Netscape Forum Poll: Importance of vintage in wine buying?

[Robin Garr]

The 1989 vintage was hot and ripe in much of Europe, rainy and disappointing in Napa. The floods of 2002 wiped out Chateauneuf-du-Pape and dampened Europe, but it was a fine year in Napa. When you buy wine, how much weight do you give to vintage? Stop by and express your opinion in our CompuServe/Netscape forum poll:

<b>Click here to vote!</b>

I voted secondary

It's good not to be too prescriptive (e.g. I'm not a fan of 03 in Europe, but saw some halves of 03 Ch. Suduirat at a fair price, so bought a couple).

It's also never as clear cut as the vintage charts would have you believe (both in the actual 'quality' and the lack of uniformity within sometimes large regions).

However vintages do very much influence the wines, in some cases dramatically. Sometimes the secondary market seems to get a little carried away though, and (thanks in no small part to RMP), some vintages I don't rate highly are sought after by others, driving their price up. That's fine by me.

As an example of caution, tasted side by side, I preferred a 1980 Lynch-Bages to a 1982 Lynch-Bages. Undoubtedly the 1982 will last longer, but on that evening, at that point in the wines' evolution, the 1980 was preferable to me. The price difference between the 1980 and 1982 would be very significant.

In summary a useful consideration.

I voted Primary.

In red wines especially, but also for the whites realtive to "shelf life."


Since I do not possess the pocketbook many of you folks have relative to wine buying, I am often sifting through the wine section looking for way low priced bargains. That is, under $10 bucks.

In reds, I generally stick to three or four varieties [Cab, Merlot, Zin and Syrah mostly] and am looking for a vintage at least 4-5 years old. In whites, however, I'm considering the general rule of the thumb of no older than two years before consuming since I generally buy a couple varieties [sauvignon/fume blanc or pinot grigio]. Many store cut the prices on whites that are a little long in the tooth so the first thing I check is the vintage date. Make sense?

I voted Primary, but its really on a case by case basis. If I’m familiar with the winery and its previous issues, I’ll buy on name and reputation. But if I’m buying something new (which I do all the time)..I’ll rely on vintage

Richard

Nicely done Robin, this is a great poll! It is an extremely important consideration and soul-searching question (whether you meant it to be or not.) Much importance is given to vintage. It often makes sense because (for the most part?) wine is still an agricultural product and you can't really cheat Mother Nature (for the most part...). I suppose that there are two reasons to buy wine in an 'off' vintage. They are polarizing concepts and probably don't both appeal to the same consumer all of the time.
One would be that technology has in some circles in many parts of the world almost eliminated the bad vintage. Reverse osmosis, spinning cones, partial drip irrigation (and really irrigation in general), pesticides and many other forms of manipulation (or quality control depending on how you see it) have provided a consistent product that would be unthinkable in times past.
Two would be either trust in or loyalty to a particular producer or region. Trust because there are many places on the planet where terroir (uh-oh) and experience somewhat trump vintage. My best acquaintances are Burgundy, the Teutonic wine-growing regions of the world, and the Loire (but most certainly the rule can be applied elsewhere.) In these places there will always be a few people who rise above the masses to produce outstanding wine in an otherwise uncooperative vintage.
Loyalty because sometimes it isn't about the quality of the wine. One of the best examples I can site is Domaine Tempier in Bandol. Certainly one of the top producers of the AOC (although I prefer Pibarnon myself.) The 2002 was light-bodied, diluted, under-ripe and rather 'Beaujolais-Bandol', certainly not characteristic of the region. The 2003 was just as bizarre, but in the opposite column, with overly aggressive tannins, blowzy, exaggerated, napalm infused grape juice. BUT, even though I don't particularly LIKE Bandol, I buy a bottle of Tempier every year because it was my first introduction to Provence and I love to see the variation that takes place year in and out. I find great joy in wine sometimes not for the achievement of a great vintage, but because when I drink a particular bottle, from a particular producer in a particular vintage, I can understand why it tastes like it does.

Uh, secondary I guess.