Good and Bad vintages

I was wondering if maybe you all could help me. I am trying to figure out good and bad vintages for some US wines and French Bordeauxs. I am looking for the good and bad vintages for CA Cabernet Sauvignons, CA Merlot, CA Zinfandel, CA-WA-OR Pinot Noirs, and French Bordeauxs (right and left bankers). I am having a hard time finding info on it. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

http://www.thewinedoctor.com/tastingsfo ... eaux.shtml

Here are some links to vintageguides:

http://www.erobertparker.com/info/vintagechart1.asp

http://decanter.co.uk/vintageguides/

http://www.wine-journal.com/bordeaux_vintage_guide.html

I was wondering if maybe you all could help me. I am trying to figure out good and bad vintages for some US wines and French Bordeauxs. I am looking for the good and bad vintages for CA Cabernet Sauvignons, CA Merlot, CA Zinfandel, CA-WA-OR Pinot Noirs, and French Bordeauxs (right and left bankers). I am having a hard time finding info on it. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Maria,
Its probably been said here a hundred times but, be very skeptical of vintage charts. Different winemakers, different pieces of dirt, different people making vintage assessments; lots of variables in there; so many that most vintage charts are too general to be useful.
Personally, I don't trust 'em.
Best, Jim

[Robin Garr]

Maria, online sources are quick and easy, but for a really useful vintage guide it really helps to turn to the books. I recommend Hugh Johnson's 2007 Pocket Wine Book, a slim volume that I've been buying every year since the early 1980s. You almost need a magnifying glass to read it, but it contains many thousands of specific wines with brief descriptions and Johnson's judgment as to which vintages were good and which are ready to drink.

Here's a link to buy it from Amazon.com ... if you decide to go for it and use this exact link, we'll get about a dime commission to help pay the rent.

As for online sources, I think the London wine merchant Berry Bros & Rudd has the best, as long as you bear in mind that merchant Websites tend to put a sunny spin on the awful years since they do have to sell the stuff. That said, BB&R has a LOT of info. Start on their
France Vintage Chart to start, and note that you can also navigate from there to their World Wine Vintage Chart and Historical Vintage Chart. On each chart, a series of lines and rows offer basic 1-10 ratings for each sub-region and year; most of the scores are links, which you can click through to get a short essay on that region's weather and vintage situation for that year.

Finally, in case this hasn't already been made clear, don't depend too slavishly on vintage charts. They can be useful general guidelines, but there are always particular wines that either outperform or underperform their peers, and sometimes you can find great bargains (or wines to avoid) by looking for the exceptions.

Maria, a little advice: be very, very wary of vintage guides.

I know it's human nature to want to avoid "bad" years and select wine from the "good" years. After all, you're investing your money in the wine, and you want the "best" wine that you can get for your money. It's about making informed choices (wise bets, in other words). You want to stack the deck in your favor.

Trouble is, vintage charts are generally so general as to be relatively useless. First, a vintage chart is someone (sometimes a group) giving you their opinion on what constitutes a "good" vintage. Often that someone or someones is not necessarily all that informed in the first place. So be wary of where your vintage chart comes from.

If the vintage chart says "Bordeaux--90 points", that's a pretty easy tip off right there that the source isn't worth a damn. Bordeaux reds or Bordeaux whites or Bordeaux sweeties? If reds, do they mean the Left Bank or the Right Bank (Haut-Medoc or Libournais)? Big difference, usually. And does it mean that if it was a good year in Bordeaux the Entre-Deux-Mers is something you should buy in bulk, or generally avoid.

Another example: if you hearken back to the 1998 California vintage, early on the Cabernet Sauvignon/Merlot got a bad rap because it was a cold growing season and some of the gurus dissed it (most noticeably Laube in the Wine Spectator). Got very, very hard to sell any 1998 CA Cabernets. Yet, there were plenty of CA Cabernets from 1998 that were perfectly sound, perfectly good, and some that were quite excellent, albeit within a certain style. But someone relying on a vintage chart would be tempted to say "Oh, I should avoid the 1998 CA Cabernet and just buy the 1990." Thus, possibly, depriving yourself of some wines that you might like quite a bit. Or maybe not. Point is, you won't know unless you try some of them.

