Top Red Burgundy vintage of the 21st century so far

[Jeremy Holmes]

From the list of vintages, 2000 has provided me with the most drinking pleasure. I voted for 2015, as I reckon with the fullness of time it will prove to be a brilliant vintage from top to bottom.

[Mich@el Ch@ng]

I am picking 2010. Makes it easier that 1999 is not eligible. Again, 2000 for this purpose is in the 21st Century so we have 20 years.

As someone who knows very little about Burgundy, what would be a good 1999 for ≈$500? (Or does that not exist anymore) That’s my sister’s birth year and if it’s a fantastic vintage, it could be just what I’m looking for

This would be pretty good and save you $100 or so.

https://www.kogodwine.com/products/1999 ... os-de-beze

[Marcus Dean]

From the list of vintages, 2000 has provided me with the most drinking pleasure. I voted for 2015, as I reckon with the fullness of time it will prove to be a brilliant vintage from top to bottom.

one of my big regrets was not buying a lot of 2000 or 2001, back then I only wanted to buy the baller wines from baller vintages, oh well you live and learn.
I voted for 2010 because it reminds me of 78 in a lot of ways and 78s have given me some life altering drinking experiences, I have a boatload of 15s so I hope you are proven correct

[Jayson Cohen]

I am picking 2010. Makes it easier that 1999 is not eligible. Again, 2000 for this purpose is in the 21st Century so we have 20 years.

As someone who knows very little about Burgundy, what would be a good 1999 for ≈$500? (Or does that not exist anymore) That’s my sister’s birth year and if it’s a fantastic vintage, it could be just what I’m looking for

This would be pretty good and save you $100 or so.

https://www.kogodwine.com/products/1999 ... os-de-beze

A good call. But is it ready? Maybe Anthony can buy it for his sister’s 25th or 30th birthday.

[William Kelley]

As someone who knows very little about Burgundy, what would be a good 1999 for ≈$500? (Or does that not exist anymore) That’s my sister’s birth year and if it’s a fantastic vintage, it could be just what I’m looking for

This would be pretty good and save you $100 or so.

https://www.kogodwine.com/products/1999 ... os-de-beze

A good call. But is it ready? Maybe Anthony can buy it for his sister’s 25th or 30th birthday.

In short, no! My most recent note, from 2018:

The 1999 Chambertin Clos de Bèze Grand Cru (Domaine Louis Jadot) is still surprisingly firm and structural, unfurling in the glass with aromas of red and black fruits, orange rind, grilled meat and rich soil tones. On the palate, the wine is medium to full-bodied, deep and concentrated, with excellent intensity and persistence, but it's still somewhat tight-knit, its chewy chassis of chalky structuring tannin making its inherent amplitude and volume harder to see. Unsurprisingly, the Clos de Bèze is the most reticent of Jadot's very successful 1999 portfolio, and readers with bottles in their cellar will find the wine more rewarding in another decade. While this will never be a lavish, opulent wine, it will be very long lived.

[Shoshana Filene]

I have more 17 than any other vintage and am pretty happy about it.

You done good, sir!

[Mich@el Ch@ng]

1999 lambrays
1999 hudelot Clos vougeot
1999 bc Lignier morey 1er vv
1999 Barthod fuees
1999 angervillle Clos de ducs
1999 Lafarge Chenes

Lots of choices for <500

[Keith Levenberg]

I am picking 2010. Makes it easier that 1999 is not eligible. Again, 2000 for this purpose is in the 21st Century so we have 20 years.

As someone who knows very little about Burgundy, what would be a good 1999 for ≈$500? (Or does that not exist anymore) That’s my sister’s birth year and if it’s a fantastic vintage, it could be just what I’m looking for

It's a great vintage but it's a bit of a crap shoot what's going to be good to drink now and what's still in an awkward phase. And even the ones that are good to drink are still kinda reluctant and need to be coaxed along with a long decant, and they'll close up again if you look at them funny.

[J. Galang]

I know it is a very small sample size, but I am a tad surprised that 2015 is higher than 2016 in terms of votes.

[Brady Daniels]

I am picking 2010. Makes it easier that 1999 is not eligible. Again, 2000 for this purpose is in the 21st Century so we have 20 years.

