Of the many diverse pleasures which wine-drinking affords, one of the most singular is the extent to which it permits us, quite literally and actually, to recapture and relive the past. For what we are fasting, when we open a fine old bottle, is simply the warmth of one particular, memorable summer, the fragrance of one special autumn, unlike all others.
This is one of the reasons why a wine which carries a vintage is basically more interesting than one which does not, even if it is no better or less good, as is occasionally the case. There is something agreeable, even if a little nostalgic, about being able to say, to one's friends, “this is the wine they made the summer we were in Paris,” or “tonight we will drink the wine they made the year our son was born.”
For reasons such as these, and others less valid and more commercial, vintage charts have become very much the vogue—one of the indispensable accessories of the well-dressed man, like cuff links and a collection of credit cards. This is perhaps to be deplored, for the best of such pocket vintage charts is really nothing more than a sort of signpost or reminder: it cannot possibly be a guide. No one could review a book or a play, or even comment adequately on a well-cooked dish or a flower show or a football game, in terms of one or two digits or stars or a couple of words. How then present in capsule form the vastly varied wines of a thousand different vineyards?
Then, too, a good many of these vintage vademecums are put out by merchants who have large stocks of certain vintages which they wish to sell, and therefore tend, despile themselves, to favor; others are prepared by people who have never tasted one-tenth, let alone one-half, of the wines they presume to rate.
What follows attempts at least to be something a little different—a pretty detailed description of the wines of each major district and each year. It is based on carefully kept notes, made at the time of tasting, covering some four thousand wines comparatively tasted every year (except for the war years) since 1935, plus a good many dégustations, made as an amateur (in both the French and the English senses) during the preceding decade. The comments are as disinterested and honest as I can make them, and although they are based inevitably on personal opinion, this is at least an informed opinion, and I have no ax to grind.
Bordeaux
1960. What the French call a “jealous” year, with wide variations in quality from one township, and indeed from one vineyard, to the next. Over publicized during the early summer of '60, when the outlook was rosy, it is turning out to be far from a great vintage—better, to be sure, than '56, '54, and '51 (which is faint praise), less good than '50 … perhaps, if we are lucky, on a par with 1958 … about 13/20. This for the reds; the drier whites are on the whole more successful (14/20) but the Sauternes and sweeter whites were touched by mold and deserve no more than 11/20.
1959. Extremely great, possibly the best since World War II, especially in the Médoc, where the red wines promise to surpass even the wonderful 1953s; less remarkable in St. Emilion and Pomerol. Already overpriced, they will become practically unprocurable as soon as they are bottled and shipped, in 1962, and those who get them will have treasures, indeed. Soon ready but superbly balanced, they should have ft long and glorious life. The whites are no less outstanding, and an 18/20 grade for both is perhaps too low.
1958. Generally underrated, a good and useful year, especially in red wines. These will be sooner ready than the '57s, in many cases quite as good, and far less expensive: for the next few years they will be the best values on the market in the way of chateau-bottled Claret, deserve 14/20. The whites, very much on the dry side, are less pleasing, race 12/20 to 14/20.
1957. Proclaimed with great trumpeting (which now seems to be the fashion in the Bordelais) as “a very great vintage.” '57 is actually nothing of the kind, but a year of hard, often harsh, deep-colored wines, high in tannin and acid, recalling the '48s, '37s, and '26s. Conceivably, a few of the best château wines may, ten years from now, prove magnificent, but this is far from certain and indeed unlikely. 15/20. The whites are less good, 13/20.
1956. Small wines, a few of them agreeable in their modest way. 11/20.
1955. A great year, and one that has surprised and delighted almost everybody. Considered “good,” or possibly “very good,” with some hesitation, at the start, it now deserves a higher grade, in the Médoc, than '52, and is better than '55 in St, Emilion and Pomerol. The '55s are now the best Clarets generally available, but they are even now becoming scarce—within a matter of months they will be hard to find, and a great deal more expensive. 17/20. The dry whites, never remarkable, are growing old; the sweeter whites were only fair to begin with. 13/20 or 14/20.
1954. There were a few light, fairly pleasing red wines; most of them are now on the decline. With malice toward none, let's say 11/20.
