The Chambolle thread got me thinking.
Both red and white.
CdB and CdN
1ers and GCs
The Chambolle thread got me thinking.
Both red and white.
CdB and CdN
1ers and GCs
Trying out some village Chambolle and Vosne clustered around 2010 this weekend, so I am hoping these are starting to be in the zone.
90s excluding 99 (even 96s are starting to open).
00/01/02 are in a good place.
09-10 are not shut down and need a lot of air but are still a fraction of what they will be.
99 & 05: not this decade.
Younger than 2010: not for now (though I’ve liked the 2017s young).
For young vintages: ‘19 - yes. ‘18 - probably still open. ‘17 - starting to close?
Bourgogne Rouge - I probably wouldn’t drink ‘15 and ‘16 yet, but any other vintage is fair game. But I like these on the young side.
Village - more variation here but I would certainly consider just about anything other than 2010 and ‘12-‘16. A 2009 Bertheau Chambolle was in a lovely place this year.
1ers - even more variation here, I’d probably hold off on 2005 as well as 2010 and ‘12-‘16. I’ve had nicely open 2009 Bachelet, Fourrier and Lafarge (Aigrots) recently for example. Definitely lots of long term development potential in most of these but they are also starting to be (very!) enjoyable now. From less structured producers even 2010/12/13/14 could be enjoyable now. CT is very helpful here.
GCs - more of a mixed bag and harder to predict for sure. Certainly worth trying anything before 2009 other than 1999 or 2005. 2002 GCs are like 2009 1ers - starting to open and still on the fruity side of the development curve.
I haven’t really tried mine, but aren’t the 2010s drinking young? Cellartracker is full of descriptions of 2010s already drinking well, being “surprisingly advanced”, and so forth. Was thinking about starting a threat to ask about this, but this is as good as any.
1996s are finally ready and showing well pretty consistently. '99 and '02 are more case-by-case but many, like '96, are not only showing well but also showing a mature profile, which is good.
I’ve really loved 02s for several years now.
In younger vintages, 09s are surprisingly open–and delicious!–but still nowhere near apogee. I opened an '09 Chevillon LSG on Saturday night that was open and absolutely gorgeous and silky, but it’s still in the juicy phase and holding lots of fireworks in reserve.
I definitely agree that 96s are showing consistently - that is also the problem.
02, 07 and 11 (if you have confidence they’re not green, of course) for me, personally. I also think 09s and 10s are open, but I think there’s a lot more upside there (especially in 10s, obviously) so no need to drink now.
I don’t know what you mean by that. If you can’t find anything to like in the vintage, you bought the wrong wines. It’s been clear for a long time that the year made many superb wines as well as many that had problems. But we’ve had a quarter century now to taste them, follow them, and sort them out. If you haven’t sold off your bad ones and “bought the dip” on the great ones, you played it wrong! And the latter are now paying off.
Well, without getting into some kind of blame game about my buying and selling strategy for 96s (since I was in high school at the time), I have found them very consistent. Unfortunately, I’ve found them consistently bad - the fruit is long gone and the acidity is very shrill.
There are, of course, always outliers*, but that’s moot and not the point of the thread. It’s like arguing that 03 or 04 can’t be called a bad vintage because two producers made good wines.
If you’re having good success with 96s, that’s great for you. But “you bought the wrong wines!” isn’t, in my opinion, a great response to “this isn’t a good vintage”.
*For all the claims of outliers, I genuinely can’t recall having a good 96 recently. I’ve been told that Jadot and Bize made good wines - one 96 Bize I had was corked, the other was off. The 96 Jadots I’ve had have been….ok, I guess, but markedly worse than the 97 next to it (no one’s idea of a good vintage). In the past year and a half I’ve had d’angerville, dujac, Roumier, Rousseau, Pousse d’or and others. I’m just not that interested in seeking out more given the returns.
I’ve had pretty good success with 96 in recent times. They’ve taken forever to come around, and you have to be pretty acid and structure tolerant.
01 and 02 are in great shape, some 99’s, although some others not there yet. Many 09 Village and Premier crus are beginning to open nicely.
I’m wondering about thoughts on 07 and 08’s. Many folks drank their 07’s early because they were accessible, although not necessarily mature. I held off on many just because I prefer “mature”. 08 seems to be sort of a “black sheep” vintage that doesn’t get talked about as much. I bought a fair amount (thinking it may be somewhat like 2001), but haven’t tried much.
What’s the consensus on 2006?
06 (really ornery vintage) is just starting, in part, to be accessible. For me, 00/01/02 and 2009s are the place to enjoy. I have even had a few good 99s recently but I agree, maybe wait. 07s are all gone (easy guilty pleasure), and 2005s are for my children (not for me).
2010s are ready to drink for some good lesser wines. Most of the better wines from 2010 I have had are too young. I would put 2012 and 2014 in the same place.
