Remember, this was summer 2011. The 2009s were very jammy at the time.
2 Likes
So would you say “21 more reflects the terroir” than 22 if you were doing that tasting today? I’m not sure most people would.
No idea what I would say as I’ve not had any 2021 or 2022 red burgs. I am not buying for my cellar any longer and I don’t usually drink such young wines. Allan’s focus at the time was in getting us to explore the various climats of G-C and he thought we’d see them better through the 2008s. It wasn’t a comment on the relative qualities of the 2008 vs 2009 vintages. No need to defend 2009.
In 2011 that might have been so, but not in the long run.
1 Like
What are you referring to in this post?
… about 2008s showing the terroir better in 2011 (than the 2009s), but in the long run it might/will be different …
Speaking of thread drift, I do think it is funny that this thread which has been moribund for 3 years was resurrected because someone posted they bought some 2009 red Burgundies. 
1 Like
Not an unusual event of late
4 Likes
Many here in the Twin Cities are still laughing about the 08 Chevillon massacre. A local wholesaler over bought and had to dump them on the market. Add in a 31% sale, many of us paid about $40 a bottle for the 1ers. I’ve still got quite a stash.
2 Likes
Zachys did a similar dump when the 09 vintage went on sale. But I opened my last one late last year
2008 Chevillon are great (at least the Vaucrains was, only one I had), but I don’t think the style is something that will be universally appreciated.
It could also have been that the Vaucrains was more backward that the Cailles, Chaignots, and LSG, as Craig suggested, though it wasn’t really a tannin issue that bothered people at the table, and the tannins weren’t that intrusive for me. Maybe folks at the table would have been ok with the Cailles or LSG.
Luckily, I’m an acid-head so the Vaucrains was in my stylistic wheelhouse. But, I also recognize my palate is a bit of an outlier from most folks I know.
How does LSD make Vaucrains in your stylistic wheelhouse?
Inspired by this thread’s rise from the ashes, I decided to open this tonight. Characterized by ample red fruit, bracing acidity, and fine tannins, this is a gorgeous, elegant bottle of burgundy. Delicious now, this has enough structure to last. It’s a great example of what I personally love about the ‘08 vintage.
7 Likes
Beautiful. I’ve always enjoyed what Fourrier did in 08.
2 Likes
This so much.
People on this board decried the 2009’s for being almost Californian en primeur and on release.
En primeur, I was also a 2008 sceptic due to their shrill presentation in London. But after release, their transparency was clear.
Maureen’s tasting was about terroir, not scrumptiousness. 2008 was definitely the right pick to demonstrate that in 2011, and for several years after.
Though I agree that 2009 is superior, and will age longer and better, I’m not sure that even today they will demonstrate terroir better than 2008.
I’m not a Meadows subscriber or detractor, but I wouldn’t be throwing out claims about how wrong he was in 2011 on a tasting he hosted.
4 Likes
My guess is the choice was much more driven by cost than whether or not it showed the terroir well.
I also completely disagree that choosing a more solar vintage wouldn’t show the terroir. Again, would anyone choose 21 to pour over 22 if they were to do this today? My guess is so, only because of cost.
09s are generally now drinking fabulously. Our 09/13 CSJ tasting last month was pretty fun.
We were tasting in the various domaines’ cellars, not out buying bottles. Allan had specifically requested that the 08s be shown. This was based on his already extensive experience tasting both the 08s and 09s very very widely at the domaines.
And we are talking about 2008 vs 2009, not 2020 vs 2021.
I’m aware of that; my question is whether most people would rather taste 21 (a lighter bodied heterogeneous vintage like 08) or 22 (a riper, more solar vintage) for “terroir”.
I find this new usage very frustrating. Surely ‘warm’ or even ‘sunny’ would be better?
You knew what it meant, so not really sure why you’d quibble with the wording.