1953. An extremely great year, one graced (like '59 and indeed '29) with extraordinary softness, elegance, fragrance, and fruit almost from the very beginning. It would be unfair to expect such charms to last indefinitely, and only the very best Médocs are likely to improve much further. Most of the others, including all the St. Emillons and Pomerols, can advisedly be drunk in the next three to five years. For the moment, perhaps 18/20—which is too low for the best and too high for the others, The white Graves are now growing old, and so are all the other white wines except the top Sauternes—these (only the sweet ones) deserve 16/20.
1952. In St. Emilion and Pomerol, the best vintage (excepting 1947) since World War II, and perhaps even since 1928. The Médocs are sturdy but much less attractive, may outlast the '53s but will never be as good. 15/20 to 18/20, but note, however, that the lesser wines are gone. The very best whiles deserve perhaps 14/20—forget the others.
1951. Long since gone and no loss either.
1950. Very good. Fine, rather light wines which developed well and received less appreciation than they deserved … and still deserve, for that matter, when you can find them. 14/20 for the Clarets; the whiles are over the hill, 1½0 or less.
Unlike the burgundies, the great château Clarets of the first great postwar years (1945, 1947, 1949) are now at their absolute peak of quality, and some of us who drank them promptly have lived to regret our impatience. They are practically unprocurable today, and acquiring them is less a matter of money than of good fortune.
Burgundy
1960. The spring and early summer of 1960 promised great things—then came the rains. The net result is disappointing: in red wines, a huge crop but, with rare exceptions, wines deficient in color, character, and body. 12/20. The whites somewhat better, though light and certainly short-lived. 13/20.
1959. A truly incomparable year, which has been and can fairly be called the “Vintage of the Century.” In quantity, almost double the average; in quality, unsurpassed since 1900. The red wines are maturing quickly, and there is little chance of their being long-lived. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine how they could be better than they are and will be for the next five years—silky, bouqueté, beautifully balanced, full of grace and distinction and charm. In red wines, 20/20. The whiles are very different—rich, full-bodied, almost overpowering, possibly a little lacking in breed; also probably short-lived, but 18/20.
1958. Spotty and hardly more than passable in red wines, deserves about 12/20. The whites are another matter: fragrant, light, and fine, they recall the splendid 1950s, and many experts rate them ahead of the 1959s. 18/20.
1957. Big. sturdy, firm red wines, maturing slowly and almost certain to outlast the 1959s. although presently less attractive. Now about 16/20 and bound to improve. The whites less good; only the very best of them ever lost their early greenness, or will. 14/20 on the average.
1956. Poor and best forgotten. A few passable whites.
1955. A great year, Red wines which have surpassed all expectations are now. on the whole, the best red Burgundies for present drinking, or until the '59s come along. In many cases their development was arrested and their character somewhat affected, in cellar, by the intensely cold winter of 1955-56. They have outlived this handicap and, while rarely sensational, are consistently fine. 16/20. The whites, also good, were rather light and are no longer improving—14/20.
1954. Poor with almost no exceptions.
1953. An extremely great year, not far behind 1959 in quality. The reds were charmers from the beginning but, less well-balanced than the '59s, never gave promise of long life, and many of them have begun to throw sediment and give other evidences of senescence. Originally 19/20, they are down to 15/20 today, but there are a few magnificent exceptions. Drink them. The whites were never as good as the reds, and never as good as the '52s. They will gain nothing by further keeping.
1952. Sturdy red wines, a little lacking in grace and fruit, which are beginning to overtake the inure attractive '53s; they are very good, not great—14/20. The whites were the best of the past two decades, but they, too, alas, will soon be gone. 15/20.
1951. Requiescal in pace.
1950. The reds, never much good, are gone. 11/20. The whites, on the other hand, were underrated and truly remarkable. Few can still be found, but a surprising percentage of these, if properly stored, are extremely fine. Now 14/20.
NOTE: In the way of older vintages, there is precious little that can be recommended: the very best 1947s of the Côte de Beaunc are still magnificent, and from the Côte de Nuits one finds occasional bottles of 1949, 1947, and even 1945 that have withstood the passing years. The rest is history.
Champagne
A detailed vintage chart for Champagne cannot help being a little ridiculous: in five years out of ten the wine never even pretends to go to the consumer in an unblended state, and admittedly would be less good if it did; and what proportion of which vintage goes into a non-vintage Champagne is a well-kept trade secret, and not for us common people, whose only real function anyway is to drink Champagne and pay for it.
