Burgundy Vintage Chart--Some Resources?

The good fortune of this Board allows us to have a wealth of SME types on Burgundy. With that ‘gift’ in mind, I’d like to have someone point me to (or provide to me your own impressions!) some vintage comparisons for Burgundy. Now that I seem to have both legs in the pool, and I am now getting the water close to my waist line, I can surely use some help. As much as I have a good understanding of CA and the past 10 or so vintages, I’d like to start having the same for Burgundy, which I understand the wines on par can age longer so the vintage windows I would need to know or appreciate would span beyond 10 years.

Plz link to me or provide me some thoughts where I can find the information easily, reputably, or send me your own personal impressions. This would surely help close the loop for me on which vintages to seek, which to potentially avoid and which need more age than others.

Thank you!

Frank, I just focus on producers I enjoy and trust and avoid bad vintages like 04 completely. I have verticles of…Mugnier, Rousseau, D’ Angerville, Roumier, Bachelet, and Fourrier for reds. Also have some btls of Dujac but prices are getting too high to keep buying for me. Dauvissat AOC, Forest, Prueses and Clos, Carillon PM, Buchard CC & Meursaults and Henri Boillot CC for whites. I have a lot of Fevre too but stopped buying when the pricews went thru the roof in 05. I also buy random lots of AOC and 1er Cru Chablis from less know producers like Pinson. Make sure you jump into Champagne too. On the low end I’m enjoying what I find for whites from Macon, Rully and St Veran.

I look forward to this information,too.

Craig, I have a better sense of producers thanks to the reading I have done the latter half of 2010. My hunt with this thread is mainly geared at discussion around some vintage ‘go to’ help.

I’ll give you an example. A local retailer has a great amount of 2006, with some 2004, on the shelf. Both red and white burg. Is that by accident?

Sean, whatever info we obtain via this thread, it will be your mission to then go out and source some sample wines. You’re up to the task. My mission will then to help you drink them. deadhorse

I don’t have anywhere close to the depth of experience as others here, but here are my own personal subjective red burgundy vintage opinions:

1990 - Maligned by some for being too ripe. Ive only had Village and 1er examples that I can think of and they seemed well balanced. These aren’t ethereal wines but deliver at a hedonistic level for me.

1991 - Ive had a handfull of top 1ers and Grand Crus and they have all shined.

1993 - The few higher end 1ers and grand crus Ive had have been excellent. Ethereal and aromatic. Surprisingly young showing.

1995 - They seem tannic and brooding but my sample size may be too small.

1996 - People complain about too high acids but maybe Ive been lucky as I havent had that problem. The wines are generally “pretty” and very yoing showing.

1997 - Doesn’t seem to fully deserve its bad reputation. Was a hot and low acid year. Some top wines have been quite nice though.

1998 - A sleeper vinatge. Some wines seem unbalanced but many are in prime drinking window (for me). Not a great year but killer QPRs and wines often ready to drink.

1999 - Very ripe and luxorious wines. Very young showing even at lower levels if well stored. Great quality top to bottom.

2000 - Low acid but pleasantly fruity. Many are showing nice teriary developement and often perform well as pop and pours. Because its a low acid vintage some show signs of brett but Ive rarely been offended by it.

2001 - I have a hard time getting a read on this vintage. Some wines are (IMO) perfectly balanced and oh so pretty and Ethereal. Many wines (even well stored top wines) seem some of the most mature Ive had in the last 20 vintages. Strange. Volnay had hail and is a pass.

2002 - Nicely acidic, ripe and hedonistic wines. Some can be a bit anonymous but thats really only a problem for the expert burgundy drinkers. I like these where they are right now I often drink them as soon as I get them but they are very primary style.

2003 - This was the year that killed a bunch of old people in Europe because it was so hot. Its been maybe three years since Ive drank any of my stash but this vintage is an outlier in style. Low acid, gritty tannins, ultra ripe fruit and some roasted flavors are vintage characteristics.

