What (and why) is your favorite sequential pair of red Burg vintages?

WINE TALK
1

I was thinking about 85/86 being my favorite sequential white Burg vintages and wondered about red Burg vintages over the last few decades.
I come up with a couple options–one being 99 and 00–99 for its high quality and 00 for its current drinkability, 00 not being legendary but always outshining expectations.
98/99 may be a better consecutive pair since 98 may outshine 00, while 99 is for me truly great.
78/79 are a nice couple, but the latter is becoming a bit tired and I have little of either at this point (not that that latter point changes their quality).
90/91 represents a real quality pair with some 91s better than their 90 counterparts, yet 91 doesn’t get the love it should.
09/10 may qualify but it’s too early to say.
Thoughts?

alan

2

98-99 may be my winner. I don’t think people really understand how good 99 really is. 01-02 could be another, although I don’t think 02 is as good as 99. 08-09 will be an interesting one to watch.

3

My experience only goes back to 96 in any quantity.

I would say 01-02. I love the style of 01 for long term drinking and every 02 that I’ve had from good producers has been delicious. I’m hopeful that they’ll age gracefully (like 85?).

I’ve enjoyed a number of 00s over the past few years but I don’t think it’s up to the quality of 02.

4

2003-04. [stirthepothal.gif]

5

I really like 98-99 but would opt for 05-06 if you allow me to limit my '06s to Nuits through Vougeot.

6

What about 08/09? Did a tasting of 08s last Friday and they were, with one exception that was horribly reductive, very good.

Of the vintages I’ve had, I’d pick 90/91 though I like 91 better than 90.

7

I am thinking 08/09 but have not tasted enough 09’s to be certain. 01/02 good, or even 02/03 for me, 05/06 also - the 05’s making up for 06. Cheers Mike

8

…but seriously.

With limited experience pre-99, I have to say 2001-02. 2002 I’ve liked since release, and many are drinking well now. They are not as serious and classic as 2001, but quite fun and tasty. Didn’t love the 2001s on release, but have grown fonder of them with time as I’ve grown to appreciate differences in underlying terroir, which seem to be more readily apparent than in '02. Many of these are drinking well now, too. This is an example of two good vintages that provide quite a bit of pleasure (albeit in different form) simultaneously, for a while at least.

2004-05 is currently a close second and may surpass the '01-02 pair. Apparently having a quirky palate that doesn’t mind some GMs, I’ve found most '04s to be quite enjoyable since release. But, I am not sure they will do well in the long run as some are drying out and who knows what they’ll be on the other side. I have a lot of faith in '05 but have let all but a few sleep. So, if 2004 can maintain its “charm” while the '05s emerge, this could be a very nice complementary pair for me.

If 2009s are as good as the press (and our Berserkers who made the recent pilgramage) suggest, then 2008-09 could top them all, in a similar fashion to 2001-02.

9

03-04 as I can always pick both vintages in blind tastings [wow.gif] …

but seriously

08/09 looks like it may thanks the mantle, with the proviso that I haven’t seen many 09s. Really like what i see in 08s.

10

Hard to argue with 85/86 for whites. Small sample size, but for reds, perhaps 61/62 or 71/72 (the 72 Vogue’s turned out beautifully, with Drouhin, DRC, Rousseau being quite good). Larger sample size perhaps 01/02 or 90/91? Haven’t had enough 09 to reach any conclusions about 08/09.

11

I think I like Kevin Harvey’s pair, 05-06. But too many of my 06’s are not Nuits through Vougeot. But still probably my choice.

I also really like 98-99, except I bought too sparingly in 98.

I really love 01, so 01-02 is a contender, but I need 02’s to develop another dimension, and I think they can but not sure at this early stage.

For Romanee-Conti, I’ll take '44-'45 if you are offering them.

12

05/06 followed by 90/91 . I share your feeling about the greatness of 1999 . But maybe more great wines were made in 06 than in 98 or 2000 .
But of course , we should not forget 1864 and 1865 .

A truly exceptional little book about all the millesimes in Burgundy comes from Jacky Rigaux : Millésimes en Bourgogne 1846-2006 . Jacky Rigaux really writes for the great Henri jayer , it is Jayerwho comments on all the years . ( you can buy this at L’athenée in Beaune ). Jayer gives 5 ratings: exceptional ( 3 stars ) , great ( 2 stars ) , good year ( * ) , average year and poor year .No distinction between white and red unless mentioned . Some surprises…

*** : 1911 ( red ) , 1915 , 1920 ( red ) ,1923 , 1929 , 1947 , 1959 , 1961 , 1969 , 1978 , 1990 , 1992 ( white ), 2000 ( white ), 2002 and 2005 . ( I am surprised about 2002 )

** : 1911 ( white ) , 1920 ( white ) , 1921 , 1926 , 1928 , 1933 , 1934 , 1935 , 1937 , 1945 , 1949 ( white ), 1949 , 1962 , 1964 , 1966 , 1971 , 1985 , 1988 , 1989 , 1991 , 1993 , 1995 , 1996 , 1999 ( red ) , 2000 , 2001 ( red ), 2003 , 2006

Jayer rates 1986 as average ( année moyenne ) especially in red . ( great surprises in white ). A lot of rot in the vineyard because of the september rains .

13

Dang, I completely forgot about 1864 and 1865.

14

Yes , they tend to be overlooked here …

My favorite white duo would be 1991 & 1992

15

In my limited experience: 2001/2002 or 2005/2006 with caveats

16

2005-2006 and mainly b/c 2005. I have never seen a better vintage across the board than 2005. Had many great 2006.

17

Whilst I haven’t tried all that many from either vintage but I love what I have from 71/72.

From more recent red vintages I’d go for 98/99. 98’s have really come on and are pure and delicious and 99’s are indeed the best red Burgs of all time.

18

I’m in for 90,91. [cheers.gif]
08,09 may prove to be better,but obviously waaay too early to tell.

19

For me, '90 and '91.

Though, with a taste last night of a Patrice Rion 2001 Vosne 1er cru “Les Suchots” VV, 2001-2002 could give that pair a run, as I’ve not been wowed by too many '91s.

I’m a little skeptical of '99 (though I think it’s way too early to tell; had one the other night that I thought might have been overcropped), but nothing great precedes or follows it, so…on this thread, it doesn’t count.

I stopped really paying attention after the 2006s, so…

Interesting, as there certainly haven’t been too many “great” pairs…ie, where both vintages were great…Though I love '86 whites, I’ve not been blown away by many '85s…a little clunky for my taste, but certainly good.

20

So many good point in what Jeremy says. 71-72 is an awfully good choice. My problem with 98/99 is that I don’t know whether to pick it or 99/2000. 99 is such a great vintage and both 98 and 2000 complement it so well because they can be drunk NOW while one waits for the 1999s to mature.

How about the string of 98-2002. Five good to excellent vintages in a row. Has this happened before? [69-73?] And, it may be getting beaten by 2005-2010 - 6 good vintages in a row. We are really being blessed right now. Never before have there been so many good producers and so many good vintages in Burgundy. Mediocre vintages are the exceptions now rather than the rule.

Still, with all this, other than 71-72, I might have to go with 2001-2002 as my top pair. Neither is as great as 1999 or 2005, but both are pretty solid or better and they are very different in styles.