
Have you ever opened a restaurant wine list to find that the vintages were missing?
That happened to me while I was on vacation in South Carolina. Edisto is a remote and rustic island south of Charleston, and its virtues do not include sophisticated nightlife. But there is one fine restaurant, called the Old Post Office, and I went there with a group of friends. The 40-selection wine list offered some good producers, but no vintages were listed at all.
I suddenly felt strangely lost. It was like looking at a map, but all the street names were missing. You could recognize the general neighborhoods, but it was practically impossible to find a specific address.
First came the difficulty selecting a white. I hesitated between a Bourgogne blanc and a Pouilly-Fuissé, both priced under $40. Normally, I'd figure them to be similar in quality and character, since both are Chardonnays from France's Burgundy region. But what if one were significantly older? That could make a huge difference in the taste of the wine. A younger vintage would likely offer fresh fruit and bright acidity, while a wine that had been in bottle for a few years might be softer, duller, even oxidized.
Then came my quandary over the red. Some of my guests were Zinfandel lovers, and I spotted a reasonably-priced Châteauneuf-du-Pape that I thought would intrigue them. But not if it was a 2002, from a rain-soaked vintage that produced mostly tart, diluted reds. And maybe not if it was a 2005—a great vintage, but one whose massive wines still need a few years in the cellar to show their best.
The waiter didn't know the vintages off-hand, so I asked him to bring the bottles to the table so I could know for sure what I was ordering. As I waited, it struck me that many people probably feel "lost" like that much of the time. Because even when they do know the vintage, they may not have the background knowledge to extrapolate from the vintage date to the character of the wine.
That's where a vintage chart can be very, very handy.
Vintage charts summarize the quality and character of wines from a particular region in a specific year. A good one delivers two crucial pieces of information. First, it provides a general assessment about the quality of a given vintage relative to other years in a specific wine region. Second, it offers a window of drinkability for each year rated. Are the wines concentrated, tannic and potentially long-lived? Or is it a lighter, more forward year that will be approachable early?
Wine Spectator editors rate vintages from more than 30 regions around the world. Each vintage rating consists of three components. The score indicates the general quality of the wines. The description sums up the growing season and the wines' character. The drink recommendation suggests when the wines will be at their best.
Our vintage charts are now available in a free iPhone app, which you can download from our app page. We think you'll find them helpful, and we hope you'll give them a try.
Of course, vintage charts are general in nature, and can't guarantee they'll lead you to a great wine. But at the least, they'll help you find a better choice than a 2002 Châteauneuf-du-Pape.
When do you use vintage charts? Have they ever helped you make a better choice, or avoid a bad one?
Hoyt Hill Jr — Nashville, TN — August 10, 2010 11:30am ET
Josh Moser — Sunnyvale, CA — August 10, 2010 12:00pm ET
I stick by the name of the producer and I don't worry about the vintage. I have had a number of great 1998 Napa Valley Cabernets and 1997 wines from Bordeaux and both of those vintages did not receive great scores.
Another reason why I don't worry about vintage ratings in restaurants is that most of the wines are generally young and if I had them in my cellar at home I would hold off on drinking them. I prefer wines with some age (7+ years for c/s and merlot and 4+ years for p/n, zin and syrah).
I believe 2002 was an off year in Tuscany, and I can't recall the last time I saw a 2002 wine from Tuscany on a wine list at a restaurant.
To summarize, toss the vintage chart out and focus more on the producer.
I will say though that Wine Spectator's iPhone App is very useful and I have looked at it a number of times as I am trying to get my 11 month old to sleep.
Martin Stoevesandt — Germany — August 10, 2010 12:17pm ET
Quick answer; YES, because very often, especially in restaurants that have no real wine affection and thus tend to by the same stuff year after year, it can play a huge role, especially when great Bordeaux vintages or in the case I am thinking about a great vintage from Piedmont like 2000 were/was not so great for example in Tuscany, where 2001 was awesome. The same might be true for 05 and 06 there.
Hugh L Sutherland Jr-m — miramar beach, fl — August 10, 2010 12:42pm ET
Most small restaurants do not give the vintage in order not to have to print the list frequently. This is especially true for those out in the hinderlands and do not keep many bottles in stock. I find that when this happens, the easiest thing to do is to ask!!
Chris A Elerick — Orlando, FL — August 10, 2010 1:02pm ET
i use the vintage charts for buying just as often as ordering in a restaurant. i also refer to the charts when deciding when to drink certain wines. if you're drinking labels, then i agree the vintage charts aren't quite as useful; but if you're looking for mid-level wines that would suffer more from a challenging vintage then the charts are the way to go.
Matt Scott — Honolulu HI — August 10, 2010 1:05pm ET
Vintage charts are very useful when one is discovering an area that's new to them. It's a great starting point.
