Just wondering what people think. It’s hard to tell from the way most recent vintages are described as being wonderful in this way or that way. How does this compare to '05 (which I know fairly well)?
Thanks.
Hey Chris
generally speaking: many producers used much less oak in 2010 than in 2005. There are also much lower yields, tinier berries, less tannin in 2010. Higher ‘acid’ in 2010 as well. 2005s tend to be broader-shouldered as well, if that makes sense.
Drinking young or old, I would be more personally interested in tasting a 2010 over a 2005 as well. That said, this may change several times depending on the night. And, both should be in every Burgundy lover’s cellar, wine fridge, cave or off-site.
It seems to be really well regarded by critics and informal barrel sample tastings. I have only tried two so I can’t obvious comment on the vintage but I can comment on those. They were nicely ripe, dark fruited, well structured with very balanced acidity. I heard someone say that they seem a nice blend of 2008 and 2009 and that certainly applied to my tiny sample. Based on what I tasted and the vintage reports Im cautiously optimistic I will love the vintage but only time will tell.
From what I have had from tasting at four producers this summer (including at Ray’s), I think the hallmark of the 2010s is great balance. Think the balance and transparency of 2001 with more intensity of flavor. Some people say 1978 …
The 10s were definitely more classic when we were tasting in Burgundy last October. Obviously producer is important, but I stopped buying any 09s (with just a few exceptions) and am concentrating on 10s. Maybe have been me that called 10 a blend between 08 and 09, but that was just because it was easy to think of in this way while tasting all three vintages side by side.
Very good, due to low numbers even more expensive as 2009