+1
+1
I do a mixture of what some have already mentioned. Basically there are producers that I know I will love. Those I do not touch. Others, that I am not sure, I will try (usually an entire bottle) before I buy.
The poll responses blew my mind. I’m shocked. The idea that someone would prefer to drink a 1988 Napa at its best over a 1991 Napa a few years early is shocking.
Really, you’d rather have a 1972 boreaux at its apex than a 1982 bordeaux in, say, 1992? Or you’d rather have a 1993 Mouton than a 2000 Mouton tonight? I’d rather have about 10 dozen 2005 bordeaux tonight over most 1993s or 1992s. I’d rather drink 2007 Napa right now (if you call that a great vintage) than most prime 1998s and 2000s.
There are too many examples to count, but I call BS here.
Edited to add this:
Even a bit young, many great wines from great vintages are still stupendous to drink. Even with a little pronounced tannic structure, or a little more fruit forward nature than at full maturity, the wines foretell greatness, have amazing complexity, and are joys. I’ve had many bordeaux relatively young, hundreds of Napa cabs prior to what I’d consider full height, rhones and, to a lesser degree, burgundies before their total apex. I’ve had the wonderful opportunity to drink many of those on multiple occasions over the last 12 years. 1997 Backus or Montelena Estate, for instance. 96 Ridge Monte Bello. 1990 Montrose. Even a slightly lesser wine like 1996 Cos. Enjoying the progression over time, from young to old, is a very educating and fulfilling experience. Avoiding those wines because they are “too young” at some point during their evolution is denying tremendous, albeit different, pleasure. By contrast, drinking a far lesser wine at its purported peak has been, on many occasions, an exercise of underwhelming pleasure.
Clearly my answer did not contain all the necessary caveats, disclaimers and reservations, I’m just country down here. ![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}
I read it more in the context of a mature wine versus a primary, young wine. For example, I would drink an 88-point, 1983 Bordeaux any day over a 98-point 2010 Bordeaux. I know it will give me more pleasure. Your examples are too close, and arguably not really on point. Yea, I’d take the '82 Bordeaux over the '72, not just because it is that much better of a vintage, but more so from my perspective, most 1982 Bordeaux are fully mature now and were more open back then given the vintage. Many 2000 vintage Bordeaux, another warm vintage, are starting to hit their drinking window, so yes, I’d take that 2000 Mouton over the 1993. Not sure that I would take a 2014 Mouton over the 1993, however. That '93 is a lovely, classic claret, by the way. That was the vintage release when my wife and I visited on our honeymoon, so yea, it holds some special meaning. Was the most, then, that I had ever spent on a bottle. Bought several, with the Balthus label. I might even take that '93 Mouton over the monolithic 2005, which ain’t ready, though this one is a closer call, hence my disagreement with your post.
This is a reason I buy futures. So I can get a number of 375’s for “testing” purposes over time.
I agree with this. If you don’t have experience tasting wines at various stages of development, you will never know when YOU like the wines best. You will always be at the mercy of someone else.
I voted lesser vintage at peak, but it is unclear what you mean by a lesser vintage. There is a huge difference between really good vintages (for Bordeaux) like 2001, 2004, 2008 or 2014 and not so good vintages like 1991, 2007 and 2013. I buy a decent amount of wines from vintages in the former category, few in the latter category.
And, for Burgundy, I like a lot vintages like 2000 and 2007 where lots of excellent wines are made that show well on the younger side, but absolutely hate most 2004s and would not want to drink them at any stage of development.
Even today, I would rather have many wines from 2000, 2001 and 2007 in Burgundy, for example, than their counterparts in 2005. 2005 is a great vintage, but most of the wines are still very closed. There is a tendency today to separate wines into great vintages and off vintages. You went right down to the bottom of California wines - 1998 and 2000. But, there are in most regions today a lot of very good vintages where the wines are better to drink young than are the bigger, more powerful vintages that are quite good. Sure, you would rather have a 2005 Bordeaux today than a 1992 or a 1993, but would you rather have the 2005 today than a 1996 or a 2001?
How are my examples not on point? They address wines at stages that would be considered “not ready” to be consumed at their prime, against wines and times that would be deemed ready. If you think my vintages are too disparate, well, that’s the point. OP referenced “lesser vintages.” I interpreted “too young” to me before their prime. I opened a 1996 Margaux last fall that was thought by many to be too young. I found it immensely enjoyable, and superior to other lesser but prime-window bordeaux shared during our tasting. I have a hard time imagining I’d have preferred a more evolved 91-94. It was simply a better wine, even if purportedly “too young.”
But perhaps we simply have differing tastes; I have good taste and you don’t (that’s a jest). I would probably prefer to drink a 2010 Bordeaux tonight, so long as it is relatively modern in craft, than a 1983 from a lesser producer that generated at release a far, far lesser wine. My experience with 30+ year old bordeaux of lesser stock, from the 70s-80s has not been consistently enjoyable. 1983 did produce many great wines though, and I’d probably not consider it much of a “lesser vintage.” The better question is whether you’d chase a pristine 84 or 87, rather than a 2005 or 2009.
“Your Honor, the esteemed Counselor from Texas wears cowboy boots and suits, while I respectfully wear monk strap dress shoes. I rest my case. Judgment should ensue in favor of Counselor Alfert, in the matter of In Re: Taste.”
No, I would not likely chase an '84 or 87, but I’m also not chasing 2005 or 2009 for immediate consumption, either.
I had an '83 Chateau Cantemerle with MarcF a couple weeks ago, it was quite lovely. As much as I love the 2010 model, for now, the '83 is in prime drinking window, if not slightly fading, while the 2010 needs time. Most 2005 left banks are in an awkward period, while some 2009s given the warmth of the vintage, can be enjoyed but are still primary. Generally speaking, of course.
