He rated 2017 a 6 for category A and a 7 for category B, which seems pretty fair to me.
I agree ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Did I miss it? It didn’t seem he said anything about 2012; a vintage I currently enjoy. I agree with Ryan; I, too, am not that picky. I could be pushed into light ethereal, as Mike and others have said. I get it on the vintage rankings; though it varies so much, as others have said.
Thanks for posting, Brady. I would be interested to hear more about the whites.
Jasper rated 2012 a 6 for category A and a 7 for category B, which is pretty good for understated Brits. You should see how hard they rate soccer players!
I’ll try to post the white poll tomorrow.
I put myself firmly in camp B because those are the wines I buy. I put my vote where my money is.
By others’ definitions I’m in both camps because I’m totally happy drinking and likely enjoying a gnarled old de Montille, but that wine will be somebody else’s.
To expound on this topic, which Producers from Burgundy would you put in each category A and Category B?
Hopefully, we can discuss again in 10 years. My sense is that it is better now than 2007 was at the same time, although perhaps 2007 was stronger in Volnay.
I assume you’re using the verb (2) definition here?
Solid B here
I think 17 is better now and will always be better. I drank through 07/17 DRC this year and Rousseau CSJs and the 17 clearly has more potential. In some cases the 07 may have been more open/ready at the moment, but just didn’t feel like it had the density/concentration, and also lacked the acidity from another lighter bodied vintage like 13.
I think 07 is a great vintage for now - 10-15 years from now, which isn’t a bad thing considering it’s generally not very expensive.
Vintage remains infinitely the least important variable in burgundy. Some of the best wines I have ever drunk have been from despised vintages and even more of the worst from admired ones.
As I said above, I agree that 2017 is a better vintage than 2007 overall, but 2007 has a real strong spot - Volnay.
true; the two 07 d’angerville I had last year were very good. I’m not ultimately sure that 17 won’t end up being better though, even in Volnay. 17 Ducs and Lafarge Chenes last year were tremendous.
1 Like
A couple 09s last night showed the blurriness of these categories – the Clavelier was significantly more ethereal than the Dujac, but I suspect the vast majority of folks posting would have considered the Dujac the superior wine. (A breathtaking 01 Muller Catoir Eiswein bested both of them.)
09 Clavelier Chambolle 1er Combe d’Orveaux VV – Pure Chambolle. Quite fragrant with delicate brambly fruit and a super-silky texture. Yet given the vintage, I was surprised to find the midpalate a touch lacking in oomph; hopefully time will bring more depth and concentration. I suspect it will, given that began to gain weight and intensity in the decanter. I would have loved to try it with hours of additional air, but alas we drank it too quickly.
09 Dujac Morey St. Denis 1er Cru – This is glorious. It’s a much bigger wine than the Clavelier, with broader shoulders, darker fruit, and orders of magnitude more concentration. It’s not quite as silky perhaps, but it’s just as balanced and also much deeper and blessed with additional layers of flavor. Despite the boldness, no one would ever call this overripe; it’s bright and brimming with energy. Still structured and will improve with age.
1 Like
I wouldn’t be that categorical. I think this is true for average vintages, but not for outliers. I don’t think I have any 2003s and 2004s in my cellar (for very good reason) and very few 2011s. Whereas in 2010 pretty much anyone made very good wine.
yes. when i was at the Paulee in 2020 tasting 2017s, the Volnays were excellent. Lafarge’s wines were great (his Volnay VV was a great value) and i liked Clerget’s wines a lot also.
With Jasper’s approval, I’ve attached the full table.
Tom, you are one of the ones who taught me identifying “best” shouldn’t always be the wine lover’s goal.
I’m much more likely to correctly call the vintage blind than I am the appellation. It’s often easier than identifying the producer. So while proper burgundy appreciation should include all the vintages, it shouldn’t minimize the vintage impact.
If your real point is that folks who only drink the best vintages aren’t really understanding burgundy, then we agree.
I’m not that categorical. 2003 has disappointed me and I avoid it now, but 04 has some utterly magical wines in unexpected places, as well as some that remain undrinkable.
Things had got a bit better by 2010 but there are terrible wines, just not quite as many as there are from 05-relying on vintage alone is a recipe for disaster.
Me too, but that’s largely an assessment of age, in the same way that if you look at a person walking down the street you’re much more likely to guess their age than their name!