How good is the 2005 Burgundy vintage

How Good is the Burgundy 2005 vintage?

Lots of noise when the 2005 Burgundy vintage came on the market. A MEADOWS rated the vintage to be among the greatest ever. Since 15 years have passed us by we could come up with the question : is it really that good? A friend of mine stated that the 2005 ECHEZEAUX by Bocquenet (being a fan of the domaine and its grand cru) was “atypical”. Not charming at all and too much of everything…Do the followers of WINE BERSERKERS share this thought after having tasted other 2005 BURGUNDIES?


I´ve tasted quite a few from barrels and right after bottling, so I´m convinced it is a top vintage, but it needs a hell of a time of cellaring.
I do not touch mine, not even the Village wines. The few I´ve had were not giving much. 2025 to 2030 is a plan to start …

1 Like

Great - but more than intermittently slow to come around. The better 1999s are only just now starting to blossom, some 1996s and 1993s not yet - so I have no worries…

05 is superb, but I’d agree it will take time.

1 Like

As long as you weren’t brave enough to buy a horizontal of old regime faiveleys in magnums you’ll be fine…

It’s way too early to be drinking that Bocquenet. I am a big fan of that producer, and would not consider drinking the 2005 yet. I am still timid about opening the 1999!

Bill, it’s interesting you compare it to 96 - do you think they’re similar vintages?

Personally I have a bit of a fear that 2005 will go the way of 96, which I don’t find to be a great vintage at all…

I don’t think anyone really knows at this point. A lot of us have a lot of it (myself included) and really hope that the vintage is all that it is supposed to be. The good news IMHO is that some lesser wines from 2005 are starting to taste really good. But, a concern is that in the past the results from really structured vintages like 1976, 1988, and 1996 have been mixed. Some wines end up over a good amount of time end up being really wonderful, others dry out before the tannins, etc., soften and the wines mature. Winemaking and grape-growing are better than at the time of these vintages and 2005 is probably naturally a better vintage than those vintages but only time will tell.

I would not be shocked if the greatest 2005s are among the greatest wines of our lifetimes but that there will be some spectacularly poor wines.

I feel 2005 is in the excellent-outstanding range but struggle to see in GOAT territory. To me, the finesse, purity and transparency in 2010, the best 2016s and probably 1999s trump 2005.

It’s a very muscular and powerful vintage. I’ve drunk through a few village wines and they’re all over the place, with frequent flashes of brilliance. More than anything, they display the non-linear ageing curve of Burgundy. One bottle of Grivot Vosne or Bachelet Gevrey VV can be stunning, the next awkward and gawky. I’ve mostly stopped opening them for a while but will try a Rouget Vosne tomorrow - always used to be a favourite of Paul Hanna, whatever happened to him???

I rather feel 2005 is a vintage from another era in that winemakers today are so much more accustomed to managing tannins, ripeness and extraction. It’s dangerous to claim contemporary winemaking is superior to that of the past (Jayer, Truchot…) but perhaps it’s fair to say the average bar is much higher?

All my ‘major’ 2005s are still in bond, and I’m a believer in the vintage, but I’m not 100% they’re the best I’ve ever seen. My money is on 2010 for that.


The big question in my mind right now is not how good 2005 is, but how good 2015 is relative to surrounding vintages. That’s the most relevant question for purchasers right now. Meadows hailed 2015 as best since 2005 (better than 09/10) and another GOAT candidate but I’m not sure I see it yet. Perhaps we should start another thread on vintages more generally.

My #1 wish in wine is that someone would decide to make Burgundy like Jacky Truchot did. Hasn’t happened so far. That said, I think the average bar is much higher today. What is exciting is my sense is that the wines are really improving in lesser regions of Burgundy like the Chalonaise. I wish I knew more about these wines.

1 Like

IMO far too early to judge. Ask me again in 10 years if I’m still alive.


This is my view as well. I think 2010 is easily the best vintage since I’ve started seriously drinking burgundy. That it’s a vintage that’s not shut down (with some exceptions, of course) is a nice bonus.

1 Like

I think it’s also worth acknowledging that in Burgundy, as elsewhere in the world, this was the tail end of the era of extraction (enzymatic, heated post-fermentation macerations), impactful new oak (higher toast, much less 3-year seasoned wood than today) and pushing harvest dates (for historically good reasons that were ceasing to apply in warmer vintages). You are much more likely to taste chunky, extracted wines liberally veneered with new oak-derived vanilla / espresso roast / grilled meat in 2005 than you are in 2019, that’s for sure. This has less to do with the inherent quality of the vintage than how the wines were made.

Given the numerous “best of my career”, “best of my lifetime” plaudits, it’s hard to say it wasn’t overrated, even while acknowledging that it’s a fine vintage.


Bookmarking so I can check back on this in 2025.

Judging on a bottle of 2005 Rousseau Chambertin I had in 2014, I would say that the best of 2005 will stand head to head with all the other “vintages of the Century”. I haven’t started drinking many of my 2005s yet, but a few village wines have been very good with lots of life. That being said, I’m a 1999 guy.

Another vote for this view.

Best of my buying career. It’s a tier above 2010 in my book because it has both more stuffing and more refinement. Of course, that means they’ll likely take longer than the 2010s to be ready. For those who find more recent vintages more in line with their style preferences as William suggested, 2015 is a worthy successor to 2005 and shares its combination of richness and refinement.

This pretty sums up my feelings on the vintage, though I think some charm could come with time.

I do think 2005 is a great vintage, but it is also one that will take an incredibly long time to fully come around- and that brings risk. The longer a vintage takes to come around, the more that can go wrong in the cellar- wines drying out, balance issues etc. And then of course there are the costs of time and money to cellar.

Further, the wines are- as your friend described- very atypical. They are gorgeous- but freakishly big. When I did my 2006 DRC dinner, we did a course after with an assortment of younger wines. Among them were the 2005 Roumier Chambolle Musigny and 2005 Roumier Bonnes-Mares. When someone poured me a glass of the Chambolle, I tried it and asked the pourer to make sure it was not the Bonnes-Mares. The wine was that big that it had the physical scale of the Bonnes-Mares. And the Bonnes-Mares itself was structurally bigger than any Roumier Musigny I have ever tried. It was more like having a Leroy Chambertin or Richebourg.

That said- the wines were also magnificent showing an incredible array of floral notes in particular. So with the power came all the breed and nuance.

But how long do we wait? What happens in the meantime? And is the aged product still a really big wine? If so- then that may a great wine to win a tasting event, but it is not going to be easy to enjoy as a harmonious component of a meal. And what happens to wines with such high levels of extract and reliance on that for aging? Do you end up with blowsy pruny wines like some of the Accad wines from the mid 1990s? It is a lot of questions for very singular wines that are very expensive- though I do think that most of the wines will come out just fine.

1 Like