Rating Burgundy 1999-2009

Thought it may be nice to play a game, from 1999-2009 lets rate the vintages that you have tasted the following way out of 10…Cote de Beaune red, Cote de Nuits red, Cote de Beaune white, Chablis…giving a total out of 40. I know it’s very generalised, it’s only a game and nobody is right or wrong (unless they disagree with me).

1999 10+10+7+6=33

2000 6+7+9+9=31

2001 6+9+8+6=29

2002 8+8+8+8=32

2003 5+6+5+4=20

2004 6+6+8+8=30

2005 9+9+7+7=32

2006 7+7+6+6=26

2007 6+7+10+10=33

2008 8+8+8+8=32

2009 9+8+7+6=30


OK, I’ll bite. I suspect this is about provoking people to respond to the elevated rating for vintage 2000! But won’t lumping red and white burgundy together hamper meaningful discussion?

Here are my thoughts:

Red Cote de Nuits:

Red Cote de Beaune:

*not enough examples to be well informed

Ok I’ll play. I’ll just chime in where I disagree with your scores Jeremy. In 01 I would have to rate the CDB reds lower than 2000 due to volnay being obliterated by hail. I’d go 4 or 5. In 04 I’d give the reds again a lower score. For me 4 would be generous. I’d probably pump up the scores on 05 by a point across the board. I find the whites excellent and the best young vintage I’ve ever tasted for the reds. In 06 similarly I love the CDN wines in particular and would score them an 8. I believe you got 07 right on target and couldn’t comment on 08 or 09.

Sounds like good (geeky) fun.

Cote de Beaune red, Cote de Nuits red, Cote de Beaune white, Chablis…Let’s see…

1999 9+9+7+6=31

2000 7+7+9+8=31

2001 7+8+8+7=30

2002 8+9+8+8=33

2003 5+6+4+4=19

2004 6+6+8+8=30

2005 10+10+6+7=33

2006 7+8+7+8=30

2007 6+7+8+9=30

2008 8+8+8+8=32

I have not tasted enough 2009s, so will leave that out.

At the end of the very interesting exercise, I am quite surprised by how close the scores are actually. The whites really balance out the reds in most vintages where one is weaker than the other (expect for 2003 of course!). Shows perhaps that what nature takes away with one hand, she gives back with another.

Unsurprisingly, 2005 and 2002 shared top honours, but very surprisingly, 2008 came next, followed by (more surprise surprise) 2000 and 1999.


I noticed you left out 2006 in your Beaune rating - I’m interested in your opinion, would you mind rating it?

It is interesting to note the balance the two colours often bring to a vintage - hence the reason both colous are planted in the Cote…much the same way as in Bordeaux where the earlier ripening Merlot often provides insurance for the later ripening CS.

Interesting to note Jeremy that based on your considered scoring Cote de nuits reds have been the most successful over the last 11 yrs, with Chablis the least successful, adding up your scores.

I like Kevins’ vintage heirachy for Cote de nuits reds , but may even rank 2008s higher in the future from the small sample size that I have tasted thus far.

It’s going to all come down to how much you rank a vintage by its consistency and how much you rank it by its top products, Kent. That’s one reason why I think ranking vintages is rank (sorry) – different people apply different standards.

1999 12+10+6+6=34

2000 7+6+8+8=28

2001 8+7+8+6=29

2002 8+8+8+7=31

2003 5+6+4+3=18

2004 6+5+8+8=27

2005 10+9+7+7=33

2006 8+7+5+5=25

2007 4+5+12+10=31

Not enough '08’s and '09s to comment yet…

Agreed Claude, but it’s geeky fun.

I tend to buy reds from 10 to 15 domaines each vintage, so obviously my perceptions are reliant on their relative performance.

My take not that it means that much as weighting has no relevance to consumption, still interesting. My 1999 red evaluation is based on a number of poor showings…

1999 8+8+7+6=29

2000 5+5+8+8=26

2001 6+8+7+6=27

2002 9+9+8+8=34

2003 9+9+7+7=32

2004 5+5+7+7=24

2005 10+10+7+7=34

2006 7+7+6+6=26

2007 5+6+9+9=29

2008 ?+?+?+?=??

2009 ?+?+?+?=??

A few quick questions/comments from a relative Burgundy neophyte who is just beginning to understand what a complicated mess he is getting into by developing a taste for these wines. (Limited to the reds as that is my main curiousity)–

–not much consistency in the rankings here. 1999 has been out for 11 years, but rankings range from bestest vintage ever (Paul Hanna) to good but not outstanding (Mike During). Not to mention 2003. Burgundy seems to generate more vintage controversy than any other region. I’m never quite sure how much of this is due to disagreement over proper style vs. actually not liking the wines, how much due to the finicky and unpredictable Burgundy aging curve, etc.

