WTN: Thankful for "poor" vintages

[Jenise]

Or maybe not "poor", but for the most part not one that the pointy people are seeking out here in Washington:

2019 Sleight of Hand Cabernet Sauvignon The Illusionist Reserve Columbia Valley
Off the menu at a local restaurant for $62, which is pretty much regular retail so a great value. '19 isn't a heralded vintage of the type that usually pass for same up here (ripe, big crops), especially on the heels of '16, '17 and '18, but that's exactly why this worked so well for our European palates. Modestly rich dark fruits mixed seamlessly with earth, spice, and cocoa, with on-point acidity and tannins for a pop-and-pour situation--a serious wine you don't have to wait for.

[David M. Bueker]

It’s so nice that status seekers avoid good vintages because they aren’t “great” vintages. A truly “off” vintage is such a rarity these days.

Admittedly it’s not great for the wineries.

Or maybe not "poor", but for the most part not one that the pointy people are seeking out here

I prefer to think of myself as an oenocontrarian. I choose those vintages disliked by the points people because they're cooler and produce wines lower in ABV and higher in acidity. I think that's probably true of a lot of the folks here. Also, as I grow older I am less interested in wines that take 20+ years to come around (not that many of those are made today anyway), so years like 2015 in N Europe don't appeal to me as much because the wines are just too structured for near-term drinking.

[Jenise]

Couldn't agree with you more, Mark.

This reminds me that I have some 2011 Burgs I need to try.

I often like the word useful instead of poor.

[David M. Bueker]

I often like the word useful instead of poor.

To me those are two different levels. Thinking about Burgundy, 2000 was/is a useful vintage. 2004 is poor (or even bad). For Germany, 2000 was a poor vintage (very few actual highlights), while 2008 is useful.

For a poor Burgundy vintage it's hard to beat 1983. Rot was rampant. To make matters worse, producers who thought they had done a strict and careful sorting of the grapes discovered that rot had been lurking unseen at the base of the grape stems. This only became apparent after fermentation, during the aging before bottling.

-Paul W.

I often like the word useful instead of poor.

To me those are two different levels. Thinking about Burgundy, 2000 was/is a useful vintage. 2004 is poor (or even bad). For Germany, 2000 was a poor vintage (very few actual highlights), while 2008 is useful.

I agree poor is different from useful. But I was saying my useful is similar to what Jenise references in OP ( and what Mark references in latter part of his post). 1991 and 1992 Bordeaux were poor, 1997 was useful (if careful). 2000 Burgundy is a great example (though some are still drinking great!).

1983 is a famously difficult vintage, but I've had some good ones, especially from the Cote de Beaune (couple Cortons and the Drouhin CdMouches ), which wasn't as hit as hard as the Cote de Nuits (especially NSG).

I often like the word useful instead of poor.

To me those are two different levels. Thinking about Burgundy, 2000 was/is a useful vintage. 2004 is poor (or even bad). For Germany, 2000 was a poor vintage (very few actual highlights), while 2008 is useful.

I will differ with you on the characterization of '04 in Burgundy as poor. Certainly some wines displayed the notorious "green meanies" but I recall with great pleasure several '04s from Chevillon especially.

[David M. Bueker]

I often like the word useful instead of poor.

To me those are two different levels. Thinking about Burgundy, 2000 was/is a useful vintage. 2004 is poor (or even bad). For Germany, 2000 was a poor vintage (very few actual highlights), while 2008 is useful.

I will differ with you on the characterization of '04 in Burgundy as poor. Certainly some wines displayed the notorious "green meanies" but I recall with great pleasure several '04s from Chevillon especially.

Oh gosh. I dumped virtually every 2004 Chevillon I opened. They were the greenest of the green to me.

I often like the word useful instead of poor.

To me those are two different levels. Thinking about Burgundy, 2000 was/is a useful vintage. 2004 is poor (or even bad). For Germany, 2000 was a poor vintage (very few actual highlights), while 2008 is useful.

I will differ with you on the characterization of '04 in Burgundy as poor. Certainly some wines displayed the notorious "green meanies" but I recall with great pleasure several '04s from Chevillon especially.

Oh gosh. I dumped virtually every 2004 Chevillon I opened. They were the greenest of the green to me.

It's entirely possible that you have a sensitivity to certain "green" elements that I don't have. That might also account for your noted aversion to SB.

[David M. Bueker]

Nope. SB is just evil.

[Jenise]

What Mark said!

[David M. Bueker]

Forgiving my evil humor, the green in 2004 (and some 2011) Burgundy is nothing like the green character in some Sauvignon Blanc.

And I like Loire Cab Franc, as well as Sociando-Mallet, a Bordeaux with notorious green elements.