What is/ Is There the Vintage of the Century

Following French Bordeaux, the 5 top growths from the 70's, (untile the90's) there has been many discussions on what was the best vintage year in the 20th century.

I've been told by many it was 1961 ( Perhaps why I purchased a case of Lafite, Latour, Mouton , Margaux.... But they are LONG gone by now

Some say 1934, 1945, 1955 , 1959, 1966

For those adoring the French Bordeaux, what do you believe to be the vintage of the century.

[David M. Bueker]

For those adoring the French Bordeaux, what do you believe to be the vintage of the century.

Whatever vintage the chateaus have for sale now is the vintage of the century.

david - please stop humoring this guy.

For those adoring the French Bordeaux, what do you believe to be the vintage of the century.

Whatever vintage the chateaus have for sale now is the vintage of the century.

Yes, "vintage of the century" is a sales gimmick. There are however exceptional vintages in which most estates achieved really fine results but I wouldn't put 34, 55 and 66 amongst them. These were merely quite good in general with just a few châteaux having exceptional results. Dipping into the wisdom of the old timers, I would say that exceptional vintages in the 20th century were 1900, 1928, 1929, 1945, 1947, 1949, 1953, 1959, 1961, 1982, 1989 and 1990.

BTW, what is non-French Bordeaux ?

Ron,

I cannot help but think that hunting for a "bordeaux year of the century" might have something akin to seeking the "world's most perfect tulip". As many tulips approach perfection, so have a great many Bordeaux vintages been remarkably good. 1900, 1928, 1929, 1945, 1947, 1949, 1961, 1982, 1989, 1990 and 2000 were superb years and saying that one was "better" than another has a certain amount of hubris involved, and hubris, as we know, is to be avoided.

I do, by the way, fully agree with David that now that we have entered the 21st century, there is far too great a tendency to label years as "great". Sheesh, we're only 10 years into the century and we already have had three "vintages of the century". If the hype continues, lord only knows that by the time we enter the 22nd century we may have had 60 or more candiates for"best vintage of the 21st century".

Best
Rogov

Ron,

I do, by the way, fully agree with David that now that we have entered the 21st century, there is far too great a tendency to label years as "great". Sheesh, we're only 10 years into the century and we already have had three "vintages of the century". If the hype continue lord only knows that by the time we enter the 22nd century we may have had 60 or more candiates for"best vintage of the 21st century".

Best
Rogov

By all reports 2010 is going to prove to be a fourth .

2011

Nah....years ending in 11 never prove very fruitful.

Nah....years ending in 11 never prove very fruitful.

Nah, nah......1811 L'Année de la Comète http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_com%C3%A8te_de_1811 was exceptional.

There were reports of Ch. Lafite 1811 drinking beautifully in its 115th year.

1911 was a great year for Burgundy, German wine and Champagne.

Reference: Michael Broadbent.

[David M. Bueker]

Let's also not forget that 2000 was the last vintage of the 20th century, not the first vintage of the 21st century.

Given the improvements in grape growing and winemaking, not to mention the effects of global warming on the weather in most important wine regions, I think the phrase "vintage of the century" is now completely irrelevant, and indeed counterproductive. Putting the issues of egregious pricing aside for a moment, delicious wines are now tarred with the phrase "off vintage" when 20 or 30 years ago they would have been considered a dream.

Wonderful wines from years such as 2001, 2002, 2004, 2006 & 2007 go begging as people buy multiple cases of 2000, 2005, 2009, etc. This issue is not exclusive to Bordeaux.

I wonder what people drink while they are waiting for their huge collecitons of massive, vintage of the last couple of years wines to come around...

Wonderful wines from years such as 2001, 2002, 2004, 2006 & 2007 go begging as people buy multiple cases of 2000, 2005, 2009, etc. This issue is not exclusive to Bordeaux.

These vintages (with the possible exception of 2007) are probably giving wines at least as good a those of "good" but not "century" vintages of the past, like 1962, 1964 (right bank), 1966, 1970 and 1978 naming only the 60s and 70s. And there seem to be no longer any truly "bad" vintages like 1963, 1965, 1968, 1974, 1977 from the same decades.

I wonder what people drink while they are waiting for their huge collecitons of massive, vintage of the last couple of years wines to come around...

I suspect that many of these bottles are being drunk far too young. Perhaps it is naive to hope that the people doing this, having discovered that they actually don't like the wines the way they are drinking them, will cut back on their purchases.

Nah, nah......1811 L'Année de la Comète http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_com%C3%A8te_de_1811 was exceptional.
There were reports of Ch. Lafite 1811 drinking beautifully in its 115th year. 1911 was a great year for Burgundy, German wine and Champagne.

Tim, Thou beist correct. Me thanks thee.

Best
Rogov

Let's also not forget that 2000 was the last vintage of the 20th century, not the first vintage of the 21st century.

This depends on whether you believe mathematicians or historians. Although hoity toity mathematicians who like to correct the hoi polloi regularly assert that since the first year of the calendar is one, the second millenium ends with 2000, they are in fact wrong. The common era calendar, developed by Dennis the Runt (Dionysius Exiguus for those who don't like to find out what names mean), named the year 1 as one year after the birth of the Joshua guy. Consequently, the year 2000 completed 2000 years after his birth. Although people who like to correct other people sometimes argue that Dennis did this because he got the year wrong, it would make the calendar mark the birthdays in the same manner in which we mark our own in which we attain 1 after 1 year alive, completing your first century, should you live so long, at age 100, etc., etc. So, all you mathematical elitists, 2000 was actually the first vintage of the 21st century after all.

