With/Where/When the Burgundy rule doesn't exactly apply

WINE TALK
1

What example can you provide which, if even slightly, combat the rule of producer>vineyard>vintage?

2

Provenance

3

Rousseau’s 2004s

4

Local hail damage

5

I would say in 2005: I have tasted many good examples of wines from less heralded producers. The vintage was so uniformly good in my view that it made the producers less relevant.

6

2010 and 2014 white burgundy were so good across the board that it was hard to miss on any of them.

7

Camus 98 Chambertin…

8

When a highly regarded producer has problems in a vintage, or with a certain high end wine in a given vintage. Ponsot 1995 and 1996 CdlR comes to mind, although I still have hope. There are many others.

9

Champagne grande marques.

10

Leflaive.

11

'71 Reds.

12

Vineyard → vintage/producer

Just yesterday I had a gorgeous Clos de la Roche (great vineyard) 1982 (not a great, often weak vintage), bottled by Robert Bordet (proprietaire a Fixin) - never heard of so far …
[cheers.gif]

13

?

14

DRC 1983

15

Deleted

16

Truly??

I noticed a Camus label on your Instagram feed…

17

Instagram? - Not me :slight_smile:
When twitter is full of images, nothing pisses me off more than having to follow a link to see a damn image!
Consider that thread drift…:slight_smile:

18

Twitter, then. But really, it was good? Any notion why?

19

That was never a rule.

20

I’ve generally seen a vintage signature so strong it can override producer. 2003 and 2004 come to mind. I’ve had terrible 2004s from almost everyone, including my favorite producers. The same is true with 2003s.

Because the wines are so expensive, I’ve gone away from a hierarchy to a trifecta. If all three don’t align for me, I’m not buying. Granted, I mostly stick to my favored producers, but I’m also looking for favorable vintage characteristics and sites before I pull the trigger. The wines are expensive even in the lesser years.