Who would want them on this site to use for research? when you think about it vintage guides are vital information to us in helping be the most informed we can. Why aren't there any on guildsomm, what do people think should they be available on here, just like 3rd party sites? discuss!
This is a topic we have been discussing internally for quite some time. We want to make sure that we are not re-creating information that is done better elsewhere, and find areas that we can provide unique value.
One added value that I think we can provide, is to allow members to vote up and vote down vintages from their perspective. We have been looking at providing a small amount of objective information, such as relative yield, harvest date, and major viticultural challenges, and then letting members weigh-in on their qualitative assessment and make other comments. We don't have anything to deploy now, but we are continuing to work on this internally and would love any feedback.
That would be awesome. It is difficult to find specific information, such as you listed, in any one place. It would be amazing to have a couple of producers from each region comment on the viticultural challenges of the vintage and how they prepared and responded to them.
I think being able to vote on the vintages would be interesting. If for no other reason than to see if there would be any that shouldn’t have been great but are well received in the community.
Something else that I just thought of, which may be a lot more trouble than its worth, would be to potentially to put a list together of some producers (5 or 6) that did well in off vintages and explain why. Then maybe doing the reverse as well.
I know would be a little more work for you, but if there is a way to take the aggregate data and weigh it based on recency of input (for one of the metrics.) That would give us an idea of how the vintage is currently fairing.
What Jancis has going is the best thing I’ve come across so far. I love the interactive idea. I would also like if Guildsomm would include “historical significant vintages” and why I.e. ‘56 and ‘91(?) Bordeaux, ‘04 and ‘11 Burgundy or even 1914 Champagne and what was going on in the vineyard thats adds to historical wine lore in one cohesive place. Declared Port vintages would be great too. Thank you for all you do.
I personally loathe vintage charts in the typical format, as they end up oversimplifying to an almost comical degree. I think vintage summaries, which would mostly include the objective information that you mention Geoff, would be of some use, but any attempt to rate or rank vintages seems incredibly silly, because how in the world do you reduce a vintage of many different producers, growing styles, winemaking styles, and sub-appellations into a single description, or god forbid a number or letter score.