red burgundy from 1998

I can't help it, I like 1998's, most anyway...
Don't run away with the idea that they're perfect, because they're not. Of the forty wines drunk, they generally showed balance, deep colour, gorgeous fruit that's often shaded to black, a little spice, excellent concentration and very good acidity. There is sweetness, but not too sweet, and finally there's a nice texture to the wines. Their Achilles heel is their tannin. Not all the wines show it, but close to 50% have a dry tannin that typically doesn't show itself until the finish. Of those 50% about one third are really very dry. You don't really register how dry if you have just one glass, but a second or third glass without food can become wearing. My first instinct is to say that the wines are too young, give them another 3-5 years, but maybe there's another answer...
Now this tannin thing is a bit of a conundrum; tannin is supposed to be there, and is supposed to reduce/soften with age, so there's no problem is there? Well, perhaps there is. Pierre Antoine Rovani contends that many 1998's lack sufficient fruit, are drying out and will be left only with their tannins. He also suggests that these tannins are often unripe, evidenced by a green/cedar note on the nose. On the other hand, Allen Meadows and Clive Coates whilst acknowledging the 'strength' of the tannins, point to them as a vintage characteristic that will always be there, but not to worry. To put the tannins in context, they are still an order of magnitude lower than you will find in a 1998 Bordeaux, but then tannin sits less favorably on the shoulders of Pinot Noir.
Everyone's different, but for me, one of the great joys about Burgundy is the vintage factor, the 1990's are fat and sweet, so are the '97's - but different. The '93's often have a characteristic and lovely dried currant/raisin fruit on the nose. The '95's are dense and concentrated, the 2002's are jump out of the glass friendly and fleshy etc., etc., and the '98's again have their own character. Checking my notes afterwards for traces of green or cedar only came up with some minty notes in a couple of Vosne 1ers - both very good wines. Will I regret that most of the wines that I looked at here are also in my cellar? Certainly not for many, but for some, maybe the jury is out.

The Vintage

Although the overall yields were not particularly low, the vintage itself was low yielding at the the highest levels; the Grand Crus, and followed another low yielding year in 1997. Frost early in the year was a contributing factor that for the reds was felt most in the Côte de Nuits and specifically in the 'best exposed' Grand and 1er Crus. The early summer was damp and cool but with the coming of August there was a significant jump in the mercury. The hot weather continued through August and spelled drought and misery for the short-rooted young vines - a lot of fruit was lost. When September arrived there was worry about rot as things became more humid, but fortunately there was no rain prior to harvest, virtually everything was collected before the heavens opened.
From the BIVB, here are the production figures in context...

Cote D'Or in Hectolitres 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Average
Grand Crus 11,864 14,548 12,076 11,907 15,297 13,146
Village and 1er Crus 163,699 190,154 159,608 168,473 208,830 178,153
Total 175,563 204,702 171,684 180,380 224,127 191,291

The fruit was generally very healthy and needed only a cursory triage. Chaptalisation where used was usually to prolong the alcoholic fermentation rather than to boost alcohol content. Malolactics were often very slow, but this was no problem as the fruit was clean.
Et voila... the wines.