It is certainly more sensible, therefore, to reserve comment on what might be called the “buried” years—those that have disappeared into the nonvintage—and discuss only those that have been, or may be. presented as millésimes: 1960 (?), 1959, 1958 (?), 1957, 1955, 1953, 1952, and 1950. We may as well forget 1950, too. which came along when the '49s and '47s were Still famous and unsold, and which appeared only on a few rare but very good bottles from producer-growers.
1960. Will probably not carry a vintage. Passably good, light wines, most of them destined to be blended with the heavier '59s. which they will complement nicely. Alone, no better dun 13/20.
1959. Will unquestionably be shipped as a vintage although. in this case, as the French say, “la mariée élait trop belle”—it was too good a year. The grapes ripened superbly and the quantity was satisfactory, but the wines were extremely full-bodied, too high in alcohol, and they proved hard to referment into sparkling wine. Doubtless there will be some superb cuvées, bur others unquestionably will prove very heavy, lacking in sprightliness, delicacy, and charm. 15/20.
1958. Uneven, but fairly good. Some houses may ship it as a vintage but they will probably be in the minority. At least 13/20. possibly deserves more.
1957. Almost certainly will emerge as a vintage although the crop was pitifully small and the wines, so far, seem green and rather hard. Not a great year. 16/20.
1955. Extremely good, better than expected, soon to make their bow. Sound, well-balanced wines, with a good deal of finesse, more attractive in many cases than the '53s. 16/20.
1953. Highly touted and extravagantly praised, especially at the beginning, the '53s are now obviously far below the '52s in quality: very full wines, high in alcohol, they now lack distinction and grace, and these are qualities which Champagnes rarely acquire as they grow older. To be drunk, not laid away. A big year, but not an especially attractive wine. 16/20.
1952. A very great year, certainly the best of the past two decades, quite comparable to that “incomparable” year, 1928. The wines seem to have everything—great class, bouquet, a nice equilibrium of lightness and body, a charm which makes them immediately engaging, and other qualities which would seem to assure them long life. 19/20 as a minimum.
Beaujolais
Engaging, fruity, fresh, eminently drinkable, Beaujolais is a wine that improves hardly at all with age. In Paris, as in Lyon. it is consumed (as “open wine”) cheerfully and copiously as soon as it reaches the precocious age of three months, and a Beaujolais three years old is considered past its prime. We in America must perforce be a little more patient, wait at least until the wine is bottled and can stand shipment, which takes from nine months to a year. But here, too, we can almost say “the younger, the better,” though with a few reservations, since a Beaujolais of a poor year, however delicious in a French bistro, rarely travels well.
1960. An enormous crop, one of the largest in history, but mostly just vins de comptoir, light wines that will be served by the glass and never bottled. A few, carefully selected, will be at least fair and some of them even good. 12/20.
1959. A great year, though less remarkable than in Burgundy proper. There were a few failures, but most of the wines are firm, sound, of truly excellent quality—they are ready now, bur the good ones will certainly hold for another two or three years. 17/20.
1958. Rather attractive at first, these have grievously disappointed us, and they are finished. 12/20.
1957. Sturdy, very full-bodied, perhaps lacking in fruit and that velvety quality which the French call gras, but long-lived. 16/20.
Of earlier years, a few of the very best '55s are still sound. The others need not concern us.
Côtes du Rhône
1960. The Rhone Valley wines do not follow, on the whole, the same vintage pattern as the rest of France, and 1960, at least in Tavel and Châteauneuf-du-Pape, was a better year than 1959. The excellent rosés will be in bottle and ready to drink by September, and the reds are decidedly promising. 16/20.
1959. Of all the fine wine districts in Western Europe, only the province of Piedmont, in Italy, and the Rhone Valley, in France, failed to produce something outstanding in '59. Fairly good, 14/20, no more.
1958. Just passable. The red wines, much lighter than usual, are agreeable, fruity, now ready; the rosés are already showing signs of age. 12/20.
1957. A great year. Very small crop, high quality; big, full-bodied wines that are developing slowly and will be long-lived. 16/20 except for the rosés, which are already past their prime.
