Matthew King, i.e. more rizzed up than me, has some bold takes (particularly on '09), but in regards to 2005, I don’t think that’s so bold. Nearly all my data points on '05 GC are disappointing. Dujac, Arlaud and a few others. Maybe the various lighter village wines are in better places.
And I’ve had many conversations with well versed folks on that vintage. Including over in Burgundy. I view it grimly, certainly to open now, and frankly, super unsure what 10-15 years time shall yield.
By Contrast, my data points with '01 continue to be very strong. Not just with Michael, but also with other groups. The '01s I have had up in D.C. have been sparkling and smack in their prime (Bachelet, especially).
I’ve found the discussion about 2005 to be really interesting. As I have never owned the ultra top names/GCs from that vintage, I only have mild curiosity about their excellence or never-to-be-readiness. Instead I have mostly village and 1ers from producers like Hudelot-Noellat, Barthod, d’Angerville, Fourrier, and Chevillon. I’ve opened a few dozen and my opinion is that this is a great vintage, and I’ve really enjoyed the wines. Some, like Hubert Lignier’s village Chambolle and Gevrey are very good now, perhaps on the downside of their aging curves. Barthod 1ers just starting to open. Fourrier 1ers are excellent. Etc. The very few GCs I have (Trapet, Perrot-Minot) will stay buried.
This is a really interesting thread with lots of agreement and some intriguing differences of opinion.
While very few of us drink DRC etc with any regularity my experience in recent years suggests the very top wines, suitably cellared and sensitively handled when consumed are a good guide to the general quality of the years particularly on the Cote de Nuits. Over recent years we have traversed verticals from 1990 through 2010 of DRC LT, RSV and Richebourg capped by a stunning 899 pt ( one choker at 99 !), from our group of 9, bottle of 2010 Romanee Conti. The message across our group of 9 was consistent with 93, 96, 99, 02, 05, 09 and 10 leading the pack with 95, 98, 00, 01, 08 all providing interesting wines with individual tastes determining the order. The 03s also offered lots of interest in a New World sort of way. The really top vintages were 99, 05, 09 and 10.
More pertinently all our favourite wines have followed a similar path eg Chevillon, Barthod, Grivot, d’Angerville, Arnoux, Fourrier allowing for all the usual variations. It’s notable that we are still drinking through 96s which had a long obdurate phase before really blooming and in many cases the 99s will benefit from further cellaring. I suspect all of the great years will do this although the 09s offer lots of pleasure now if adequately breathed. Certainly the 05s and 10s fit the description of sulky teenagers but like our sulky teenagers patience will pay off eventually in most cases.
Our yearly ten year vintage reviews have found a lot to love in 12 and 14 within a fairly tight adolescent structure. The 11s and 13s are both lighter years but our reviews have picked up some smart wines in that framework and at a rarefied level the 13 Roumier Bonnes Mares and Faiveley Musigny were very smart indeed.
Beyond that my experience diminishes ( too many 96s and 99s to drink ) but what there is suggests 15 and 19 will really stand out in the long term with the 17s a 00 lookalike and the 16 and 18s still a bit of a mystery.
What’s true in Burgundy is that there is interest in almost every vintage ( perhaps not 04 ! ) with a long cool spell in the cellar compulsory to bring out the best in the best 1ers and Grand Crus from the very best years. To fully enjoy them we need to ‘live long and prosper’ !
@Andrew_K Curious why you said to avoid Dujac 12s as I have a few but have yet to open, thought the only vintages to avoid were '04 and '11s because of the unbearable greenness in all the Dujacs from these two vintages that I have come across.
There is extraordinary beauty in 04, along with plenty of failures. As with 01, most are fully mature now but it has turned out to be a far more successful vintage than 03 overall and in terms of current drinking offers more general satisfaction than 05, though that will not remain the case for very long.