As someone who knows very little about Burgundy, what would be a good 1999 for ≈$500? (Or does that not exist anymore) That’s my sister’s birth year and if it’s a fantastic vintage, it could be just what I’m looking for

Perhaps we should all have asked when you want to drink it?

[Anthony Z]

I am picking 2010. Makes it easier that 1999 is not eligible. Again, 2000 for this purpose is in the 21st Century so we have 20 years.

As someone who knows very little about Burgundy, what would be a good 1999 for ≈$500? (Or does that not exist anymore) That’s my sister’s birth year and if it’s a fantastic vintage, it could be just what I’m looking for

Perhaps we should all have asked when you want to drink it?

Fair question! Once we can meet again, so probably late this year

[Jay Miller]

I know it is a very small sample size, but I am a tad surprised that 2015 is higher than 2016 in terms of votes.

All the people who prefer 2016 to 2015 are voting 2010 instead. At least I did.

[Ethan Abraham]

I know it is a very small sample size, but I am a tad surprised that 2015 is higher than 2016 in terms of votes.

All the people who prefer 2016 to 2015 are voting 2010 instead. At least I did.

A nice illustration of why rank order voting is important.

[Howard Cooper]

I know it is a very small sample size, but I am a tad surprised that 2015 is higher than 2016 in terms of votes.

2016 is such a small vintage that did not get a ton of buzz because of the frost, etc., at the beginning of the year. I wonder if a lot of people ignored the vintage because it was hard to find and because of all the publicity surrounding the 2015s. I own a comparable amount of 2015s and 2016s, but with more whites in 2016. I was lucky because I was in Burgundy in 2018 and found some really good prices on 2016s. I also was influenced during this trip to buy more 2016s when Charles van Canneyt at Hudelot-Noellat told me that he thought his 2016s were the best wines he had made. I think it will be fun in the future to do 2015 vs. 2016 tastings, just like I think it will be fun to do 2009 vs. 2010 tastings.

[Mich@el Ch@ng]

It’s a difficult question because it lacks context. I said 10 just because in the absence of any other context 10 is the best vintage for both current and future drinking. In many cases I may prefer the 09 now but it may not age as well.

[Mich@el Ch@ng]

I had an interesting discussion with my wife about this yesterday about 16 vs 17. Given that 16 was such a small vintage, it would make sense that almost all the grapes harvested would be used in the wine, whereas 17 was a pretty large vintage and producers could likely pick the best grapes and may sell the lesser quality ones. I’m not sure how big a role that plays.

[Howard Cooper]

I picked 2010 because I visited Burgundy in 2011 and the barrel samples I tasted were the best young Burgundies I had ever had. Then, I went to a Paulee Grand Tasting and thought that the wines there were the best of any Paulee Grand Tasting I have attended (actually, this includes tastings I have attended since then). Then, I have been very impressed with the 2010s I have had over the last 10 years, although, of course, it will be over the next 10 years or so where we really get an idea of how good it really is. I doubt I will ever regret having bought a whole bunch of 2010s.

Of course, the only great vintage where I may regret having bought a lot was 2014 in whites (probably the only time I have ever bought more white Burgs from a vintage than red Burgs). Not that they are not great, this is a fabulous vintage, but because I worry about premox.

[Greg K]

I had an interesting discussion with my wife about this yesterday about 16 vs 17. Given that 16 was such a small vintage, it would make sense that almost all the grapes harvested would be used in the wine, whereas 17 was a pretty large vintage and producers could likely pick the best grapes and may sell the lesser quality ones. I’m not sure how big a role that plays.

In 16 producers used lesser quality grapes for village/Bourgogne. I don’t think this argument holds at all. I also don’t think for higher end producers this is a huge consideration anyway.
By this logic 18 should be a terrific vintage since it’s so big, and that’s just not the case.

[Greg K]

I know it is a very small sample size, but I am a tad surprised that 2015 is higher than 2016 in terms of votes.

All the people who prefer 2016 to 2015 are voting 2010 instead. At least I did.

Exactly. I think 2016 is a great red vintage (and a bad where vintage), and is easily better than 2015, even though it didn’t get as much hype. It’s be my choice for second best vintage of the century. Though in fairness I have no idea where to rank 05 because every view of it based almost entirely on projection.

[Brady Daniels]

In many cases I may prefer the 09 now but it may not age as well.