Mike Gries — Cedar Rapids, Iowa — August 10, 2010 1:56pm ET
Even more maddening than not having the vintage available in the menu is when you order the 2006, as listed in the menu, and they bring you a 2007 or 2008.
Steve Ritchie — Atlanta, GA — August 10, 2010 2:18pm ET
I find vintage charts helpful, much in the way you describe in your post. I do think, however, that there can be so much variation amongst producers within a region and vintage, that these charts sometimes display "false precision." For example, is the difference between a "90" and "92" vintage significant compared to the variation between two producers in that region in the same vintage?; Are the quality levels between Cote de Beaune and Cote de Nuits that relevant for a vintage chart? Is the fact that the vintage score for Carneros lower than RRV because the region overall is weaker rather than a vintage variation? I would like to see vintage charts simplified into broader quality groupings and even broader regions to give general direction in a simpler manner.
Daniel Kaufman — Charlottesville Virginia — August 10, 2010 2:59pm ET
For me (and I assume anyone who knows wine) the vintage says so much about a wine. Restaurants, it's 2010. Get a printer, reprint your wine lists when your vintages change and keep them current.
Scot Geoghegan — bothell, wa — August 11, 2010 1:24am ET
this is one area that i wish the wine spectator staff would be more consistent on. for example, mr. steiman rated the 08 vintage in washington long ago. but i have seen nothing from my favorite reviewer about the 08 vintage for california syrah or pinot. seems that some reviewers give a vintage rating based on weather and maybe other reviewers on the quality of the wines produced. one is forward looking, the other method is backward looking. being told what the 08 california pinot vintage score is after having to make my purchasing decisions does not help, especially when some producers, like kosta-browne start selling in february or march. i would also like to see some regions broken down into smaller areas or ava's. washington has about 11 ava's but only gets one rating for the whole state regardless of the grape varietals grown in different ava's. same problem with oregon. i will say that i am happy with the accuracy of all vintage scoring, just wish some of it was more timely. sorry for the rant, but this has always been my only dissapointment about wine spectator.
Sandy Fitzgerald — Centennial, CO — August 11, 2010 5:34pm ET
I typically buy primarily by vintage. I go long on good vintages and mostly drink nows in poorer vintages.At restaurants ,if the vintage is not shown, I always ask. Overall, the quality differences between same producer 05, 06, & 07s is significant enought I want to know, before I buy.
Ed Chin — Bay Area — August 11, 2010 6:30pm ET
When will you be releasing this app for a droid phone?
Dana Nigro — New York, NY — August 11, 2010 6:43pm ET
We're fans of the Android platform and have some exciting plans for it. Stay tuned!
-- Dana Nigro, managing editor, WineSpectator.ocm
Robert Hight — CA — August 11, 2010 11:10pm ET
Selecting a wine from a list with no vintage is almost as interesting as when a waiter opens a wine you ordered only from a different vintage listed on the menu. "It's not the same, sir?"
Robert Vandongen — Wildwood, NJ USA — August 12, 2010 1:39pm ET
Vintage is so important. I first became a Brunello fan in 2006. The first one I ever tasted was a 2001. I liked it so much that the next time I went to the same restaurant I ordered the 2000 instead of the 2001. I figured that an extra year would make it much better. Wrong. It just did not compare and I wondered why I had liked the '01 so much more. Just staying with the same house does not guarantee a great wine.
Thomas Matthews — New York City — August 12, 2010 3:03pm ET
Scot Geoghegan: I sympathize with your frustration. Our editors aim to be as up-to-date as possible with our vintage charts, insofar as that is compatible with making sound judgments. It's tough to evaluate a large region, and requires reviewing a large number of wines. We tend to update the vintage charts when we publish our annual tasting reports, which summarize the wines tasted over the previous year. For example, James Laube published his report on California Pinot Noir in the Sept. 30 issue, and it contains his preliminary ratings for the 2008 vintage, based on reviews of about 250 wines. An earlier rating, based on fewer wines, would be more speculative, and perhaps not so useful.
Scot Geoghegan — bothell, wa — August 12, 2010 11:47pm ET
mr. matthews, thank you for responding to my complaint. i'm glad you are willing to listen to criticism even as i'm sure you guys are a bit busy these days. i guess i tend to rely on the preliminary vintage scoring range used for bordeaux, burgundy, piedmont, brunello, washington, oregon ect. for my future purchasing plans. i have always found them to be very usefull. thanks for your consideration, scot...
