2003 in Europe, yes, but especially the good scores for the Southern Rhone. ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
The 1975 got rave reviews, at least from Frank Prial in the NYTimes. The tannins were wonderfully strong and they gave the wine great strength and longevity. Unfortunately, the fruit died before the tannins were resolved. So the six bottles of first growths that I splurged on as a young associate barely two years out of law school earning the princely sum of $21,000 a year never quite reached the predicted peaks. 1970, on the other hand, was generally panned but there were some good ones. I got a 1970 Leoville Las Cases as a gift and by the mid-1980s it was excellent. I have 4 bottles of 1970 Gruaud Larose and five bottles of the 1975. Maybe I’ll open on of each as a test, but I think they will be dead.
On 2003 in Bordeaux, Jancis Robinson and some of the other British writers were pretty negative about it from the start.
Did anyone mention 2007 Southern Rhone? Many I’ve found to be like lighter fluid. Even if you like grenache and big wines, many of those are wildly out of balance.
Yes! Good (bad) call, John.
2011 in CA.
Maybe not “totally botched” but I do think 2011 has been overly criticized and unduly written off from the start. It’s my favorite recent vintage, one with many outstanding wines of surprising beauty and elegance.
Vintage report memories:
1970: Harry Waugh said it was great, then people back tracked a little bit, said they found a ‘hole’ in it. It followed 68 a disaster, 69 not so great either and 67 nothing exciting so people were ready for some wine. I just looked at 70 Margaux, Pavie and Gruaud larose last week. Wouldn t wait much longer.
1971: Hot in Burgundy, opened to great reviews, now not discussed much. In Bordeaux over investment in this vintage nearly bankrupted some.
1972: Pretty bad in Bordeaux but some terrific Burgundies were made, but this vintage was wrongly rated as bad by both critics.
1973: Thin in Burgundy, not great in Bordeaux but excellent QPR sometimes. Las Cases went for for $80…a case. I enjoyed a bottle of 73 Mouton about ten years ago…delicious…the original price was on the bottle…$11.50.
1974: Incredibly hyped here, but sometimes the wines turned out on the boring side.
1975: Bordeaux needed a great vintage so they said it was that. Nobody talks about it any more. This was the beginning of a long bull market for these wines. Here in California, this vintage passed in the shadow of 1974, but in retrospect, many great wines were made.
1980: underrated and dissed in Burgundy by many, turned out to be pretty tasty.
1982: raved about in Burgundy at the time, wines turned out to be fairly thin.
I agree. It is probably too early to call, but I don’t think many of these have the stuffing to make old bones. Nevertheless, why worry, as they are delicious right out of the gate.
Burghound has gotten a number of vintages wrong really.
Most notably 1999 reds (too low) with '97 and '98 to high by comparison.
2004 and 2007 reds way too high, and the initial assessments on 2003 and 2006 whites was also too high…
With you on this one too. Critics missed the boat. Good for us!
Stuart,
You have stated before that you stopped buying wine in 2007, would you have continued any subscription after that regardless of them missing the green?
Best Regards
Jeremy
Good question, Jeremy.
I didn’t make any decisions until sometime in 2009 when my last “shipment” of wines arrived…and my wife, seeing the full wine closets…said “enough”. (So, though I didn’t fight it, I didn’t really “decide” myself."
I think I long looked at the publications for updates/gossip/news on various estates in the regions I was interested in more than notes, per se, since I did a fair amount of barrel tasting myself, at least in Burgundy and Alsace. But, I didn’t get to taste 2004 in barrel.
Would I have continued…I’m pretty certain I would have continued Burghound and Tanzer…the only two I found of value by then…but, since I didn’t…I lost interest in new vintages; a chicken and egg thing. I looked at both as newsletters, and continue to be very interested in ongoings in the region, even if I’ve stopped buying.
To be more specific…when I came back from Burgundy in 2007…I wrote to Burghound re: what a mess I found re: 2004, and asked why I had no warning from reading him and Tanzer and Parker. He claimed then he had talked about it…and , I think, sent me some specific examples. He hadn’t talked about what I was talking about…and…frankly, the denial annoyed me.
For Oregon Pinot Noir: 2007
The vintage faired badly in the press but has turned out to be very good in hindsight.
Underrated
2012 Red Burgundy
2008 Red Burgundy
2001 Red Burgundy
1998 Red Bordeaux
2001 Red Bordeaux
Overrated
2007 Napa
2006 Napa
2004 Red Burgundy
2007 Southern Rhone
+1
Count me in as well. I can’t speak to cabernet (I don’t cellar that), but I have a hunch that many of the better zin-based field blends will be gorgeous, fragrant wines of understated elegance in a few years’ time. At a time when most producers are rolling out their 2012’s (and I love those too!), there are some, like Ridge, with 2011’s still in the pipeline. And I’ll probably be buying.
You know, I initially thought similarly but after having tasted quite a few I’m starting to think many 2011s will age wonderfully…perhaps not for the super long haul, but the better examples are so well-balanced, with nice acid and tannins it’s hard for me to think they won’t be better in 5-10+ years.
Hell yeah, love the discounted pricing we’re already seeing!
Carlisle knocked it of the park in 2011! I haven’t checked out any of the 2011s from Ridge yet, need to change that.
I am convinced it isn’t!
not true, Stuart, as I have told you in each thread where you say this. Tanzer, issue 131, page 3, March/April 2007, writes, “this element may turn increasingly green and herbal with time.” He cautions clearly about 04 red Burgs.
For Oregon Pinot Noir: 2007
The vintage faired badly in the press but has turned out to be very good in hindsight.
Surprised it took page 2 to point this out. The St. Innocent wines were outstanding and great prices on them especially White Rose.
I think it’s true, Alan (though I don’t remember your raising it before). Tanzer first raised “it” 2.5 years after the vintage. I visited in April 2007…and had not seen any warning of the “green meanies” that were so prevalent during my visit. (Maybe I should have said “as of spring 2007”, to be more accurate, though. I don’t remember when he or Allen Meadows did their “in barrel” reviews, but it was before then.
In Burgundy, by then, after the wines were in bottle, many winemakers were already talking about the problem. I have no idea of the Tanzer context…and would like to see it (seriously), but I know that I was not at all prepared for what I found…and I then still subscribed to Tanzer, Parker and Meadows when I visited that April.
Can you relate the context and a fuller quotation of what he was talking about? I’d be interested. What Meadows pointed out to me in our email exchange that summer…in almost no way related to the “green” issues abounding in that vintage, but the “normal” “green” from a growing season where the ripening was not sufficient due to the weather. That’s not at all what the 2004 “green” is /was. (That’s why I use “green” in quotes every time; it’s not really anything “green”, IMO.) So, I’m interested in seeing what Tanzer was talking about, since the winemakers were certainly talking about that flaw, calling it " vegetal, herbal, tobacco and asparagus like"…not “green”, by early 2007. Was Tanzer relating this information? Was he then first presenting his in-barrel tastings and pointing something out? Or, was he tasting the wines that were first arriving in the US and finding the flaw?
If he had already called the flaw that…by the time I visited, I hadn’t known it…and…am happy to acknowledge what he was saying that spring. I have long looked at Tanzer as the “best” of the critics…who never sought to capitalize financially on his reputation.
I’m the opposite of you, I think the 11’s will be long lived as they are still filling out in bottle and putting on weight.
Conversely I think 12’ will not live that long and be gone way before the 11’a hit their peak