2004 - I loved this vintage when it first came out because the wines were so pretty and elegant. It was overlooked because it lacked in weight and power. But the then the wines started developing a strange herbal/green/chemical type aroamtic profile that is very offputting to some people. This quality often blows off overnight but seems to be getting stronger in bottle so who knows what is going on.

2005 - Most hyped vintage ever. The wines are very good to excellent from top to bottom. 1ers often drink at Grand Cru level. They were often fantastic young drinkers but the wines are now very closed. Sometimes even very slow oxigenation doesnt really wake them up enough to show well. These are wines to buy and hold 15+ years (even at lower levels and some top wines might not be really mature in my lifetime).

2006 - I had a hard time getting excited about this vintage when it first came out because they were priced at 2005 levels or even higher. Now they are a killer buy. Importers, distributers and retials are dumping them at great prices. The vintage is mostly textbook red burgundy. Nothing about the vintage really stands out. They are solid wines (with some great exceptions) that should perhaps drink well in the medium term. They are now closing down and not good pop and pours.

2007 - A cooler year than the previous two. Lower level wines can frankly lack enough fruit to drinkable but most red burgs from the vintage are quite pleasant. They are a great buy for short term drinking. Despite being very red fruited they are somewhat low on acid so not that many wines are ethereal and captivating. Rather they like a friendly puppy that jumps all over you and puts a smile on your face. (This list is about red burgs but its worth noting that the whites from this year are amazing).

2008 - Some village level wines and lower lack enough ripeness to drink well, but solid wines from solid producers are right in my sweet spot (or seem to be based on my limited sampling). These can be racy, feminine, ethereal, delicate and very floral. Lots of violet with this vintage. When prices drop (and they will) Im all over this vintage.

2009 - The wines seem to have medium acid, ripe fruit and a very decadent roundness to them. I enjoyed everything I had out of barrel but havnt had any out of bottle yet.

The usual caveat that this is just a broad stroke and producers and villages can vary quite widely from vintage averages apply.

Skip 06 white, the ones I’ve had have been fat and lacking in acid (from village to gc) but the 04’s are damn good.

I’ve had some good 06 reds. Dujac malconsort was ridiculous. Had some nice jadot gc’s as well. 04 from my limited experience has always shown weird characters, after my first handful of tries I figure just best to avoid. As berry pointed out 06 prices are very good nowadays as there seems to be overstock by many distributors.

FMIII - listen to Berry [welldone.gif]

I’ve had lots of recent pleasure with Lambrays GC (2001, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2006). Woodland Hills recently had some 2008 for $85 on pre-arrival.

Now that you are waist deep in Burgundy, look for a second job! neener

(by the way, there is this thread recently, in case you did not see it Rating Burgundy 1999-2009 - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers)

I am a relative novice to bugundy also but I can say that for 2010 consumption I’ve had excellent showings of red burgs from 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2001. The bottlings from 2002 have been delicious but I suspect they will benefit from more extended cellaring.

Pricing for well-stored bottles from 2000 is such that if I wanted to drink “ready” bottles in 2011 I would be happy to purchase more of that vintage.


Berry’s put out a pretty decent guide. I’d avoid 97 altogether and 04 reds are too much of a crapshoot re the greenness. Other that than, you really can’t buy on vintage. More than most regions, Craig’s right that you want to buy on producer MUCH more than vintage.

There are a few vintages that are very distinctive in some way - 96 for the high acids, 03 for the ripeness - but most others offer something of interest and it’s a combination of what you like and what producers you’re talking about whether one is better than another. 2000/2001 is a good example. The vintages are a bit different, with 01 being lighter, more ethereal on the nose, and 00 being a bit more foursquare but they’re both good vintages. Depending on the cru level, the producer and what one likes, you might like one vintage over another. Both have been overshadowed by 99 and 02 but those vintages, while excellent, are a bit more about the vintage at this point than the vineyard.

A lot of this depends, too, on whether you want wines that will drink nicely now, in a few years or in 10+ years and whether you want something with some age, something that’s young and showing lovely fruit, etc.

I know my question won’t necessarily come with an easy answer but Berry’s list, along with Ramon’s link, is really what I wanted to see. In general, 1999 and 2005 for red. 2007 for white. Makes sense.

