Generally speaking, Bordeaux has historically enjoyed about 3 good to great vintages per decade and the 1990’s continues that trend. For me, you have 3 strong years, which are listed in order.
#1 - 90… Because it is the only year in the decade where both banks made great wine, and the small estates also produced fine wine too.
#2 - 98 Right Bank wines are super, and there are some good wines from the Left Bank as well, and Pessac Leognan, which places it over 1996.
#3 - 96 is limited to the Left Bank, which are truly super wines. But this is clearly a Cabernet Sauvignon year.
#4 - 95 And that is not saying much, as I personally do not like the style of most wines. There are exceptions, but not many, most are quite strict and tannic.
5, #6 - A tie for 94 & 99, for different reasons, but on a quality level, perhaps they are the same.
I don’t think I’ve had the displeasure of tasting any '91 or '92 Bordeaux, so apparently I’m in good shape.
I prefer '96 to '90 but have limited experience with the latter, so it’s not worth much. If we were to rank Bordeaux and Rhone together, I’m guessing most would pick '90
The 1950s (by reputation as I have not had that many) and 1980s were awfully good. 1980, 1984 and 1987 were weaker vintages, but 1982, 1985, 1986 and 1989 were really strong vintages and 1981, 1983 and 1988 were pretty good as well.
My issue with 1990 is that lately when I taste a 1990 with the same wine from another vintage, I like other vintages better. Clearly, it is an excellent vintage, but in the last few years when I have had a 1989 vs. a 1990, I have often preferred the 1989. And, recently, I tasted five vintages of Haut Brion together (1970, 1990, 1996, 1998 and 2001) and the 1990 was my least favorite (although it still was an excellent wines). Still an excellent vintage, and given the inconsistencies of the other vintages in the decade that you guys have mentioned, probably the best of the decade, but it shows that this is not a strong decade if the 1990s are first.
'91 - '93 interesting string of poor years. Wondering if someone could comment on what impact, if any, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo had on the weather in BDX. This was long before I was collecting and am curious on whether the eruption cooled off the region enough to produce overly thin wines.
edit to add: found some data that “…the eruption led to a decrease in northern hemisphere average temperatures of 0.5–0.6 °C (0.9–1.1 °F) between 1991 & 1993”.
I have no idea about the impact specifically, but will say that 1991 and 1993 were excellent years in Burgundy, and 1992 was not bad and was in fact quite good for white Burgundy. And, all three vintages were excellent (and 1991 great) in California (which also is in the northern hemisphere). Is there a reason why only Bordeaux would have impacted?
Matt, I think the 0.5C lower average temperatures are nothing, compared to the rain troubled Bordeaux harvests in '91, '92, and especially '93, forcing grapes to be picked at wrong timing, and other wet harvest issues. ('93 was actually a very hot summer !)
-But maybe the lower temps (ash in atmosphere) was driving this extreme wet weather ? But then again, why not in Burgundy and Rhône also ?
So many factors and connections not yet understood, in our basic understanding of the climate.
Thanks for the input. I’ve always had trouble figuring out if something like a massive volcano eruption could result in poor vintages one place, and a couple hundred miles away result in beautiful vintages (i.e. '91 & '93 BDX vs. Burgundy)…but I think Soren’s right. Our understanding of the connected-ness of our weather & weather systems is still, relatively, poor.
No idea if it is a factor but Bordeaux is a maritime influences climate whereas Burgundy is continental. IF the eruption was more influence on maritime climate maybe that could explain a difference in impact. I’m pretty sure Pinatubi had an impact on New Zealand vintages but can’t remember the details right now.
In the last couple weeks I had the 1996 Picton and 1995 Clerc Milon. These lefties are ready to be enjoyed Now! Tried some '95’s Pauillac’s last year…GPL, Pontet, D’armailhac…etc Wonderful stuff, highly enjoyable…wish I was a buyer back then
I certainly couldn’t rank Bordeaux vintages as I don’t have enough experience on the right bank overall or with some of the weaker vintages in general. I have enjoyed 1996 left banks more than their 1990 brethren even if the best need more time.
1990: Superb vintage if not the most structured. Crus Bourgeoise drink up or already over the hill. Many GC at peak or slightly past their best. Top wines are all fully mature and amongst the best the world has to offer IMO. Hedonistic style. Haut Brion and La Mission Haut Brion as good as 1989 but not exactly the same style.
1991-1993: Not much to say. Some wines good but no Highlights, many disappointments and many awful.
1994: Most of the wines with unripe tannins. Only the best without too much green but overall only an acceptable vintage. Most of the wines lack mid palate too.
1995: Very good vintage for the lover of the traditional style. Good on both sides of the Gironde. The Left Bankers needed a longer time to come around. But they get very good with time. Classic Bordeaux. Be patient.
1996: Superb on the Left Bank with structured, masculine wines in need of extended cellaring. Pessac not so good but Paulliac, St. Julien and St. Estephe superb. Only for people with patience and a weakness for masculine, traditional Bordeaux. No 1990!
1997: Charming wines for early consumption. Drink up.
1998: Superb on the Right Bank and in Pessac. Northern Medoc good but not special.
1999: A vintage full of harmony not that dissimilar to 1985. Balanced and elegant wines that all drink very well these days. I would all drink up with the exception of the very best. I love the style of this vintage. Even acceptable for hardcore Burgundy fans I guess.
I read there is a consensus about the trio 98-96-90 as the wines most loved and wanted. No surprise in that.
1990 as allround winner. Few mistakes. Today, many at peak, please drink away, no need to cellar, except for a few very cold ones.
1996 for the left bank(Cab Sauv.) lovers.
1998 for the right bank(Merlot) aficionados.
1995 is a clear number 4.
Both banks, and Graves, have some true great wines to show, but weak stuff too. Get the best, forget the rest !
1994 and 1999, a tannic bitter, and a ripe’n’rainy. Some gems to be found(Poms, Graves, Margauxs), and lots of poor sub-standard wine too!
And, The Weak Four, bottoms this list. Today(2017) not much should still be cellared/hunted. -Hard to find a wine here, still evolving for the better.
1990: Very ripe vintage. Some of the best wines of the 90s at the top, like Margaux, Cheval Blanc, Latour, HB, Leoville Poyferre, Montrose, Pichon Baron and etc. Not uniformly excellent.
1991-1993: What Jürgen said.
1994: Not a great year but I was pleasantly surprised by how good the HB and the Lafite were showing.
1995: Nice vintage after the four poor ones. Quite ripe and sweet, slightly roasted coffee like expression slightly, coarse tannins are common and good acidity. More black fruit compare to the 96, riper but less pure. Quite consistent from top to bottom, both right and left. No super stars but a lot in 93-97 pts RP scale range.
1996: What Jürgen said. Plus, two of the 90s most classic clarets were made, Chateau Margaux and Chateau Latour. The right bank is so so.
1997: What Jürgen said.
1998: What Jürgen said. Great HB, LMHB, Trotanoy and etc.
1999: Not enough experience to generalize but loved the LMHB, Palmer, HB and etc. My highest rating is actually the Pavie @96 pts!
this thread.