Above, I took the opposite position, believing that '09 will long outlive '10. I suspect the wines will find a way to prove us both wrong. Thats the funny thing about Burgundy. The more you know, the less you know.

[A1ex H]

12 is the most underrated vintage listed

Certainly looking at the votes above, it's impossible to disagree with this.

Agree completely. I think it's a riper vintage that has been overshadowed by 2009 and 2015 and perhaps isn't drinking as well out of the bottle as some other vintages. Had a 2012 Arnoux Lachaux Clos Vougeot that was tight but still pleasurable recently. This vintage will probably gain in esteem as the wines open up again.

[Craig G]

In many cases I may prefer the 09 now but it may not age as well.

Above, I took the opposite position, believing that '09 will long outlive '10. I suspect the wines will find a way to prove us both wrong. Thats the funny thing about Burgundy. The more you know, the less you know.

The way it will prove you both wrong is that both vintages will drink well after we’re all dead!

[Fred C]

12 is the most underrated vintage listed

Certainly looking at the votes above, it's impossible to disagree with this.

Agree completely. I think it's a riper vintage that has been overshadowed by 2009 and 2015 and perhaps isn't drinking as well out of the bottle as some other vintages. Had a 2012 Arnoux Lachaux Clos Vougeot that was tight but still pleasurable recently. This vintage will probably gain in esteem as the wines open up again.

The problem with 12, at least for me was/is the price. It was much more expensive (secondary market) than 13 and 14 so I loaded up on the latter two.

[Mich@el Ch@ng]

Certainly looking at the votes above, it's impossible to disagree with this.

Agree completely. I think it's a riper vintage that has been overshadowed by 2009 and 2015 and perhaps isn't drinking as well out of the bottle as some other vintages. Had a 2012 Arnoux Lachaux Clos Vougeot that was tight but still pleasurable recently. This vintage will probably gain in esteem as the wines open up again.

The problem with 12, at least for me was/is the price. It was much more expensive (secondary market) than 13 and 14 so I loaded up on the latter two.

That's b/c it's a much better vintage than 13 and 14. However, I don't really know that it's priced that much more than 13/14. I've found 12 priced anywhere from 20-50% less than 2015 when IMO in the mid/long term it may end up being as good or better a vintage. Not sure about auction prices as I don't buy at auction.

Quick WSP search:

2012 DRC RSV $1699
2013 DRC RSV $1899
2014 DRC RSV $1699
2015 DRC RSV $2495

2012 Rousseau Beze $1495
2013 Rousseau Beze $1850
2014 Rousseau Beze $1849
2015 Rousseau Beze $2495

2012 La Tache $4000
2013 La Tache $3400
2014 La Tache $3500
2015 La Tache $4500

[Howard Cooper]

In many cases I may prefer the 09 now but it may not age as well.

Above, I took the opposite position, believing that '09 will long outlive '10. I suspect the wines will find a way to prove us both wrong. Thats the funny thing about Burgundy. The more you know, the less you know.

You say that as it is a bad thing. This is what makes Burgundy so much fun. We choose to go to Burgundy not because it is easy but because it is hard.

[Brady Daniels]

Thats the funny thing about Burgundy. The more you know, the less you know.

You say that as it is a bad thing. This is what makes Burgundy so much fun. We choose to go to Burgundy not because it is easy but because it is hard.

I did not write clearly enough then. We are in complete agreement.

[Ian Dorin]

Why do many more votes for 2010 over 2005???

If we are rating just reds, 2005 has to be it. 2010s are drinking way too early. 2005s will last forever

[Howard Cooper]

2005s will last forever

I won't.

The issue to me is not which one lasts the longest but rather which one tastes best. I think there is some uncertainty for me and others as to when and if the 2005s will reach the potential we all originally thought. Do note, the vintage where I have the most reds is 2005 and second is 2010. But, I feel safer about the 2010s.

[RyanC]

2005s will last forever

I won't.

The issue to me is not which one lasts the longest but rather which one tastes best. I think there is some uncertainty for me and others as to when and if the 2005s will reach the potential we all originally thought. Do note, the vintage where I have the most reds is 2005 and second is 2010. But, I feel safer about the 2010s.

I think the best '05s will reach greater heights. I think '10s will provide more enjoyment over their lifespan. Both are magnificent (in my admittedly limited and humble experience compared w/ many on this board).

