New vintage ranking 1981-2010

Post Reply
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

New vintage ranking 1981-2010

Post by Comte Flaneur »

For Bordeaux with a largish implicit weighting for the left bank given output volumes. This is the pecking order:

2010, 2005, 1989, 1982, 1985, 1990, 2009, 2000, 1996, 1995, 1986, 2001, 2008, 2004, 1998, 2006, 2002, 1983, 1988, 1999, 2007, 1981, 2003, 1994, 1997, 1993, 1987, 1991, 1984, 1992

According to the Comte Flaneur classification.
User avatar
dstgolf
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: New vintage ranking 1981-2010

Post by dstgolf »

Much agreement but there will always be minor disagreements based on personal preferences. Personally too soon to comment on 2010 but I think 2005 is the real deal. 1985 ahead of 1990 has not been my experience and I'd flip these. For myself I have enjoyed every 2003 I've had in my cellar to date and still going to enjoy many more. For me this has been an under rated vintage. I would also flip 2001 with 1998 and maybe even 98 moved higher if we only look at right bank.Wouldn't have 85 ahead of 82 nor 90 behind 85. 2009 could move up into the top three but verdict is still out.

My list would look like:

2005,2010,1982,1989,1990,2009,2000,1985,1996,1995,1986,2003,2001,2008,2004,2006,2002,1983,1988,1999,2007,1981,1994,1997,1993,1987,1991,1984,1992.

My opinion and I'll stick with it! ;)
Danny
User avatar
Roel
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:24 pm
Location: Waalwijk, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: New vintage ranking 1981-2010

Post by Roel »

Cool....
2010,1982,2005,1989,1990,2009,2000,1996,1995,1986,2003,2001,2008,1985,2004,2006,2002,1983,1988,1999,2007,1981,1994,1997,1993,1987,1991,1984,1992.
I truely believe 2010 is the ultimate.
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: New vintage ranking 1981-2010

Post by stefan »

I don't rate vintages after 2000. Of the others, my ranking is:

1982, 1990, 1989, 1995 (because the right bank is so much better than it was in '96), 1996, 1986, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1998, 1999, 1993, 1994, 1981, 1997, 1987, 1992, 1991,1984.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: New vintage ranking 1981-2010

Post by JimHow »

Okay so I'm talking about the left bank.
1998 is unusual because if you were talking about 1998R, it would rank much higher.

2010
1982
1989
2005
2000
1986
2002
1996
1988
1985
1990
2006
2009
1995
2003
1983
2001
2004
2008
1998
2007
1994
1993
1997
1999
1991
1987
1984
1992
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: New vintage ranking 1981-2010

Post by DavidG »

I'm curious how many wines from each vintage were drunk to come to these conclusions. My rankings would look pretty different. But with only 10-20 wines some years, even fewer other years, and different ones in different years, my experience is hardly generalizable. I suspect you have a broader experience.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: New vintage ranking 1981-2010

Post by JimHow »

I might move 1999 up a notch or two on my list because of the excellence of the Margaux appellation that year.
User avatar
Rudi Finkler
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: Saarland, Germany
Contact:

Re: New vintage ranking 1981-2010

Post by Rudi Finkler »

Interesting lists, guys, but after decades as passionate Bordeaux lover, I'm unable to draw up such a ranking list. With enormous pleasure I enjoyed wines from all vintages of the last decades. Each vintage has its own personality, its own character, and its own advantages and disadvantages. Some vintages should be consumed within 10 or 15 years, others after 10 or 15 years... I remember memorable bottles from all vintages, astonishingly even from1994. So I could only make a list of the most memorable bottles...
User avatar
Jeff Leve
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: New vintage ranking 1981-2010

Post by Jeff Leve »

2009, 2005, 2010, 2000, 1996, 1990, 1982, 1989, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2001, 2004, 1985, 1998, 1995, 1986, 1988, 1983, 2002, 1999 & 1994. The remaining years are for me not worth thinking about today, most of those wines were not that interesting on release and the years have not been kind, I imagine...

Part of my thoughts are based on the entire spectrum of wines from a vintage. For example, 1989 has a few great wines, but numerous properties did not excel. A similar problem comes up with 2003. Some wines are off the charts, they are so good. But there are numerous failures as well. Still, the best of those wines are for me compelling.
Last edited by Jeff Leve on Thu Nov 27, 2014 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
greatbxfreak
Posts: 909
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:09 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Re: New vintage ranking 1981-2010

Post by greatbxfreak »

My take is:

2010, 2005, 2009, 2000, 1982, 1990, 1989, 1996, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 1985, 1998, 1986, 1988, 1983, 2002, 1999 & 1994.

1996 was only successful on Left Bank.
User avatar
dstgolf
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: New vintage ranking 1981-2010

Post by dstgolf »

GBF,

Was 1995 left off your list by mistake or is there a reason that it's not ranked?
Danny
User avatar
greatbxfreak
Posts: 909
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:09 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Re: New vintage ranking 1981-2010

Post by greatbxfreak »

dstgolf,

Mistake.

1995 is placed after 2008.
User avatar
robertgoulet
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 12:22 pm
Contact:

Re: New vintage ranking 1981-2010

Post by robertgoulet »

I would most definitely put '04 b4 '08 without question
User avatar
Winona Chief
Posts: 806
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:11 pm
Contact:

Re: New vintage ranking 1981-2010

Post by Winona Chief »

Not enough experience with vintages after 2001 to have reached any firm conclusions. I have liked the few samples of 2002s, 2003s, 2006s and especially 2005s and 2009s that I have tried. Don't think I have tasted any 2010s yet. I do like like 1998 a lot more than some of you - all that great Pomerol, St. Emilion and Graves. Here's my take:

1982
1989
2000
1996
1990
1986
1998
1985
1995
2001
1983
1988
1999
1981
1994
1993
Didn't buy any of these last five so hard to have much of opinion:
1991
1997
1987
1984
1992

Chris Bublitz
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: New vintage ranking 1981-2010

Post by DavidG »

Chris' ranking is identical to mine at this stage of the game. Of course, this is based on my limited personal exposure. I haven't drunk 100 or probably even 50 different wines from any of these vintages. I can see where someone might argue that 1982 shouldn't be ranked first because there were only a limited number of wines that were really that good compared to more recent years. But boy, if you only drank the top performers from 1982, you'd be pretty darn impressed. Unfortunately, I can't afford the top performers in the younger vintages like I could in 1982. Which explains the source of my biased perspective.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 19 guests