2018 vintage throughout France.

[Robert.A.Jr]

Yes, William. I should have clarified that my reference to those vintages in the 1980s, along with 1990, was regarding Bordeaux.

[Markus_S]

Sorry yes, 1990.

A “9” instead of zero? Must be doing client bills.

[Marcu_Stanley]

So will this be the 5th, 6th or 7th vintage of the century since 2000? At least 2005, 2009, 2010, 2015 qualify…maybe 2000 and 2016 too.

That can happen. The run of 1945, 1947 and 1949 was a pretty epic series too. Similarly, 1928, 1929, 1934, 1937…

More recently, 1982, 1986, 1989 and 1999, and then consider 1988, 1985 and even 1983 delivered some really excellent wines. Arguably the best decade of the modern era.

I suspect that the improvement in winemaking/investment plus global warming is delivering a long-term upward shift in performance for the top French regions, such that at least a third of vintages are going to be “great” and only around 10-15% will be “bad”, with the rest being good. Look at the oughts in Bordeaux – 2000, 2005, 2009, 2010 “great”, only 2007 was “bad”. Non-“great” vintages like 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008 are good by historical standards and depending on style preferences one might actually prefer some of these vintages to the “great” ones that are big and tannic. For Burgundy the story is similar – 2005, 2009, 2010 are “great” and only 2004 is actively “bad”.

Looked at narrowly, for Bordeaux that may not be so far off the 80s performance (82, 89. 90 “great” and 84, 87 “bad”), but you can see the pattern more clearly when you compare e.g. the 19 years from 1981-1999 to the 19 years from 2000-2018. First period, 1982, 1989, 1990, 1996 are “great” and 1984, 1987, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1997 are “bad”. Second period, 2000, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2015, 2016 and now perhaps 2018 are “great” and only 2007 and 2013 are “bad”. Arguably the “not-great” vintages are more consistent in the second period too.

It is actually not too hard to pick out vintages in the 2000-2018 period that would have been “bad” but were rescued by better winemaking and vineyard management. I think it’s a little more complicated question whether better growing/winemaking techniques could take a vintage from “good but not great” to “great” but I bet if my knowledge was deeper I could point to a case like that as well.

[Jon_Chan]

Wait. So 2017 was bad now?

[Marcu_Stanley]

Wait. So 2017 was bad now?

Who said that? I didn’t say that.

From reports it appears that 2017 is in the “not great but not bad” category. Too inconsistent to be “great” but some did quite well. Of course it’s early yet.

[Howard_Cooper]

That can happen. The run of 1945, 1947 and 1949 was a pretty epic series too. Similarly, 1928, 1929, 1934, 1937…

More recently, 1982, 1986, 1989 and 1999, and then consider 1988, 1985 and even 1983 delivered some really excellent wines. Arguably the best decade of the modern era.

I suspect that the improvement in winemaking/investment plus global warming is delivering a long-term upward shift in performance for the top French regions, such that at least a third of vintages are going to be “great” and only around 10-15% will be “bad”, with the rest being good. Look at the oughts in Bordeaux – 2000, 2005, 2009, 2010 “great”, only 2007 was “bad”. Non-“great” vintages like 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008 are good by historical standards and depending on style preferences one might actually prefer some of these vintages to the “great” ones that are big and tannic. For Burgundy the story is similar – 2005, 2009, 2010 are “great” and only 2004 is actively “bad”.

Looked at narrowly, for Bordeaux that may not be so far off the 80s performance (82, 89. 90 “great” and 84, 87 “bad”), but you can see the pattern more clearly when you compare e.g. the 19 years from 1981-1999 to the 19 years from 2000-2018. First period, 1982, 1989, 1990, 1996 are “great” and 1984, 1987, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1997 are “bad”. Second period, 2000, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2015, 2016 and now perhaps 2018 are “great” and only 2007 and 2013 are “bad”. Arguably the “not-great” vintages are more consistent in the second period too.

It is actually not too hard to pick out vintages in the 2000-2018 period that would have been “bad” but were rescued by better winemaking and vineyard management. I think it’s a little more complicated question whether better growing/winemaking techniques could take a vintage from “good but not great” to “great” but I bet if my knowledge was deeper I could point to a case like that as well.