Count me in the camp that's bullish about '05s' trajectory. Most are still closed. But I've had some that are starting to show their stuff, and they're pretty great. For instance, a couple bottles of '05 Courcel 'Rugiens' over the past while have been really sensational (and that, obviously, is not a wine one would expect to show well young).

[Howard Cooper]

2005s will last forever

I won't.

The issue to me is not which one lasts the longest but rather which one tastes best. I think there is some uncertainty for me and others as to when and if the 2005s will reach the potential we all originally thought. Do note, the vintage where I have the most reds is 2005 and second is 2010. But, I feel safer about the 2010s.

I think the best '05s will reach greater heights. I think '10s will provide more enjoyment over their lifespan. Both are magnificent (in my admittedly limited and humble experience compared w/ many on this board).

Count me in the camp that's bullish about '05s' trajectory. Most are still closed. But I've had some that are starting to show their stuff, and they're pretty great. For instance, a couple bottles of '05 Courcel 'Rugiens' over the past while have been really sensational (and that, obviously, is not a wine one would expect to show well young).

I hope that you are correct. I have a bunch of 2005s. But, I also just really love the taste of the 2010s and have from the very first time I tasted them. And, if 1980s are still drinking well (as William Kelley has said) and 2000s are still drinking well, I have no doubt that the 2010s will last as long as I need or want them to last. I don't know of any really good Burgundy vintage where wines from very good or better producers just fell apart young, do you?

[Ian Dorin]

I won't.

The issue to me is not which one lasts the longest but rather which one tastes best. I think there is some uncertainty for me and others as to when and if the 2005s will reach the potential we all originally thought. Do note, the vintage where I have the most reds is 2005 and second is 2010. But, I feel safer about the 2010s.

I think the best '05s will reach greater heights. I think '10s will provide more enjoyment over their lifespan. Both are magnificent (in my admittedly limited and humble experience compared w/ many on this board).

Count me in the camp that's bullish about '05s' trajectory. Most are still closed. But I've had some that are starting to show their stuff, and they're pretty great. For instance, a couple bottles of '05 Courcel 'Rugiens' over the past while have been really sensational (and that, obviously, is not a wine one would expect to show well young).

I hope that you are correct. I have a bunch of 2005s. But, I also just really love the taste of the 2010s and have from the very first time I tasted them. And, if 1980s are still drinking well (as William Kelley has said) and 2000s are still drinking well, I have no doubt that the 2010s will last as long as I need or want them to last. I don't know of any really good Burgundy vintage where wines from very good or better producers just fell apart young, do you?

You make a good point about the wines versus your own personal age. I want to make sure that every great wine I own gets consumed by me before I go.

I guess my concern is about wines that have been so good and so approachable since release that just should not be. Clos des Lambrays is DELICIOUS right now. Faivelely Clos des Cortons, AMAZING. But they shouldn't be at this point. That's my level of concern.

[Jay Miller]

I don't know of any even moderately good Burgundy vintage where wines from very good or better producers just fell apart young, do you?

FIFY

[Mich@el Ch@ng]

I think the best '05s will reach greater heights. I think '10s will provide more enjoyment over their lifespan. Both are magnificent (in my admittedly limited and humble experience compared w/ many on this board).

Count me in the camp that's bullish about '05s' trajectory. Most are still closed. But I've had some that are starting to show their stuff, and they're pretty great. For instance, a couple bottles of '05 Courcel 'Rugiens' over the past while have been really sensational (and that, obviously, is not a wine one would expect to show well young).

I hope that you are correct. I have a bunch of 2005s. But, I also just really love the taste of the 2010s and have from the very first time I tasted them. And, if 1980s are still drinking well (as William Kelley has said) and 2000s are still drinking well, I have no doubt that the 2010s will last as long as I need or want them to last. I don't know of any really good Burgundy vintage where wines from very good or better producers just fell apart young, do you?

You make a good point about the wines versus your own personal age. I want to make sure that every great wine I own gets consumed by me before I go.

I guess my concern is about wines that have been so good and so approachable since release that just should not be. Clos des Lambrays is DELICIOUS right now. Faivelely Clos des Cortons, AMAZING. But they shouldn't be at this point. That's my level of concern.

10 hasn’t ever shut down, though. I don’t see this being a bad thing.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we see 17 have the exact same trajectory.

[Greg K]

Why do many more votes for 2010 over 2005???

