Jimmy Gillingham was asking about the drinking window for village Burgundies, premier cru, grand cru and how it might vary from one appellation to another. No one has answered yet. I don’t feel I have the expertise to answer fully. I have heard that Burgundy 1er Cru sometimes go into a closed down phase maybe three years after vintage and some start to open up again after eight years. From what little I know, Nuits-St.-Georges Premier Cru wines may take much longer to mature than Volnay Premier Cru. Would you say that Chambolle-Musigny is also approachable sooner than some other appellations?
Hey Jane, here is my copied response on the thread.
Hey Jimmy,
the only problem with ‘rookie’ questions is when they aren’t asked.
Long-ish answer:
My take on this will undoubtedly be in the minority since I prefer to drink wines on the more mature side. In fact, as with a good many questions, the most ‘accurate’ answer might be, ‘it depends’. In the case of when to drink, drinking windows, etc, the most opportune time to drink depends equally on the wine and the preferences of the taster alike. Now, what we can do is take a look at what can generally happen with these wines in their life. I look at the wines having a unique life because each is quite unique. It is important to note that even though a wine can have the same or similar terroir DNA, that the choices made in the vineyard and in the cellar provide enough degrees of change in a wine that the generalities that may be suggested here may lose some of their intended value. One example is with extraction and oak. Just these two factors can bring so many more variables into how the wines will age and express themselves at different stages of development.
I believe that one of the greatest virtues of Burgundy is the celebration of unique sites and their resulting expressions. Many of these characteristics only truly show themselves clearly after a ‘certain’ amount of time. The certain amount of time is the catch, as no one time is certain to be best. Another of Burgundy’s strengths is in change and development. This can be seen in cases with a glass resting in front of you as well as over time in bottle. Unfortunate as it is, Burgundy can taste delicious when young. I say that it is unfortunate because it is due to this perceived generosity is in most cases nothing but mere baby fat, cute to look at, but it lacks in definition which comes with age.
For many, this baby fat is good enough of a temptation and reason enough to open a bottle. However, what will most likely be missing is the framework of the wine that speaks of a certain place. In most cases, as you move from the Bourgogne level classification set towards the Grand Cru set, you will have more of this barrier blocking the view to the wine’s eventual destination when tasted young. Of course, there may be flash that suggests what may come in time even when tasting a Grand Cru early on. But, the distance that a wine needs to travel to reach this theoretical point of perceived maturation is much greater for a Grand Cru than a Village wine. With this in mind, it is completely possible that in a given range of wines, in the early stages of development, that the more interesting wine in a cellar is the Village or Premier Cru wine, not the Grand Cru. If drinking a Premier and Grand Cru early simply for pleasure is of interest, you could actually do nearly as good (if not better in some cases) by opening a Village wine from the same producer. It is only with sufficient age that Premier and Grand Crus show why they are truly special, aside from shallow bouts of expression.
Vintage plays a tremendous role in this as well. It seems clear that certain vintages express more or less of this youthful cuteness than others. 2008 and 2010 would be recent vintages that are showing more depth of terroir (meaning that the wines in a given producer’s lineup that the wines are more singular, each expressing what makes them unique) than wines from a vintage such as 2002 or 2009 (just to name a few). This is not to say that these vintages don’t or won’t show terroir, but the skeletal system is hidden behind much more material. This, of course, further complicates any attempts at creating generalities.
Your point about villages and their respective windows is an interesting point. I think it still depends on the preferences of the individual taster. A young Chambolle can be pretty or powerful and delightful young in both cases to some while others may crave what could be possible with more time in bottle.
With all of this mentioned, you still need to drink the wine at some point, right?
While this is not a general rule by any means, this is what I do if I am drinking for something other than tasting baby fat:
My preference is:
Bourgogne: anytime, but drink before 15 years after harvest. Some of these wines have village classed fruit in them. Also, many Bourgognes are from plots adjacent the village of the producer instead being spread throughout the Côte. The detail and intensity of place will be less clear at this level, but often a glimpse of the nearby village can come into focus. These reach maturity quickly and generally aren’t bargains relative to Village level wines, but exceptions can be found.