I’m going to go source some 2005s and see what I like. Ramon, if you like, maybe you, Sean and I ought to drink those wines when they arrive and do some study. I’m happy to provide them.

a lot of the 05’s are crazy tight, might not get a great feel for them. I’d suggest 2002 as well for a more readily accessible but good vintage.

Yeah, see, that’s what I wouldn’t do FM - write off other vintages. Now, I don’t know exactly what you want, but if you want to explore youngish reds, say, what I’d do is find a producer or three that you like and try a variety of their wines in pretty much every vintage from 96 on. I’d skip 97, 04 and perhaps 98 (some are very nice, but it’s a bit hit and miss), but most 2000, 01 and 02 are worth trying. Myabe try even 03 to see what extremely ripe Burg is like as a reference.

Whites - do NOT age them. Period. Too much rolling of the dice with premox.

Can suggest everyone has a look here

http://www.burgundy-report.com/discover-burgundy/16-a-burgundy-vintage-chart/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Happy Holls


Frank, sorry to intentially dodge your question but with the exception of '04 I say buy away. The older you go the more carefull you have to be about provenance. Berry did a great job of really answering your question and I completely agree with his assessment about the vintages I’m familiar with. So far for me, 01 has shown the best generally of anything I’ve drank. I like 99 & 02 but they always seem primary and not near ready to me yet. I wish I had owned some 98s. I’d be careful about older vintages and the source but they make the most sense for drinking. There is one really nice 03 I’ve had from one of the big guns that I may buy again at a great price. I’m mostly buying village level wines these days at age 55.

Frank said… “Craig, I have a better sense of producers thanks to the reading I have done the latter half of 2010. My hunt with this thread is mainly geared at discussion around some vintage ‘go to’ help.”

Good support and replies everyone–appreciate it.

I need to start somewhere and I realize the 2005s may be tight but I am not going to buy into GC and then get pissed. I’ll poke around with some 1er stuff and get a sense. I’ll also mix in some 99s to get a feel. Remember, I like, still buy and have a cellar of CA that I also need to drink so doing the burgundy walk is painful on the joints.

My summary: 99, 02, 05 and 09 are the marquee vintages for reds and are commanding top dollars. 01 and 08 (and maybe 06?) are excellent yet overlooked vintages (compared to the prior list). It appears that careful shopping from the second list can get you world class wines for a less than obscene amt of money.

Whites: 02 is tops by far it seems, assuming they aren’t oxidized by now :frowning:. 04 can be great, but there is some evidence that the 04 greenness affected some whites as well.

The 08 Lambrays for $85 seems like a buy…no? Burghound was cautious about this, but I’m a Lambrays believer (haven’t tried the 08 tho).

The asians have to stick together flirtysmile Agree with Charlie that 2005s are just not giving anything now (maybe with the exception of some bourgognes) I wouldn’t even touch others for at least another 3-5 years but YMMV. I plan to start drinking my 2005 GCs on my retirement in 2020 [drinkers.gif]

I’m selectively back filling on some older vintages. I’m getting older so I have cut back on new vintages, I want to enjoy them before my teeth fall off.


Understood about limited time/bottles/etc. My point is that vintage just isn’t the way to buy Burg. Producer is. So, what I’d do is find a recent vintage, go wide with a case or so (do a tasting perhaps, with everyone chipping in, say, $100). Do premier cru wines and try to keep them from the same commune. See what you like. Maybe rinse and repeat a couple of times varying the commune. Then do a vertical or 2 to see what you like vintage-wise.

The challenge in learning what you like in Burg is that you have several dimensions all of which have a material impact on the stuff in the bottle - producer, commune, vineyard and vintage. What you want to do is find combinations you love and that just requires a lot of tasting of wine.

now no one will trust our opinions, they’ll think it’s some vast asian conspiracy to take over the world :stuck_out_tongue:.

The problem Frank is you’re going to get a mouthfull of nothing for a very expensive price. Trust us when we tell you to go seek some 2000’s or earlier for current consumption.