Ill throw in my rankings with a caveat; 90 and 93 could be flipped and 95 could fall lower:
99 90
93 96
91 95
97 98
92 94
Blake. Our first 4 match. then…I’ve had so many delicious '98s, just not so many '95s…
Peter, i’m more concerned about the first 4-we’re in for major treats with those winners.
Having said that, I still go with top producers in tough vintages regardless.
FWIW, I went with a group of producers for 20 years, accross the board (some producers were dropped; others added along the way) from villages to grand cru from them, in every vintage I bought…which was most. (I stopped buying wine in 2007.) Not sure how I came up with that plan, very early in my Burgundy career, but it was, in retrospect , either great luck or insight…as I think it is the best way to understand the region’s wines. Keep the producers varied enough, but consistent year after year…and you will get a great depot of data to consider…and great tastings to create, if only in your mind.
I tried, early on, to make sure I had geographical diversity within “my” group of producers…and made sure to keep it…so…from Volnay to Nuits…all the way up to Gevrey I made sure to buy at least one producer per town, usually more than that…in every vintage I was buying…good or bad.
Now, I get the fruits of that luck, though I look at each bottle as a treat in and of itself…and rarely actually hold the “tastings” I imagine in my mind, though I’m open.
FWIW
Nice sentiment/perspective, Stuart.
I employ a similar geographic and core set of producers approach, Stuart. I am not buying every vintage anymore. Its farming (I grew up in farming - I get it). They are not all good vintages and in Burgundy even the down years are expensive. It’s actually hard for me to resist due to my passion, but I’ve decided I’m just not buying every vintage everywhere. I tasted the 2011s in Napa and decided, no more. No 2009 Barolo. No 2013 Burgundy (we’ll see) or Bordeaux (first year I’ve passed on since '98) but like 2004 Burgundy (which I regret) or 2002 Bordeaux, they don’t need to take up space in my cellar and don’t go well on my table. I buy way more often than I pass though. Some years just lighter than others.
'96 is overrated.
96 is not ready.
I opened a 94 Chevillon LSG earlier this year that was terrific. I got this at auction in a mixed case of Chevillons…I bought the case for the 93 LSGs and Vaucrains, high cork rate on those unfortunately. This 94 had an unbelievable fill for it’s age, and (I believe) we drank it at the perfect point in the bottle’s evolution…which always helps. Excellent display of LSG terrior. Far better showing than the 01 Chevillon LSG that I opened last year. I’m sure the 01 will be a better wine in time…but time it needs (based on the one bottle anyways).
If a 94 can show that well then Chevillon is an excellent producer and LSG is deserving of Grand Cru status.
Sorry for not offering my ranking of 90’s vintages…I’m missing, or am thin on, experience on several vintages.
Well, it seemed to take forever and many still have a ways to go, but I have had some excellent and vibrant 96’s that I am glad I have waiting in my cellar.
Nowell/Scott…
I think it is important to have some focus on buying, so that you actually learn something…rather than having a random group of [often-just-trophier] wines. I’m not sure what you can learn from random buying/collecting.
For me, I got focused on Burgundy and Alsace after visiting both on our honeymoon in 1983 and being wowed. Other than Piemonte and the N. Rhone…the rest of my purchasing was dabbling. I do think that one has to be able to evaluate the “lesser” wines and vintages to be able to assess the “better” ones. I often wonder whether some people who post/rate on WB ever taste villages wines or Bourgognes…or anything from the “lesser” vintages. Proportions are a separate issue; certainly I’ve bought heavier in those vintages that wowed me…in barrel and early in bottle. Being selective is sensible.
Like I said, I’m always thinking of comparative tastings…ie, verticals/horizontals…without food to cloud things…but they usually only occur in my head.
Pr
I had some 2 or 3 really good 1994s Burgs, incl. Rousseau and Leroy, but even these I wouldn´t have given more than 90/91 points …
On the other hand there are quite a few great 1992s - and still more 1991s - that are in a great spot now, all one could wish from a great Burg.
So for me 1994 is the least favorable vintage in the 1990s - even if there are exceptions to the rule.
I´m still not convinced by 1993, from Bourgogne to GC many have shown a slightly dry astringency to the tannins (unlike 1996 or 1995) that IMHO is a sign for not perfectly ripe tannins, not for simple lack of bottle age.
The greatest 1993s are Leroys … but otherwise … where is the real sweetness on the mid-palate of a great vintage?
I don’t “score” wines, but…the '04s have never been “over” 90-91 point wines if I had. By contrast, I’ve never had one even that high from 1997; and, though many '92s have been pleasant enough, I don’t rate “pleasant” very highly when evaluating wines. Sort of like “nice” or “interesting” is to other things.
'93 was a troubled, and, therefore, miraculous vintage. But…it is a vintage, like 1983, which I think it is like in diversity and heights, that is marred by inconstency geographically and otherwise. IMO, the best wines are just starting to show well…and the lack of ripeness before or after the torrential rains resulting in borderline ripe tannins is the issue indeed. Grand crus did best…which is why the monks esteemed them…they ripen best in all years. Since I rate vintages accross the board (to me the only “rational” way…otherwise it’s way way too subjective), I don’t think '93 is a great vintage, either.
