Exactly. It’s somewhat academic at this point how good the 2001 vintage was.
Yes and no…
I mean where do you draw the line then?
I have had a number of great '01’s recently (and some premoxed, but less than good bottles), and have also seen many premoxed '07’s and '08’s and even heard of some '09’s, '10’s and even '11s!
Most of the 2005’s I have had have been advancing rapidly and no longer fresh. The 06’s are tropical and I did not buy any. Interestingly, I have not yet had a premoxed 01, though I skipped buying the vintage when it came out, while I have had premoxed 00’s and 02’s from Leflaive but not premoxed 01’s…curious.
We have seen some very good '03’s and '06’s lately, which, whilst perhaps not fully representative of the vintage, have not only improved out of sight since release and tightened up significantly, but have also seemingly avoided the premox curse…
This may not even apply to Beaujolais … ![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}
I thought it was a question about quality - premox is a different issue … and independent of vintage quality (AFAIConcerned). We cannot rank the Bordeaux-vintages regarding TCA-rates - or can we?
Best = 2010
Then : 2002 ( except significant premox, almost 50 % , so maybe it should be considered extremely poor overall )
2004 and 2008 ( high acidity years , I am hoping more than knowing , great aging potential )
2009-2005 and 2007 ( at the top excellent but many not interesting )
Middle : 2001 ( on it’s decline now ) and 2000 : all over the place
Poor : 2006 ( although good exceptions , overall too ripe for my taste )
Very Poor : 2003
OPf course , there are almost as many exceptions as there are generailties in such an evaluation.
2010 (pretty much great across the board and much to look forward to, lots of tension)
2007 (accessible, nicely balanced, great for Chablis)
2002 (great to drink now, nice balance)
2005 (for me the vintage for cooler terroirs, such as Chablis or St. Aubin)
2008 (a bit austere at the moment, but once they mellow down, a lot of wines will be great, I think)
2009 (like them a lot, but these are no wines to keep forever)
2006 (no vintage for Meursault, but there are some lovely Chablis and Pulignys. I like a lot of the 2006s)
2004 (don’t know what to make of this vintage, I like many Chablis and Corton-Charlemagne, but I think a lot of wines are not balanced)
2003 (I really don’t like those wines)
Don’t know enough wines: 2000, 2001
Clive Coates’ very interesting ratings for the vintages FWIW:
- 2000 - 15.5
- 2001 - 16
- 2002 - 18.5
- 2003 - 13.5
- 2004 - 15.5
- 2005 - 16.5
- 2006 - 17
- 2007 - 15.5
- 2008 - 18
- 2009 - 16
- 2010 - 16.5
Making that a ranking in vintage order of:
- 2002
- 2008
- 2006
4E) 2005
4E) 2010
6E) 2009
6E) 2001
8E) 2000
8E) 2004
8E) 2007 - 2003
Some very interesting and somewhat contrary opinions there!
2008
2010
2002
2000
2005
2006
2004
2007
2001 (although really I have too few references…)
2003
2007 wins the award for most overrated vintage of the century!
Why?
No - most wines are simply still too young.
The vintage needs time (which premoxed bottles don´t have - I admit, but that cannot be the cause to write it down).
But I see: patience is rare …
I think it’s overrated because it simply didn’t have the ripeness for a very good vintage. The wines were very fresh and pure when first bottled, but I find the fruit is fading at an alarming rate, particularly in Chablis. I guess it’s possible they’ve just closed up, but I am worried. And with premox, they may never come around in time.
I think the importance of proper ripeness is generally underestimated in Burgundy, which is also the reason I think 2006 was underrated by many - as was 2009. Many of those are starting to come around in a very nice way.
Paul , you have to be Clive Coates to rate 2006 over 2010 
2004
2007
2002
2010
2006
2005
2001
2008
2000
2009
2003
Of course, I don’t buy many white Burgs and haven’t since about 2002. The ones I do, I drink early.
Wow. This really seems all over the place. I don’t think I have ever seen anything like this on any other poll on vintages done on this board.
I can’t even begin to imagine the point of ranking vintages as though premox were not a factor. It’s like trying to come up with a hypothetical vintage ranking assuming there were no rain or hail problems. Perhaps theoretically possible, to a point, but why?
I wonder whether the range of opinions and general difficulty “ranking” these vintages actually highlights that:
- there weren’t many disasters
- perhaps more so than for other styles, generalisations are very difficult
I see Jay above was surprised to see 2006 “ranked” so poorly, having really enjoyed a particular wine. And yes, I think there’s some lovely '06s regardless of where it is ranked because quality overall has been high. So really, there’s little to tell them apart except individual bottles from individual producers.
This thread tells me we should all do our best to organize a bunch of vertical tastings all over the globe as opinions are obviously completely hit and miss!
I think one thing going on could be a split in at least few ways:
- Those who rank without promox and those who consider premox.
- More importantly, those who rank white Burgundies according to the traditional ways of viewing them as to agability and those who have said surrender to premox and are looking for vintages that are a bit softer and can be enjoyed younger.
- More than any other region I know of, predictions as to vintages in Burgundy for whites really seem to be hit or miss. I mean, how many people really would have predicted in the mid-1990s how well so many 93s would age?
I don’t know of any way to predict which vintages would be hit worse by premox than other vintages, do you? Thus, how would you take it into account, other than just always rating the youngest wines to be the best for current drinking?