Just to show how different palates can vary, Charles Rousseau, an amateur (in the French sense) of older Burgundy, rates 1949, ** above, as the greatest single vintage of the 20th century.
Jermey - What is it about 1999 that you like over 2005?
Can you can add 2002 to that mix, too, Berry/“Jermey”…
95 and 96, both very serious and excellent vintages that aren’t yet ready, in such very different ways.
90 -91. 90 for its plush fruit and rich flavor, 91 for its elegance and complex nose.
Great question Alan,
Reds 90/91 - it seems to me that 90 is the most ‘dissed’ yet I hardly have a bad experience these days (note: please send me your de Vogüé Musigny for research…)
Whites 07/08 - Older and you are too often left dealing with a whiff of Jerez. Alround 08 is fabulous with it’s slightly tropical fruit balancing super acidity - a real sweet-sour vintage. And 07 - the greatest ‘top wines’ I ever tasted - stricter, but incredibly intense…
Ist Place > 61-62
2nd Place > 01-02
3rd Place > 05-06
TTT
Those two sure wouldn’t come to mind…at least to my mind. They both have roughly equal potential, but also equal question marks about whether both…or either…will turn out to be really good. In some ways, '95 concerns me more. Either way, they are minimum-20 year vintages, so…they have time to show if they belong as candidates for this thread.
Interesting thought, though…
Going back to 90 the vintages not included in a pairing above are 92, 93 (unlucky to sit here), 94, 97, 00, 03 (other than me), 04, 07. Not a bad run considering there are great wines from these supposedly lesser vintages. 93 and 03 aside, I would rate these from worst to best 94, 92, 97, 04, 07, 00. Cheers Mike
Berry,
The things I admire the most in red Burgundy are perfume, lacy texture, balance and finesse and 1999 has these attributes in spades. 2005 is a very good vintage but is larger scaled and some of the wines do push the border of ripeness. The tannins are also big in this vintage and will require a lot of time to soften.
I think that 1999 is the perfect red Burgundy vintage from Bourgogne up to Grand Cru. I’ve drunk/tasted hundreds of 99’s since release and have never found the wines dilute or lacking in any sense from so called too high yielding fruit. The wines had such great perfume and finesse from release and have only really just started shutting down some 10-12 years after bottling. I think when they re-emerge folks will see just how brilliant this vintage is.
Best Regards
Jeremy
Thank you. I’d be curious to hear what modern vintage you think is closest to 1999.
I hope you’re right, Jeremy, as that was my impression when it was in barrel…for the most part. But, I try to taste from what I think are the “top” estates…and nature’s very high yields had to be dealt with effectively. One red winemaker told me that he blew it, as did a white wine producer. And, I know that more wine was bottled and sold in various AOC’s than the law allowed, in '99 (I think I was allowed to buy some!) in both colors. (And, the PLC allowed them to add 20% legally to the yields in hectolitres!!)
I can’t imagine that the less careful producers did any better in their production. And, I have to think the yields in whites somehow made the whites more susceptible to the prem-ox plague…
So…I suspect there will be a good number of disappointments from 1999, though there will be lots of triumphs, too…Again, it might take some specific criteria to even discuss the merits as a whole vintage. For me, '99 has always been about what’s left on the finish, as they’ve always been well-perfumed and full of finesse (as opposed to being overripe/big/dominated by tannins, I guess?)…For that criterion, I prefer 2002 and 2005 in red, though I bought similarly in all three.
Like you, I’ve rarely had a “bad” wine, even from the producer who said he blew it with his yields…and told me to be careful. I thought his wines were fine, if for nearer term enjoyment than I’d want, though my friends traveling with me were leery…and avoided the wines after listening to the guy.
We’ll see…
that Bourgogne this week did make me pause…as it was none too concentrated…and that wine usually is really good…
Jeremy, what wines in 05 do you think were pushing the border on ripeness? Do you find 99 to be very dark fruited and in many cases lacking the tension 05 has. Lets hope there is no lack of concentration in 99, yields were high so I expect dilution at the mid-lower end, compared to 05 anyway.
I totally agree, perhaps also because I own more in the Cote de Beaune in this vintage than the Nuits, and this was a really great vintage in the cote de Beaune. These arguments are always hard to settle because the vintages involved are often in a “phase” and hard to assess real time. I suspect over time, people will be extremely pleased with 1999.
Oh, please let me choose 1962/64 ! 
(1963 being no “vintage” at all) 
Seriously: I´d take 1990/91 (red) … and after that 1978/79 … and in 10+ years 1995/96.
With 1971/72 the latter is coming too much into age, with only a handful of wines really still singing. (and while I love 1985 I almost hate 1986).
Count me in as another lover of 99. Not saying that I think it will ultimately be better than 2005, but I have never understood the ranking of 2005 as being clearly superior to 1999.
Mike,
If I look back on my notes on many 05’s there is a lot of references to liqueur cherry, blackberries and ripe blood plum fruit characters. A bottle of 2005 Jean-Claude Boisset Nuits-St-Georges ‘Charbonnieres’ ( a wine we imported) a couple of nights ago showed very ripe fruit flavours, almost Southern Rhone like.
Berry,
There hasn’t been a vintage since 99 that truly resembles 99.
Best Regards
Jeremy
Alan,
Yes, for whites, it has to be 85/86, two of the greats. Although I do really like 92/93 but not quite at the same level. 99/00 might be up there if not for premox.
For reds right now, I’d go 99/00, but maybe just because the 00s have been such a pleasant surprise. I’d like to say ultimately they might not be great, but don’t want to underestimate them a second time. 01/02 would be in the conversation, but I’ve never been sold on the 02s as good as they are. Ultimately may be 05/06. Haven’t had many 09s, so can’t comment on 08/09 although I do like the 08s. Would not say 90/91 although in the discussion. Going back, as Steve points out, 78/79 and 71/72 are good, but would go with more recent vintages over those given the broader number of producers who more consistently made good wine from top to bottom. And historically maybe 28/29, not that I’ve had many of those.
Cheers,
-Robert
Very good question, and it is telling that we got a whole range of different answers…
I was tempted to say 85-86, then swapped to 01-02… but I think it has to be 2005-2006. The quality across the board for red wines in 2005 does not need to be discussed of course, but I really liked the 2006s in the Cotes de Nuits and quite a few further south as well, fleshy, friendly, yet freshly balanced and not shut down yet - It is a lovely drinking vintage, yet with good aging potential.
I would say that 2005 and 2006 have probably the best one-two punch. Best thing of all? We can drink the 2006s while waiting for the 2005s to come around.
At the top end, '05 and '06 (but '99 is still my fave vintage).
I like the '99 and '00 and '01 and '02 pairs generally as discussed above. The '90 and '91 pair also has it’s merits. '08 and '09 might also prove to be interesting…
Whites maybe '81 and '82, and '00 and '01, and also with a reasonable number of wines '04 and '05. We will have to see about '07 and '08…