out on top, but is closed now. '96 seems just starting to reopen, although unfortunately it has seemed just starting to reopen for like 5 years now, and it’s not clear what’s going to happen to it. '95s are similar, also just starting to come into a drinkable spot, and with a similar hit-or-miss unpredictability. '93s I have encountered more closed bottles, or ones that need like a 6-hour decant, than ready-to-drink ones - I don’t find these tempting to open now. '90 and '91 are really the only ones I think it’s reasonable to solidify an opinion on now. The latter has been impressive for awhile. '90 on the other hand went through a controversial period but if you have been hitting them recently you have probably come away impressed. So I think these are at the start of their zone. As for the others… '98 seems to have gotten steadily less appealing every year, could be a phase, could be the vintage was just more problematic than it originally seemed. '97 I think will surprise many people to the upside now although obviously you have to be selective. '92 and '94 the discussion is kind of academic, who’s buying these?
And…what are YOUR criteria…Keith? What you’ve tasted recently? Potential at release? Future potential? Degree what you’ve tasted pleases/impresses you? How consistent the vintage is from what you tasted [recently] or what you’ve tasted and read?
These are some ways of “ranking” vintages…but only some. I suspect most people can’t even explain their criteria. I would have a difficult time myself, though it is mainly the consistency of quality of a vintage accross the board- based on what I’ve tasted and read about-- from barrel to now, I’d like to believe. But…in some cases it’s just my visceral impressions of that, I think.
I guess ‘buying’ doesn’t have much to do with it Keith, if you’ve had them in your cellar for years, waiting…
I have not had a 94 in eons and the only really good one i can recall is Denis’ Charmes. But i had dinner with a longtime Truchot drinker the other night and he said his favorite Truchot vintage is 94!
As I stated above, generalization is difficult, but my rating is based on two points:
- the (potential) level of the (best) wines from top-producers
- the overall level of the wines (from at least competent producers)
… and my rating reflects kind of a mean sum of both, maybe slightly in favour of the further, based more on feeling than mathematical operations.
The reference point is always “when mature”, not the present state of evolution. As everybody knows this includes a lot of speculation, but certainly based on my experience.
How should we rank 74, 84, 94 and 04?? 
At the bottom - no matter in what sequence …
A question is: will 2014 be in a row ?
(depends on September - the weather was not very favorable in July/August)
If 2014 a bust, how will they sell 2013? Only reason to buy 2013 at what will be big prices is to continue allocations for 2014. Hard to buy 2 years of high priced only ok wines to get the still imaginary 2015!
Here’s my '90s ranking
- 1999
- 1990
- 1993
- 1996
- 1998
- 1995
- 1991
- 1997
- 1994
- 1992
I could be talked into flipping 1993 and 1996, and also any ordering for 1998 / 1995 / 1991. Also indifferent if the worst year is 1994 or 1992, though (amazingly) I had a 1992 Leroy ‘Richebourg’ a little while ago and it was really, really good.