So I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but some recent experiences have me re-thinking everything I thought I new about Burgundy. Over the last several months, I’ve had four half bottles of pommard village and premier cru, two of which dated from 64 and two of which dated from 66. None of the producers were names I had heard before. All were alive, fresh and lovely. I had a '62 Marey Monge RSV from Thorin (more info, please) that was out-of-this-world life-changing burgundy. I had a 70 RSV from DRC, a '71 Latricieres from Trapet, a '66 pommard epenots and '47 leroy gevrey cazetiers. They ranged from good (the 66 leroy) to very good (the DRC) to unbelievable (the '47 leroy). My current thinking is that if I had my druthers of vintages to drink now, I would drink '64, 66, '70, '71 and '72. '72 in particular is (I believe) widely considered a weak vintage and my experience is that whatever the wines used to be, they are now coming around in a very good place. In between there have been some dead soldiers (a '69 gevrey was sherried, although I actually thought there was something nice about it) and 2 out of 4 of my '85 jessiaums santenary graveieres have been far inferior to the other two. But in general, the window of maturity appears to be far greater than what I thought, and not just at the grand cru level.
So my new theory is that I’m drinking all of burgs way too young (and I generally believe in holding 1er crus for 10-15 years and grands crus for 10-25 years). By drinking early, I’m not only missing the best that these wines have to offer, but also missing a series of peaks and valleys in their evolution. I’m thinking that most every vintage has flaws that, in many cases, will resolve over time. What seems dead or off may come alive. Perhaps it is more likely than not.
From now on, I’m keeping my cellar at 50 degrees (when I get a cellar, that is). If it is 30/40 years old and under $100, I’m the guy bidding for it on winebid so I have something to drink while my wines (generally 2000 and later) age. My 2010s (at least the ones that I don’t drink between 30 and 40 years of age) will be enjoyed by my daughter for many, many years after I’m long gone.
I don’t want to be paternalistic (and certainly not mean spirited). I truly believe that maturity and age is a personal preference and those that enjoy burgs young have my full endorsement and support. But I can’t help but think that after 10 years of constantly thinking about burgundy and exploring the region as much as I can, I’ve just now uncovered a secret that vastly alter everything I thought I new.
you sound like a young me. I have too often railed that many drink their Burgs too young and I have kept my cellar at 50 degrees for 20 years. Windows published are too early and narrow. It will be interesting to see this thread develop, but hopefully opinions will include those with experience tasting both old and young Burgs.
alan
Yep, nothing quite like the true tertiary characters that one finds in well stored, aged red Burgundy. I have had countless great experiences from humble wines from the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s and 60’s where I have bought the wines out of France. Wine in general, particularly red Burgundy does not age in a linear fashion and ages for a lot longer than people think. Forget drinking windows from critics, they generally do not know when a wine truly will peak (it could be in 50-70 years time). A 1935 Chambolle-Musigny from Combastel (no idea who they are) was remarkable on Friday night. I can only imagine the critics of the day saying drink between 1936-1946.
Sounds about right to me. The youngest Burgundy vintage that can showcase Burgundy at its absolute best at this moment is 1978. Okay, occasionally an '85, but for the most part you have to go back to '78 or beyond. People know this, and yet, inexplicably, you still see people posting tasting notes on Burgundies that have only been in the bottle a few years, claiming that 5 more years or so is all they need.
The words above are those for which I was searching. They are (very obviously) written much more eloquently and succinctly than my thoughts. Thank you, Jeremy.
I dont disagree and have some 66s and 69s but face it, unless you inherit a cellar or buy these on the secondary market or start collecting very young and buying wines that are already into their aging curve… you just can’t drink these regularly.
I also don’t really agree with Keith that only 78s can really show what Burgundy is about. Burgundy reveals different facets of itself at various ages. I think after about age 15 you can start learning about the wines you have. Finally, tertiary characteristics are not the only or pinnacle of flavor. They’re one set of flavors. I wonder how people would react if yuo got those flavors at age 15… is some of the attraction that you’re drinking wine from past decades? When I open a 1969 it’s from the same year Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon. There’s a romance to that
Whilst I agree 100% with all this, I am also not going to wait 80+ years for my wines to be in this phase.
