Ranking Burgundy vintages from the 90s

WINE TALK
1

We often rank vintages that are new. Sometimes people are ranking wines that have not been releases yet (unless they have been to the region and tasted, how?) and often time we are wrong on how wines evolve. So, I thought it would be interesting to see how board members look at vintages that now have some age on them.

So, here goes:

1999 (To me, the first three are great vintages)
1993
1996
1990
1991
1998
1992
1995 (I have not had too many of these, but have not really been impressed by what I have had)
1997 (except for Jadot and maybe a few others)
1994

2

Hi Howard,

I agree with your first 4. I think you have had better luck with 91 than I, and I have been luckier with 95 (I understand the issues with hardness and acidity). True about 97 Jadot.

For me, 93s are really in a great spot now.

3

Thanks Howard, this is exactly the kind of topic that can be re-evaluated periodically as the vintages mature.

My POV is a bit different, though based on a sadly small sample of Burgundies from the '90s (and I’m just referring to reds). My tops for enjoyment right now (which is perhaps a bit different from best absolute vintages) from most enjoyable to least are:

consistent top vintages: 1990, 1993, 1999
1995, 1997
1996
1998
no vote: 1991, 1992, 1994 (have not had enough bottles to have an opinion)

Of course '90 and '93 have a big advantage over '99 since they’ve been able to age longer. Plus I’ve generally only opened village/1ers from '99, figuring that the GCs are really going to be best at least a few more years out.

1995 and 1997 have produced a lot of bottles that are really great to drink right now, at least from my cellar. 1995 Groffier Clos de Beze was very good – yes high acid but otherwise so much flavor and balance that it was delightful.

1996: Perplexing. Some bottles have been amazing (Arnoux Echezeaux) but others have been disappointing (Bachelet Corbeaux). Will the structure and acid hold out until everything else has faded, or will they emerge into glorious balance? This unpredictability has been bothering me, and combined with relatively higher prices of this perceived ‘top vintage’ means that I’m not focused on acquiring much from 1996 anymore.

1998: Agreed, generally weaker in my experience.

4

Would be inclined to put '90 and '91 ahead of '96 (whence came too many mean, angular wines which have gotten a bit bloody and ferric with age) and '95 ahead of '92 (on basis of great bottles from Roumier, Ponsot, Jadot and a few others).

Assuming we are talking about red Burgundy here? Factoring in white too would make it considerably more complicated.

5

I agree 90%
(I like lots of 97s)
Otherwise would have chosen your exact list.

6

My Red Burg ranking is :

Random order top3
90- Hard to think of a weak performance here. Balance. Many are mature now,
93- Just getting better and better. Classic.
99- Some are really great now, but the potential is even higher.

Random order middle3
91- All good young, and the bigger ones still showing.
96- Strong stuff, built for prolonged aging. Many will survive and shine.
92- Gentle wines, best young, but top is still delivering. (But not for long.)

Random order bottom4
97- The best producers made some good wine, but not great. Lesser producers made sour rusty water
95- Many disappointments where the fruit is missing, also some expensive GCs are weak.
98- Only a few tested young, -was not My style back then. Balance problems.
94- The gamble. I’ve had both great and poor bottles from all crus years ago. No idea how today.

-Søren.

7

I agree with this. I’ve had some killer 95s in the last year. I would also add that I’ve had some poor 90s that were overripe/plummy/roasted/etc., so to me there’s quite a gap between the top three (99/93/96) and the fourth (90).

8

Hmm, yes great '93s are great but I would have '90 as far more consistent. '95 also seems a heck of a lot better than most. So:
'99
'90
'96
'93
'91
'95
'98
'97
'94
'92

9

Another more or less “pointless” exercise. Without stating the criteria…what is anyone asking? Accross the board; highest heights…?

I look at 1993 as having some heights on the Cote de Nuit as it approaches 24 years old.

I look at 1999 as having many terrific wines, but I am still concerned with the effect of the tremendously high yields affecting concentrations with age.

I look at 1990 as a great, across the board vintage, perhaps the greatest I know of that is mature. People dissed them but they are wonderful wines and very consistent. The winemakers I spoke to about the '90s vintages uniformly thought that 1990 was the “best” vintage between 1980 and 2005. I can’t argue. But, I suspect that their criteria are different from most who post here.

'95, I think, still remains to prove itself.

10

Agreed. 5 years ago people were wondering if the 1996s would ever come around. I am (mostly) confident that the 1995s will eventually reward their early promise but only time will tell.

11

I remember that they were tough ones when they first arrived in the US. I led a tasting in 1998…and it was not pleasant. It will never be "warm and fuzzy’. I know that.

12

The gaps are not uniform. For me it is 1999 closely followed by 1993 and then a wide gap to 1991 and 1990. Another big gap to 1996, 1998, 1997 and 1995. Another gap and 1992 and 1994.

A couple of comments about my top two vintages.

I have yet to have a 1999 which I felt suffered from dilution. And the top wines are utterly brilliant, and potentially will end up some of the most profound Burgundies I will ever taste.


1993 More variable, but the good ones are undoubtedly brilliant. We had last month a flight of 1993s. Roumier Bonnes Mares, DRC RSV, and two Clos de la Roches one from Ponsot and one from Lignier. All brilliant, and all remarkably individual. DRC just about scraped in as group winner, and easily as mine.

13

+1 though I’d likely move 94 down.

14

Don’t have quite the experience of you all but I would stand in agreement that individual bottles of 93 can be, as Mark said, brilliant.

(Me personally) need more time to fully grasp quality of 99s

15

I am talking about reds

Maybe it is because I am a Riesling lover who likes acid, but I love the acidity of the 1996s. The wines always taste fresh and structured to me. It is like a poor man’s 2010 (a vintage I love).

16

I am largely on the same page with you, Howard. My only shift would be putting 1990 lower than 1991. The 1990s often have an edge of raisin to them which I do not like, and lack the structure and stuffing that the '99s, 93’s and '91s do. There are certainly some exceptions, but in general, the more time that passes, the more I find a lot of 1990s are looking torn-at-the-seams. I especially prefer the '91s to 90’s in bigger, more concentrated producers like Leroy.

Great thread, and a very pertinent and interesting question to ponder now and see how the list has changed/changes in the future!

17

I am in this camp.

18

At the top there are some fantastic '92’s…

I guess it is both subjective and a matter of perspective as to what wines and vintages you are actually trying to rank.

19

I could live with that - except some minor personal notes:

  • Some of the best ´90s are better than (some of) the best ´99s, but there are more fine ´99s …
  • I still fail to get the greatness of 1993 - many are not only still astringent (or better: with a dry/dull/dusty element to the tannins), but lacking real great depth and show elevated acidity, too. At age 23 I had only few really satisfying 93s …
  • there are more ´92s than ´94s drinking with great pleasure … the latter are often “thin and hollow”, the former nicely sweet and still kind of fruity …
  • Mainly I prefer 1997 to 1998 … the latter often astringtent with hints of green …

So maybe (but not definitely):

'90 / '99
'96
'91
'93
'95
'97
'92
'98
'94
[cheers.gif]

20

I agree that it is more or less pointless exercise but it is fun to talk about it… grouphug

I know for sure that Parker under-rated 1993 red [wink.gif]