Over the past 5 or so Burgundy vintages I’ve been trying to drink a fair number of bottles at the lower price tiers on release before cellaring more and to get a feel for a particular vintage. Last night I opened a '19 Bouchard Savigny Lavieres. I looked at the bottle, 14% alcohol. I had in my hand another one from '19 that was a whopping 15%. A few weeks back I had a '19 Drouhin Savigny Aux Fourneaux at 14.5%. I see these alcohol levels and I think my god, I’m going to hate this. Yet I’m opening bottles and I’m finding very beautiful, balanced wines where the alcohol only protrudes slightly, generally speaking. It’s also interesting to read how some producers are closer to 12% in this vintage while many are close to 15%. What an odd dichotomy for the same vintage. I’m assuming this is mostly a combination of pick date and site, but who knows. Maybe genetic material, root stock, farming techniques play a part?
And wow does 2019 ever have fruit. Just beautiful rich, ripe, yet light and energetic red fruit. And the palate presence is tremendous with finishes that linger for minutes on end. So I guess you could say that I’m a fan.
When I think back on other recent vintages I enjoyed 2016 and 2017 quite a bit, yet at times they had me wanting more on release. So light and elegant you could envision how they could bloom with some bottle age. 2018 couldn’t be any more different. That feels like a vintage marked by heat. Deep, concentrated wines. More color, more tannin, darker fruit, certainly higher alcohol. In fact I often found them hard to drink young. You’re left guessing, and assuming that age will resolve the ‘bigness’ of the wines.
So that leaves 2019 which is just giving so much right now, it’s hard to keep my hands off these bottles. What to make of the aging curve? Is there a precedent for Burgundy this alcoholic? I wish I had been able to taste 2002’s on release, but from what I’ve heard they had this type of fruit forwardness to prevent shutting down and they still remain lovely today, unlike more structured vintages like 1999 or 2005 which can often still feel closed. I also can’t help but think of the lovely California Pinot Noirs I’ve had from the classically minded producers that get a lot of praise on this board. Feels like 2019 Red Burgundy and these producers are kindred spirits in their lovely fruit and open accessibility, if perhaps the alcohols are even a little lower from this California contingent. If those from California and 2002 Red Burgundy have aged well then why not these 2019’s from Burgundy? I’ll continue to buy, taste and enjoy them now, and age a relatively large portion of them in my cellar with hopes they’ll bring magic in the coming decades.
I’d welcome dialogue on the topic from the board and in particular would love to hear from those who have extensively tasted such as William Kelley or Jasper Morris.
I’ve opened but a few reds, but a recent Grivot Charmois and Mongeard Mugneret Narbantons would certainly confirm what’s been asserted in this thread. Real tasty.
Interesting post, and I’m looking forward to trying some 2019s in the near future.
Your parallel comparison to more classicly oriented CA producers is probably a pretty good one.
In my experience a number of the warmer/warmest Oregon vintages still produced very good wines. Often they were very delicious right out of the gate, and in some cases have aged well also. As warm as 2003 and 2006 were for us, I had no issue selling the wines(even as a very unknown winemaker), on release they were balanced and easy to enjoy.
Recently I have been very impressed with a number of 2014s that we’ve had, and 2015s are, IMO, wines with size and density but also very definitely have the nuance of Pinot Noir.
I think that I remember a post from WK commenting on his impressions of the 2019s having better balance than the 2018s even though the vintage is quite ripe. I’m very intrigued to see whether the evolving climate simply makes Burgundy a more accessible, and still delicious region, where the entry level wines offer more pleasure than they ever used to. The bottles that I have had from 2015, 2016, as well as a PYCM Santenay from 2018 do seem to support this. As far as aging goes, it will be interesting to see. I don’t see many notes on 2003s. 2006 and 2009 are both generous vintages that provide very enjoyable experiences(IMO) as mid-term wines.
An interesting post, thank you. Having tasted a number of 19s, I think it’s a good but heterogeneous vintage (not everyone made great wines) and in some cases the heat does show. It reminds me somewhat of 2009 more than 2002 - a warmer vintage where plenty of producers did well though some did not. As far as the stated alcohol levels, I do wonder to what extent the tariffs that were in place not that long ago made a difference there…
That’s interesting - 2016 and 2017 are quite different to me. 2016 is considerably more balanced and structured, while 2017 is lighter and prettier. I found 2016s a bit of a waste to drink young, while 2017s were delicious until they began shutting down recently.
In the US, domestic and imported wines have a relatively wide margin of error. Sub 14% a variance of 1.5% is allowed in either direction. Many French producers used to put 11-14% on bottles as this covered most wines and didn’t require label changes every vintage.
Above 14%, a 1% variance in either direction is allowed.
The 14% line is a tax class though, so producers are not supposed to extend the variance across the 14% line. i.e. a wine with 14.2% alcohol should not be labeled 13.8%. Which does not mean that it doesn’t happen.
Indeed.
I lack patience so I thought at least I will learn why I should leave certain bottles for years. At best, I would have been pleasantly surprised. Im new to this btw.
I agree with Greg in his take that 2016 and 2017 are quite different in their general character. 2016 is more structure and classic whereas 7 is soft and deliciously young. I love both now. I am still hanging onto 2018 and 2019; perhaps more 2018 in the Fall and well 2019 for next year…,
And this is exactly what you should be doing and keep on doing. You can read books/posts/blogs until you’re eyes are tired, but it doesn’t come close to replicating the knowledge gained through actual tasting and tasting frequently
I don’t really see the comparison to 2002 in terms of the end result or the gist of what I remember reading about the weather conditions (and 2002s most definitely went through shut-down phases - not many vintages escape it). 2005 and 2015 are the most similar in style to 2019 in my memory. Not especially helpful in terms of the aging curve since both are still at the beginning of it. I think it’s fair to say that 2019 will pay off over the long haul and other vintages will be useful to give you things to drink while giving 2019s the time they deserve, regardless of how hard they shut down.
I like 2019. Only time will tell whether it becomes like 2002. 2002 is one of my favorite vintages on many levels. I still went long on my favorites. BTW, I went long on Groffier. I think Nicolas killed it.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
with Greg in his take that 2016 and 2017 are quite different in their general character. 2016 is more structure and classic whereas 7 is soft and deliciously young. I love both now. I am still hanging onto 2018 and 2019; perhaps more 2018 in the Fall and well 2019 for next year…,![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}