Not every vintage has a long aging curve or the “stuffing” to age long term in this sort of positive way.
Vintages like say '00 can be enjoyed with significant pleasure now, and whilst the best wines may go 20 or 30 years more, I am not sure how much better they will get, if at all.
There is enjoyment to be had in pretty much every phase of Burgundy’s evolution (except perhaps when the wines are shut down hard), so to purely age everything to it’s outermost point means you will miss out on a lot. A bit like saying that you want kids, but only when they are 21…
Can’t disagree. We recently returned from the restaurant that will not be named. There we enjoyed a 53 Ponelle Pommard Epenots. We could have had many wines younger and more prestigious but this baby showed what great burgundy is all about. I rarely pop anything before it’s at least 10 years old. In fact I just recently recovered some 99’s from the locker that I bought on release. Really Francois Audoze has the best idea. By the wines when they are ready to drink.
Alex you should be following John Gilman. He also loves 72 and regularly posts long drinking windows.
I think one bit of knowledge too is what producers were good then but might have fallen off the radar now. I mean, it’s inevitable that over the last 50 years some producers what were doing really great work have declined and others that have risen to prominence recently weren’t as good then.
Paul -
Thanks for this. I really enjoy your notes on burgundy and I respect your point of view a lot. I’m hoping that you might be able to flesh out what you mean when you talk about enjoyment at every phase of evolution. I think I agree with this, but part of what I’m struggling with is that I think part of what I’m enjoying with young-ish burgs is a theoretical evolution. In other words, I will drink a wine and think “this is fabulous because when it goes through development X and change Y, everything will be in harmony and it will really show its full potential.” That strikes me as a worthwhile exercise, but now I’m starting think that waiting for the actual evolution is even better. Does that make sense? What is your take?
A
I’m not Paul, but I think the problem with that way of evaluating is that you’re looking past what you have to what might be. Unpacking this a bit, you’re placing higher value on the tertiary stage than earlier stages vs viewing them as merely different. Of course if you really love tertiary wines much more than younger wines that’s rational, but one of the regrets I have about my past collecting is the tendency to believe in things like ‘the right time’ to drink a wine, the right wines, etc. Above a certain level of quality what you’re really seeing are differences. It feels better to me to be able to appreciate what each stage offers vs saying “This one stage is IT and others are just a lead up to that…”
Again, I can’t tell you what to like and wouldn’t if I could. But I do think it’s worth it to appreciate what you have at the moment vs alway anticipating some hypothetical future when it will be better.
I’m not experienced enough to opine on many 50 year old Burgundies from my own experience (although I can say younger Burgundies can be awesome in their own way). However, for whatever its worth I’ve been reading a lot of older (19th-mid 20th century) British books on wine and many authors note that traditionally Burgundy was not considered particularly long aging, whereas a lot of them note pre-phylloxera Bordeaux being practically indestructible.
E.g. Alec Waugh in the 1950s (“In Praise of Wine”):
“That is one of the troubles about Burgundy, as Meredith long ago complained. It has to be drunk young, particularly nowadays”
And here is the Meredith passage he is referring to, from “The Egoist” (1879):
“Burgundy has great genius. It does wonders within its period; it does all except keep up with the race; it is short-lived”
I have Notes From a Cellar-Book buried away somewhere; too lazy to dig it up or I’d check that too.
YMMV of course, I’m just noting it as interesting. I do have a lot of suspicion of those supposedly old and traditional books. Many older English authors portray themselves as sophisticated wine lovers and experts, yet they seem to genuinely enjoy some horrible concoction made of overripe Douro grapes mixed with hard liquor (!)…it sounds positively port-like and awful, completely at odds with anything that would acceptable for a true wine lover today. Maybe they just have terrible taste and are unable to appreciate properly aged Burgundy.
