2009 Fieuzal

Post Reply
User avatar
AlexR
Posts: 2378
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:35 am
Contact:

2009 Fieuzal

Post by AlexR »

I’ve always been a champion of the underdog and don’t think twice about going against prevailing opinions if that’s the way I see things. But I must admit that try as I may, I just can’t get excited about Château Fieuzal.

Yesterday, with a roast of beef and potatoes cooked in goose fat, we enjoyed a 2009 red Fieuzal that had been decanted two hours before the meal. I say enjoyed because there was nothing not to like about the wine. However, I really expect more from a great growth in a good year.
I checked the breakdown of grape varieties and was surprised to see 7°% Cabernet Sauvignon because it seemed as though the wine was Merlot-dominated.

I’m convinced that in the time it for takes the tannins to soften (not long), the fruit will be well on the way out. It makes me think that Fieuzal is a wine best drunk young. In fact, I bought this wine at the estate when Nic and I took part in the Portes Ouvertes (Open Cellars Days) in Pessac Léognan several years ago. It made a good impression on me then, but I now feel that I should have opened it a while back, even if that seems odd to those of you who age your Bordeaux religiously on principle.

As for the white Fieuzal, I’ve had a few bum experiences there too, with premoxed bottles (this doesn’t just happen in Burgundy). There was a time when this wine was felt to be at the pinnacle of white Bordeaux, pretty much on a par with Domaine de Chevalier. And it may very well have been. I just never have experienced that.

I’d be interested to read other opinions and experiences.

Best regards,
Alex R.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8293
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: 2009 Fieuzal

Post by DavidG »

Hi Alex,

Sounds as though it didn’t really knock your socks off, but neither did your Fieuzal fizzle.

I agree with your assessment: reasonably pleasurable but not exciting. Though it’s been over a decade since I’ve had a Fieuzal. My experience was with their wines from the mid-late ‘80s. Some Graves-y character. A bit oaky though that’s not a total deal-breaker for me. I wasn’t getting any complexity with aging out to 10-15 years. Rather than trying to age them further, I drank up and moved on. Maybe they would have turned out better had I aged them religiously. How does one do that? A shrine to St.Vincent in the cellar?

Back then I’d have put this in the “cellar defender” category: drink young while waiting for the good stuff to develop. But there were less expensive alternatives for that, so I stopped buying.
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6243
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: 2009 Fieuzal

Post by stefan »

I used to drink de Fieuzal fairly often. It was reasonably priced and distinctly Graves, but I do not recall ever having a bottle of it that I would call exciting. Your impression of the 2009 is consistent with my experience with older vintages. I just checked that the 2009 sells for $60-70. No way.
User avatar
AKR
Posts: 5234
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:33 am
Contact:

Re: 2009 Fieuzal

Post by AKR »

I thought the 2000 rouge I had a while ago was chock full of typicity, especially on the bouquet, but it wasn't something I was dancing up and down about. I had a bunch of off bottles of the 1989 a lifetime ago, which kind of put me off their wines for a while.

Sometimes as nice or well made a wine is, that particular bottle may not shine. I suppose its balanced out by the times the oddballs or lesser names hit home runs.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20212
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 2009 Fieuzal

Post by JimHow »

de Fieuzal is as boring as a '93 Batailly.

It's like a Faugeres, zzz.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20212
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 2009 Fieuzal

Post by JimHow »

Or a Roc de Cambes zzzzzzzzzzzzz
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20212
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 2009 Fieuzal

Post by JimHow »

What is more boring, de Fieuzal or Carbonnieux?
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20212
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 2009 Fieuzal

Post by JimHow »

Chateau Clarke...

Boring? Not boring? I say boring.
User avatar
Claret
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:16 pm
Location: Reno, NV
Contact:

Re: 2009 Fieuzal

Post by Claret »

The 89 was horrible, varnish tainted.
Glenn
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6243
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: 2009 Fieuzal

Post by stefan »

Carbonnieux is more boring than de Fieuzal, IMO.
User avatar
Ianjaig
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:23 am
Contact:

Re: 2009 Fieuzal

Post by Ianjaig »

I bought 3 bottles of this upon release, but cant really remember why. The first 2 bottles had in 2016 didn't particularly impress and I had the last bottle tonight. The first couple glasses were PNP but I did also decant for a couple of hours.

Beautiful bouquet of intense leather and hints of vanilla. Blackcurrants and black olives. Full bodied, rich and opulent but with quite a short finish. In a good drinking window but I'm not sure it will improve much with time. Interesting I guess, but surprisingly 'modern' with some New World / Australian - almost "Coonawarra" characteristics.

So overall, not boring for me, just not really my style...
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 208 guests