If prices are the same which would you take?
10
- Better vintage, better tension, better balance, better energy. Less of it.
Just my 0.02
-paul
- Six years closer to drinkability.
‘99…just kidding.
I would buy the ‘10.
- It’s a better vintage, overall, and even if Rousseau’s 2016 Roche is equal in quality to his 2010 Roche, the 2010 will be ready to drink sooner.
Provenance the same…2010
Unless I was going to drink it today I’d buy 2010.
Pobega-ing Rousseau? Next level.
Fair enough. My expectation is that the '10 would be shut down somewhat despite Rousseau’s reputation for being fairly accessible wines when young. So today the '16 could be better in glass. I’d be hard pressed to open the one '10 I have to provide a data point to support my comments though. 
I can’t remember a vintage that has turned out better than 2010 for red Burgundy but I’ve only been buying red Burgs since the 1999 vintage. I’m still eager to backfill 2010s if from a producer I love and not overpriced.
Craig,
Which producer did you love from the '10 vintage?
Certainly the village Rousseau, which is the only Rousseau I could still afford at the time. I also bought some 12 & 14 Rousseau village but nothing from them since. Rousseau is my hands down favorite red Burg producer. I’m just completely priced out now. I also bought 10s from Gaunoux, J&L Trapet, Rossignol Trapet, Tortochot, Chevillon, Montille, Mugnier,Dubreuil-Fontaine and others. I’m completely smitten with 2010. But, I’m also 63 so will buying very, very few 16s and onward.