Twin vintages -- two vintages side-by-side -- both being excellent is not all that uncommon in the wine regions of the world. Certainly not among the white burgundies.

My first experience with the twin vintages was with 1978, 79. The ' 78 was clearly a vintage that produced some monumental wines particularly the Montrachets from DRC (one of the greatest ever made) and Ramonet. But 79 are quite supple and surprisingly long-lasting. You have to try out the 1979 Chevalier Montrachet from Leflaive, for example, to understand what I mean.

Then came 1982, 83. Here I was four-square in favor of 1982 which are beautifully balanced and, if the bottles are kept in good condition, still drinking marvelously. One of the greatest, without a doubt, is the Montrachet from Ramonet. The high alcohol, botrytised, wines of 1983 are all right but the character of the terroir is almost totally masked by the botrytis. The best I found in this vintage was the Montrachet from DRC.

After that were the twin vintages 1985, 86. Here the situation is a bit murky because both are excellent and which you prefer depends on the day you drink it! The 85s are very round with great depth of fruit, the 1986 are more elegant.

And then 1989,1990. I have generally favored the round and fantastically well-balanced 1989 overall, with few exceptions like the 1990 Montrachet DRC which is one of the greatest they have produced, much better than their 1989. On the other hand, the 1989 from Ramonet is quite incredible (their 1990 is almost as good). There are quite a few producers who made equally outstanding wines in the two vintages.

Now we come to 1995, 1996. My occasion to taste these vintages in some depth came when I organized tastings, as I do almost every year, of Montrachets (including the hyphenated ones) for one of the chapters in Los Angeles of the Chaines des Rotisseurs; the 1995 in the Spring of 1998 and 1996 about the same time in 1999.

The 1996 is, of course, very highly touted but to me 1995 shows much greater concentration of fruit -- or as a physicist I would say "a lot more stuffing per cubic centimeter"--than not only 1996 but a great many other vintages. Besides the Chaines tasting I have been served wines blind from 1995, and each time I have guessed it as a 1989 !. It is that rich. The consistency and the concentration of fruit makes it taste more like a red wine! Very unusual.

The 1996s are quite charming, and many wines are elegant and classically structured but often they seem to lack the middle, not as cohesive as I would have expected from great white burgundies.

Below are the notes on those wines for which both the vintages were tasted at the Chaines events.. A number of these wines have been tasted before and since the two Chaines tastings, with very similar results. Neither 1996 nor 1995 DRC were included at the tastings but I have had them separately.

For each wine I have written the specific numerical score I gave at the tastings. But alongside I have also given the point-spread, and the stars, I expect it to maintain.

As I mentioned in my article on the 1998 Bordeaux, I will elaborate on this scoring system in the next issue.