Just got my first offering of 2017 Burgs. I’ve only heard that the volume of wine was great, and its a more classic vintage (whatever that means anymore). Any recent assessments of how the 2017s? Early tastings? General impressions?
Thanks in advance.
In very general terms the whites are terrific. Pure, fresh, clean and bright. Not as dense or deep as the three preceding vintages but excellent balance and poise. I like what I’ve seen of the reds too. Again, not a deep vintage but fresh, perfumed and with good clarity.
Thank you for posting this…I’m looking forward to anyone’s insight for this vintage. I’m really hoping that prices remain where they are right now.
There are some absolutely excellent whites in the making, as Jeremy says. Others are deceptively easy and charming, but I suspect they will tense up with another winter on the lees, or in bottle. Perhaps 1982 is the best analogy? It’s certainly hard to find an obvious analogy from more recent vintages. Reds are charming and drinkable at best, dilute and simple at worst. The reds will be useful wines that show well young, but anyone paying 2015 or 2016 prices and expecting 2015s or 2016s is liable to be disappointed. But those who manage their expectations will take plenty of pleasure in them. Perhaps a somewhat deeper, more sun-kissed version of 2007 in red is the best analogy. And as ever, there are plenty of exceptions that totally transcend generalizations.
These are very provisional conclusions as I still have about 100 tastings to go.
Unfortunately I was there right at harvest (2018) time … and therefore I could taste far less from barrels than I hoped for …
From the few (top) producers I tasted my impressions were (RED only):
The harvest quantity was quite substancial, so no need to ask for 2016 prices (but who will lower them actually ???)
Attention: all from much less samples than usual in other vintages … so caveat !
I haven’t heard much about the 2017 reds, but Tanzer has published a report on the 2017 whites, and overall he’s pretty positive on the wines. I gather from the notes and interviews, the general view is that 17 is better than both 15 and 16, but not as good as 14. One producer suggested that the quality of 2017 is like a hypothetical blend of 2/3 2012 and 1/3 2014. Early pickers did well, as there was heavy rain on August 30th and again on September 2nd. Yields were better than both 15 and 16, so availability should be better. I just received an offer for 2017 H. Boillot on pre-arrival, and the prices are about the same as 2016.
Some vintage notes from Tanzer and Coates were included in the email, and I’ve pasted them below:
Stephen Tanzer on the 2017 whites: “The ‘17s stand out for their fresh, pure stone, orchard and citrus fruits and their charm and easy digestibility. As surmaturité was rare, few wines display superripe notes of tropical fruits. On the contrary, the better ‘17s entice with high-pitched notes of minerals, flowers and white pepper and noteworthy delineation of flavor. My tasting notes are peppered with textural descriptors like “silky,” “pliant” and “fine-grained.” The ‘17s will be considered more classical in style than either 2016 or 2015 by those who prefer supple, balanced wines without extremes.”
Clive Coates, MW: “2017 continues the recent run of high quality vintages, and looks like being even better than 2016 and 2015.”
![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}
For white, in general, it is indeed a super vintage - there was some emotion to the very best 2016 whites that I haven’t yet encountered in 2017 - but I’m only 2/3rds done with whites. That said, the average quality is excellent, and probably, as said, better than 2016 and 2015 when taking a broad view vs the former vintage.
My order of those three vintages is:
16 -better freshness and tension than 15
15 -incredibly ripe but almost a little obvious compared to 16
17 -making up for the short crop in 16 the vines tried to overproduce to compensate. Wines are nice/simple/round, nowhere near 2016 or 2015. Not even close.
*My opinion is based on the few dozen I got to try last year, I’ll be back in November and will try more then. I should’ve mentioned that in the earlier post.
My concern with 17 is as a consumer: 15 is great and gets a ton of hype, thus prices go way up. 16 is a tiny crop so prices stay high. 17 is a much larger/dilute crop and retailers have muscle memory and try to pass along the 17s at 15/16 prices. Which you will probably have to pay to keep allocations etc. 17 is nowhere close to 16 or 15. (just my 0.015 cents worth)
I had some reds and whites when I visited Burgundy this summer. Thought the reds reminded me a bit of 2000, but maybe a little richer - it took the 2000s a good year or more to develop a good bit of fruit and this has it now. Seemed like there would be substantial differences from winery to winery.
Whites seemed pretty enjoyable. Certainly not as good as 2014, I also thought that where I tasted 2017s next to 2016s the 2016s were better. Not at all comparable in style to 2015, so comparisons are harder to make. Maybe the 2017s whites are somewhat like the 2011s, not sure.
For WHITE Burgundy. . .
I have not tasted any 17 whites, as I clearly stated in my post I was referring to Tanzer’s article on the whites published last month. He didn’t find the wines simple/round/nice, I can’t wait to taste them.
Another advantage of advancing age, no longer have to worry about buying young Burgundy.
Sounds like just the kind of white Burgundy vintage we need after the larger-scaled 2015s and 2016s and the sold-through 2014s.
From what we tasted from barrel, I really liked the '17’s.
Agree that the whites looked very good, the reds were pretty (like a more attractive 2000 sort of vintage) and I thought they were lovely (if perhaps earlier drinking) wines.
Large quantities in general, but not every maker seemed 100% thrilled about the ultimate quality (reds in particular), so I guess they may well be a bit variable…
YES, that might well be, but I´ve tasted only a single white 2017 …
(for red it would be ridiculous …)
As I stated above, even for whites the couple of times I tasted 2016s vs. 2017s side by side, I liked the 2016s better.
I look forward to tasting the 17 whites. I like the 16s as well, but for my palate the wines have a pronounced thickness or level of concentration that is not as racy or precise compared to top vintages like 14. Time will tell if that element abates, as the 16s develop with age. Quantity was down, so I purchased less than usual. My purchases are limited to PYCM, Roulot and H. Boillot in 2016.