Is burgundy better now across the board than 10-15 years ago?

I’m struck by how much higher Meadows rates so many wines in the 09 and 10 vintages compared to their equivalents in 99 and 02 and even vs many in 05. Is he guilty of Parker style score inflation? The market seems to be buying into this hierarchy in many cases - as an example, just today I received an offer for some pristine 6 packs of 99 arnoux suchots for 40% less than I can find the 09 or 10 for. I find it very hard to believe that this wine is that much better in those, more recent vintages than in 99, particularly when you factor in time value of money and storage costs for over a decade!

I think its a bit of both. I think for one the “language” of points has evolved. An “89” doesn’t mean the same thing to the wine community in 2012 as it did in 2002. Critics are likely either consciously or unconsciously influenced by that. Plus it just takes 1 vintage for a critic to over-rate some wines to set a new baseline.

Also at the same time I think there are more good producers now than there were before. part of it is that prices have risen so growers and producers have more incentive and resources to invest in quality. I think knowledge has improved as well with more producers going to enology school and traveling abroad. Lastly, I think Parker influenced some producers in the 90s to overextract and use too much oak. Meadows has awarded extremely high points to producers like Mugnier so lighter more elegant styles (to an extent) are financially feasible and that style does well in Burgundy.

To add to what Berry said above (with which I agree largely), it’s not simply vinification choices that are becoming de-Parkerized, in my opinion it’s also the fact that viticultural practices have improved dramatically over the past decade or more.

Fifteen years ago a growing season like Burgundy had this year would have produced little to no drinkable wine. Yet better and more widespread ploughing techniques (healthier, more naturally balanced soils), high-tech sprayers (efficient application of fungicides), a willingness to prune longer for less vigour and do hand-work like de-leafing and hand-spraying when it’s too muddy for tractors, means that there may be truly no such thing as a bad vintage anymore.

I think this board on the whole pays too little attention to the fact that Burgundy is made in the vineyard, not in the winery. True, there are stylistic choices that are made during vinification, but if the grapes come into the winery in prime – or even decent – condition, the winemaking is easy, from what I understand. That’s why, under French regulations (again, if I’ve understood correctly, and it WAS explained to me in French), anyone can be a negociant with no qualifications whatsoever. But to be a winegrower you have to have a French viticultural/oenological diploma and to have done an apprenticeship.

To make sure my point is not misunderstood, I do not think it is simply changes in the cellar that are making a difference, in general I think higher prices have given both growers and producers more incentive and resources to invest in quality. On the grower side, more natural practices have made an enormous difference but there is also now more and more the financial viability of simply throwing away bad fruit in difficult years whereas in years past that simply was not an option if growers/producers didnt want to risk financial ruin. Alot of fruit was discaded in 2012.

Respectfuly, I am not sure I agree that people on this board pays too little attention to the importance of terroir. It is discussesed constantly. But understanding the critcal importance of terroir doesnt change the fact that a bad producer or one who makes wine in a style you dont like can ruin good terroir coughmagniencough.

I think this board on the whole pays too little attention to the fact that Burgundy is made in the vineyard, not in the winery

Curious why you think this way ?

I think that’s the general consensus, Dan – better vineyard practices, moving away from the poor clones, more careful work in the cellar, more small producers working with pride to produce their own wines. It’s a virtuous circle with the prices rising to support all this.

Very simple:
The best wines from yesterday were as good as the best are today,
BUT there are more good, very good, outstanding wines produced today because there are more knowledgable, (young and) enthusiastic producers with better equipment, and most know that they can sell their products at higher prices when the quality is fine.
20+ years ago some were content when they made a “correct” wine in a “not so easy” vintage. Today most try to make an outstanding wine in every vintage if possible.

Moreover - YES, there is kind of an inflation in points … we´ve discussed this already a few months ago: a wine worth 89 points seems to be completely uninteresting for most readers/writers here - as well as many critics … BUT many such wines can be marvellous drinks when opened at the right time (MATURE !).

reg. Arnoux Suchots: I know all vintages from 1990 to 2010. The 99 is certainly on the same level as 2009 and 2010, but closer to maturity. Perhaps the younger vintages are still “more perfectly” produced, the style is more refined, avoiding any rusticity, but that is splitting hairs.
I don´t see any reason why anybody should sell the 99 for less than the 2010 - except he/she needs money very quickly. Moreover these older Arnouxs are very hard to find - so it´s kind of a rarity … another reason to better put it up for auction than selling it off too cheap.