Yes, there are a few vintages that are so universally dismal that almost everyone avoids them like the plague (thank god that's usually reflected in the price, but not always). But even in the much maligned 2003 Heat Wave Vintage, there were splendid little wines available, especially for short term consumption.

This is a long winded way of saying you should always be skeptical of someone trying to sum up a vintage in a single score or number rating. Much better to get a general sense of what the year did, then sample some wines to see if you like what that is, then make your purchases. Also always good to develop a continuity with certain producers, and rely on them year in and year out...especially the ones that don't get all trendy and go off on tangents, but have developed a consistent approach to their wine making.

Maria,

The golden rule of wine appreciation is that there no good vintages, only good wines i.e. there are great wines made in years often criticized and many middling to poor wines made in much-vaunted years.
In my humble opinion, people who print vintage charts should be pistol whipped.

Best regards,
Alex R.

This is all well and good, but if I were you I'd avoid most 2000 California Cabs. Yes, some people made good wine from the vintage, but it was a tough year. You didn't ask, but Italy in 2002 was brutal. Lot of wine got declassified that year. Bordeaux--hell, I don't know. It's worth remembering that 2003 was really, really hot. That was the year when older Parisiens dropped dead from the heat.

THank you all so much for all the information! I really appreciate the links to the charts, books, and also your knowledge and opinions about not always putting a lot of stock in the vintage.

I will definitely take everyone's advice to heart. I do realize that most vintage charts are so general and can not tell me if the wine I am going to buy is good or not, but I guess I am just looking for some sort of starting point, considering I am such a novice and haven't tried a lot of different wines. But I also have been reading people's TNs and they are so very helpful and also trying wines regardless of their vintage (right now I am going by price, since I don't want to break the bank yet ).

But thank you all again for sharing your wisdom. I really appreciate it!

[Jenise]

One more thing, Maria, after reading through everyone's cautions (which I wholeheartedly agree with): to the extent you decide to rely somewhat on those charts, remember that just because Parker deemed 00, 03 and 05, for instance, "great" years for Bordeaux, that doesn't mean the other years are "bad", or that other critics (and wine lovers) exactly agree. Sometimes greatness has to do with how long the best wines are expected to live--that may not translate to such a wine being better on your table tonight than a wine from a so-called lesser vintage. Sometimes, the latter shows much better.

.... remember that just because Parker deemed 00, 03 and 05, for instance, "great" years for Bordeaux, that doesn't mean the other years are "bad", or that other critics (and wine lovers) exactly agree.

Also remembering that when Parker tasted the 05 vintage (or every vintage?) the wine was and still is in the barrel. And that he probably got to taste the best barrels at that. What happens to the wine when it gets into the bottle sometime this year or the next is a moot point.

Maria, I think one of best ideas, and you have been given this on your introductory thread, is to find a trustworthy retailer. He/she can be local or even online.

To bring this point home, I walked into a very small wine & cheese shop in Portsmouth, NH yesterday. I greeted the guy behind the counter with courtesy, and began looking around. He, who turned out to be the prop, asked if he could help. I told him I was just looking. I found an '05 Petite Sirah made from a solid producer, and suggested to him that it could melt your teeth if you opened it right away. He grinned. Most of the stuff in the store was rather high end in my book; priced between $40 and $60. I finally picked up an Argentine Malbec and brought it the counter. He gave a very nice, obviously not inflated, straight foreward recommendation on it. I paid for it and found out the he was indeed the prop, and made a mental note to get back there again soon.

Wine merchants who are forthcoming and honest about their stock are worth their weight in gold.

Speaking in general about vintages:

It's far less of an issue in California than in France. In general, weather tends to be less of an issue with the California wine regions--you don't get the spectacular variations in quality that you do with the famous French wine regions such as Bordeaux or (especially) Burgundy. California may never reach quite the heights of the best French regions in their best years, but neither does it sink to the depths of the same regions in their worst years. At least, that's my experience. I have wines that I adore and buy from both.