Don Rauba — Schaumburg, IL — August 13, 2010 11:13am ET
No, not helpful at all. If we think the vintage charts may be helpful, then they are equally as misleading, a/k/a "not" helpful. We sometimes forget that in sitting down to a dinner or purchasing choice, we're talking about bottles, not vintages. Individual bottles cannot be judged from vintage charts since every vintage has its (many) exceptions. Vintage traits never carry through to every bottle, not even "most", in my amateur experience. Maybe they're more useful in old world, but for new world they're simply not useful at all.
Thomas Matthews — New York City — August 13, 2010 11:44am ET
Don Rauba: You are correct that any given bottling may outperform, or underperform, the general standard of a specific vintage. But I respectfully disagree that "vintage charts never carry through" to most bottles. Winemakers simply can't escape the realities of the growing season.
And lacking knowledge of a given winery's performance, I still believe vintage charts can improve the odds for you, even in the New World. For example, given two unknown producers of California Cabernet, I would select a 2004 (vintage rating 95 points, "harmonious") or a 2002 (93, "dense and rich") over a 2003 (85, "austere and tannic").
David Cable — Santa Barbara — August 13, 2010 6:30pm ET
If you buy your wines by vintage ratings from critics, you will miss some very fine wines. I saw this happen with the 2001 Bordeaux's. The 2000 vintage was so highly acclaimed by critics, they downplayed the following 2001 vintage. We were able to purchase some fine 2001's for bargain prices compared to the 2000 vintage.
It is true that every year has different heat, rainfall, and other factors that affect the outcome of the grapes. A good winemaker, can make a good wine every year. An inexperienced winemaker is subject to the whims of each year's conditions as to whether their wines will turn out good, or disappointing.
Case in point is Bouchard Pere & Fils who has had the same winemaker, Philip Proust, for many years. His wines are so consistent that it is virtually unimportant which vintage you choose. The wine will be excellently executed. A few years ago, we were able to share a bottle of 1928 Bourgogne with Luc Bouchard & Philip Proust. It was still delicious, even having spent so many years in their wine cellars. Luc commented, this was remarkable considering that 1928 was not generally considered to be an outstanding vintage.
David Allen — Lufkin, Texas — August 14, 2010 1:26pm ET
Always need as much information as possible I review them but not being cocky I know them pretty well for most all the availiable wines and regions especially on the current vintages. Always review them every once In a awhile. Totally agree some off vintage wines can sing nicely .
Don Rauba — Schaumburg, IL — August 14, 2010 2:39pm ET
I hear what you say, Thomas, and for years I wanted to believe that it would help me in that way. But I'm sorry, I have yet to experience any better than 50% (or coin-flipping odds) using your logic (and I have). I now believe that the better the restaurant (and sommelier), the more likely that all their selections meet a certain criteria for approachability and food-friendliness. Not talking about large chain restaurants that routinely get every vintage of kendall jackson, but those outfits that taste each wine before selection & change wine lists regularly, based on availability & style. Good restauranteurs are likely to only put a lesser vintage like Cali 2003 in their cellar if it tastes worthy of it in some way, i.e. the exception to the rule. I've been surprised, often. Not only that, but the converse is what annoys me: if I (as a vintner) produced an oddly austere, earthy Cab in 2004 (and there were plenty, like Stag's Leap Artemis), don't my best chances of getting rid of it lie with playing into this misleading vintage game, headlining the vintage 2004 over the actual taste? Even if the wine buyer doesn't like the wine, slip in a couple freebies and suddenly there's a 2004 Napa Cab on the list! Using your vintage logic, I would be very disappointed in it, and have been, as I've described. One last point: if the vintage was all we needed to pick the style we were seeking, we wouldn't need all the detailed Wine Spectator reviews, would we? 2004 is my favorite vintage for Cali Cabs because it produced a lot of GREAT wines, but that doesn't mean that a majority of them are to my taste. That's why I don't agree with your logic.
Jeff Perkins — South Carolina — August 14, 2010 10:35pm ET
Couldn't live without mine. Even with my teaching knowledge, the charts always come in handy.
Martin A. Cody — Chicago, IL — August 15, 2010 11:39am ET
This post's intrigue is only surpassed by the impressive comments, from which I learned much (looking forward to the Android app'). My first pause for uncertainty is why gravitate towards CDP when "...some of my guests we're Zinfandel lovers..."? I would love to learn your thinking as I would never have pursued that route save for the "journey" of introducing CDP to some. I agree the vintage chart is a tool, one of many such tools in wine assessment. But considering the remote location (and obvious cost concerns of reprinting wine lists, at minimal per annum, pointed out by Mr. Sutherland, Jr.) it would seem an opportunity was lost. What opportunity? The opportunity of experience. What if you knew the vintages and selected wines perfectly representing the vintage and then everyone at the table disliked the wine? It's a difficult situation for sure. What happens when no one agrees with the vintage chart's assessment of "poor", throws caution to the wind when ordering and end up immensely enjoying the wine/experience? Who's right? Wrong? And does it matter? A dangerous byproduct of solely relying on vintage charts is eliminating the most important aspect of wine enjoyment: one's personal taste. Someone somewhere has made incredible wine even in the “worst” years.