[David M. Bueker]

Although hoity toity mathematicians who like to correct the hoi polloi

Just doing our job to protect the world from uppity liberal arts types who think they know how to count.

We enjoyed many '64 St Emilions and '65 Burgundies in our yout. We found the saving grace of the disasterous '03 vintage to be the Macon-Villages. They were as Emeril would say, kicked up a notch. They were perfect for us, and we drank a barrel of them. Really love a big Chard with no mal and no wood!

IMO, the "vintage of the century" is an absurdity, albeit a useful sales tool.
Much like vintage charts.

Beautiful bottles are made every year.
And they are enjoyed in any year.
Each in its place; each in its time; each individual experience on its own and without comparison, lest all such experiences be lessened.

Best, Jim

Jim, Hi....

We are in large agreement about the value of vintage charts, those being generalizations at best and many wines showing either higher or lower than the rating of their vintage year.

I wonder though about judging "each individual experience on its own and without comparison", for the most natural of all human acts is comparison. It may even be that this particular act is what makes us so human, for no matter what we evaluate we do it as a comparison. This man is taller than that; this automobile if more functional than that; this person is more or less physically atractive than that; and even to the very basics that the value of this number is greater or smaller than that.

True ...too much stress on comparison can deprive us of the pleasure of the moment but where is the ability to evaluate without at least being able to make the basic comparison?

Best
Rogov

True ...too much stress on comparison can deprive us of the pleasure of the moment but where is the ability to evaluate without at least being able to make the basic comparison?

Daniel,
Long time, my friend . . .

My thoughts are these; wine is alive, as are we. Both of us change over time as do the situations where we taste.
Vintages are not "good" or "bad"; bottles may be depending on the shifts mentioned.
The calculus of comparison is skewed with each change until we have gone down the rabbit hole.
So we try to simplify - this is better than that - or worse. But context is everything.

You have a large basis of experience with tasting wine. But I think you (out of occupational neccessity) tend to put too much emphasis on comparison.

I have been drinking fine wine for about 40 years. I too have traveled the better than/worse than road. I played with comparison until I found it a burden on the pleasure of the moment.
Perhaps, I would not enjoy wine so much in the absence of my experience. But I would enjoy it much less if I tried to rank my experiences and the wines that caused them, in some kind of vacuum.
Each bottle is unique to the time you open it; as are you to the mood, the environment, the food, etc.

I have my "oh my" moments with wine.
And I can be critical of wines I taste.
But I try not to lose sight of the fact that such experiences are singular. The tasters who depend on every bottle to render the same experience each time it is opened are setting them selves up for disappointment.

Vintage of the century? Good grief; I don't even have a vintage of the day.
Best, Jim

I agree with almost everything that has been written in response.
It's easy to understand that the pure wine lovers do not pay all that much attention to wine ratings and years. There are so many other things that are important.

Each bottle is unique to the time you open it; as are you to the mood, the environment, the food, etc.

I've felt that way so many times over the years. I can remember having some great Cabernet's one month and later on the following month, the same wine did not hold the same
pleasures for me.

However, in the retail world, so many wine consultants have to address customer questions and concerns. The number of people that walk in the store, and want to see Wine ZYZ from
Vintage ABC and have a Wine Magazine rating of 95 will not settle for anything less. I probably spend more time with customers like this. For the most part, when I finished discussing the pros/cons for all of this, those same customers will trust my judgement and purchase another one. But there are still many who wont budge.

{PS: One of my major reasons for posting this topic to start with, were statements made to me in 1970 from 1 NYC sommelier and 1 well established wine maker from France that 1961 was suppose to be IT. Based on their input, I purchase a case of 1961 from all the first growth Bordeaux. - None of those wines have disappointed me or my friends)

Ron,

What did a case of each '61 First Growth cost in 1970?

However, in the retail world, so many wine consultants have to address customer questions and concerns. The number of people that walk in the store, and want to see Wine ZYZ from
Vintage ABC and have a Wine Magazine rating of 95 will not settle for anything less. I probably spend more time with customers like this. For the most part, when I finished discussing the pros/cons for all of this, those same customers will trust my judgement and purchase another one. But there are still many who wont budge.

As I say, a fine tool for sales.
"Puffing" is, I believe, the legal definition.
Fortunes have been built on less.
Best, Jim

Tom,

All the 5 cases ranged from $300 to $350 a case.

But I think you (out of occupational neccessity) tend to put too much emphasis on comparison...I would enjoy it much less if I tried to rank my experiences and the wines that caused them, in some kind of vacuum.

I don't want to go down too much of a semantic road here but "comparison" does not necessarily have anything to do with ranking. Comparison looks at the similarities and differences across items. So it seems perfectly fine to note that a particular bottle shows richer, more tannic, more lively, duller, whatever, than a bottle of the same wine from the previous day/week/month.

In fact, making those comparisons and noting all the rich differences seems to be exactly what you are doing with your focus on singularity.

[David M. Bueker]

Just because someone does not assign a score to something, that doesn't mean they are not ranking the experience - consciously or unconsciously.

Jim - your note on the Cedric Bouchard La Parcelle clearly indicated a point-less (not pointless by any means) ranking of the experience.