FWIW, the below is a post from a trip last month:
I went (with my college-aged son)to New Orleans with a friend and his family to celebrate his 60th. My friend is a fiend about BYO and insisted I bring down at least two worth, older Burgs, so I did. (The corkage was ludicrous…$8/bottle at Galatoires; zero at August, where my friend treated both of us). At Galatoire’s we had a '93 Roumier Chambolle-Les Cras. It was superb…and complemented the meal. The next night at August, we had a '94 Rousseau Chambertin-Clos de Beze (my friend was born in a “4” year and I like to mark them with such; I had had this before and it was great; beyond the vintage). It was delicious…but…because it was such an esteemed grand cru, we spent a disproportionate amount of effort analyzing it (and the Niellon Chevalier-Montrachet 2000 he brought, and disappointingly, brought sealed, ie, no prep/aeration, unlike what I did with the reds; the Chevalier was just opening up into a beauty when dessert arrived.) The Roumier 1er cru is what I’ll remember most for the “thrill” ride; (and I actually thought Galatoire’s was the best meal of the trip, too, maybe with some contribution from Roumier.) .
I think Stuart’s point as to following your producers in all vintages and not just the good/excellent ones, is well-taken but increasingly impractical depending upon your expendable income. As prices have climbed, I too have cherry-picked vintages, since the lesser vintages are a bit cheaper but still expensive, in order to be able to spend more on wines in the vintages I really like. Although perhaps not best for my education, but I have more wines from my favorite producers in my favorite vintages than I would have had otherwise. I note that Stuart says he has not bought since 2007, and that was really when the prices started to escalate, so again, depending upon expendable income, putting together a Burgundy cellar nowadays may be a different proposition. For those just starting and having to choose newer and less expensive producers, this advice is still good. For those of us who remember the golden age when Rousseau and Roumier and Dujac, etc. (to pick extreme examples, though this applies to many examples at a somewhat lower price point) were still semi-affordable, it has become impossible for many of us to continue buying their wines at all, let alone in lesser vintages in addition to the ones we REALLY want.
I have to chuckle, Robert…as nostalgia for “the day” can cloud the reality. Burgundy prices were always high, relatively. When I started buying, n 1983, they seemed too high for me, and I envied older friends who had started in the '50s, because they had paid so little…in retropect. When I stopped buying , with the 2005-6 vintages, most prices I paid had at least tripled from 24 years before. This wasn’t a “golden age” anymore than the “grass is greener across the street”, I think. Prices didn’t “start to escalate” in 2007. The prices for the 2005s took a big leap.
In fairness, I bought from “my” group of producers that I regularly visited and bought from…directly. (It was a formidable task at ever level from arranging visits to arranging deliveries, so…I had more control, etc. of what was available…and , I guess…better pricing.) So…I think I saw it as an opportunity…and took it. Had I been less focused…or focused on trophier wines or less disciplined and motivated…I would never have been able to do what I did. I only raise it as a goal/model…rather than as something necessarily practical.
But…I do believe nostalgia can be very misleading…especially when people yearn for a utopia that never existed-- except in a tinted (green, with a bit of envy; I was victim of that, too!) rear-view mirror.
Ah, yes…if you bought the 2005’s, that was when the big jump in prices really occured.
I agree that the grass always seems greener…though some things have escalated much more than inflation or than my take home pay…like private school tuition, college tuition, desirable real estate in Seattle, etc. Or Rousseau Chambertin!
If you bought direct from the producer (and I understand this was not a slam dunk), then you were spared the brunt of the painfully absurd escalation in price. Not to harp on the Rousseau example, as it is extreme, but when I bought the 2002 through regular channels I thought it was expensive at $200-250 but at least doable. Never saw an offer of 2005 under $800 and never have seen an offer of 2010 under $1000 (most nearer to $1500). I bet if I could buy from the producer over there, it would be maybe $300+? Again, perhaps an extreme example, since speculation for certain wines has pushed pricing over the edge, and wines you can actually find through regular channels (unlike Rousseau in my case) may have only doubled. But buying direct would have made a big difference. Though you are correct…what seems absurd now was still expensive back in the day, and only in retrospect does it seem like a screaming deal.
And there are many producers, not so “collectible”, that someone putting together a Burgundy cellar today could buy vintage in and vintage out and that would provide a real education.
jumping on, yes, 05 was when longstanding allocations were broken and the wine flowed to those waving the big checkbooks. Retail prices haven’t come down since and the short vintages and high quality haven’t helped. I am mostly on the sidelines.
Interesting…hadn’t thought of that but true. I remember that my retailer friend who had supported Drouhin in every vintage for years got none of the 2005 Drouhins. We heard that they were sold at the winery to someone waving a big checkbook, not sure if that was true or not, but Seattle, never a town with distributors very Burgophilic, was cut out. And of course that was the vintage and thereafter when the once well-priced Drouhin grand crus went up 2-4 times or more in price.
I remember from a Rouuseau interview discussed here some time ago, on the subject of speculation, that it sounded like the prices at the winery had not gone up much. So I am assuming that your comment on the allocations being broken was referring to that occurring more along the importing and distribution chain then necessarily at the winery itself?
The prices at the wineries…often doubled between 1995 and 2005.
The trophiest wines, at most places, were/are priced differently (ie, consistent with their trophy level appeal) relative to the other wines. That’s one of the reasons why buying accross the board of a domaine’s “hierarchy” was so appealing. Some people here, when talking of pricing, are talking of/focused on mainly the trophy wines within any given estate. Percentage increases at the winery…or by the particular importer into the US (some are greedier than others) , therefore, seem more egregious at the trophier levels…as those wines’ prices are already out of sync with all of an estate’s “lesser” wines. Not all estates, however, inflate their trophiest.
FWIW.
Ranking vintages in general is fun and increase the pleasure of enjoyment of burgundy wines.
Here is the basic, buy from your preferred producers and when to open your bottles is the key. For example open your 1997 while waiting your 1996… ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}