is 2009 a weak vintage?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:02 am

Tasting a 2009 Sociando Mallet tonight.
It seems watery to me.

pomilion · Post by **pomilion** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:00 am

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:18 am

It's, if anything, a strong vintage with a tendency towards high alcohol, especially on the Right Bank.

Insofar as vintage generalizations go...

Sociando Mallet is receiving mixed reactions. these days.. It was a media darling for years. Prices rose accordingly and the area under vine grew by leaps and bounds.
The estate is now gigantic.
Perhaps quality suffered as a result.
I'd certainly like to do a vertical tasting of recent vintages.

I have a bottle of the 1982 vintage which I've been told is very herbaceous.
In fact, this is what I'm hearing Sociando Mallet reproached a lot: grenness.

All the best,
Alex R.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 12:34 pm

I was shocked at how thin the Sociando was last night.
It put on a tiny bit of weight by the end of the evening, but was a wisp of the traditional styled Sociandos of the 1980s and '90s.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:42 pm

I think wine lovers the world over should write off the entire 2009 vintage based on that one bottle! Then maybe prices would come down to the point where I could afford some first growths.

BTW, did you drink the '80s and '90s vintage SMs at 4 years of age? I know, I know, you can tell the difference between thin and dumb. Now might be an ITNOS type time to pop one, but for enjoyment? I dunno...

jal · Post by **jal** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:48 pm

DavidG wrote:I think wine lovers the world over should write off the entire 2009 vintage based on that one bottle! Then maybe prices would come down to the point where I could afford some first growths..

David, I've written off whole regions based on one bottle! What am I saying? Whole continents!

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 4:09 pm

I remember when the 2009s first came out, PappaDoc said to me something to the effect that 2009 was a weak vintage.
Not just overrated, over-hyped, etc., but... weak.
And I put that brief comment, made in passing, in the back of my head, and really haven't thought much about it over the past couple years.
I've had more than one different estate from 2009, I've had probably at least 20 different wines.
And while I've liked some, I'm starting to see some consistent traits thatI'm not thrilled about.
And I know the whole 1982 comparison argument, how many didn't like that vintage young, etc., but I'm not really sure this is an applicable comparison.
I've been really hit over the head by how weak some of these wines have been, the Sociando was actually shocking.
And I've had young Sociando and aged Sociando.
I uncorked another 2009 Haut Bergey last week and, again, was shocked at how green and underripe it seemed to me, mouth-puckering, tart.
I'll admit I haven't had the Lafites and Ducrus and Montroses yet from '09, but I shouldn't have to drink all the $300+ wines from a vintage to assess its quality.
And I think this is more than a style thing, a "you'll like 2010 better than 2009" thing.
While I'm a classic-styled, 1996/2002/1986 kind of guy, I also enjoy the 85s and 82s and 98Rs, etc., etc., etc.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:06 pm

Jim -

The 1982 argument wasn't that people didn't like them young, it was just the opposite. The '82s were too approachable young, and therefore weren't supposed to last or develop complexity. Tom showed us a thing or three about that in NYC in 2003.

Green and underripe sounds like the antithesis of the general descriptions I've read of the 2009 vintage. But I can't argue with someone who's actually been drinnking them. I haven't had any classed growths from '09, $300 or otherwise. I have had a few petites in the $15 range and they were pretty nice - medium body, ripe fruit, not over-ripe or sweet to my palate. Sociando is known for its green streak, and something I would think you'd like, Jim. Not if there's no fruit to back it up, but is the fruit there and just in hibernation?

Jacques -

OK, that's it for me for wines from Earth. Got any leads on some good Klingon wines? Where's RieslingFan when you need him? Isn't he Klingon?

Chasse-Spleen · Post by **Chasse-Spleen** » Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:55 am

I'm beginning to wonder if '09 isn't a bit over-hyped. I mean, I'm not ready to offer an in-depth analysis, but contrary to Parker's vintage ratings, numbers, etc, isn't it possible that '05, '00 and '10 are all better than '09? What would that say for '09, I ask you, my brothers?

-Chasse

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:02 am

Challenge authority, I say.
Just because He says it's so doesn't make it so.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:19 am

Chasse, you may well be on the mark. 2009 was definitely overhyped. Where it belongs in the hierarchy of "vintages of the century" remains to be seen. Like many other duos of vintages (89/90, 95/96), their relative quality may not be fully revealed for 10 years or more.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:42 pm

Time will tell. I have been pleased with the petit chateaux 2009 I have tried, but then I also liked most of the 2005s as well. I did not drink many P.C. 2000. Some of the classified 2000s are now very good. There is no doubt that 2000 was the vintage of the millennium when it was produced.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:42 pm

I enjoyed that 2009 Larrivet Haut Brion last night.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:56 pm

It is probably not the ideal time to be drinking these wines...