1956. Mediocre. 10/20.
1955. Very great. The Châteauneuf-du-Pape now at its superb peak; the Hermitage developing magnificently. 18/20.
NOTE: Authentic Rhone wines older than the 1955s are extremely rare, and bottles labeled “1949,” “1947,” “1945,” etc., should be regarded with skepticism, especially if the wine has not thrown a heavy sediment. When you can find them, the genuine 1952s are extraordinary, deserve 18/20 or even possibly 19/20.
Loire Valley
1960. Considerably better than in the rest of France. Quite satisfactory wines, especially in the Muscadet country, Anjou, and Saumur. Perhaps 14/20 on the average.
1959. A bounteous and wonderful vintage. Practically all of the Loire hillsides, from Pouilly-Fumé and Sancerre down to Muscadet, shared in this good fortune, and produced fruity, finely balanced wines of great charm and breed. Not far from perfection, 19/20.
1958. Somewhat uneven. Wines rather dry and light, but many of them very pleasant. 13/20.
NOTE: A few older Loire wines are still of more than passing interest when they can be found, notably the 1953s. which were magnificent everywhere, the 1955 and 1957 red wines of Chinon and St. Nicholas-de-Bourgeuil, the dry but fragrant 1955 Vouvrays.
Alsace
1960. Fair. Very large crop, wines rather on the light side. 13/20.
1959. An extremely great year, as in Germany. The Rieslings were particularly successful, racy, fruity, among the best since World War II. 19/20. The Gewürztraminers, as is often the case in warm, dry years, are a bit low in acid and have to be selected with great care, 16/20.
1958. A good year; wines fresh, light, and attractive, on the dry side. 15/20.
1957. The bigger wines, most particularly the Gewürztraminers, have developed beyond all expectations, and some of them can only be described as superb. The smaller wines, however, are hard and mediocre. To strike an average, perhaps 16/20.
NOTE: 1955, 1953, and 1952 were all three good years, but Alsatian wines never gain much by keeping, and, frankly, the younger wines are much better today.
Rhine and Moselle
1960. Somewhat uneven, but on the whole quite good. A large crop, rather light wines, not many of them of really top quality. The “smaller” and “middle” wines should be comparatively inexpensive and good values. 14/20.
1959. An exceedingly great year, certainly unsurpassed since the last war and in many ways comparable to 1921. But wine-making methods in Germany have changed greatly in the last four decades; the wines are now bottled much earlier than they were, in order to conserve their freshness and fruit. As a result, the 1959s will prove shorter lived, but most of them, on the other hand, are now ready to drink, and all of them will be before 1961 is out. Their average quality is amazingly high (though some of the commoner and cheaper ones are flat and dull, being too low in acid); the estate bottlings, from the driest to the sweetest, have great ripeness and fruit—they are as full-bodied as the '49s and '53s. but with more distinction. As always, there are some variations in quality from one district or township to another: the '59 Saar wines (Ockfeners, Wiltingers, Scharzhofbergers) are magnificent, as are those of the Ruwer, and, on the Moselle, Piesport, Berncastel, and Graach surpassed themselves. Most of the Rheingau wines, too, are extraordinary, especially those of Schloss Vollrads, Rauenthal, and Johannisberg. Remarkable Beeren- and Trockenheerenauslesen were produced, notably in the Pfalz. Truly, on the whole, a “Vintage of the Century.” 20/20.
1958. An excellent year. Light and charming wines, dry, fresh, and flowery, perhaps even more agreeable, for everyday use, than the more imposing and formidable '59s. Not too expensive, they are excellent values, and deserve 16/20.
1957. An uneven year. A few good wines, but many that are hard, lacking in fruit, and unattractive. 12/20.
1956. Extremely poor.
1955. A very good year, especially on the Moselle. where the wines are light, delicate, and astonishingly low in alcohol, often under nine per cent. They make up in fragrance what they lack in authority. Now 14/20.
1954. One of the worst on record.
1953. A very great year, but alt save a few of the biggest wines—the Auslesen, etc.—are now past their prime. Rates between 14/20 and 18/20 today.
1952. A very good year, but on the whole now too old. Perhaps 13/20 today.
1951. Generally poor. Now off the market.
1950. A good year. Light, pleasant wines. Most of them now too old. Rhines worth only 1½0, Moselles less.