Germany 2006: An Unusual Auslese Year

Where 2005 and especially 2003 were marked by the positive effects of global warming, with each of those vintages being warm and dry, 2006 was plagued by problems that Germany has so often known in the past: hail, rains during the harvest and rot. Only a generation ago, a vintage like this, or like 2000, would have been a catastrophe. Today, with better vineyard management, meticulous culling at harvest, and scrupulous selections in the cellar, most of the good estates were able to make at least a few first-class wines and many of the top producers did a remarkable job under difficult conditions. I gave more than 100 wines scores of 90 points or higher, but with the exception of the noble late-harvest wines from the Mosel, which old hands like Egon Müller compare to excellent vintages like 1999 and 1976, there were few rieslings that will go down in history. These, though, will age marvelously well, as have the finest 1976s. However, given their low acidities and relatively high levels of alcohol, most other 2006s should be consumed over the next five to ten years.

Because rains in late September and the ensuing rot forced many estate owners to harvest not only ahead of schedule but also exceedingly quickly, the flavor profile of 2006 is a moving target. As Armin Diel from the eponymous estate on the Nahe noted, “in a single bunch you would often find both unripe and overripe grapes as well as some inflicted with rot or botrytis.” Not surprisingly, there are weedy, green wines that were harvested before physiological maturity, diluted ones brought in by machine during the rains, tainted wines that taste of gray rot, and overblown rieslings that have too much alcohol. The latter often came from grapes that were harvested well after the rains. As the skins broke, the grapes desiccated and reached must weights—often in conjunction with botrytis—far higher than their true physiological maturity would normally have attained. Many producers, in fact, brought in nothing below the must weight of ripe ausleses.

That said, in order to satisfy market demand for kabinetts and spätleses, the lightest of these ausleses, and those with the least botrytis, were often bottled as kabinetts and spätleses. Seldom, though, do such wines have the vibrant balance, sheer minerality and lipsmacking textures that are the hallmarks of great riesling. Most are a touch heavy and quite sweet, and lack the refreshing character that consumers expect.

While 2006 will be remembered for the wealth of ausleses, beerenausleses and trockenbeerenausleses that were produced, these wines are only a fraction of the total production. But even at that level, not all producers were consistent. If I had to name the success stories of the vintage it would be Müller and van Volxem on the Saar; Fritz Haag, Lieser, Dr. Loosen, Joh. Jos. Prüm, Heymann-Löwenstein and Clemens Busch on the Mosel; and the leading quartet from the Nahe: Diel, Dönnhoff, Emrich-Schönleber and Schäfer-Fröhlich. This is not to say that Breuer, Leitz and Weil in the Rheingau, Keller and Wittmann in Rheinhessen, and the leading estates in the Pfalz did not also make some excellent wines, but they have all had better vintages. Interestingly enough, in the Pfalz it was estates such as Becker, Rebholz and Wehrheim from the lesser-known southern part of the region that fared the best. The classical Mittelhaardt was less fortunate, with Dr. Bürklin-Wolf and Pfeffingen holding the best cards.

Although readers may be impressed by the high scores for the sumptuous ausleses highlighted here, that is not where the market is moving in Germany itself, and in particular in the Rheingau, Rheinhessen and Pfalz. The dry and off-dry rieslings that are in such demand in other markets were on the whole not as good as those from last year—and they are certainly not up to par with vintages like 2004, 2002 and 2001. Sure, dry riesling is still not yet what Americans are drinking, but demand is beginning to move in that direction.