I would always expect dramatic differences in views of a number of vintages because different people have different taste preferences. I fully expect that people who like bigger and softer wines will gravitate to vintages like 2009 and that people who prize elegance and acidity to balance the rich fruit will prefer 2010s, for example. I get it that some people cannot see the beauty of so many wines from a vintage like 2001 and 2007 and that others won’t like 2018 and 2020.
One of the beauties of Pinot Noir in Burgundy is how transparent it is. It reveals terroir, it reveals winemaking differences and it reveals differences between vintages. I am very suspicious of objective views or even consensus views when it comes to wine generally, but especially with regard to Burgundy. Taste preferences are very individualistic, and I shudder at posts that try to espouse right or wrong answers.
Wines from the top producers are also generally better in every vintage from those of lesser producers, although there is obviously vintage to vintage variability, so in many cases their wines express the negative aspects of some vintages less and the positive aspects of the vintages more. Whether this is because of better farming/viticulture or winemaking, or both, is certainly a topic worthy of discussion. It’s been well documented that 2004 DRC doesn’t have the problems with greenness/vegetal aromas that other producers, even top ones have; I like 04 DRC despite loathing pyrazines. Rousseau did better than most as well, although I am very pyrazine sensitive and do note some green elements, although they are not too offputting.
I don’t find 2009 Rousseau, Lignier, Roumier, DRC, or Mugneret Gibourg to be lacking acidity and think the wines in the long term may end up better than the 2010, albeit less accessible now. This may end up being another 15/16 argument, and I think both vintages will be good long term. I think 2009 and 2015 both have a lot of similarities to 2002, which to me is certainly not a bad thing, but both may be better several decades from now.
I find it pretty tiresome that you are seemingly incapable of discussing vintage variations without putting down others. We get it - you can see through the hype and celebrate elegance, and the unwashed masses can’t.
It’s also not that simple. Some so-called “ripe” vintages age really well. And some more acidic vintages fall off and don’t turn out as well as expected. Your false binary does not tell the whole story.
Sorry, but cannot find much logic in it …
BUY 2001 … ok, but only the very best (from perfect storage) amd for immediate drinking
SELL 2005, 2009, 2020 ??? ok, if your lifespan is measured in months (sorry) not years, otherwise you might regret it.
Many producers told me 2020 is the best vintage in their life …
HOLD 2002? Only the most concentrated Crus - most 1er Crus and several GCs are opening up or are already beautiful.
I think 2001s (at least from high quality producers) have a good 5-10 years in the zone. Most people aren’t backfilling 25 year old wine to hold it for a long time anyways.
05 is a bit up in the air. I think 09 is superb as I’ve said, and 20 will be good but is entirely inaccessible atm.
You really are very sensitive aren’t you. I have very good friends who know a lot about Burgundy who like the richer vintages. I argue with them all the time about 2009 vs. 2010, for example. I specifically called these different taste preferences not better or worse. You really need to get over your insecurity. I really could not care less which types of wines you like.
DRC 2009s are fantastic, as are many other 09s. They will age on balance, even though the big fruit may mask some of the tannins and acid. Of course, that is just my opinion. I recall that Albert de Villaine was a big fan of the 09 DRCs as well. Time will tell nevitably.
Jeremy opened a 12 Malconsorts for us in July which was in good shape (and showed surprisingly better than the 13 next to it), so there’s no specific reason to avoid Dujac in 12. A friend also poured a 12 Clos de la Roche out of magnum this year which was drinking well.
While there is bottle variation in 2004 Rousseau, the best barely taste like Pinot (a recent Clos de Beze wasn’t even called pinot blind by anyone at a table) and the worst smell like absolute pickle juice (the CSJ, multiple bottles in recent years).
For me, 2002 is the biggest overperformer in Burgundy out of the past twenty years. Cannot remember it ever shutting down or ever being less than lovely and generous. Still picking them up whenever I see them for a good price.
I agree that the 02 reds are showing well. I don’t understand calling them over-performers. When released the 02s were very well regarded by the critics. Perhaps I’ve missed some recent criticism of the 02s?