The same has been true in Burgundy. During the 1999-2017 vintage period, the only really bad vintage was 2004 (2011 not so great either) with great vintages in 1999, 2005 and 2010 (and possibly 2015, although one producer this summer told me his 2016s were the best he has made since he took over the winery in about 2008). I wonder what vintages like 2000, 2001, 2007, 2008, 2013, etc., would have tasted like a generation ago.

[Markus_S]

William I just want to thank you for sticking with us since your elevation.

Has he been made a Cardinal?

[Neal.Mollen]

William I just want to thank you for sticking with us since your elevation.

Has he been made a Cardinal?

Ask him to show you his hat

[Marcu_Stanley]

More recently, 1982, 1986, 1989 and 1999, and then consider 1988, 1985 and even 1983 delivered some really excellent wines. Arguably the best decade of the modern era.

I suspect that the improvement in winemaking/investment plus global warming is delivering a long-term upward shift in performance for the top French regions, such that at least a third of vintages are going to be “great” and only around 10-15% will be “bad”, with the rest being good. Look at the oughts in Bordeaux – 2000, 2005, 2009, 2010 “great”, only 2007 was “bad”. Non-“great” vintages like 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008 are good by historical standards and depending on style preferences one might actually prefer some of these vintages to the “great” ones that are big and tannic. For Burgundy the story is similar – 2005, 2009, 2010 are “great” and only 2004 is actively “bad”.

Looked at narrowly, for Bordeaux that may not be so far off the 80s performance (82, 89. 90 “great” and 84, 87 “bad”), but you can see the pattern more clearly when you compare e.g. the 19 years from 1981-1999 to the 19 years from 2000-2018. First period, 1982, 1989, 1990, 1996 are “great” and 1984, 1987, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1997 are “bad”. Second period, 2000, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2015, 2016 and now perhaps 2018 are “great” and only 2007 and 2013 are “bad”. Arguably the “not-great” vintages are more consistent in the second period too.

It is actually not too hard to pick out vintages in the 2000-2018 period that would have been “bad” but were rescued by better winemaking and vineyard management. I think it’s a little more complicated question whether better growing/winemaking techniques could take a vintage from “good but not great” to “great” but I bet if my knowledge was deeper I could point to a case like that as well.

The same has been true in Burgundy. During the 1999-2017 vintage period, the only really bad vintage was 2004 (2011 not so great either) with great vintages in 1999, 2005 and 2010 (and possibly 2015, although one producer this summer told me his 2016s were the best he has made since he took over the winery in about 2008). I wonder what vintages like 2000, 2001, 2007, 2008, 2013, etc., would have tasted like a generation ago.

if you like fleshier/more fruit forward vintages you could almost add 2002 and 2009 to the “great” list for reds in Burgundy, although I realize that would be more controversial.

[Robert_Love]

if you like fleshier/more fruit forward vintages you could almost add 2002 and 2009 to the “great” list for reds in Burgundy, although I realize that would be more controversial.

I assume you mean 2003, not 2002?

[David_Bu3ker]

From reports it appears that 2017 is in the “not great but not bad” category.

Uh-oh…time for the dreaded “off vintage” label

[Howard_Cooper]

if you like fleshier/more fruit forward vintages you could almost add 2002 and 2009 to the “great” list for reds in Burgundy, although I realize that would be more controversial.

I assume you mean 2003, not 2002?

I assumed he meant 2002 (although I generally do not think 2002 and 2009 are as good overall as 1999, 2005, 2010 and 2015). I would think 2003 is to inconsistent for anyone to call it a great vintage although are great wines from that year

[John_Morris]

That can happen. The run of 1945, 1947 and 1949 was a pretty epic series too. Similarly, 1928, 1929, 1934, 1937…

If you’ve studied statistics, you’ll know that clusters are common and nice, evenly spread data is unusual.

Still, vintage is in the singular!

That’s an interesting question. I’m not sure it’s 100% accurate. I’ve seen thoughts expressed every so often that extreme conditions in one vintage can influence the next, i.e., from a statistics standpoint vintages are not independent / there is memory.

Yes, I believe vines (and other plants) tend to rebound strongly after a year with hard frosts. I remember that happened in 1985 in Bordeaux after very damaging frosts in 1984. You can see the value from a survival standpoint – the need to produce more seeds after a year in which there were few.