Anything younger than 2014 is too young except for Bourgogne and other lesser wines.
Many, many 2000s, 2001s and 2002s are ready to drink and are quite good. So are some 2007s - 2007 Volnays are particularly good. I have had some 2008s that are surprisingly drinkable, although some are too young.
A lot of older vintages like 1978, 1985, 1988, 1990, 1993 and well made others are fully mature and drinking wonderfully.
But, if you want a wine right now to win a blind tasting, serve a 1999. Will they improve further. Most likely. But, it is such a great vintage and a lot of wines are drinking so well that you will not be sorry to open most bottles.
2006-2008 are all pretty interesting, and for different reasons.
My experience with 2006 is mostly positive, maybe extremely positive. It seems to have a bad rep, mostly because of an evilly long quiet phase combined with a fair amount of structure. And yet now that they are awakening they have been consistently pretty darn good. I’m happy I have a bunch and plan to drink them over the next decade or so. My favorites in the last year have been Mugnier Marechale and Dujac Combottes. No slouches for sure but emblematic of a healthy vintage in my experience. A vintage I’m still happy to be buying when I can find anything remotely like decent prices.
2007 is another oddball. I started collecting a bit after this vintage appeared and disappeared. Most seem to agree that it drank well young and so it got drunk. But the few I’ve had in the last couple of years have been very good (Barthod, Lafarge 1ers), aging but not too quickly. A weird and wonderful vintage that drank well young, is drinking well now, and appears to have enough depth it keep aging gracefully. I’d love to buy more if any existed.
2008 I have the least experience with, and have mostly avoided buying because of a reputation for inconsistency. I’d love to read some detailed reports of 2008 tastings. My guess is there are a lot of really good wines but it seems like people are hiding them away in hopes of high acid structure resolving.
There is no definitive answer to this, as is always the case its the combo of vintage, vineyard and producer but here are some broad brush strokes.
2019 - too few samples for me so far to advise, but I would drink another Jadot Ursules tomorrow if you offered it to me.
2018 - again too few data points
2017 - Quite yummy, although primary. Good restaurant vintage.
2016 - hold
2015 - hold, hold
2014 - hold
2013 - hold
2012 - some drink quite well, although young
2011 - not a strong vintage. Lighter and leaner, some drinking okay.
2010 - Love these wines, hold if you can
2009 - Village wines starting to emerge, hold Premiers and Grand Crus.
2008 - Love the transparency of the wines. Again Village wines your best bet.
2007 - A restaurant vintage but not up to 2017. Drink now.
2006 - Variable. Some drinking well others blocky.
2005 - Big style, Village wines and Cote de Beaune your best bet.
2004 - Poor vintage, good choice if you like spikey acidity and methoxypyrazine.
2003 - Atypical, but some drinking well.
2002 - Drinking well
2001 - Most ready, some need time
2000 - drank well early doors and still open and fleshy.
1999 - the great one. Did shut down, but many have re-emerged. Hold those Grand Crus.
Depends on what you’ve got in the cellar, it turns out
For me, I’m drinking most of the 90s vintages; most of my remaining bottles from the decade are 93, 95, 96, or 99. As others have said, 99s are kind of hit or miss as to whether or not they are drinking well. And some bottles that I expected to be closed (some Rugiens, for ex) – are lovely and open. And some bottles that I expect to be open, are closed.
Also freely opening 00, 01, 02.
Currently drinking Maurice Ecard Savigny Peuilllets 02. A bit darker fruit than I am used to Ecard showing, but we’re not talking Cote Rotie here or anything. Showing maturish, but might improve with another 2-3 years. . .but I had a bottle last year that was on the downslope. Even at 20 years, bottle variation is the rule rather than the exception.
If I didn’t have wines older than 05, I’d be trying 2006–2010, or 2017 or 2018. Although a 2015 Lumpp showed very very well with quite a bit of air late last year, and I suspect many other 2015s would as well.
Thanks for the update on 2006s. I tasted a good number of these from the barrel when I went there in 2007 and thought they were a very well balanced vintage in the order of say 2001. I have been surprised that they have not be showing better and so have been holding them. I was really happy to read your positive notes.
Lafarge’s premier crus from 2007 go beyond very good. The couple I have had have been quite excellent.
We did a 10 year update on the 2008 vintage in 2018 and I was surprised at how drinkable they were then. When I had 2008s at the Paulee grand tasting a couple of years or so after harvest, they were very variable. It wasn’t varying levels of acidity that made the difference back then, it was varying levels of fruit. The less successful ones had sort of a hole in the middle without fruit. The wines I had in 2018 did not have that fault. Don’t know if these never did or if the fruit came out later.
I know I should hold these grand crus, but do I have to? The ones I have tasted this year have been really yummy.