Having tasted my share of 98s and 00s - I’ve yet to come across wines that werent enjoyable. Granted, I didnt taste them on release, and most of what I’ve had has been the better producers, usually marked down Grand Crus, 1ers.
Quick examples include:
00 Laurent Vougeot
98 Bizot Echezeaux
98 Damoy Clos de Beze
00 Chevillon NSG Georges
Maybe the bourgognes/village level wines are lacking, admittedly I havent tried a one simply b/c I started collecting/drinking wine in 03 and it was mostly Cali stuff.
So why do these two vintages get a “bum” rap, at least in terms of burg-nuts and on vintage charts, for what those are worth…
Well, burg nuts and vintage charts are two rather different things. Most burg nuts I know like the wines just fine. Vintage charts are a whole 'nother matter.
Sounds like I should take a look at grabbing some '98’s and '00’s, both of which are probably in great drinking windows now.
I have had other wines that were panned as a varietal or location in a given year, and found some incredible deals. '03 Bordeaux (Sauternes, specifically) is a great example to me.
I’ve had a few '03 Sauternes, and all have been a bit underwhelming to me. La Tour Blanche and the Laflaurie (sp?).
ETA: Any thoughts on '83 Burgundy? It’s my fiancee’s birth year, and I’ve come across some bottles (I don’t know which) for a seemingly decent price ($100-$150 per for Grand Cru).
1983 Can be a tricky year…there was a lot of rot that occurred and some did well and some didnt…I guess its a taste and then buy sort of deal. Lucien Jayer had some nice wines out there, but I havent had that many 83’s in general. Maybe some others can add in thoughts?
I always found Pierre’s reviews suspect, but to each their own, I suppose. As you observed, Allen Meadows had not obtained prominence in 1998 (as an example) so there was a limited number of reviews on this vintage.
I personally own only whites from 98 (so not completely on point) – the 98 LeFlaive Les Pucelles and the 98 Bouchard La Cabotte. I’ve had both in the last 6 months and both are drinking well and are terrific. I’d recommend them, especially at the prices you can get them for.
00 followed 99, an absolutely great vintage and suffered from the comparison. The wines are early-maturing, full of bouquet and are drinking just great now, though the length and midpalate depth aren’t real profound. 98 is/was a bit tannic and hard to appreciate early on. Tom’s right about Pierre–WA steered a lot of people wrong w/Burgundy for a very long time. Initially, Cote de Nuits 93 was rated 73 and 93 Cote de Beaune scored 68–both upgraded a bit since then. And 93 is/was a fabulous vintage for red Burgundy.
alan
Tom has a deeply analytical approach to the answer.
I have a somewhat more generalized view – that I think Tom may not wholly disagree with – producer, producer, producer. My take on burgundy is that once you find producers you like, absent absolutely horrifying years, they will make good wine. Yes, good vintages will be better than “bad,” but this usually just means that the “bad” vintages can be consumed early with the good vintages to be laid down for years/years/years/years/years. I have found that good producers make good wine even in not-so-good vintages. Only a total wash-out (ala 2002 rhones) seem to void this rule.
I’ve personally always liked a lot of '98s, but can see how others would continue not to feel the same way. The '00s on the other hand, I don’t know anyone who predicted they’d turn out as well as they have. And both are really different vintages.
Many of the better '00s, on release, were pretty, but simple and didn’t seem to have the stuffing to be long term wines. So in terms of “off” vintages, it wasn’t one that seemed flawed, just nice but not that serious. I still don’t think they’re long term wines, but I’ve been very surprised at the complexity and body they’ve picked up. Of the vintages I’ve tried on release (starting with '93), '00 is the one that’s surprised me the most. For a given wine, I still tend to like other vintages much more, but the '00s are drinking really well and they’ve turned out better than I expected.
'98 is different in that it has turned out like many expected. The tannins can be kind of coarse, and in comparison to '99, the wines can be less aromatically complex. Not to everyone’s liking, but if you like structure at least as much as seductive fruit, '98 is an underrated vintage. Some communes did better than others. The Chambolle were great, as good as '99 in my book. Gevrey and Volnay generally did really well too. Maybe Morey too (esp. '98 Lambrays, really nice wine).
I think you’re getting at a smart point, which is that if you go for serious producers in underrated vintages, you’ll do well. The recent clear example is '05 vs. '06. In some cases the '05s are selling for 3x what the '06s are, and aren’t 3x better. '01 vs. '02 was similar (many people were somewhat down on '01 on release) and I prefer the '01s.
I’m 100% with Robert Thornton on the 2000s, couldn’t have said it any better.
I never saw Pierre Rovani’s review of the 1998s, but if I remember correctly Wine Spectator reviewed them very well - so blindly following the critics is not an adequate excuse for missing the vintage!
I am not a fan of the “producer, producer, producer” school of buying Burgundy or anything else. If three different people each have their Burgundy epiphanies with an '85 Angerville Clos des Ducs, who could say the guy who proceeds to buy a dozen other Angervilles is going to be any happier than the guy who buys a dozen other Volnays, or a dozen other 1985s? There are no hard and fast rules in Burgundy, which is why it rewards connoisseurship more than consumerism.
The first review of 2000 I can remember reading was by Clive Coates, who described it as a “restaurant vintage.” I read that as very dismissive, but I suppose it implies an early maturing vintage. This certainly seems the case, and 2000 has become my go-to vintage; burgundies that are available, usually delicious, and you don’t need to cellar them for another 10 years.
As usual, Tom Reddick has it in a nutshell-but I think the same may apply to 97, unquestionably a pretty unsatisfactory vintage particularly because of the way vintage characteristics obscure appellation, as to 94 .At this point many 97s are starting to become at least acceptable in a way that surprises me. Rovani/Parker did state that Burgundy matures on its fruit, not its tannin and acidity. This is one of the most misleading statements in the history of mankind, which I think has finally now been realised by the winebuying public. I certainly profited from this incredible assertion, though.
I think there’s rather little in common between 98 and 00. 00 is drinking so well at the moment that I think it may be currently overrated, while 98 has many great wines for the future as well as serious young drinking pleasure at all levels for today. It’s a vintage for terroir, cut, structure and pointedly bright fruit rather than the more voluptuous and undemanding pleasures of 00.
In general it’s astonishing how bad mainstream wine journalists have been at assessing new burgundy vintages. They never seem to realise that a very young showing can be utterly meaningless.
As Robert said, 2000 was a very different situation from 1998. I remember tasting 2000s when they were first released and thinking that there was not that much to them. Then, I tasted a few of the same wines about a year later and could not believe how much weight they had added. The only vintage I have ever had like that was 1980. The 2000s are now really beautiful wines and I wish I had more.
I think it is interesting to see that right now we probably have the best wine critics for Burgundy that I can remember. Led by Allen Meadows, David Schildknecht in the Wine Advocate and John Gilman, we really have guys in promenant positions who understand Burgundy. This is a two-edged sword. It was kind of nice when the more money than brains folks all went looking for the wrong wines – the 1997s recommended by Rovani (he even rated 1997 as a better vintage than 1999) – and skipped the better wines. Unfortunately, in 2005, the right wines went up in price.
The people who have replied above are much more knowledgeable Burgundy drinkers than I, but I would say that the 2000’s have been almost universally surprisingly good. I have had mixed luck on the 1998’s. Some of the recent ones seem to lack the “nervosity” that I like in Burgundy. There seems to be a little bit of dullness to them and I have not been too impressed with the aromatics. I find that I much prefer the 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 vintages.