[John_Morris]

Elin’s comments about the Côte de Nuits are a bit off beam, as the hail storms to which she refers were pretty much confined to Nuits-Saint-Georges / Premeaux / Comblanchien rather than the Côte de Nuits as a whole. Vosne, Vougeot, Chambolle, Morey, Gevrey, Fixin and Marsannay all did just fine. Whether the whites will surpass the reds is also an open question. The reds are looking quite extreme, with high sugars and often amazing color which came after just a couple of days of cuvaison. pHs are correct but total acidity a bit low, with very little malic acids. Some of the wines seem very promising at this early stage, though it’s really too early to comment. But in some places, hydric stress blocked phenolic maturation. Ironically, those places tended to be the higher appellations, whereas the village lieux-dits sometimes did better. There will certainly be some village wines that surpass premiers crus this year!

William I just want to thank you for sticking with us since your elevation. I really do appreciate your posts.

+1

Great to have a little more detailed and nuanced reporting than McCoy could give in that overview.

I was struck by the fact that overall production was up 25% from 2017. Wasn’t 2017 far, far below long-term average production? If so, the 25% rebound wouldn’t bring it back to average.

Of course, you really have to look at it by region. I’d love to see for each area how '16, '17 and '18 compare in volume versus long-term averages.

[Robert_Love]

I assumed he meant 2002 (although I generally do not think 2002 and 2009 are as good overall as 1999, 2005, 2010 and 2015). I would think 2003 is to inconsistent for anyone to call it a great vintage although are great wines from that year

I was latching on more to the “fleshier/more fruit forward” rather than “great” part. I agree 2003 isn’t great; 2002s arguably are. But with respect to fleshy and fruit forward, 2002s are transparent, pure, and balanced. 2003s are mostly overripe, although some producers made nice albeit rich wines. That’s what confused me.

[Howard_Cooper]

Elin’s comments about the Côte de Nuits are a bit off beam, as the hail storms to which she refers were pretty much confined to Nuits-Saint-Georges / Premeaux / Comblanchien rather than the Côte de Nuits as a whole. Vosne, Vougeot, Chambolle, Morey, Gevrey, Fixin and Marsannay all did just fine. Whether the whites will surpass the reds is also an open question. The reds are looking quite extreme, with high sugars and often amazing color which came after just a couple of days of cuvaison. pHs are correct but total acidity a bit low, with very little malic acids. Some of the wines seem very promising at this early stage, though it’s really too early to comment. But in some places, hydric stress blocked phenolic maturation. Ironically, those places tended to be the higher appellations, whereas the village lieux-dits sometimes did better. There will certainly be some village wines that surpass premiers crus this year!

William I just want to thank you for sticking with us since your elevation. I really do appreciate your posts.

+1

[Marcu_Stanley]

if you like fleshier/more fruit forward vintages you could almost add 2002 and 2009 to the “great” list for reds in Burgundy, although I realize that would be more controversial.

I assume you mean 2003, not 2002?

Howard is right that I meant 2002. Incredibly charming and balanced vintage in its first decade of life although I haven’t checked in on it lately.

2003 was highly uneven in Burgundy, worse than Bordeaux – pinot doesn’t handle heat as well.

[John_Morris]

The same has been true in Burgundy. During the 1999-2017 vintage period, the only really bad vintage was 2004 (2011 not so great either) with great vintages in 1999, 2005 and 2010 (and possibly 2015, although one producer this summer told me his 2016s were the best he has made since he took over the winery in about 2008).

Obviously, there’s huge variation in sensitivity to whatever it is that some people hate in 2004, but every '04 I’ve had in recent years has been quite pleasant – nothing that would make me think it was a bad vintage if I hadn’t read all the foaming here. On the other hand, I’ve had some '03s that couldn’t be identified as Burgundy tasting blindly.

[Mike_Miller]

I thought that this year’s vintage was ALWAYS the vintage of the century??!!

[Marcus_Dean]

The same has been true in Burgundy. During the 1999-2017 vintage period, the only really bad vintage was 2004 (2011 not so great either) with great vintages in 1999, 2005 and 2010 (and possibly 2015, although one producer this summer told me his 2016s were the best he has made since he took over the winery in about 2008).

Obviously, there’s huge variation in sensitivity to whatever it is that some people hate in 2004, but every '04 I’ve had in recent years has been quite pleasant – nothing that would make me think it was a bad vintage if I hadn’t read all the foaming here. On the other hand, I’ve had some '03s that couldn’t be identified as Burgundy tasting blindly.

+1