Having said that Herve Berland said that the mark of a truly great vintage is one that always drinks well, irrespective of its age. Perhaps thats why the 1982 vintage is greater than the 1986 vintage.

He thinks the 2009 Montrose is the equal greatest ever with the 1990. Though he admitted that the 2010 could challenge that.

In my book the 2010 was clearly better than the 2009. So were the 2005 and 2003 for that matter. That is a consistent pattern I have found. the 2009s are fleshy and opulent but lack the balance, finesse, freshness and structure of the 2010s.

The only example of where I preferred the 2009 to the 2010 is Pontet Canet. Without question the 2009 is the greatest ever Pontet Canet.

In my experience the 2005s are better than the 2009s. Of the four vintages of the century/Millennia there is now a clear pecking order: 2010, 2005, 2009, 2000. Nothing will challenge nor overturn that conclusion.

Is the 2009 vintage over hyped? For sure. (But less so than the 2000 vintage was.)

Is it a weak vintage? No.

AlohaArtakaHoundsong · Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:21 pm

Comte Flaneur wrote:Of the four vintages of the century/Millennia there is now a clear pecking order: 2010, 2005, 2009, 2000. Nothing will challenge nor overturn that conclusion.

I admire your conviction.

Rieslingfan · Post by **Rieslingfan** » Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:50 pm

K'Plah! ( that is a little bit of Klingon for DavidG)

Only '09s I have had are La Prade and Hourtin Ducasse. Both were very enjoyable wines. I did not buy a single bottle of classed growth in 2009. 2005 is where they lost me.

tim · Post by **tim** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 10:01 am

I'm beginning to think that maybe Robert Parker is overhyped...

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 4:31 pm

I am waiting for the BD to defend '02 left bank wines. He is almost as high on them as he was on the '96s.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 4:53 pm

I had the 09 Lunch Bags not too long ago. Anything but thin.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 5:05 pm

Oh I'm clearly on the record as stating that 2002L is the greatest post-2000 vintage, Stefan, and I completely seriously stand by that position. I in no way state that just to be contrarian or controversial. I believe in my heart that the left bank wines produced that year are classically styled, Oxford/Cambridge claret, structured, anti-Parker, anti-internationalized, lower alcohol, an exception to the hot, highly extracted, Kalifornicated Global warming "Bordeaux" that we have been seeing in the past 15+ plus years of Parker, Asia, grotesque pricing, grotesque Hong Kong auctions and Dubai airport offerings, the counterfeiting, the phony heavy glass bottlings and tissue paper, the Rolex crowd approach to wines, the phony sommeliers, the phony auctions of "gentlemen's" cellars, etc., etc., etc.....

2002 provided about the last oasis from all that nonsense. The sheep have followed Him as 2005, 2009, 2010, and one "vintage of the millenium" after another has been produced. The sheep believed him with their hypnotized, glazed over eyes, when he said that 2008 (that swill of a vintage) was "great" (or some such adjective), then he realized well, okay, maybe it wasn't so great after all.

Anyone who wants to believe something is "great" just because a guy who puts his pants on like the rest of us says so, that's your prerogative and right. And it is my right to question "authority" as well.

My second favorite vintage since 2000, by the way, has been 2006 -- well made wines, good fruit, but light on their feet, not hot or over-exracted....

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 5:31 pm

Ya, I gotta agree with Jim on '06 -- it is turning out better than I was expecting it to. And I've been slowly picking more of it up. But a recent bottle of "Alter Ego" is making me rethink '08. I wouldn't want to generalize from one example, but after being opened for 3 days it turned into a very nice wine. Certainly not swill.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:16 pm

Should we include late 1990s wines in this discussion? Lucie and I drank 1998 Cos D'Estournel last night for my belated birthday dinner. The spice has started to come out in the wine--nutmeg and thyme--and the wine is chewy with licorice laced crushed black currants soaked in cassis. 91 + (the plus means that when the wine is fully mature it should merit a point or two more). With left bank '98 wines turning out better than predicted and the right bank wines being the best of the decade, I think that 1998 is a year that deserves to be upgraded. Moreover, 1998 was before spoofilating Bordeaux became so popular.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:20 pm

True.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:55 am

Damn, I passed on some 98 GPL not too long ago. Kicking myself!