Village: starting 3-5 years after harvest, these can age (maturing with development) extremely well. Lieux Dits(a named place, vineyard in this instance) give a chance to know the potential with more accuracy. These can be the highlight of a great night of wines. While these wines do develop with age, there is a plateau that is reach much quicker than those in the Premier and Grand Cru levels and the potential of fine detail that is possible will generally be much lower than at the Premier Cru level, aside from a collection of fascinating, overachieving lieux dits.
Premier Cru: Starting 5-7 years after harvest, can often age as well as (and in some cases better than some Grand Crus). Potential to stun relative to price is greatest here. Drinking one of these young can result in a wine that displays more unique characteristics than a Village level wine, but the detail which separates this group from the village-classed wine aren’t immediately on display.
Grand Cru: Starting 10-12 years after harvest, these can be drank by the next two generations with confidence. These are the most unique terroirs in theory, and the most consistently fine wines, not necessarily the ‘best’* wines. Drinking one of these young cannot result in knowing a majority percentage of why a particular terroir has been classified at this level. In short, I don’t buy at this level unless I am sure to wait the preferred amount of time. It is more than money that you lose when opening a Grand Cru or Premier Cru early, you miss out on a potentially extraordinary experience.
- My view is that Burgundy is best as seen as a celebration of subtle to striking differences, not of degrees of greatness.
Short answer:
No one really knows when the right time to open a bottle is. Drinking windows are typically of the most help to the person who penned them. To get more of what is promised in the concept and culture of the wines from Burgundy, please try to be as patient as you can. In their youth, they can all be delicious and flirty while completely speaking around the topic of their origins or what they may become in time. In short, while young wines can be attractive, they are generally full of themselves and absolutely clueless.
Cheers
Ray
Great work Ray,
Your passion and knowledge is amazing.
Other short answer…
Depends on the producer!!!
One more short answer: the wine will always have the last word.
All the info here is great (Hi Ray!), and in Bill Nanson’s new book he mentions that the plateau of interest lies for GC - 20-40 yrs., PC - 20-30, Villages - 15-20. This is, of course, stated within the context of all the other variables (personal preference, appellation, vineyard, vintage, producer(x3), etc.) as a very general idea.
Ray…
Ray,
Ray, great response. However, I would add more about vintage. There is a huge difference between drinking ranges for say 2000s or 2007s on the one hand and say 2005 on the other hand. A lot of 2000s were beautiful at a fairly young age and are just about perfect right now. I had a 2000 Pousse D’Or Corton recently that seemed pretty mature. 2005s will take a long time to be as ready to drink. This is a great vintage, but most of the wines I have had are pretty closed right about now and I don’t expect them to be ready to drink for a long time.
Or as was said above, it depends.
Slightly off topic but any thoughts on if a 2000 Leroy Bourgogne is/would be over the hill? I’m looking at the wine list for a restaurant I’m going to and this is one of their more interesting bottles. The rest of the selection are 08 and 09 which I have plenty of. Thanks!
Thanks, Ray for the thoughtful answer.
I love them young, and I love them mature, but the in-between years can be difficult at best. I agree with Howard that the “schedule” is very dependent on the vintage. A sizable proportion of 2001s are drinking well at 10 years after the vintage, while much fewer 1999s are as open. More 1998s are good to go than 1996s and 1995s, IMO. I find many 1er cru 2002s quite irresistable now. There is room for argument that all these vintages are mere babies, and not showing much of what aged Burgundy is all about. I believe Tom Blach would make that argument in a general sense, for example. But Tom is probably younger than I am, and I’m not willing to wait until I’m dead to find out…
Personally, I find it important to sample the wines young, within the first 2 or 3 years after release (roughly the first 3 to 4 and sometimes 5 years after the harvest). I try to sample most of the 1er crus, but less of the grand crus just because of cost and often buying fewer bottles. I believe this sampling is important to educate me on what I’ve bought, to guide purchase decisions in future vintages, and to establish a reference point that enhances my enjoyment of the wines later, when they may be approaching maturity. And it also is very rewarding in its own right, just because young Burgs are so fun and delicious IMO (YMMV).
