TN: 2009 Dom Perignon

Beautiful wine. Had with dinner at upstairs 2.

A bit of matchstick on the nose with ripe white peach. A little tight upon opening but became more generous over the next couple hours. Big champagne with opulent fruit and lively acidity. This is great now but will get much better over time. My fav Dom since 2002 and maybe 96. Glad I put away a case.

good to hear.

I just bought a few. Will try to keep my hands OFF.

Someone served this to a group of us on Thursday and it was outstanding. Complex, with some yeasty and walnut-y hints, lots of depth, and pretty dry but not nails-on-the-blackboard dry. We all loved this. Yummy!

I stand to be corrected if this is wrong, but DP is generally best drunk very young or quite old.

I’ve had the 09 DP twice - once on release vs the 06, and once a couple weeks ago. Both times the wine was excellent and I preferred it to the 06. I got a few but I’m still waiting for the 08 to show up.

Michael, Ive had many a DP early on and loved most, even when others have voiced "too young". The 90, 96, 02 and 06` are a few examples.

I recently posted about Wallys 26th annual Marque Champagne event in Santa Monica where a friend was pouring the 09 DP and graciously refilled my glass upon every occasion I passed his table which turned out to be quite a few times. I liked it a lot and also recognised it needs some time and although very good, it was not nearly as expressive early on as those above IMHO.

I’m much more fond of the 09 than the 06, on release, and now. I find the 06 a bit more acid driven and lean, although not to the degree of 04. The 09 is just rich, opulent, generous, and beautiful.

Me too. I also didn’t think the '02 was all that great on release, which was surprising. I prefer the '09.

Everyone has their preferences, so while I won’t say you are “wrong”, I don’t agree with your statement. The '95, '96 and '02 are all currently drinking very well.

I deliberately said quite old as opposed to very old. For me 20+ years is quite old. But I guess time is relative.

I guess it is relative. The '09 is very young and and the '02 is quite old. That’s quite a rapid maturity curve.

For me '60’s and '70’s DP are quite old and pre-60’s are very old.

You must enjoy zero effervescence in your Champagne. I’m waiting another 4-5 years on my 02’s.

Well stored bottles of 1970’s DP have plenty of effervescence.
'60’s less so and that is why I am drinking mine up. That said, I’ve enjoyed many Champagnes with little to no fizz.

Found 2009 @ Costco today for $134.

How much would you buy, with 2008 coming?

I’ll probably buy a case of both and see how they evolve.

A local super market chain here in Texas had the 2009 Dom and for $112 per bottle. Stocked up. Every year they have a 25% off sale of all sparkling wines. It helps that they are competitively priced to begin with. Once a year, I stock up.

I don’t have much experience with very old Dom but haven’t seen a problem with the fizz left in 70s and early 80s Dom that I have experienced. I reported a few weeks ago on a 1978 Dom that was delicious and still had a fine and effervescent mousse.

A friend brought a bottle of 66 Bolly to a dinner last year that was still spry and had residual effervescence.

I also don’t mind flat Champagne although the mousse does give them extra lift IMO. Well stored, well made Champagne should maintain the bubbly for a long time.

Re Dom, I like what I consider to be adolescent Dom, as well as older bottles, but the transition to the older phase doesn’t begin IME until about the 15-20th year post vintage (depending on vintage) and the evolution in bottle continues thereafter. I’m in no rush to drink my last three bottles of original release 1996. While great now, I expect it to age easily another 20 years and become very interesting.

I was not a huge fan of 2009 Dom when I tried it last December but also noted that, like the muddled 1990 on release and showing a somewhat similar profile, it may surprise even with only a few months to settle down and I am curious to retry it.