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:30 am

We drank 2009 de Sales again tonight. Decent structure; not too tannic. Lacks charm at this point, but the oak has receded a bit. I cannot say that it tastes right now like it came from a great vintage, but the lack of water in the mouth suggests that it is not from a weak one. Should improve for 6-10 years, but who stores wines at this level for that long?

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 5:44 pm

Jim... 2009 could be the best vintage of my lifetime for Bordeaux. It might not be to your taste as you are a much bigger fan of years like 2002 than I am. You need to keep in mind, the small amount of wines you're tasting do not represent the vintage one way or another. I love the wines. They are produced in a very hedonistic, sensuous, rich, pure, elegant style. I look forward to tasting them over the next several decades of their life and mine.

You can persuse many of my notes here : http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/cat ... s-reviews/

robert goulet · Post by **robert goulet** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:58 pm

.very hedonistic, sensuous, rich

I have no problem with Jeff loving this vintage, but these are descriptors I like in my napa/Washington state wines....not my bordeaux...I doubt I will ever add much '09 bordeaux to the cellar...in the big picture, that's what makes it all great, if everyone liked the same style can u imagine how frigin' boring would that be?

pomilion · Post by **pomilion** » Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:01 pm

robert goulet wrote:
.very hedonistic, sensuous, rich
I have no problem with Jeff loving this vintage, but these are descriptors I like in my napa/Washington state wines....not my bordeaux...I doubt I will ever add much '09 bordeaux to the cellar...in the big picture, that's what makes it all great, if everyone liked the same style can u imagine how frigin' boring would that be?

Having tasted every bordeaux vintage from 2000 to 2010 somewhat thoroughly (including attending all the UGC tastings of the 2003 through the 2010 vintages except for 2007), there's no question in my mind that '09 is a great vintage. Since 2000, '05, '09 and '10 certainly appear to be the overall strongest bordeaux vintages. The personal relative drinking preference of various vintages is of course a matter of individual taste, however, and I get why Jim likes '02 so much. For me, '02 is one of the weaker vintages of the decade. As for Robert's point, the '09s only taste like Napa wines (if at all) in comparison to other bordeaux vintages. I've blind tasted '05s and '09s against Napa wines numerous times and have never failed to identify the bordeaux wines (the reverse isn't completely true - in several cases I've thought a CA wine was from bordeaux - Ridge Monte Bello in one tasting, for example).

Jim -- I'm puzzled by your description of many '09s you've had as weak, thin, underripe, green, mouth-puckering, tart, etc. That hasn't been my experience at all - as others have said, if anything the '09s are on the ripe, rich, hedonistic, full-bodied end of the bordeaux spectrum. Of course, individual wines and bottles may vary, and I'm not sure it's the best time to be sampling '09s. I do agree with your comment about Parker and '08 -- he completely blew that call, hailing it as a monumental vintage and then radically revising his estimation once the wines were bottled. In my tasting experience (including the UGC tasting), many -- though not all -- '08s are underfruited and overly acidic.

As for the relative merits of '00, '05, '09 and '10, which several folks have commented on, for me it's a regional thing to some degree. In St. Emilion, for example, '05 is a much stronger vintage than '09 and '10, whereas next door in Pomerol, '09 is the strongest of the three vintages. On the left bank, '09 and '10 are generally stronger vintages than '05. Of course, there are many exceptions to the foregoing generalizations.

robert goulet · Post by **robert goulet** » Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:05 pm

pomilion wrote:
robert goulet wrote:
.very hedonistic, sensuous, rich
I have no problem with Jeff loving this vintage, but these are descriptors I like in my napa/Washington state wines....not my bordeaux...I doubt I will ever add much '09 bordeaux to the cellar...in the big picture, that's what makes it all great, if everyone liked the same style can u imagine how frigin' boring would that be?
Having tasted every bordeaux vintage from 2000 to 2010 somewhat thoroughly (including attending all the UGC tastings of the 2003 through the 2010 vintages except for 2007), there's no question in my mind that '09 is a great vintage. Since 2000, '05, '09 and '10 certainly appear to be the overall strongest bordeaux vintages. The personal relative drinking preference of various vintages is of course a matter of individual taste, however, and I get why Jim likes '02 so much. For me, '02 is one of the weaker vintages of the decade. As for Robert's point, the '09s only taste like Napa wines (if at all) in comparison to other bordeaux vintages. I've blind tasted '05s and '09s against Napa wines numerous times and have never failed to identify the bordeaux wines (the reverse isn't completely true - in several cases I've thought a CA wine was from bordeaux - Ridge Monte Bello in one tasting, for example).

