Which vintages of red Burgundy are you drinking in 2019?

Which vintages of red Burgundy are you planning to open or would open (if you had them) this year?

  • 1978
  • 1979
  • 1980
  • 1981
  • 1982
  • 1983
  • 1984
  • 1985
  • 1986
  • 1987
  • 1988
  • 1989
  • 1990
  • 1991
  • 1992
  • 1993
  • 1994
  • 1995
  • 1996
  • 1997
  • 1998
  • 1999
  • 2000
  • 2001
  • 2002
  • 2003
  • 2004
  • 2005
  • 2006
  • 2007
  • 2008
  • 2009
  • 2010
  • 2011
  • 2012
  • 2013
  • 2014
  • 2015
  • 2016
  • 2017

0 voters

It’s been three years since I’ve asked a similar question:

Which vintages of red Burgundy are you planning to open or would open (if you had them) this year? Feel free to distinguish between Village, 1er and GC in your comments, but for the purposes of the poll I’m not really making a distinction.

Thanks.

If the polling doesn’t work well, I’ll try to come up with an Excel graph like I did three years ago.

This is definitely a question that requires some commentary on the answers, as you suggest, to understand the poll results fully. For example, I’m up for drinking ‘93 village and Premier Crus but holding on the few Grand Crus still in the cellar. For ‘99 I’ve been hesitant to even get to Premier Cru yet but recent reports suggest they are finally starting to drink, so I’m thinking about it. While other vintages, there’s not too much I’d hesitate to open at this point, like ‘98, ‘00, and ‘01.

nothing before 1978?? :wink:

2016 Roumier Musigny

‘93 1er Cru, Grand Cru
‘96 who knows, some still have nasty acidity, expect plenty of swing and miss
‘07 1er Cru, Grand Cru
‘09 Village
‘10 Village
‘11 Village, 1er Cru
‘17 Village, 1er Cru, Grand Cru

One has to take into account that quite a few people don´t have anything older than 2008 … so what.
[wow.gif]
Now to “drink” 2017/16/15 seems weird to me … tasting a bottle, ok, but “drinking” … [scratch.gif]

94 and earlier, lesser 96s, 97, 98, 00, 01, 04, 07, 16, 17

The Bourgogne I’ve had from 15-16 have been nice, I assume the 17 will be just as nice or better given the vintage characteristics.

Fair point Mark. When I did a similar poll three years ago, I got very few responses before 1978. The other reason, the poll tool (which seems to work very well) is limited to 40 choices.
Red Burg to Drink in 2016.png

I only have lesser wines so it’s simpler for me to decide.

You haven’t popped yours already? I Pobega’d mine the instant they were through the door. Went well with Little Caesars.

Thanks for all of the responses so far. Three years ago, 2000 had a slight lead over 1991, 1993, 2001, 2002 and 2007. With the results so far, seems that 1990 has slight lead over 2000 and 2001–although I’d be hard pressed to argue that the difference is statistically significant. I’ll leave this open for another 10 days.

This is obviously dependent on what you have in the cellar and how long you have been collecting burgs. For me 1993, 1996 and 1999 are what I am drinking. Though 1999s are still rather young but oh so delicious!

I should add that I am also drinking some 2007 and 2008 as I find them open.

I’ve enjoyed some 06s and 08s and a few village 2011s. (In fairness, most of those village 2011s were from Fourrier, and those don’t tend to shut down.) Opened one 2005 and won’t be doing that again for a while :slight_smile:

Voting closes in one day.

(Apologies for the shameless promotion of this thread.)

There are lots of wines in every vintage through at least 2011 that can be drunk with enjoyment now. If you add Bourgogne Rouge and other regional wines, probably make that through 2016, at least. On the other hand, there are wines from many vintages that are not ready yet. For example, the 2001 Rossignol-Trapet Latricieres Chambertin is drinking beautifully right now, but their Chambertin is still too young. So, it is not as simple as grand cru vs. something else.

Also, for example, Dublere’s 2010 Beaune Blanches Fleurs is gorgeous right now. But, there are many, many premier crus from 2010 that I am holding.

Then, there are other vintages where the vast majority of the wines are completely undrinkable now or any time in the future. An example of this is the 2004 vintage.

I completely agree Howard; it’s impossible to reduce this decision to vintage alone. But the exercise helps give me (and I hope others) some sense of what vintages fellow Berserkers are enjoying or trying to enjoy now. At the very least, the results match up with your notion that 2004 shouldn’t be touched right about now. The wisdom of the group would add 2003, 2005 and 2006 as well as untouchables. Unfortunately, it looks like this sample would put 2010 in a similar “don’t touch” position.

2000 fascinates me. It was thought to be mediocre. Then it was the early-drinking vintage to seek out in restaurants. Then it was the underrated gem. But now that it has been near the top of this poll for three years and probably longer, should we just call it a good vintage? Certainly it’s nowhere near as grand as vintages like 99/05/10, and will never reach the heights of the best wines from the region, but isn’t a good vintage one that is consistently delicious over a significant period of time. And bonus points for being drinkable pre-retirement home. This is a beguiling hobby.

Count me as a huge 2000 fan. For the wines I drink, I have been more impressed with 2000 than 1990. 1990 just strikes me as muddy at this point. 2000 I would also rank higher than 1995, which is still too structural (maybe some time it’ll come around). This will also put me in the extremist camp, but I like 2000 more than 1996, which I feel is an incredibly overrated vintage.