If we are rating just reds, 2005 has to be it. 2010s are drinking way too early. 2005s will last forever

Why is that a bad thing? 2010s have plenty of tannin and acid to go the distance, but also drink well young. Isn't that better than not drinking young?


I don't like de Vogue's wines, and sometimes people tell me "ah, but have you had their 71 Musigny" as if it's a rebuttal. Same thing here - I'd much rather drink good wine than wait forever for wine that may never come around.

[William Kelley]

I don't like de Vogue's wines, and sometimes people tell me "ah, but have you had their 71 Musigny" as if it's a rebuttal. Same thing here - I'd much rather drink good wine than wait forever for wine that may never come around.

A bit of a tangent, but there are different eras in the de Vogüé wines, even if the label has stayed the same. Alain Roumier made the wines from 1955 to 1986, and Georges Roumier before him. So anyone who is extrapolating from e.g. Alain Roumier's 1971 to e.g. François Millet's 1990 is comparing chalk and cheese, as the wines certainly feel as if they were made quite differently.

[Ian S]

Count me as another 2010, with 2002 in second. Although I concur with Jeremy at the top of this page about 2000.

The near lack of bickering has me flabbergasted! I thought this would be a bare knuckles round robin event with everyone taking pot shots in turn.

Where's 2020? Or did you want to forget last year?

Explained in the op, mate.

[Greg K]

I don't like de Vogue's wines, and sometimes people tell me "ah, but have you had their 71 Musigny" as if it's a rebuttal. Same thing here - I'd much rather drink good wine than wait forever for wine that may never come around.

A bit of a tangent, but there are different eras in the de Vogüé wines, even if the label has stayed the same. Alain Roumier made the wines from 1955 to 1986, and Georges Roumier before him. So anyone who is extrapolating from e.g. Alain Roumier's 1971 to e.g. François Millet's 1990 is comparing chalk and cheese, as the wines certainly feel as if they were made quite differently.

Thanks for the note William. Also, I'd be quite happy to drink Vogue's 71s! As yet no one has actually offered me a bottle though.

[Howard Cooper]

I think the best '05s will reach greater heights. I think '10s will provide more enjoyment over their lifespan. Both are magnificent (in my admittedly limited and humble experience compared w/ many on this board).

Count me in the camp that's bullish about '05s' trajectory. Most are still closed. But I've had some that are starting to show their stuff, and they're pretty great. For instance, a couple bottles of '05 Courcel 'Rugiens' over the past while have been really sensational (and that, obviously, is not a wine one would expect to show well young).

I hope that you are correct. I have a bunch of 2005s. But, I also just really love the taste of the 2010s and have from the very first time I tasted them. And, if 1980s are still drinking well (as William Kelley has said) and 2000s are still drinking well, I have no doubt that the 2010s will last as long as I need or want them to last. I don't know of any really good Burgundy vintage where wines from very good or better producers just fell apart young, do you?

You make a good point about the wines versus your own personal age. I want to make sure that every great wine I own gets consumed by me before I go.

I guess my concern is about wines that have been so good and so approachable since release that just should not be. Clos des Lambrays is DELICIOUS right now. Faivelely Clos des Cortons, AMAZING. But they shouldn't be at this point. That's my level of concern.

Again, when in the past has this meant wines in burgundy did not age well?

[Howard Cooper]

The near lack of bickering has me flabbergasted! I thought this would be a bare knuckles round robin event with everyone taking pot shots in turn.

Not with other Burgundy lovers. Just with the great unwashed.

[c fu]

Why do many more votes for 2010 over 2005???

If we are rating just reds, 2005 has to be it. 2010s are drinking way too early. 2005s will last forever

Why is that a bad thing? 2010s have plenty of tannin and acid to go the distance, but also drink well young. Isn't that better than not drinking young?


I don't like de Vogue's wines, and sometimes people tell me "ah, but have you had their 71 Musigny" as if it's a rebuttal. Same thing here - I'd much rather drink good wine than wait forever for wine that may never come around.

agreed, how does someone even define "way too early". 2010s have structure and acid to go the distance, it just has incredible purity of fruit too. It's not like it's showing secondary notes, everything is still very primary and alive. That's what makes it such an outstanding vintage.

05 has a lot of material and a lot of structure but at this point it's a guessing game when it starts to truly give pleasure.

