The (Many) Vintages of the Century
Wine people clamor about a "Vintage of the Century" in certain wine regions all the time. In others, almost never. Does anyone else find that rather curious?
This first appeared in The New Wine Review (now owned by Unicorn Auctions).
“There are years that ask questions and years that answer,” Zora Neale Hurston famously once wrote. If Hurston had been a middling wine writer, she’d likely have added: “…and years that are Vintage of the Century.”
If you pay attention to this sort of thing, we’re getting word from Napa Valley, via both media and industry, that 2023 is the “vintage of a lifetime.” No less an authority than Karen MacNeil, author of The Wine Bible, recently took to YouTube to announce, “I have no doubt that 2023 will go down as one of the most phenomenal vintages ever in Napa Valley.” Napa Vintners reports that winemakers are raving about 2023’s “freshness, purity and elegance” following what’s reported as the “longest Napa Valley growing season in a decade.”
Forgive me if this feels like déjà vu all over again. Just three years ago in Vinous, Antonio Galloni raved about Napa’s “two stunning back-to-back vintages in 2018 and 2019, the likes of which I have never seen.” Consulting your trusty Wine Spectator vintage chart, we can see that Napa Valley’s 2018 vintage was rated 99 points and 2019 was rated 97 points, this followed 2016 being rated 98 points. At the turn of the 20th century, Wine Spectator declared 1997 as the “vintage of the century,” also rated 99 points on its chart. So, with all things being equal, if 2023 is indeed the “vintage of a lifetime”—and if scores and vintage charts matter—we might reasonably assume that Wine Spectator will have to bestow a perfect 100 points on the year, right? Hell, why not 101?
Vintages of the Century in Bordeaux, Again and Again
Meanwhile, during just the first decade of the 21st century, Robert Parker declared three Vintages of the Century in Bordeaux, starting with 2005 (“the perfect vintage” he wrote). That was followed by 2009, which most other critics proclaimed to be Vintage of the Century. Then the very next year, 2010, was also a Vintage of the Century. Then, depending on who you spoke with and when, 2016 might also have been a Vintage of the Century. Also, allegedly, 2018, 2019, and 2020.
With Bordeaux, apparently, the only real yardstick is whether it’s a Vintage of the Century or not. Vinous’ headline for its report on the poor 2013 Bordeaux vintage: “Definitely Not the Vintage of the Century.” Académie du Vin Library had this to say about 2022 Bordeaux: “I’m not saying it’s another ‘vintage of the century,’ but it was an extraordinary year all the same.”
Back in 1982, the New York Times’ wine critic Terry Robards wrote:
“oenophiles on this side of the Atlantic have grown accustomed to the French phenomenon known as the Vintage of the Century. . . The French, who are not only intrepid wine makers but good businessmen as well, have recognized the commercial value of declaring such a vintage from time to time.”
This is Robards’s set-up to calling bullshit on Bordeaux’s 1959 vintage (“not as great as the ‘61s”), which had previously been given Vintage of the Century status. Of course, not long after Robards wrote this column, 1982 itself was declared Vintage of the Century, by Robert Parker.
I wish I loved anything as much as people in the wine industry love to toss superlatives at grape harvests, years before anyone will actually drink the wine. And I wonder, as the world of wine undergoes a generational shift, whether the hyper-focus on “best” vintages is helpful at all. Rating vintages too often becomes reductive shorthand, and risks alienating potential wine lovers with another form of gatekeeping and exclusivity in wine that consumers, over and over, say they dislike.
Certainly, some of this is just good fun. Who doesn’t love arguing over who or what is best: Michael Jordan, LeBron James, or Kobe Bryant? French, Italian, or Japanese food? Prada versus Gucci? Black Sabbath or Led Zeppelin? High-end collectors surely love disputing whether 1996 or 1997 Barolo was Vintage of the 20th Century. Or whether 2005, 2010, or 2016 Châteauneuf-du-Pape is Vintage of the 21st Century. (Lucky you, if you can afford the bottles that merit these particular debates).
“Bad” Vintages, But For Whom?
Let me be clear. I believe in vintage variation. I’m not a vintage denier. Of course, different weather and conditions in different years produce different results. But there’s too much emphasis on declaring good and bad vintages, and too much of the wine business—from producer to importer to merchant—revolves around this sort of prognostication.
Kara Daly, in her newsletter Wine Is Confusing, recently published a two-part series that expressed skepticism on vintage talk (“A Case for Buying Bad Vintages”). Daly argues that a focus on declaring vintages “good” and “bad” flattens the dialogue about wine, and isn’t particularly engaging for most consumers. In her piece, Oregon winemaker Brianne Day of Day Wines sums it up nicely: “Our job is not just to take perfect fruit and make good wine out of it. That’s a pretty low bar. Our job is to make good wine every vintage, and vintage variation is one of the cool things about wine.” I appreciate this approach, because it looks at wine as an object of culture, always with the potential of producing something interesting or noteworthy, regardless of subjective evaluations of simply what’s good or bad.