Interesting discussion, particularly for a newcomer…
Berry, I absolutely take your point about financial comfort allowing for more investment in top-end equipment, and more selectivity at the moment of harvest.

That said, I don’t equate viticulture and terroir. For me, the first is the means by which the second expresses itself. That terroir is there is a given, but it takes good growing practices to reveal it in all its glory (with, of course, careful winemaking coupled with personal stylistic preferences).

There is copious discussion on this board of terroir as a concept, but the actual farming practices put in place by various winegrowers seem to not get a lot of coverage. In my opinion, there are many more questions to be asked regarding grape-growing than winemaking. For example: For a given favorite producer, does he prune early or late, long or short, de-bud or de-shoot after bud-break? And that’s just the start. After that there’s soil treatment, hedging, spraying, trellising, etc. etc.

Also, from what I understand, there was very little fruit thrown away in 2012. There was a lot hailed away, or mildewed away or sunburned or… But I’ve heard there was basically no rot, so what fruit there was remaining was of high quality and went into the presses or fermenters.

Peter, see above. I think a thread about favourite producers’ growing practices might be in order. After my next visit to Burgundy (November) I just might start it.

Jack - you misunderstood my question.

I am asking why and for what reasons : you thought : THIS BOARD ON THE WHOLE …pay too litle attention to the fact that Burgundy is made in the vineyard, not in the winery.

******…this board on the whole pays too little attention to the fact that Burgundy is made in the vineyard, not in the winery ******


What I am trying to say is : most of the Burgundy Posters in this Board…KNOW…Burgundy is made in the vineyard.

Jack…Yes !

Style is not Substance and Substance is not Style…

Kermit Lynch on this topic from a few years back: http://kermitlynch.com/blog/2012/01/25/the-bourgogne-sessions/

I would agree with a lot of what a lot of you guys are stating if we were discussing 1989 rather than 1999. While practices keep improving, I think the biggest changes in quality had been completed by 1999. There are a lot of just outstanding 1999s out there and if you could find a 1999 at 40% less than a 2009, I would jump on the 1999.

I think the biggest change since 1999 is that the quality of the wine writing has improved. People like Allen (and not only Allen) actually give high scores to the better wines. We no longer have the most prominant wine publication issuing ratings that make you scratch your heads wondering “what are they talking about.” Buying Burgundy is less risky as information has improved and prices reflect that.

Maybe more people have gotten on board making good wine since 1999, but 1999 is a great vintage and there are a lot of great 1999s out there.

As I drink more and more wines from 90, 93, 95 and 96, I can say that it was pretty damn good back then …

99 is the best vintage for red Burgundy that I have seen. 2010 may come close but it is not 99. Forget scores I’ll take anyone’s 99 bottling over their 05, 09 and 2010 on most occasions.

Jeremy -
My first burg vintage is '01 so I have no way to gauge '99, but I’m curious as to whether you viewed '99 as the best vintage you’ve seen at the time of release or whether you’ve come to that conclusion now that the vintage has a little time under its belt (or perhaps a combination of both)? I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that 2010 is the best vintage I’ve experienced. For me, 2010 bests '05 (in white by a long shot; for red by a fraction).
Thanks,
A

I think Allen Meadows acknowledges that his scores now start at a higher level than they did when he began just so that they could be better understood by a Parker-weaned world(not to mention that according to some in Burgundy he has become a great deal more knowledgeable since he began). I’m not sure that quality has improved at the addresses which were already making good wine in 99 but there’s no doubt that fashions change and I often find myself wondering if there’s enough tannic structure in recent vintages.As Jeremy says, though, forget scores.

Can I drink with you? especially the '93’s!

I think Chablis is on a roll more than anywhere else in Burgundy the last fifteen years with '10, '08, '07, '04, '02 and '00 with higher consistency than the previous 15 years.

Alex, straight from release the 99’s had beautiful perfumes, lacy textures and superb balance. There were a few critics who looked at the yields and judged by numbers, saying that such a high yielding vintage would lead to dilute wines. I know of no one who would call the 99’s dilute. They drank really well for the best part of a decade and have only really shut down relatively recently, although you can drink them still now after giving them a bit of air. The 10’s are brilliant in both colours.

• infinity
  In a differently styled vintage, I’ll also take 01s over most of the rest