[Ian Dorin]

Why do many more votes for 2010 over 2005???

If we are rating just reds, 2005 has to be it. 2010s are drinking way too early. 2005s will last forever

Why is that a bad thing? 2010s have plenty of tannin and acid to go the distance, but also drink well young. Isn't that better than not drinking young?


I don't like de Vogue's wines, and sometimes people tell me "ah, but have you had their 71 Musigny" as if it's a rebuttal. Same thing here - I'd much rather drink good wine than wait forever for wine that may never come around.

agreed, how does someone even define "way too early". 2010s have structure and acid to go the distance, it just has incredible purity of fruit too. It's not like it's showing secondary notes, everything is still very primary and alive. That's what makes it such an outstanding vintage.

05 has a lot of material and a lot of structure but at this point it's a guessing game when it starts to truly give pleasure.

I feel like every Burgundy vintage has a reflection period, and it's typically ages 7-9. The consensus on 2001 didn't seem to hit until 2008-2010, when it seemed like everyone was saying "what an underrated vintage!". 2010 has just always been yummy. Never was a doubt.

FWIW, I'm not really touting that it's a "bad thing" or something to worry about with 2010 being so yummy and always being so yummy. I just haven't seen a vintage like this before in my 21 years of doing this. Maybe it's once in a blue moon that we get a "charmingly youthful" vintage, just haven't experienced a vintage quite like it. Presumably the last vintage like it was 1985? Right? That's a big gap.

[Ian Dorin]

I hope that you are correct. I have a bunch of 2005s. But, I also just really love the taste of the 2010s and have from the very first time I tasted them. And, if 1980s are still drinking well (as William Kelley has said) and 2000s are still drinking well, I have no doubt that the 2010s will last as long as I need or want them to last. I don't know of any really good Burgundy vintage where wines from very good or better producers just fell apart young, do you?

You make a good point about the wines versus your own personal age. I want to make sure that every great wine I own gets consumed by me before I go.

I guess my concern is about wines that have been so good and so approachable since release that just should not be. Clos des Lambrays is DELICIOUS right now. Faivelely Clos des Cortons, AMAZING. But they shouldn't be at this point. That's my level of concern.

10 hasn’t ever shut down, though. I don’t see this being a bad thing.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we see 17 have the exact same trajectory.

I love 2017s, but it doesn't seem to have the same consensus love as 2010.

You could be right about 2017s being open faced like 2010s. I'm curious to see if that does in fact happen, you very well could be right!

[Mich@el Ch@ng]

You make a good point about the wines versus your own personal age. I want to make sure that every great wine I own gets consumed by me before I go.

I guess my concern is about wines that have been so good and so approachable since release that just should not be. Clos des Lambrays is DELICIOUS right now. Faivelely Clos des Cortons, AMAZING. But they shouldn't be at this point. That's my level of concern.

10 hasn’t ever shut down, though. I don’t see this being a bad thing.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we see 17 have the exact same trajectory.

I love 2017s, but it doesn't seem to have the same consensus love as 2010.

You could be right about 2017s being open faced like 2010s. I'm curious to see if that does in fact happen, you very well could be right!

I think that’s partially because it followed 15-16.

[Dennis Borczon]

I know it is a very small sample size, but I am a tad surprised that 2015 is higher than 2016 in terms of votes.

2016 is such a small vintage that did not get a ton of buzz because of the frost, etc., at the beginning of the year. I wonder if a lot of people ignored the vintage because it was hard to find and because of all the publicity surrounding the 2015s. I own a comparable amount of 2015s and 2016s, but with more whites in 2016. I was lucky because I was in Burgundy in 2018 and found some really good prices on 2016s. I also was influenced during this trip to buy more 2016s when Charles van Canneyt at Hudelot-Noellat told me that he thought his 2016s were the best wines he had made. I think it will be fun in the future to do 2015 vs. 2016 tastings, just like I think it will be fun to do 2009 vs. 2010 tastings.

STOP talking about the 2016s. Yes everyone, ignore this frosted terrible vintage. Go out and load up on those delicious 2018s right now. Retailers please note, unload those awful 16s right now at the pre tariff prices. They should be in your bargain bins...especially the Barthod Amoureuses.

[Dennis Borczon]

correction Bertheau 2016

[Scott Brunson]

My guess is that we are all going to get a lot of pleasure out of 2017s.