–I hadn’t heard much vintage hype for 2008 red, but Jeremy seems to be saying it is comparable to or perhaps just behind 2002 and 2009.

Also, speaking as someone who can’t afford the top GCs, it would be interesting if anyone felt like discussing vintage consistency across good premier crus and lower GCs (e.g. Vougeots and similarly priced)…

Marcus, depends on what wine you drink. For 1999 I expect Paul is thinking DRC - he seems to drink a few of them. Me I drink across the board, and when you do this the high yields of 1999 come into play. Really these ratings have little meaning…

Personally, I am fond of a 1999-2002-2005 trifecta on the Cote de Nuits reds, but only because that is what is in my cellar! Along with some 1990s, 1991s, 1993s and a couple of 1996s left. No love for the last four vintages mentioned? What are they, chopped liver?

I drink right across the spectrum in any given vintage from Bourgogne to Grand Cru. When I rate a vintage or give my opinion on it in a broad generalised sense I think about all of the wines I’ve had from top to bottom and how much pleasure I have derived from them and whether the general style suits my tastes.

To me 1999 is the perfect vintage for red Burgundy, just as 96 is the perfect Piemonte vintage, from top to bottom. Regardless of the yields, I have never wanted for more stuffing in any of the 99’s I’ve drunk, and I reckon I’ve had several hundred of them since release, the wines in general show great perfume, fine acidities, balance and have been aging at a glacial pace, it truly is a great vintage. 2003 on the other hand is just not my cup of tea. Sure there are some concentrated wines and some may indeed be brilliant in 20-30 years time, but too often the wines show gritty tannins and a hollow mid-palate to me. 2008 is a vintage that I think will be lauded in 10 years time by the Burgundy purists. There’s great transparency and freshness with wines of exceptional focus and energy. Many punters will prefer the succulent, creamy 09’s but the 08’s are classic.

Best Regards

One thing all these vintages have in common, at least in red wine, is that it’s too soon to tell!
Just for fun, my guess for 2020 is
referring, of course, to the top addresses only.

Hi Jeremy,

I cannot mix the colours and find the rating useful as great white vintages i.e. 2007 are often less thrilling in red. So the zero sum result is a big average. But I guess we have all made our colour favourite vintage list already.


Don’t forget Leroy, Roumier, Jayer, Dujac, Rousseau, Rouget, Vogue, Mugnier, Ponsot, Lignier, Meo, Ligier Belair, Gros…that’s across the board!! [training.gif]

But yeah, I’m with Jeremy here… [drinkers.gif]

Seriously though, I think BH really got the initial take on '99 reds very wrong, and by far underrated it early on. Looking at a number of his ratings, they have significantly gone up over
the years in later tastings, for what that is worth.

This is easily my all time fave. red vintage, (ok, as Mike said, especially at the top). Every time we have looked at producers across vintages, the '99’s stand out, with their lovely cool,
perfect dark fruit and beautiful balance…they generally (always) win (blind), and usually hands down.

Looking at my ratings (which I admit are more skewed to producer and level, thus essentially meaningless but are there for the fun of this exercise…), I think '04 reds will continue to go
down over time, '03 reds come up, and I still have some question marks on the longevity of certain top '01’s…

(BTW Mike, I also think their was some shipping issues (particularly) with '99’s and '02’s in our part of the world, as I have seen a much higher number of stained through corks than other
recent years, and I think to a certain degree, also some heat affected wines. Similar wines sourced from elsewhere have often looked far better…).

Paul, a line up of top addresses, no wonder 99 is top of the list. BTW the 99 Roumier Bonnes Mares is one of the most memorable burgs I have had, along with the 90 Roumier Amourouses… At this level I have no argument, but 99’s I have had recently have been disappointing, a 99 Jadot Bonnes Mares, Drouhin Les Petits Monts, a Volnay… come immediately to mind. I sent all my Faiveley back to the importer, all cooked, so this possibly may not have been isolated…

Had nothing like Jeremy’s experience with 99’s so look forward to the upside. Cheers Mike

Cote de Nuits are the ones I drink a good enough sample (with cote de Beaune red behind).
Before closure
My favourite is 2005 before closure
2008 comes behind (3 samples only so far have been great)
2002, 2007 and 2006 were also pretty good (although not sure about 2006 Volnays but NSG very good) with 2007 very light so questions about long term

After closure
Love 2000, 2001 and 2002, don’t think other vintages are there yet

Can’t judge 1999 because I did not drink them before closure, I avoid drinking them as many are still closed and I don’t have so many (about 2+ cases left). 2004 depended a lot on greenies, 2003 will wait as I did not fancy them young.