For someone who doesn’t wait or have access to burgundy with 30 years of cellar age, I’ve found 2009 to be almost always worthwhile. It seems like a second tier recent vintage to 2002/2005/2010/2015. I’m guessing the general consensus is its fruit forward but lacks the nuance, depth and structure of 2010?
Lafarge, D’angerville, Hudelot Noellat, Hubert Lignier…all village or 1er’s have been excellent in the last year.
What’s the downside of 2009 and when compared to 2007 which seems to be the vintage you can already start opening up, why isnt 2009 mentioned in a similar fashion?
I had a 2009 Chevillon NSG VV and a de Villaine La Fortune recently that were both excellent and punched above their weight. Unlike 2007, the greater wines from 2009 still need a lot of time.
Both strike me as pretty good vintages, accurately rated. Perception in 2021 might be mostly a reflection of '09 being ready now, '10 needing time. By chance I had a Volnay from the same producer, one '10 and '09, on consecutive nights and the difference was really noticeable.
But reading an email blast today about the 2019s (“best ever from Jxxxx!” - seriously) was a good reminder: drink while cognizant of the vintage without it being determinative.
I think that the best two vintages of recent memory have been 1999 and 2010. I hope that 2005 will reach that point (mostly because I have a lot) but we will see.
Is 2002 rated higher than 2009? I have not seen that.
And, I don’t have any idea at this point in time how to rank order 2015, 2016 and 2017, other than they are very different from each other.
Underrated initially when there was justified concern about ripeness
Currently it seems like most rate it very highly and with good reason: most are drinking well with a very long runway ahead. I’d put 09 in or near the top tier. The top 09s have become very pricey.
I wouldn’t call it a “second tier” vintage at all. People may prefer other vintages like the structured 99, 05, and 10s but the 09s that I’ve had have been uniformly terrific across all levels and show well now. They remind me a lot of the 85s which have aged tremendously well on their fruit and balance.
The 2009s remind me of the 1990 vintage. Great in the short and mid term with a sexy richness but I am guessing lacking the precision and balance to be long term heroes. I personally did not buy a lot of nines, except Cote de Beaune, because the 2010s were about to be released which were more to my taste.
Agree with Mark reg. comparison with 1990 and also with Joel, 2009 is no 2nd tier, it’ s imo also not (much) less structured, only the full ripe and attractive fruit is in the foreground … one hardly notices the tannins, and it s more accessible and open than 2010 - but the better wines hardly showing mature notes. Also much stronger than 2007 which is fully mature and charming. I feel it s underestimated.
I would like to add that for the 3 recent ripe vintage ( = 2005, 2009 and 2015 ) and for drinking now I prefer 2009. So far I have not open too many serious 2015 red yet and do not mind to wait and hope it will behave like the 2009 which is more accessible and open.
I do not know if we could call : 2018 and 2019 are also ripe vintage as I have no personal experience except Bichot PN VV 2018.
While 2007 is much inferior than 2009 but it is so charming and so easy accessible all the time while I am hanging onto the 2005 and 2009.
Agreed with others here. Some of my friends knock down 2009 for being excessively fruit forward and unbalanced but I have not found that to be the case. Some of the wines I’ve opened (Bertheau, Lafarge) have been downright delicate while also showing tremendous depth and intensity in the magical way that Burgundy can. And other regions almost never achieve. I have several cases of 2009 and am still a buyer when I can find tolerable deals.
For me 2009 is a Burgundy year full of gems both white and red reflecting the quality of the fruit at harvest. Its also a year like so many in Burgundy where the maker is very important in determining the outcome. I’ve had great wines for Rousseau, de Vogue, Roulot, Lafon, Dujac, Chevillon etc but also some over-worked examples from others. Most instructive were 3 reasonably recent tastings we have had in our wine group. Firstly 2009 Gevrey Grand Crus that were uniformly excellent and predictably led by Rousseau, Faiveley and Ponsot and 2009 Vosne Grand Crus that were often quite closed or in some cases somewhat disjointed. The Arnoux RSV was however a beauty. The clincher was our 2020 vertical La Tache 2000 to 2009 dinner where the 09 (97.2) was just edged out for top spot by the 05 (97.3 - we are a tough group !). The 09 was clearly better than other contenders such as the 02, 03, 01 or 08.
In the reds there clearly is a Cotes de Nuits bias in these comments but I think the 2009 Burgundy vintage is very good to excellent and that time will be on its side !
Just to show my whites fetish and to add another viewpoint: 2009s for whites seem to me exactly as per the cautious initial ratings / comments / reviews. There are certainly some good wines, excellent even, but I have yet to come across a producer’s grand cru where the 09 is better than the 08 or the 10. I suspect a number of village and 1ers are looking really smart.
09 for reds was initially a bit of an outliner - we all pooh-poohed it, despite quite liking the wines - whilst pointing out our preferences for the 08s (irregular at best) and 10s (simply super) on either side.
Today 09 is a rather elegant, almost gentle but still young and consistently delicious vintage that could often benefit from an ounce more of acidity - I find it almost discrete compared to the many wines that have come 2015 and onwards…
I think Rauno to be spot on for the whites - many delicious wines but not as good as the same from 07-2012 - where still in good shape…
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}