I think we need to talk about 2020 Red Burgundy

[Howard_Cooper]

@William_Kelley

It depends how you define “fresher”. Acidities are analytically higher, and pHs lower, in most case-to-case comparisons between 2019 and 2020. In some cases, as chez Jadot for example which is a big sample set, abvs were around 0.5% lower than in 2019, though still above-average.

The stylistic issue with 2020 is all the sunshine and lack of water. That makes it a more uneven vintage than 2019, as more extreme conditions foreground differences in farming and site more prominently. The very ripe fruit, sometimes with sunburn, was clearly not that well suited to oxidative élevage processes (e.g. racking with lots of air uptake, sometimes multiple times), which can put tradition at odds with results. Too much oxygen can dull the fruit after a little time in bottle, and then the oak comes to the fore, and very ripe fruit is more susceptible to this (just look at how many 1990s evolved). The fact that less ripe fruit handles such treatment better is surely one reason why what are on paper “weaker” vintages not infrequently outperform the banner years in Burgundy after a decade in bottle.

I have always underlined that 2020 reds are more inconsistent than 2019 in TWA, and that inconsistency seems more prominent after a few years in bottle. But 2019 is also a pretty high bar to measure any red Burgundy vintage against.

I think the inconsistency of the vintage is why we are seeing so many views that are contrary to each other in this thread. Most of us do not drink nearly as widely as does William. We drink from a relative handful of producers compared with the many, many producers in Burgundy. People who have drunk the good ones like the vintage a lot better than do people who have had some less successful ones.

[Chris_V]

So if I’m reading you correctly, on average you’re seeing higher acid, lower PH and lower alcohol in 2020, compared with 2019. If so that doesn’t surprise me. I don’t think the bone I have to pick with 2020 is on any of those technical aspects. The wines just feel dark, thick, and clumsy with fruit that veers too far in the blueberry/blackberry spectrum for my palate and that is hard to quantify. Sounds like drought and sunshine are the culprits.

[William_Kelley]

I’m afraid it’s getting harder and harder to generalize about vintages. Years such as 1959 were rising tides that raised all boats, with benign growing seasons that helped everyone, even the less perfectionist growers, achieve ripe, balanced grapes. Years such as 2020 are extreme years that throw differences in practices, approaches and site (especially water-holding capacity of soils) into much sharper relief. Such years can produce brilliant wines, but they cannot necessarily be purchased blindly.

[Chris_Barton]

I agree it’s unfair to compare 2020 with 2019 (which feels like a goldilocks vintage). 2018 or even 2015 seem like more stylistically fair comparisons. It’s obviously not consistent from producer to producer or village to village, but to me 2020 feels slightly more detailed and bright on release than either 18 or 15 did which I remember feeling like total black holes. Maybe it is just the winemaking and vines being more acclimated to the climate change? I don’t discount Chris and David’s preference for 18 and see it more as a toss up. Maybe the excellence of the whites in 20 as well as my increasingly selective buying habits are influencing my views…I will say, the few 18s I’ve had recently have tightened up considerably and are much more attractive than they were a couple years ago.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, I have had some green 21s but I’ve also had some incredible ones. It’s not 2017 but I also don’t think it’s 2011.

[larry_schaffer]

@William_Kelley

Microbiology as a whole, with brett as the leading villain, is going to be (in fact, is already) the major winemaking battlefield of the next decade and beyond in Burgundy.

Unfortunately, many winemakers take what I call the Covid approach: if you don’t test for it, you haven’t got it.

Are winemakers just not being as fastidious about cleaning etc as they were in the past? Why are you seeing increasing levels? Lower SO2 usage as well?

Cheers

[m_ristev]

considering how popular the combination of low s02, whole bunch, and old barrels is i can see hygiene being suspect in addition to dubious fruit quality of already elevated ph in these exceptionally warm vintages. the funny thing is the wines i have tried that taste most like syrah are those of ‘minimal intervention’ winemakers. not to say they were not delicious but…

[Jozef.P]

@larry_schaffer

Are winemakers just not being as fastidious about cleaning etc as they were in the past? Why are you seeing increasing levels? Lower SO2 usage as well?

I can only give you one anecdote: three years I discussed the matter of older barrels with the son (37y at the time) of a wine estate in Gevrey known through the 90s and 00s for using quite some new oak on wines down the hierarchy, and whole bunch. I asked whether he was also moving away from new oak in favor older barrels, and his first reaction was : I am considering it but it is much harder to keep older barrels squeaky clean. I am sure there is a lot more to tell though, but this was coming from someone meticulous in his vineyard work, picking reds early, so usually lower ph than others.