Another factor in this, of course, is the winery. Are we talking about a wine like say Latour or Leoville las Cases (which can shut down pretty hard) or like Haut Brion or Truchot, which in my experience stay pretty drinkable even when not mature.
It’s sort of like asking would you rather be punched in the gut or kicked in the nuts, no?
I rarely, if ever, have a chance to taste before I buy. When possible, I base my purchasing decisions on experience with the producer from previous vintages. Other times, I buy them based on a combination of reputation and available reviews (not just professional). With the latter category, I try to buy enough bottles so that I can try one relatively young and see if I like it enough to keep aging the remainder. Of course, I occasionally buy single bottles of expensive (for me) wines. For those, I hope they’ll be great when I open them but I’m stuck guessing when the proper time to open them is.
I’m more comfy with bordeaux than burgundy so I’ll address that part of your response to my post.
First, I used the vintages I referenced from Napa because they are undeniably “lesser” vintages, and some critic or drinker can make an argument that substantially all other Napa vintages from 1990 through 2010 are substantial vintages. The 1990 Napa vintages ranking thread illustrates that point. The 2000s are even more difficult. A WS and WA comparison suggests every vintage from 2001 forward has been dubbed excellent by at least one party. If you’ve engaged in the Napa threads on here, it’s fairly similar. I wanted to ensure we had a distinction between vintages. I mean, good lord, there are no three consistent analyses of vintage variations between 2004, 2005, 2006. Throw in 2009, 10, 12, 13, 14. It’s a mess or a gluttony of good wines, depending on what you’re considering.
Second, as to your bordeaux example, there are many 2005s I’d prefer to drink over 2001s tonight. 1996 may, admittedly, be a bit different. There is a wide difference in the ages of those wines, and to some critics, 1996 is a rock solid vintage. WS has it as a 91, and for the Pauillac, St. Julien, and St. Estephe, Wine Advocate actually ranks 96 equal to or slightly above 2005. WA has 2005 vastly surpassing 1996 in other regions like Margaux and Graves. In any event, I’d rather have a young 2005 than a “more ready” 2004 in almost all instances, regardless of whether that would be considered a “waste.” Likewise, I’d prefer the young 2005 to most 97s and 02s.
I will admit that drinking wines “young” has never, to me, felt like some terrible waste.
More like would you rather eat at a great chef’s restaurant before he really reached the epitome of his culinary excellence, or eat a perfectly executed meal at Chili’s. Drinking a great wine a little young is still a pleasurable experience. If enjoyment was limited only to the perfect window of opportunity, this would be a very disappointing hobby.
As I have said now many times, I think the OP’s question was flawed. The split between great vintages and lesser vintages misses many, many vintages. It is amazing to me how often I read on this board of vintages like 1966 or 2001 being an off-vintage, which I consider ridiculous. It is rare that I drink true off vintages in Bordeaux or Burgundy. But, I get a lot of drinking pleasure from drinking good vintages while waiting for my wines from the great vintages to mature. You gloss over this by deeming virtually all California vintages to be great. But, if you treat California vintages like wines from everywhere else, would you really rather drink a Ridge Montebello from 2013 than one from 1996 or 1999?
Yea, I still don’t really agree with your premise. The question was one of comparison. Sure, some wines are pleasurable young, mid-age and old. But that was not the question. The question was, given a choice, which would you take. And by the way, I did not interpret his use of the term “lesser vintage” to mean a crap one (think 2010 Bordeaux versus a 2001 or even a 1994). In a fair comparison of mature versus young, and we are not talking about a crap vintage versus a great vintage, I will almost always go for the mature wine. Couple of recent examples: I love Domaine Levet Cotie Rotie. The 2013 Les Journaries, the young vine version, is wide open and delicious. The flagship wine, La Chavaroche, is closed hard, an impenetrable piece of steel. It offers no pleasure at all. I’d take a mature La Chave from a lesser vintage all day long. Same thing on the Clape Cornas 2010, which got whopper parker scores (100). It was hard as nails on release, not pleasurable in the least, I’d even have preferred to drink, and in fact did, Clape’s lowely, but all-syrah cotes du rhone from that vintage, or a mature Cornas from a lesser but not crappy vintage. Howard’s example of the 2013 Montebello works, too. No way is that MB as enjoyable now on release as a decent but mature vintage, at least not for my palate. I drink a lot of young wines, especially my everyday drinkers, and yes I sample young wines to get a sense of where they go and how many I should buy, but that’s more in the sake of science than pure enjoyment. Given high quality wine that has a history of aging, I take the mature version from a decent vintage almost always over a young and primary wine even if from a vaunted vintage.
No, I wouldn´t drink a “great vintage” deliberately too young … I get enough young wines to taste (from barrel, shortly after bottling …) … I have a faily good idea how long it might take for a wine to reach kind of a mature state … no need to kill youngsters … I have enough mature wines in my cellar …
But sure there are some wines that are equally good in the 1st 10 years of their life …
Lesser at Best, assuming “lesser” isn’t “Bad.”
I´d HAD the 2000 Mouton much too early a few years ago (not my bottle, not my idea) … and it was a major disapointment for the whole group … didn´t give much pleasure!
I´d much prefer the 1988 or 89 Mouton instead (1993 I didn´t like at all on two occasions (with and without girl 
), not a very good wine at all …).
Your example of 1972 Bx is nonsense … 1972 isn´t a “lesser” vintage, it is a rather bad vintage, and most Bx weren´t mature in 1992, they were over the hill … or never good at all …