The problem with declaring “good” and “bad” vintages should always beg the question: Good or bad for whom? From a grower’s perspective, a bad vintage might be one in which they lose a significant portion of their fruit to frost or drought. But that same vintage, because of its low, concentrated yields (not to mention its scarcity) might become a darling of critics and sommeliers.
Then there are subjective matters of taste. Many among the veteran generation of critics, who still set our wine agenda, still favor hedonistic wines from warmer, riper vintages. Are those always the “best” vintages? I tend to love cooler, subtler vintages, ones that certain wine people would call “underripe.” Neither side’s preference is an indication of what’s “best.” But, as Robards pointed out in 1982, Vintages of the Century are good for business. In a world of good and bad vintages—with many years of aging required before we truly know the quality—an entire ecosystem of explainers, interpreters, diviners, and hype men has evolved. It’s hard to even imagine a wine world without all this hot air.
Where There’s Never A Vintage of the Century
Meanwhile, such Vintage of Century rhetoric is never applied evenly. When have you heard the wine world talk of a Vintage of the Century in the Loire Valley? They certainly have vintages in the Loire. Some are better than others. Those of us focused on the region know about its string of good vintages from 2015 to 2018. There is some chatter about whether 2015 or 2018 is “exceptional” or “legendary,” but no one was beating their chests about either being a Vintage of the Century.
In fact, there’s often been a critical bias against Loire, a subtle dismissal from big-time critics. In Wine Spectator’s trusty vintage chart, no Loire cabernet franc or sauvignon blanc vintage from the past 20 years has ever been rated higher than 92. How is that possible? Meanwhile, in Bordeaux, 11 vintages from 2002 to 2022 are rated 93 points or higher. These are the ways in which gatekeepers maintain a hierarchy in wine.
With prestige regions, where the investment of collectors is on the line, it’s uncanny how often a Vintage of the Century comes along—and so often at just the right moment. Take Brunello di Montalcino. Brunello became a darling of collectors in the late 1990s and early 2000s. (There had been debate over whether 1997 or 1999 was a Vintage of the Century.) But by the early 2010s, Brunello was not in a good place. First, there was the Brunellopoli scandal of 2008, in which some Brunello producers secretly—and illegally—added grapes other than Sangiovese to increase production.
Then came a few middling vintages. I remember arriving at the grand tasting in Montalcino for the release of the 2014 Brunellos. Early grumbling had already labeled 2014 as “challenging,” which is the wine world’s euphemism for “shitty.” We were to taste all day, through dozens of wines, at our own pace. I arrived at the event about an hour after the doors opened and sat down. Before I had even taken a sip, or written a note, an American wine writer I knew waved, came over and, by way of greeting, said, “Ah, I can’t believe you came all the way over here to taste the 2014s. They’re shit.” Apparently, he’d already tasted more than 100 wines in the previous hour, and already rendered his judgment. I don’t know what he did with the rest of his work day.
So, after that “challenging” Brunello vintage of 2014, what happened next? Well, it’s the darnedest thing, but 2015 was a Vintage of the Century! And so was 2016! Just ask sources like James Suckling, K&L Wine Merchants, and the Wine Spectator, which rated Brunello di Montacino’s 2015 vintage as 97 and 2016 as 99.
I’m not saying that 2015 or 2016 aren’t fine vintages. We’ll have to wait and see as people start opening and drinking those Brunellos over the next few years. More broadly on this point, I stand with famed Nahe winemaker Helmut Dönnhoff. When speaking with Vinous about Germany’s excellent 2009 vintage, Dönnhoff pleaded: “Please, let’s not talk about a vintage of the century. I am tired of superlatives. Why does everyone want to put the cart before the horse? We’ll only know in a few years how these wines have developed.”
Because the biggest issue with overheated Vintage of the Century talk is how often it turns out to be wrong. Yes, some of this is the fun of predicting and debating. But the great mystery and beauty of wine is we never really know how it will age. It’s curious how rarely you see wine media revisit vintages they’ve declared as good or bad. In the rare instances when you do see older vintages revisited in print, it’s usually for the critics to give themselves a self-congratulatory pat on the back for their predictions.
Once several years have passed, the people who bought “Vintage of the Century” wines, and stashed them away in their cellars, are pretty much on their own. Long after the initial excitement dies down, you often only hear about vintage quality through gossip or on online forums. Did the 2005 Burgundy vintage really live up to its hype? Was 2019 in the Wachau really as good as 1999 or 2009? Is the 2003 Napa vintage really as bad as they said?
But by the time those who bought the bottles start asking these questions, the Vintage of the Century folk have washed their hands of them. They’ve moved on to the next Vintage of the Century.
This article first appeared in The New Wine Review.
Good article and insight about the hype and malarkey regarding the every ubiquitous "Vintage of the Century." Vintage variation is a definitely a thing, but its the sales people in "those" regions that are always harping on this is the best vintage of the decade, century, etc.
I am with you and Helmut Donnhoff on this one, Jason. Cheers!