Thinking about the recent threads ranking Red Burgundy vintages from the '70-s to the '90’s, I was about wondering about the same sort of rankings for vintages of Whites as well…
Thinking about it more, I generally feel that trying to rank vintages before 2000 now is pretty much an academic exercise, what with premox, oxidation and variable storage and a very real shortage of most older vintages now making it virtually impossible to do so with any real meaning.
That being said, the vintages from 2000 onwards are quite do-able, but upon further reflection could actually prove to be far more contentious than say the rankings from the '90’s in Red Burgundy, where a general board consensus was mostly reached.
Without divulging my personal thoughts yet (in an effort not to influence the discussion immediately), lets have at it and see what the general berserker Burg. community thinks!
2010
2007
2002/2004 different reasons, but tied. 02 has a freshness and boldness I enjoy. 04 I think will be the most long lived
08
01
09 (the more I drink of it, the more I enjoy it)
00
05
06
03 (might be last place for the last two decades for me)
I have no where near the breadth of expertise needed to rank 11 vintages, but I have a case of 2006 Hospices de Beaune Meursault 1er Cru Charmes Cuvée Bahèzre de Lanlay, elevage by Faiveley, and I love it, as has everyone who has tasted any of the first three bottles I opened. If 2006 whites are uniformly ranked towards the bottom of the list, I need to buy some of the vintages at the top of the list. They must be fantastic.
2010-Best young white vintage I have seen.
2000-Quite complete wines.
2007-Some wines are lean and skinny but the top wines are brilliant.
2008-Outstanding wines with a big lick of acidity.
2002-Excellent vintage across the board.
2009-Getting better with age.
2005-Dense, concentrated wines that are aging well.
2001-Mid weight but very good in the main.
2003-Haven’t had many but never had an oxidised one.
2004-Loved them young. Far too many oxidised wines now and some have hot alcohol profiles.
2006-Roulout and Coche made great wines, some of the GC’s are drinking well now.
Overall I think it’s been a great decade for WB, and almost all vintages have something positive to offer. My view (excl Chablis, which is different) would be:
2010
2007
2002
2008 / 2004 / 2000 (different, but I wouldn’t know how to split them)
2009
2005
2001
2006
2003
But really, I think that for most wines it comes down to an individual level - some 2000s are better than the 2002s but not all. Some 2004s are better than 2005s but not all. 2006 is second to last, but there are some great wines (e.g. Sauzet Combettes).
If I had to choose a WB from a restaurant list, with full vertical of something I hadn’t tried, I would pick the '07.
I have noticed a sweet, heady alcohol note in 04’s from Lafon, Domaine Leflaive, Ramonet, D’Auvenay and others I can’t think of right now. This note coupled with the green tinge the vintage has makes 04 whites very easy to spot in a blind line-up.
'07 is one of the really contentious ones then, it seems.
Some critics (like Coates) don’t really rate it much at all. I know one or two serious Burg guys who think it is a dud vintage, and won’t turn out much good at all from this point.
'01 is perhaps the other. I rate the best '01’s very highly, although on release the were overshadowed by '00 and '02, yet 5-6 years down the track many of those same wines seemed to keep getting better and better…