I echo the sentiment that in fact there are no great/bad vintages, only great/bad wines from particular years. There are rare vintages on both sides of the spectrum, where just about everyone in a region did well, or almost nobody could make anything decent. Most vintages lie somewhere between. You'll find a harvest where late-season hail ruined the crop for everybody--except for a lucky few vineyards where the hail didn't fall. Or almost everyone got rot--except for the few who detected it early and sprayed their vines. Or the vintners who decided they didn't like the weather prediction and harvested early--and thus avoided the drenching rain and subsequent rot that plagued everyone else. Or they gritted their teeth and decided not to panic-harvest early in the face of rains--and after a few days of sprinkles and another week of sunshine, they harvested perfectly ripe fruit, while everyone else's wines were green and nasty.

It's next to useless to go by a numerical vintage rating. You need to look at the tasting notes for that particular producer in that particular vintage. There are just too damn many variables in the equation.

-Paul W.

I watch vintage charts, but I'm looking for something a little different than some people. I'm a contrarian, and I'm looking for deep value in the wine I drink. What I do is watch the vintage charts, look for mediocre to poor vintages, and watch for bargains on wine from the top producers in bad vintages. People who are points-chasers shy away from everything in a poor or even mediocre vintage, so sales of those wines are poor. The wine is still good - the platitude about good winemakers making good wine in poor years is certainly true. The wine still has to be gotten rid of, because there's always more coming, so the bargains really start rolling out about a year after release. Of course I try before I commit to a lot of anything, but I certainly drink better for far less money by chasing other's castoffs.

Most recently I've heard secondhand that Parker has given the Rhone in '05 a mediocre score. I love Rhone wine, and I'll be looking for bargains in another year or two. I love Rayas for example, and although that almost never goes on sale, the availability varies. I look forward to seeing a good amount of '05 Rayas on the shelves, not being snapped up instantly.

Dave

Dave,

Yours is a very intelligent way to buy wine.
Not only do you pay less, but oftentimes wine in so-called "lesser" vintages comes around sooner, which is a bonus.

Admittedly, there is an element of risk. But being a connoisseur is about experimenting and finding out for yourself.
And when you come across that gem (let's say a wine like 1997 Ch. Poujeaux, Moulis, Cru Bourgeois), you are pleased as punch to share this with friends.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Well, it's a rather time- and energy-consuming way to buy wine, and I've tasted my share of bad bottles because of it, but I have more time right now than money, and I really enjoy the thrill of the chase! And yes, I do really enjoy times like last fall when I served a truly beautiful southern Rhone to my friends, and only later revealed that it was an '02 ...

Dave

[Jenise]

People who are points-chasers shy away from everything in a poor or even mediocre vintage, so sales of those wines are poor. The wine is still good - the platitude about good winemakers making good wine in poor years is certainly true.

Dave, I might put it even more harshly, that the points chasers only buy in what American critics (who prefer more ripeness than European critics) deem the "best" vintages. Their idea of a merely good vintage is my idea of great. But I get your point and what's more, I agree with your tactics. I'm right behind ya, buddy.

Critics tend to like warmer vintages. I prefer less ripeness, more acidity, fresher flavors, no jamminess, so my 'good vintages' are quite different from theirs.

It's sort of like cuts of meat. I prefer chicken legs to chicken breast, braising cuts to filet mignon. The bonus is that the less popular things often cost less.

[Jenise]

I prefer less ripeness, more acidity, fresher flavors, no jamminess, so my 'good vintages' are quite different from theirs.

Obviously, ditto. It's one of the hardest things to convince followers of certain critics of (in particular Spectator followers), that the definition of 'good vintage' isn't universal.

I watch vintage charts, but I'm looking for something a little different than some people. I'm a contrarian, and I'm looking for deep value in the wine I drink. What I do is watch the vintage charts, look for mediocre to poor vintages, and watch for bargains on wine from the top producers in bad vintages.