17 Barthod Bourgogne last night was delicious, and very Chambolle.

[Alan Rath]

I know it is a very small sample size, but I am a tad surprised that 2015 is higher than 2016 in terms of votes.

Was just going to say this when I saw your comment. For me 2016 is right up there with 2010, everything else a distant 3rd and beyond.

[Fred C]

Agree completely. I think it's a riper vintage that has been overshadowed by 2009 and 2015 and perhaps isn't drinking as well out of the bottle as some other vintages. Had a 2012 Arnoux Lachaux Clos Vougeot that was tight but still pleasurable recently. This vintage will probably gain in esteem as the wines open up again.

The problem with 12, at least for me was/is the price. It was much more expensive (secondary market) than 13 and 14 so I loaded up on the latter two.

That's b/c it's a much better vintage than 13 and 14. However, I don't really know that it's priced that much more than 13/14. I've found 12 priced anywhere from 20-50% less than 2015 when IMO in the mid/long term it may end up being as good or better a vintage. Not sure about auction prices as I don't buy at auction.

Quick WSP search:

2012 DRC RSV $1699
2013 DRC RSV $1899
2014 DRC RSV $1699
2015 DRC RSV $2495

2012 Rousseau Beze $1495
2013 Rousseau Beze $1850
2014 Rousseau Beze $1849
2015 Rousseau Beze $2495

2012 La Tache $4000
2013 La Tache $3400
2014 La Tache $3500
2015 La Tache $4500

Only time will tell but I’m betting 13 and 14 end up better than 12 for both red and white. At least for my tastes.

As for pricing on 13 and 14, there was some Rousseau Chambertin at $900-1000 sitting around from multiple retailers in the secondary market. DRC Echezeaux around $700, GE $1200, etc.

[Mich@el Ch@ng]

The problem with 12, at least for me was/is the price. It was much more expensive (secondary market) than 13 and 14 so I loaded up on the latter two.

That's b/c it's a much better vintage than 13 and 14. However, I don't really know that it's priced that much more than 13/14. I've found 12 priced anywhere from 20-50% less than 2015 when IMO in the mid/long term it may end up being as good or better a vintage. Not sure about auction prices as I don't buy at auction.

Quick WSP search:

2012 DRC RSV $1699
2013 DRC RSV $1899
2014 DRC RSV $1699
2015 DRC RSV $2495

2012 Rousseau Beze $1495
2013 Rousseau Beze $1850
2014 Rousseau Beze $1849
2015 Rousseau Beze $2495

2012 La Tache $4000
2013 La Tache $3400
2014 La Tache $3500
2015 La Tache $4500

Only time will tell but I’m betting 13 and 14 end up better than 12 for both red and white. At least for my tastes.

I think 13 will be better than expected and 14 will be a good classic burg vintage but 12 is a tremendous vintage IMO. I’ve been going very long on it and have more 12 than any vintages besides 17 and 15.

[Howard Cooper]

The problem with 12, at least for me was/is the price. It was much more expensive (secondary market) than 13 and 14 so I loaded up on the latter two.

That's b/c it's a much better vintage than 13 and 14. However, I don't really know that it's priced that much more than 13/14. I've found 12 priced anywhere from 20-50% less than 2015 when IMO in the mid/long term it may end up being as good or better a vintage. Not sure about auction prices as I don't buy at auction.

Quick WSP search:

2012 DRC RSV $1699
2013 DRC RSV $1899
2014 DRC RSV $1699
2015 DRC RSV $2495

2012 Rousseau Beze $1495
2013 Rousseau Beze $1850
2014 Rousseau Beze $1849
2015 Rousseau Beze $2495

2012 La Tache $4000
2013 La Tache $3400
2014 La Tache $3500
2015 La Tache $4500

Only time will tell but I’m betting 13 and 14 end up better than 12 for both red and white. At least for my tastes.

I have not been opening better 13s or 14s lately so I cannot talk for them, but I have had a few really good 2012s this year. From what I have seen, the 2012s seem to be to be better than I thought they would be when I first tasted some when in Burgundy in 2013. As I said somewhere a number of posts up above, we have really been blessed since 1999. So many really good vintages. I don't have that much experience with 2013s, but either 2012 or 2014 would have been the second or at worst third best vintage in the 1970s (behind 1978 and maybe 1971).