Producer matters a lot, and appellation hierarchy matters a lot, and commune matters somewhat less IMO. I might generalize and say Chambolle is approachable younger than Nuits, for example, but Roumier’s muscular Chambolle 1er cru is likely to remain grumpy long after Chevillon’s silky Nuits 1er is generous and open. And I’ve probably never had a Gouges that was ready, to my chagrin. Many Volnays are great on the young side, but Lafarge and Angerville are (generally) not among them, to cite another example.
I tend to treat most grand crus and the elite 1er crus similarly, and try to age them a little longer than village wines and other (less elite) 1er crus. The reason I do is that the higher level wines have more to gain from maturity. Less nuance and complexity is lost by opening a villages or less-elite 1er cru a bit too early. So when the current Burg appellation cycle gets to Vosne, for example, I plan to open '96 Cathiard 1er En Orveaux, but the Malcontsorts and Romanee-Saint-Vivant will sleep a little longer. But if I had RSV from Hudelot-Noellat, I might be all over that one, as H-N wines show well on the early side, IMO.
Absolutely right. It is not just a matter of the benefit of first hand experience, but also getting a feel for how wines fit into you personal preferences and the settings/cuisine with which you want to serve them.
It is not a perfect science, but after tasting burgundy vintages young and revisiting them later for 17 vintages now as I dig into the 2009s I have gained a knowledge and understanding that not only puts me well ahead of those who buy and cellar without tasting, but an appreciation for just how much a vintage can change and surprise over time. The greater knowledge is an appreciation of the fact noone can really predict the future based on tasting a vintage young- and by future I mean how those wines will be useful to you personally. To give a good example, I love a post-meal cheese course with an aged vintage high on acid and persistent terroir. Enter 1994 red burgundies- a few of them anyway, notably DRC and Roumier (and the best from those addresses need more time). And I have no personal use for 1997 at all even though those can be “tastier”.
This is true of most wines to a degree, but given the highly detailed and tiny production of many burgundies it is a reality that one has to be fully invested to get the best results. That means buying and tasting young in every vintage for at least 10-15 years plus revisiting many wines as they evolve. It also means one has to separate from the hype and think about what you really want. I will gladly concede the “greatness” of 1999 and 1990 at many Domaines, but it is 1995 and 2001 that I want in my cellar for my purposes- and thanks to the benefit of tasting experience I have a better idea than most when to drink them at a point that suits me. As for biggest surprises of late- 2002 for me. Tentative fan at release, not so much 3-5 years later, now- very happy and learning to be patient.
To address the question more directly with a vintage-specific example, right now I would be more inclined to open 2001 grand crus than 1995 premier crus.
You want to be really depressed, read Keith’s take on the subject:
That IS despressing when I think that in 25 years I may not be able to drink alcoholic beverages due to health reasons if I’m even still alive. I prefer to buy wines that I can contemplate opening in the next ten years.
I think Keith’s estimate really only applies to the best of vintages, like 1999, 2005 (and maybe 2010, with 2009 not far behind). Vintages like 2000 and 2007 were/will be ready as they ever will be in 10 years. 2006 is curious since it has lots of stuffing but has never really shut down.
(One of the best takeaways from that article is to buy top vintages when they are drinking the worst. 2005, for example, is drinking like complete crap right now, and I’m seeing a good number of bargains pop up on top wines.)
I haven’t yet seen any 05 bargains here, sadly, but having just turned fifty I’ll be in my bathchair when they are in their prime anyway.