[William_Kelley]

Some of the reasons have been given, but my list would include: higher pHs and higher sugars; attempts to use less SO2 (though SO2 is far from a panacea, it should be noted); a widespread adherence to ambient yeast ferments; more use of whole bunches (which means sugar is released at pressing, when yeasts are tired at the end of fermentation, opening up a nutritional niche for brett); hotter vintages that deform grape skin microbiota; drier vintages that deliver nutrient-deficient musts (which some are reluctant to supplement); an often pretty rudimentary approach to sanitation (rinse it with water and it’s “clean”); cross-contamination in cellars with pipettes, airflows, to which little attention is often given; the popularity of old wood, which isn’t always steam cleaned (or not for long enough); lack of systematic analysis for brett populations (as opposed to volatile phenols).

[J_Rock]

As someone who likes brett in his Pinot but knows little about Burgundy, is 2020 particularly bretty, or is it an increasing trend over recent vintages, or does it mainly vary producer to producer?

[Tom_Reddick]

2020 reminds me a lot of 1990. They are different vintages in many respects, but the one common thread is what I would describe as a very ripe note ranging from stewed plums to prunes in many of the wines. It seems more pervasive and intense in 2020 than I remember in the 1990s at an early age.

And as history has shown, 1990 largely has come out magnificently. I do believe that many 2020s are going to get flabby- time will tell- but I also think a good sized chunk of them are going to be sensational in time, and a very long time. That said, they are not generally my thing and after tasting and buying enthusiastically early on- I have cut back quite a bit as I encounter a broader sample of them- and with a bit more bottle time.

Much as I like 2020 to a certain degree, now that the 2022s are rolling out that is where I am focusing my attention. A very sexy and terroir-driven vintage. 2020s have a hard time right now in a lineup against 2022s and that may curtail interest in the bottles remaining in the marketplace.

[M_Benjamin]

Are there winemakers in France who are lobbying the government to build out a national Brett testing programme like Australia did?

[larry_schaffer]

@William_Kelley

Some of the reasons have been given, but my list would include: higher pHs and higher sugars; attempts to use less SO2 (though SO2 is far from a panacea, it should be noted); a widespread adherence to ambient yeast ferments; more use of whole bunches (which means sugar is released at pressing, when yeasts are tired at the end of fermentation, opening up a nutritional niche for brett); hotter vintages that deform grape skin microbiota; drier vintages that deliver nutrient-deficient musts (which some are reluctant to supplement); an often pretty rudimentary approach to sanitation (rinse it with water and it’s “clean”); cross-contamination in cellars with pipettes, airflows, to which little attention is often given; the popularity of old wood, which isn’t always steam cleaned (or not for long enough); lack of systematic analysis for brett populations (as opposed to volatile phenols).

Thanks for the detailed reply. my friend.

Do many winemakers in Burgundy regularly do any lab testing on their musts or wines? Really curious to hear.

I understand the concept of not ‘wanting to’ add nutrients to ferments, but it certainly would be helpul if nitrogen levels are really really low. And though SO2 is, as you put it, far from a panacea, it is still helpul at keeping brett at bay, and keeping numbers lower if you indeed have any.

One would think that a bit of scientific knowledge would suit these winemakers well, no? Basic chemistry and basic sanitations practices really should be a ‘given’ with most winemakers, right?

Cheers

[Tom_Blach]

@Tom_Reddick

And as history has shown, 1990 largely has come out magnificently.

That is not my experience, which obviously doesn’t have general application. There are certainly some glorious wines but far more terrible disappointments, many of high reputation. It largely depends on what exactly one has opened but during most of the last thirty years 1991 and even 1992 have given more genuine pleasure. Recently I have come to believe that if one wants to actually drink the stuff one is quite a lot better off with vintages that are supposedly less successful, but I suspect that over the last 6 or 7 vintages that may no longer apply. Red burgundy was almost defined by its marginality and it may be that it is now simply not the same wine as the one with which I was once obsessed.

[Tom_Blach]

@Chris_Barton

. It’s not 2017 but I also don’t think it’s 2011

2011 can be quite exceptionally lovely now.

[Tom_Reddick]

@Tom_Blach

That is not my experience, which obviously doesn’t have general application. There are certainly some glorious wines but far more terrible disappointments, many of high reputation. It largely depends on what exactly one has opened but during most of the last thirty years 1991 and even 1992 have given more genuine pleasure. Recently I have come to believe that if one wants to actually drink the stuff one is quite a lot better off with vintages that are supposedly less successful, but I suspect that over the last 6 or 7 vintages that may no longer apply. Red burgundy was almost defined by its marginality and it may be that it is now simply not the same wine as the one with which I was once obsessed.