Part of the drinking of wines on a continual basis is to be able to track their evolution. As Jeremy says, it is a non linear sort of evolution, and not everything will age 20, 30, 40 or 50+ years, certainly many makers and vintages (like say '00 as I pointed out) might not necessarily be suited to extended aging and may not necessarily improve in any case.
Sometimes a young wine can have a sexy appeal with vibrant fresh fruit that in age it doesn’t necessarily posses, or it possess in a different way. Sometimes the cut and snap of vibrant acidity (such as in an young '08) has it’s own appeal, and sometimes younger wines with their freshness, or juiciness and more obvious fruit forward character can satisfy all on their own, or perhaps make a more appropriate food match for some dishes.
Each vintage has it’s own appeals and attractions, and I also enjoy this aspect of Burgundys greatly also in their youth (which is perhaps far less evident on wines with significant age, where some of these nuances are changed to a slightly different, aged character). For example I find wines that have a strong sous bois character are perhaps not so obvious in other subtle aspects that may have been more visible in youth.
No doubt Burgundies with serious age (when they are sound, remember many can be disappointing, even when well stored) have a beguiling complexity to them when fully resolved, but often with really old wines the one aspect I see people being (myself strongly included) so attracted to in an oxymoronically sort of way is their freshness and sweetness of fruit…
Trying to understand. You (a) figured out burgundy is best with a lot of age and therefore (b) decided to set your cellar temp to age your wine as slow as possible? And I thought people were joking that Burgundy lovers were masochists.
I actually would be curious to understand the reasoning behind 50 degrees. Is there a concern that 55 degrees is “too hot” for long long term storage (over 30 years)?
This is a tangential point but I just wanted to echo this statement. At so many tastings of older wines I hear people praising the ones that they think taste the youngest… “This tastes only five or ten years old! It has such youthful fruit!” … funny thing.
Like you my cellar is young and I have also had some recent very enjoyable and eye opening experiences with 1945 and 1964 burgundy. Unlike you though I still find a lot of joy in some 2007 and 2008s. Paul already described perfectly the pleasure of that young bright fruit and acidity that I still find delicious. Yesterday, I thought the 2008 Bouchard NSG 1er Les Cailles would be shutting down or have too much wood but it was very delicious, complex, and almost elegant even after having a nice savory and funky 1964 Pommard right before.
CDP, in particular VT, on the other hand, I am having trouble drinking younger than 1998 these days.
I agree entirely, and I must admit I find it harder and harder to enjoy new wines, ie those less than 15 years old, also feeling that the idea that one can get an idea of how they are going to develop is mostly wrong. I don’t even think that constant very cold storage is particularly germane to the final outcome and that seasonal fluctuation is actually a positive. Though temperatures shouldn’t rise too high(and that’s less of a problem on this side of the pond) it’s light that is more of an enemy. I have constantly been amazed at how marvellous wines which by vintage and reputation should be anything but can be.
The idea that Burgundy should mostly be drunk in its first ten years, as espoused so cretinously by the Wine Advocate (not only RMP-there’s a shockingly wrongheaded view on this by David Schildknecht in the last Wine Buyer’s Guide) is, as Marcus demonstrates, not new. The wines were not different, except for the commercial brands so widespread in the UK when he was writing(and they were just bad, on the whole, though few are actually dead now) it’s just that Waugh was bamboozled by the non-linear development.
This view was so widespread until a few years ago that one used to pick up marvellous old Burgundy almost for pennies, and in quantity. I drank it in great quantity so cannot complain that the secret has been discovered. The most important thing I have learned is that the advice to ‘drink up’ as with, for example,07,04,00,97,94,92,89 etc etc is to be roundly ignored. The astonishing truth seems to be that both weak vintages and indifferent winemaking can be ameliorated by nothing more than time though this certainly isn’t always the case, and weaker vintages are nearly always less good than stronger by the time the wine gets to 40/50 years old.
