TN: 2009 Chateau Palmer

I’m not sure if I wanna hate or love this wine.

This vintage of Palmer, in its intolerable ripeness, perhaps has made this venerable estate come across as unequivocally modern. The dark fruits are more compote in quality, masking any sense of Margaux terroir. The oak is quite pronounced, decadent vanilla. The palate is admittedly quite glorious, silky, warm and caressing. The alcohol is more elevated than I want. Finish is chalky and sweet, tannins resolving.

This is like a left bank Tertre Rotebeauf.

Honestly, this has some tasty qualities about it, but gosh, this is not at all what I want in Bordeaux. Candied, confected.

Not a fan.


Didn’t we drink this at Soseki?


Honestly, can’t recall. I thought we had Ausone.

1 Like

No, it was the 2009 Palmer…we had the '15 Ausone at Ruth Chris

2009 Palmer is def. panty dropper bordeaux.

1 Like

I’ve always struggled a little with Palmer’s smoothness and plushness, it’s suavity, in the midpalate and finish. Certain are undeniably excellent like 1970 and 1979, among others before and after. But I tend to like a slightly more rustic feel and can see where that tendency would be too much in a ripe year like 2009.


Sounds horrible! The going rate here for Palmer 09 is 330 euros a bottle. Hmm

Posts like these make me feel lucky I am a newcomer to these classic regions and have no prejudice regarding what wine from those regions ought to taste like. It sounds like great juice, though not necessarily my everyday cup of tea, and at 300+ I am certainly not a buyer.

This reminds me I need to get more 09 palmer

I thought you only bought Burgundy.

1 Like

Nope; I buy burg the most but have a lot of bdx, rhone, Italian and some cali wines.

Ha. Burgundy is for the young rich and spendy like Chang, RyanC and Fu! Us country folk stick to simple things.

my feeling in general about 2009

or for the old and not so spendy who bought them some time ago.

Needless to say, I completely disagree. I find 2009 to be a fabulous vintage for Palmer.

1 Like


Definitely a wine for the hedonists!

“Inky in color, the wine explodes with fresh roasted espresso, floral, tobacco, black cherry, caramel, truffle and blackberry jam. In the mouth, the wine is pure silk, velvet and richness. Opulent in texture, this dense, sensuous, sexy wine finishes with intense, fresh, complex layers of blackberry, black cherry, blueberry, jam, spice, chocolate and truffle. This is a decadent style of Chateau Palmer.”
Read more at:Learn about Chateau Palmer Margaux, Complete Guide


Why would you think that after reading one opinion? I’m not saying you will, or will not like the wine, but I find Palmer, and yes 2009 Palmer to be an incredible wine worth experiencing. It’s pricey, but IMO, worth the bank if you have it.

You left off the 99 Pt score, don’t forget that. It’s hedonistic, as well as elegant. I think it’s thrilling and I’m happy to own it. Though I would not think you’d like it. I rated it too high :rofl:

1 Like

Haha. The Leve-Alfert inverse scoring phenomenon!

Because I never spend that kind of money on a bottle of wine and because I enjoy wines of that profile occasionally, rather than regularly. As many have alluded to around here - Alfert included - you are an exceptionally consistent and reliable reviewer, and to me your TN reinforces his even if the evaluation is different. Would I turn down a glass of it? Hell no!

No doubt. I would never buy this wine based on Leve’s note. It captures the essence of this wine 10x better than my amateurish, clunky note, but they are essentially the same in communicating what this wine is like. This is a Napa valley wine. The question is, what do I do with the other bottle I have!? :wink:

1 Like