What is Wrong with 2002 Southern Rhone

[DCMark]

I just got an email newsletter from my local shop (Pearsons in DC) advertising a ANDRE BRUNEL CHATEAUNEUF DU PAPE 2002 for only $21.99. Its a Robert Kacher selection which is usutally good.

But I checked the Parket vintage chart here :

Vintage Chart

and 2002 Southern Rhone gets a 58 Caution, the lowest score from 1990-2003.

What is going on? What happened there in 2002? Is this going to be junk?

Edited February 3, 2005 by DCMark (log)

[Coop]

No it probably won't suck. If it's like 2002 in Tuscany it was very wet. Selection of grapes was very important. If the price is right try a bottle. Be careful about putting away wines from this vintage. The only 2002 wine from the Rhone I remember having was a Vacuerayas from Perrin and it was very nice. just a little lighter then the 2001.

[mnebergall]

I think the 2002 vintage got hit by a real bad rainstorm (1'-2' of rain) as the grapes were ripening. I think there also was a hail storm. There are plenty of 2001's around and I think the '03's are starting to appear. As a general rule, I avoid the '02's.

[Coop]

For me numerical vintage ratings are as dangerous as wine scores. Try a couple of different bottles and see what's in the bottle. I know in one case 2002 Crognolo (from Sette Ponti in Tuscany) has recieved excellent notes because the selection was very strict so there was no Oreno. Same thing at Belguardo. So village wine in the rhone may be acceptable while the greater cru may be poor or non existent.

[Mnehrling]

I just got an email newsletter from my local shop  (Pearsons in DC) advertising a ANDRE BRUNEL CHATEAUNEUF DU PAPE 2002 for only $21.99.  Its a Robert Kacher selection which is usutally good.

But I checked the Parket vintage chart here :

Vintage Chart

and 2002 Southern Rhone gets a 58 Caution, the lowest score from 1990-2003.

What is going on?  What happened there in 2002?  Is this going to be junk?

←

Remember 2002 had really really bad weather in western and central Europe?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4684

Yet in 2002, central Europe was awash with water after a massive river burst its banks.

Both events have been attributed to a peculiar phenomenon in which a "planetary wave" pins a particular weather system in one place. The drought in 2003 was triggered by trapped high pressure, while the flood of 2002 happened after a region of low pressure became pinned.

[jbonne]

the weather sucked, as stated above. a lot of bad bottlings, declassified wine and the like.

we tried Vieux Telegraphe's Telegramme (declassified) several weeks ago. it tasted like middling American pinot noir -- not a bad wine, but nothing even vaguely close to a southern Rhone.

[Brad Ballinger]

What you'll see quite often are declassified wines, as jbonne indicates. Some producers will declassify Chateauneuf-du-Pape into Cotes-du-Rhone, or even come up with more of a "proprietary" one-time only name.

But indulge me in a rant.

Yes, the weather sucked, and one should be careful with 2002 Rhone wines. But wine is what's in the bottle, not what a vintage is rated. People harp on consumers who blindly follow Parker points or WS ratings for specific wines that they suddenly "have to have." But what I think is worse is buying on vintage, without regard for producer or the individual wine.

People stay away from certain vintages in certain growing regions because of the reputation of the vintage as a whole. Fact is good and bad wine is produced in every vintage. And when a vintage/harvest gets a higher rating, then producers, et al, raise the prices to make up for the hit taken on no one buying the wines from the vintage with a bad rap.

For those who don't buy according to vintage, this is, of course, good news because it means more bargains. So for that crowd (self included) I should probably stop my rant now.

[Capaneus]

Yes, the weather sucked, and one should be careful with 2002 Rhone wines.  But wine is what's in the bottle, not what a vintage is rated.  People harp on consumers who blindly follow Parker points or WS ratings for specific wines that they suddenly "have to have."  But what I think is worse is buying on vintage, without regard for producer or the individual wine.

People stay away from certain vintages in certain growing regions because of the reputation of the vintage as a whole.  Fact is good and bad wine is produced in every vintage.  And when a vintage/harvest gets a higher rating, then producers, et al, raise the prices to make up for the hit taken on no one buying the wines from the vintage with a bad rap.

For those who don't buy according to vintage, this is, of course, good news because it means more bargains.  So for that crowd (self included) I should probably stop my rant now.

←

Yup. It's how I buy just about anything over $20. Only way for me to lay down a case of Port is to buy single-quintas in undeclared vintages. In general I stay away from popular producers and Sexy Vintages. Although in '88 through '90 I got something like ten cases of Bordeaux, deuxieme crus and below. Just finishing them, and I want more...

To be fair to folks, it's a heck of a lot more homework to buy this way. If you can afford it, why not pay a premium for the convenience? Every penny spent on Petrus and assorted Richebourgs is a penny not driving up *my* costs...

[jbonne]

Yes, the weather sucked, and one should be careful with 2002 Rhone wines.  But wine is what's in the bottle, not what a vintage is rated.  People harp on consumers who blindly follow Parker points or WS ratings for specific wines that they suddenly "have to have."  But what I think is worse is buying on vintage, without regard for producer or the individual wine.

←

totally agree about *buying* on vintage, but i actually think there's some utility to vintage charts when it comes to *not* buying on vintage. i wouldn't touch an '02 Piedmontese, for example, without having tasted it first or finding a really reliable review. there are some beautiful wines in the mix, but chances are you'll get a dud, especially if you're bargain-hunting. this has happened to us a couple times on the '02s, including a declassified Langhe nebbiolo from a producer i really respect that was so acidic and nasty, i quickly poured it down the drain. and i'll drink almost any wine i open.

if you're hunting a specific wine you trust from a bad vintage, there's probably good values to be found. but blind buying, even by producer, can be a disaster. the Telegramme was a good example of that. we figured the Telegraphe folks couldn't disappoint us that badly. and they're skilled enough to have rescued what they could from subpar grapes. but i bet there's lots of folks out there grabbing it off the shelves because they figure it's a cheap backdoor to CdP. so very wrong.

[2roost]

Brunel is a great producer, 2002 was a bad vintage its true but Berry Bros, 7/10 drink or hold is probably a better reflection than 58/100.

At $21 it's not a Great Buy as I have seen it around in the low $20's at most retailers who carry it but still good value if you enjoy it. Personally I'd rather drink his 2000 Cotes du Rhone Rasteau which is widely available in the $13-15 range but the '02 Chateauneuf may end up being a real steal.

Buy a bottle drink it up and let your palate be the judge.

[Brad Ballinger]

but blind buying, even by producer, can be a disaster

←

Yes, agreed. And I didn't mean to suggest one buy blindly on producer either. But if one is going to buy blind regardless, I know which way I'd lean.

BTW, great to have you in this forum.

[Sillman]

Just found the board and this is my first post..

The Rhone did hit a brick wall with the '02 vintage for sure. The thicker skinned Syrah did a little better in the North but I would buy carefully from the '02. There are still plenty of '01's around and the 2003 vintage is shaping up to be above average. The problem with 2003 Rhones is that we will probably see a price increase because yields were down and some producers will need to recoup some of the money they lost by not making wine in 2002!

Cheers,

Simon