To be fair- my experience is not general application either. I was just getting into wine in college as the 92/93 vintages came to market, but even at that point there were still many choice 90s available at prices we can only dream of today and so my experience then, and later with cellared bottles or at tastings, has been restricted to the very top end. When I say 1990s came out great- I am referring primarily to DRC, Roumier, Dugat and Faiveley plus a range of other things of similar caliber tasted less frequently. And the wines were never bad- just early on often had a very ripe and almost stewed character that I tend to dislike.

But we will surely forever agree on 1991. What a vintage to be weaned on and watch grow up! I have a special love for 1991 and you are so very right that vintages like that are rarely to be found today. I was also very fond of many 1992s for mid-term drinking- and even some of them have held up very nicely long term. It would be very nice to see more outcomes like that, but for so many reasons it is not to be.

[Paul_Bruck]

@Tom_Blach

@Tom_Reddick

And as history has shown, 1990 largely has come out magnificently.

That is not my experience, which obviously doesn’t have general application. There are certainly some glorious wines but far more terrible disappointments, many of high reputation. It largely depends on what exactly one has opened but during most of the last thirty years 1991 and even 1992 have given more genuine pleasure. Recently I have come to believe that if one wants to actually drink the stuff one is quite a lot better off with vintages that are supposedly less successful, but I suspect that over the last 6 or 7 vintages that may no longer apply. Red burgundy was almost defined by its marginality and it may be that it is now simply not the same wine as the one with which I was once obsessed.

Not my view.
I had far more fine 1990s than 1991s and 1992s.
1990 is quite consistently at least good, often very good to outstanding, with a lot of great wines.
Granted 1991 can be excellent, but those are quite rare and only on the highest level - many are now thin, acidic, astringent -
1992s can be lovely, some are great ( Leroy), but even DRCs are big disapointing, lacking depgh and length

[William_Kelley]

I’d second that. It has been a long time since I last had a 1990 red Burgundy that wasn’t unpleasantly roasted and prune-like (the molecule behind this is likely methylnonanedione, which is used as a marker for overripe, prematurely aged flavors in reds), including a 1990 Pousse d’Or Tavannes last night, and recent bottles of La Tâche '90.

[Tom_Blach]

We aren’t disagreeing, merely relating different experiences. My overview of a vintage is never primarily about the grandest and most sought-after bottles.
Agreed that 91 is now generally tiring, but so is 90.

[Greg_K]

@William_Kelley

It depends how you define “fresher”. Acidities are analytically higher, and pHs lower, in most case-to-case comparisons between 2019 and 2020. In some cases, as chez Jadot for example which is a big sample set, abvs were around 0.5% lower than in 2019, though still above-average.

The stylistic issue with 2020 is all the sunshine and lack of water. That makes it a more uneven vintage than 2019, as more extreme conditions foreground differences in farming and site more prominently. The very ripe fruit, sometimes with sunburn, was clearly not that well suited to oxidative élevage processes (e.g. racking with lots of air uptake, sometimes multiple times), which can put tradition at odds with results. Too much oxygen can dull the fruit after a little time in bottle, and then the oak comes to the fore, and very ripe fruit is more susceptible to this (just look at how many 1990s evolved). The fact that less ripe fruit handles such treatment better is surely one reason why what are on paper “weaker” vintages not infrequently outperform the banner years in Burgundy after a decade in bottle.

I have always underlined that 2020 reds are more inconsistent than 2019 in TWA, and that inconsistency seems more prominent after a few years in bottle. But 2019 is also a pretty high bar to measure any red Burgundy vintage against.

I meant fresher in terms of current drinking, based on the complaint was from the OP. I have a fair amount of faith in the vintage, but in terms of current drinking it maintains quite a bit more structure than the vintages around it. A recent bottle of Arnoux-Lachaux Vosne was relatively easy to identify blind last week, for example. It had very pretty fruit, but I wouldn’t necessarily call it fresh (vis a vis surrounding vintages) given its structure and density.

[Howard_Cooper]

How are people finding 2022 reds? I will be tasting them more widely in March at the Paulee in NYC, but I did have a bunch at one winery when I was in Burgundy for a short visit in summer of 2023. I really liked what I tasted at Rossignol-Trapet. The wines were very rich, as I expected, but had more acidity and were fresher than I expected. Really good. Is this typical of the vintage or did I get lucky.

I really liked the 2021s I tasted when I was in Burgundy and since I got home. The freshness and balance of these wines are fabulous, but then again I have not tasted a wider range of producers but only a few favored producers.