Hard to pick one…between 2005, 2008 and 2016. I skipped 2009 and 2010 because I didn’t like pricing, I really like the tension in 2008 and the 2016s I have tasted so far.
I bought very little 2005 or 2009, and those that I did buy were lower tier. I have had some wonderful 2000’s, but others where I expected more, maybe even a lot more. I have tasted some 14,15,16’s. I have this weird sense that 2015 reminds me a bit of 1985, which was a vintage I loved because of the suppleness of the wines and the long window of drinkability. I have high hopes, optimism rules supreme.
Because I am drinking the 81s and 85s and and 98s and 99s and 01s. The 2000s are entering their window but I have lots of time with them. The 05s and 10s aren’t nearly ready to me
This is an interesting topic. My FAVORITE is 2000. I think it is still an old school vintage. Which one will time prove to be the BEST? I’ve heard nearly consensus view among the critics that it will be 2010. Early on, 2009 was thought to be a once in life time vintage. Then people said it will be interesting to compare the 2009 and 2010s, but I’ve read several people already project the 2010s as the clear winner and best. I’m not drinking anything that young yet.
Personally, I’m mostly drinking 2000-2004, 2007 right now. I’ve dipped into a few low-end 2005-2008 wines. My general impression is the 2005s are still super prickly. 2005 Cantemerle was in a pretty good place last night. I’ve had a lot more enjoyment from my low end 2005 Burgs for what it’s worth.
I’m not always interested in the best vintages either. I’ve found some great values and good steak night wines in the shoulder vintages like 2001 and 2004 and because in hind sight I wish I had bought more, I loaded up on the 2014. Among those, 2004 has been a bit of a pearl. The 2001s can still be a little green and angular. My 2006s have underachieved and in looking back I’ve scored them about the same as my 2007s. On the other hand, I’m glad I largely passed on the 2002s and 2007s and completely passed on the 2013s.
To me, 2000 is the vintage. It continues to drink extremely well (even young) and like 1982 will provide lots of years of great pleasure. The rest are unknown quantities. A caveat, I am not a huge collector but do have an opportunity to taste a few every now and then.
Qualitatively 2000 is better across the board, but I am really enjoying 2001s and some 2004s right now. Today I’d say 2000 is best overall since 2000, but wild caveat that 2005 may surprise. I have big hopes for tha vintage but it needs a lot of time compared to 2000. I personally put 2014 right behind those two vintages.
It’s early days but so far, 2000 looks to me to be the best. I’ve been really enjoying 2001 and 2002 for several years now and they continue to provide excellent bottles but I’m fairly confident that 2000 will eclipse them. I’ve had a lot of 2004s too, of which I’ll put together the notes sometime soon - I’ve enjoyed them, but overall not as much, although the best have been excellent. Fingers crossed for 2005, the question being if the fruit can outlast the tannins. I don’t have enough experience of the others, except for 2003, which apart from a handful of very good to excellent wines has been my least favourite vintage ever.
I picked based on the various tastings Panos does in DC where we get to taste a range of vintages from one producer. Based on that, I chose 2005. This vintage has seemed to be consistently outstanding over multiple producers.
No, this is not the vintage I would want to drink now (that would be 2001, as you suggested). And, I might have thought about picking 2016, except for the fact that I have only tried one 2016 (but that Pichon Lalande was quite impressive).
If you, the OP who started this poll, are going to pick based on current drinkability, shouldn’t you have done a poll for say 1982-2004 rather than 2000-2016? Of course the more recent vintages are not mature yet. By the vintages chosen, I picked based on perceived potential.
Howard, the poll was stimulated by the discussions of vintages of the century in the 2018 thread, which is why I picked years since 2000. (I know, 2000 was last century).
As with many preference polls, the criteria can vary from person to person. Thus the “discuss.”
Perceived potential is hard for me, since I’m not that good at predicting development from just-released wines.
Many Berserkers are better at it than I, and I was hoping they would weigh in.
If I were to pick based on perceived potential, I would choose 2005. Not sure it will come together in time, but I think it will.
More recent vintages (2016?) sound like they have even more potential, but like you I have almost zero experience tasting them.
But you’re absolutely correct. With multiple criteria, the results will be useless as a guide without reading the responses. Asking people to weigh in based on perceived potential would have been more precise. Though I suspect there would have been more “unable to answer” votes from those of us who aren’t that good at predictions.