On Wednesday I drank Drouhin Musigny 1979, not a particularly powerful or glamorous vintage,something like 07 in fact. So I am pleased/sorry to announce that it was at an apogee of perfection, the most astoundingly, hair-raisingly beautiful wine that has ever passed my lips. It’s all very well to think that one doesn’t have to wait for such experiences, but it’s not true, only age can bring this supernatural dimension to Burgundy.
+1
not to pick a fight with ray - but I think most premier crus from any recent (say, 1988 forward) vintage worth cellaring would be very shut down 5-7 years after harvest. Sure, there are a few exceptions - but that’s usually shortly after they’ve started their slumbers, and not when they are starting to show something worth savoring. Same re: grand crus 10-12 years from harvest. My yardstick is 8-10 years for village wines, 10-15 for premier crus, 15-20 for grand crus, depending of course on vintage and domaine.
My experience is that most vintages (and when I say “vintages” I mean wines from a particular vintage) open and shut and open and shut and open and shut ad nauseum - and there is great variance within a vintage for the duration of any particular open or shut period - and what happens with one vintage can rarely provide any guidance for what will happen with another vintage.
I tell people the foregoing is why burg geeks always ask other burg geeks, “what have you drunk lately and how was it showing?” - so they can gather data on what’s showing well at any particular time.
I think 2002 village wines are showing well now - my recent experience with 2002 premier crus is that some are showing well right now (grivot boudots, m-g chaignots, fourrier sorbes, faiveley cazetiers) while others seem very primary or still disjointed (bertheau amoureuses, truchot’s various moreys). Good 2002 village wines (Bachelet’s gevrey, roumier’s chambolle, and rousseau’s gevrey are the ones I’ve had in the past year from my cellar) are showing very well right now.
I am aligned w/ Bill’s timeline w the caveats of vintage and producer variation compounded w/ storage temp/provenance variability and how secondary/tertiary one likes these wines. Most of the critics have drinking windows that start and end too early–IMO.
alan
Hey Maureen
I appreciate your thoughts on what I wrote above. No offense taken at all. (that’s us in the animation, btw)To be sure, wines move around quite a bit, this is why windows are typically of most use to the person that penned them. Also, I can’t say for sure that we’ve had the same wines at the same times with similar conditions. So, I appreciate that our opinions are unique. This doesn’t mean that these windows are helpful to everyone. But, I wanted to share what I personally do. Fwiw, I’ve had a good many 2001s, 2000s, 1998s, and 2006s at 7 years after harvest at the Premier Cru level. Also, while vintage generalities may add detail, they also are misleading because Burgundy is by no means homogenous. My thoughts above aren’t exactly windows. They are simply how I choose what to open at a given time. Inside of this, there are considerations for the actions that were/weren’t taken in the vineyards as well as the cuverie and cave. You see, this is quite a complicated matter to ‘rely’ on a window of time with any certainty. I do, however, have preferences. And, my preferences are to wait until that start time if I am looking for what might be underneath. This will hopefully allow a chance to see the fruit profile with more developed nuances as well. To be specific, these ‘preferences to not open until’ times are more a function of what I have experienced as a point that has often shown something interesting. Earlier and you increase the risk of things being closed in or being all fruit (not a bad thing), much later and you may miss out on a strong balance of the fruit’s freshness mixed with more developing nuances. It is not an attempt to perfectly time in my estimation, it is to increase my odds of experiencing something interesting and hopefully speaking to the climat printed on the label. This isn’t a one size fits all type of thing. And, in the context of drinking wine, I have less rules than I do an aim for simple pleasure. My comments above are more a reflection of my experiences than they are the rules chiseled into the walls of my cave. Those generally refer to chaptalization (yet another complication for generalities in drinking windows, wine profiles, and domaine activities).
Hey, Ray - love the answer and the thought and passion behind it…but I’m pretty sure you haven’t had many 2006s 7 years after the harvest.
FWIW, I think I lean more toward your rule of thumb than Maureen’s - but she’ll tell me I’m wrong in person.