By the way, what did you end up ordering, why and how did it turn out? And did you shortchange your guests their own personal experience for you ordered wine based on your experience/appreciation of a certain vintage’s attributes? I recognize it is perhaps your experience the guests were seeking and why the winelist ended up in your possession.
Please keep up the great work,
Martin A. Cody
President
Cellar Angels, LLC
Thomas Matthews — New York City — August 15, 2010 3:49pm ET
Martin: When I dine with friends, I try to understand their wine tastes and their degree of adventurousness and go from there. In this case, the company was pretty serious about wine, and California-oriented in their drinking experience. I figured that since they liked Zin, they might like the similarly berry-, bramble- and warm spice-character of CdP. (And I was correct.)
As I saw it, the "opportunity" was to enlarge their understanding and appreciation of the wine world by showing them something new that related to something they already liked. If the CdP had been thin, weedy and tart (common among the 2002s, for example), they would not have seen the similarity to Zin, might not have enjoyed the wine, and could have been discouraged from exploring further. That would have been a shame.
Believe me, I do not grab the wine list when I'm out at a restaurant. I'm always happy to share someone else's taste. But people are rarely bold enough to take charge, and I am generally obliged to make the choice.
If you're interested in learning more about the evening (including the name of the wine), read this: http://www.winespectator.com/wwdn/show/id/43270
Mace D Howell Iii — fremont,ca,usa — August 16, 2010 4:02pm ET
Tom,
I have only one point to make. I strongly disagree with the 2005 and 2006 vintage ratings of Cal. syrah. While I like the 2006 vintage, it was typical Napa syrah that tastes mostly like Cabernet. The 2005 vintage produced what I consider the finest syrahs I have tasted in the state. There is so much more balance with added minerality. In particular you guys should compare the syrahs from the Las Madres vineyard. In particular from Nicholson Ranch. This is for me cool climate at its best, but much more so in 2005. I even noticed a quality level that approaches some of the Cayuse wines at half the price. This only occurred in 2005. I think this demands a recount! Ha! Ha! Humor me and just try the two Nicholson Ranch Syrahs. Hell Tor Kenward would not even produce on 2006 Las Madres version. I love you guys, but it seems when I am on to something; I never get a response. However, it has never been you. Finally, does anyone care if there is minerality in Syrah in California. This seems foolish since it has worked at Cayuse and K Vintners. Sure does not seem to work copying Cabernet.
Thanks,
Mace
Thomas Matthews — New York City — August 16, 2010 5:29pm ET
Mace: Thanks for your thoughts; it's clear you've tasted the wines and have a solid basis for your opinions. I can't really comment on the merits of these two vintages, since I haven't tasted enough of the wines. But my advice is: go with your palate. You know what tastes good to you.
Ross Morrison — Toronto, Ontario, Canada — August 17, 2010 8:58am ET
After region, the vintage serves as my starting point when selecting wines, from the cellar or in a restaurant. It is true that wines from different producers will vary within each vintage. This is why vintage serves as the starting point. I agree with the comment about some vintages being early drinkers while others like the 2005 Bordeaux generally requiring some time. After considering the vintage I look at the producer. Relying solely on the producer can be tricky. Even great producers can vary in style from year to year. Recently I tasted several vintages of Beaucastel from the 1998-2006 period (except 02 of course) and found big differences from year to year.
So, any restaurant with a quality wine list should list vintages and update it. No vintages on the list - go with the (production quality) house wine and look for another restaurant.
Want to join or start a discussion? Become a WineSpectator.com member and you can!
To protect the quality of our conversations, only members may submit comments. To learn more about member benefits, take our site tour.
Sips & Tips | Wine & Healthy Living
Video Theater | Collecting & Auctions
» View samples
» Or sign up now!
» Manage my newsletter preferences

The marketplace for all your wine needs, including:
Wine Storage | Wine Clubs
Dining & Travel | Wine Auctions
Wine Shops | Wine Accessories
One night at the Wild Boar Restaurant (a Grand Award winner), where I was the sommelier, four women came in for dinner - each carrying two or three wine refernce books which they intended to use in deciding which wine to order. One of the wines which they decided on was a half bottle of 1989 Chateau Matgaux, which they rejected as undrinkable, even thought it was in perfect condition. I happily took it back, knowing that I could easily sell it by the glass to other diners. The next day, one of them posted on AOL's wine forum about how nicely they had been treated by us, even though they were women sending back an expensive bottle of wine. Thank goodness I "did the right thing"!