A little confused. 2003 Burgundies

[TheEngineer]

I am a bit confused about the quality of the 2003 Burgundies. As I was in France most of August 2003, I can attest to the horrid heat conditions there. I know from Bucko's trips and may other posts everywhere that the 2003 Rhone etc, vintage is really poor and to be avoided. However, I've been told that the 2003 vintage is poor and to be avoid as well as that it is the nicest vintage in several decades. BBR's rates the vintage at a solid 9.

I've just purchased a BUNCH of 2002 burgundies and before I put a BUNCH more in the inevitable more expensive 2003's I would like to hear your comments and experiences.

Many thanks in advance.

[wineguruchgo]

I found this from Berry Bros & Rudd from London and they are generally on the mark.

Yes, it was incredibly hot, which produced a very small, concentrated yeild. The thing that will be lacking in many is acidity.

Here is the article:

Rating: 9/10 - keep

2003 will be remembered in Burgundy for its ferocious summer heatwave. In August there were 15 consecutive days of temperatures in excess of 40 degrees centigrade causing sugar levels to soar and the Ban de Vendages being declared on the the 18th August, the earliest ever date.

The biggest challenge facing vignerons was the low acidity. Some growers did not acidify at all. Others put in a minimal dose to prevent microbial spoilage in their weakest cuvées while horror stories abound suggesting that some may have tipped in vast quantities of tartaric acid on the advice of their oenologists.

Most growers slightly reduced the length of time in vat and almost all cut down on treading - pigeage - so as not to extract harsh tannins. It became clear that the 2003s could support a higher percentage than usual of new oak.

The producers we have bought from have made spectacular wines, but, with yields greatly reduced by the atypical conditions, quantities of the top wines are even more scarce than usual.

[wondersofwine]

Jancis Robinson's take on a "rum" vintage:
http://www.jancisrobinson.com/winenews/winenews050129

[sharon001]

Interesting. It also seems somewhat paradoxical, because at the end they note that there was a lot to contend with and the good vintners got away with it.

I tend to operate more on the idea that 2003 was good for "little" wines and less spectacular for higher range ones. And for whites, blech!

2003's are also going to evolve faster and age less well.

For me, between 2002 and 2003, the choice is clear...

[TheEngineer]

Thanks much for the information! I will try a few and perhaps continue to purchase 2002's where they make sense.