It's time for a confession. I caught myself in a mistake recently and am ready for the tongue-lashing to begin. When asked if wines from France in the 2002 vintage were a good value, I mistakenly replied it was the year of the terrible heat wave that swept Europe where thousands perished. That year was actually 2003.
When I had a moment to verify through my notes and vintage charts, I quickly discovered the error and advised the inquisitive friend. While the 2002 vintage in France was relatively mediocre it was certainly better than 2003 in a very broad assessment. And, the Cote de Nuits reds and Burgundian whites of 2002 fared better in the ratings against other neighboring regions for that year.
Well, what is the lesson when asked about a good year or a bad year for a vintage?
First, anyone can and will make a mistake. The world of wine is expanding, literally and figuratively, at an incredible rate. Staying current on all the defined regions, all the producers, their varietals, and the year-over-year vintage results is no small feat. So, check your notes and avoid a hasty oversight. Note to self...
But, there is also another lesson underlying a yea or nay vote for the vintage in question. That lesson is that reliable producers will deliver their best regardless of the vintage, either as a first label or, in difficult years, as a second or declassified label.
And, therein lies value. Because of misperception or misunderstanding, an entire vintage can get an unearned poor evaluation. Wines of that vintage fall off in demand and so too will the prices as inventories stagnate, either in a warehouse, on the retailer's shelves or in a restaurant cellar. If you know your region or your producer well, you can find good dollar-for-dollar value in wine selections from a less than perfect vintage.
Salute!
-Steve