There is a winemaker in Burgundy who I visited. Ask him which of his vintages he's most proud of, and he cites several of the poorer ones for the whole region. Why? He says, in the top vintages, any fool can make excellent wine. But to make good, or sometimes even just passable, wine in a poor vintage takes real skill as a winemaker.

In every mediocre vintage, there are those who, either by great skill or great luck, manage to overachieve and to produce good or even great wine. These efforts tend to be tarred with the general brush, and therefore available at prices lower than wine of that quality would normally deserve. These are always great treasures and delights, when you can find them.

-Paul W.

Critics tend to like warmer vintages. I prefer less ripeness, more acidity, fresher flavors, no jamminess, so my 'good vintages' are quite different from theirs.

Yes, me too. I've joked with people that I have a '89-point palette.' I prefer wines that are well-made of course, but I like wines that don't have the overripe, overextracted, over-oaked qualities that are required to get past that 90-point mark. I'm looking for acidity, elegance, precision and great aromatics. Those qualities tend to be lacking in the fruit-bomb style.

Even more than that, I don't think think it's even interesting to try to rank one vintage over another. Yes, vintages are different from each other, and the differences are interesting. But, if one vintage makes a less ripe, greener wine, I might want to serve it with, say, steak with a green peppercorn sauce. The same wine in a riper year might also be more concentrated, and I might want to serve it with barbeque. Is one better than another? Not really to me. I want to find the winemakers who always (or usually) do it right for my taste. And of course, I'm always looking for those bargains!

Dave

[Jenise]

Critics tend to like warmer vintages. I prefer less ripeness, more acidity, fresher flavors, no jamminess, so my 'good vintages' are quite different from theirs.

Yes, me too. I've joked with people that I have a '89-point palette.' I prefer wines that are well-made of course, but I like wines that don't have the overripe, overextracted, over-oaked qualities that are required to get past that 90-point mark. I'm looking for acidity, elegance, precision and great aromatics. Those qualities tend to be lacking in the fruit-bomb style.

Even more than that, I don't think think it's even interesting to try to rank one vintage over another. Yes, vintages are different from each other, and the differences are interesting. But, if one vintage makes a less ripe, greener wine, I might want to serve it with, say, steak with a green peppercorn sauce. The same wine in a riper year might also be more concentrated, and I might want to serve it with barbeque. Is one better than another? Not really to me. I want to find the winemakers who always (or usually) do it right for my taste. And of course, I'm always looking for those bargains!

Dave

Dave, same here. I say that Parker's 88-93's are my 95-100's. Which is why I'm happily stocking up on 01's.

And great point about the vintage differences. A French winemaker once slapped me down after I made a vintage generality of the kind reading Spectator teaches you, saying that "my wines are like children, and all my children are beautiful. Some bloom early, some bloom late, and some are better than the others at certain things, but they will all show well if you are wise enough to watch them closely." She then opened a bottle from a so-called "bad" vintage (this was in Burgundy) that was positively ethereal. Lesson learned, and permanently so: I have thanked her in my heart over and over again since that day.

A French winemaker once slapped me down after I made a vintage generality of the kind reading Spectator teaches you, saying that "my wines are like children, and all my children are beautiful. Some bloom early, some bloom late, and some are better than the others at certain things, but they will all show well if you are wise enough to watch them closely." She then opened a bottle from a so-called "bad" vintage (this was in Burgundy) that was positively ethereal. Lesson learned, and permanently so: I have thanked her in my heart over and over again since that day.

Excellent, Jenise! A very eloquent way to put it.

Dave

I prefer less ripeness, more acidity, fresher flavors, no jamminess, so my 'good vintages' are quite different from theirs.

Obviously, ditto. It's one of the hardest things to convince followers of certain critics of (in particular Spectator followers), that the definition of 'good vintage' isn't universal.

I'm in this boat, too. But I do like a jammy wine sometimes, so when I get that itch a stroll down the Zin aisle will scratch it. I usually shop by price and try to stay on top of what my favorite region(s) is(are) doing. I also like beef shanks over veal shanks. You get more flavor for $13/lb. less.