Jim -- I'm puzzled by your description of many '09s you've had as weak, thin, underripe, green, mouth-puckering, tart, etc. That hasn't been my experience at all - as others have said, if anything the '09s are on the ripe, rich, hedonistic, full-bodied end of the bordeaux spectrum. Of course, individual wines and bottles may vary, and I'm not sure it's the best time to be sampling '09s. I do agree with your comment about Parker and '08 -- he completely blew that call, hailing it as a monumental vintage and then radically revising his estimation once the wines were bottled. In my tasting experience (including the UGC tasting), many -- though not all -- '08s are underfruited and overly acidic.

As for the relative merits of '00, '05, '09 and '10, which several folks have commented on, for me it's a regional thing to some degree. In St. Emilion, for example, '05 is a much stronger vintage than '09 and '10, whereas next door in Pomerol, '09 is the strongest of the three vintages. On the left bank, '09 and '10 are generally stronger vintages than '05. Of course, there are many exceptions to the foregoing generalizations.

Like I said people will enjoy different styles for different reasons....and at times or right moment I do enjoy hedonistic, ripe and rich.

But when I am describing my all time favorite or preferable bordeaux wines...these descriptors have never entered into the equation.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:31 pm

They don't make 'em like they used to, Pom.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:45 pm

I was looking at the label of a 1989 Lynch I was thinking of bidding on this week.
12.5%.
You don't see that anymore.
If Bordeaux produced a vintage with 12.5% alcohol wines today, people would say it's a lousy vintage.
Yet, all the great vintages of the past century were in the 12.5% range.
And the only vintage in this century that is even close to 12.5% was 2002.
Everything else is over extracted, hot, alcoholic, international.
Parkerized.

robert goulet · Post by **robert goulet** » Sun Dec 15, 2013 7:33 pm

Orlando Bobby rags on me about 2009 chateau macard, that he calls, 'the canard' ...this wine was $12.99 with 12.5% alcohol...it was brilliant stuff(tasted two cases worth) unfortunately a second shipment of the '09 came to the U.S With a different colored foil a bright red instead of the previous maroon color...well this second batch was clearly inferior product a la. Sierra carche fiasco...this is batch Orlando Bobby tasted, so he will haunt me forever about this, but yes Jim I was surprised at the alcohol level, and to this day (first batch) it remains still one of my favorite '09 bordeaux wines. Again, $12.99...amazing

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Sun Dec 15, 2013 9:26 pm

JimHow wrote:They don't make 'em like they used to...

And that's a good thing

robert goulet · Post by **robert goulet** » Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:29 pm

Jim...bobby just texted me declaring he is done with St. Emilion...he said to much Parker and Splinters

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:31 pm

St. Emilion... Is that in France?

robert goulet · Post by **robert goulet** » Sun Dec 15, 2013 11:13 pm

JimHow wrote:St. Emilion... Is that in France?

No

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sun Dec 15, 2013 11:19 pm

robert goulet wrote:Jim...bobby just texted me declaring he is done with St. Emilion...he said to much Parker and Splinters

Even Figeac? I know they're under new direction, but has anyone tasted a difference yet?

As to Bobby's specific reasons for throwing in the towel: Splinters I get, but I'd like to know what Parker tastes like, and how Bobby knows…

Anyway, more for me! I'm an equal opportunity Bordeaux Wine Enthusiast, IOW a BWE slut. I like the restrained, lower alcohol classics, but it also takes a lot of oak, alcohol and ripeness to push past my comfort zone.

Am I allowed to bring a Pomerol or St. Emilion to BWE DC?

pomilion · Post by **pomilion** » Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:07 am

DavidG wrote:
robert goulet wrote:Jim...bobby just texted me declaring he is done with St. Emilion...he said to much Parker and Splinters
Even Figeac? I know they're under new direction, but has anyone tasted a difference yet?

Perhaps 2009 Figeac is an aberration because of the character of the vintage, but it tasted very modern at the UGC, unlike any prior vintage of Figeac I've tasted. It was actually fantastic if you like modern-style bordeaux (one of my wines of the tasting), but you never would have picked it blind as Figeac in a million years.

robert goulet · Post by **robert goulet** » Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:16 am

Bobby said Figeac is the exception but unfortunately now too expensive

Lol david

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Mon Dec 16, 2013 3:25 am

"It was actually fantastic if you like modern-style bordeaux (one of my wines of the tasting), but you never would have picked it blind as Figeac in a million years."

I mean, Pom, isn't that the problem here? It's no longer Bordeaux! It's become something else.