I already tasted and bought some 2009 Burgundy for my cellar before our trip and liked most of the wines I had the chance to taste. But it´s certainly true that one has to select carefuly in any vintage.
Price is a different issue. The good wines are very expensive unfortunatly. But I thought even the enty level wines at good Domains are impressive.
I like to add something. Fruit is what disappears first in a wine. Acid and tannin outlive the fruit. So it´s an advantage and not a disadvantage if a wine has a good dose of fruit when young. And this is the case in many 2009 Burgundy because the vintage had an almost perfect growing season. With some bottle age the baby fat will gone and the wines will be much more elegant and civilized.
2008 was a very difficult year for Burgundy. Rot was one of the problems the Domains had. In fact the vintner had to do a lot of spraying to safe the harvest. It was much more difficult in 2008 to pick healthy and ripe fruit than in 2009 which was quite perfect. Since the weather wasn´t hot and the nights were cold the vintner had no fear they will have fruit without freshness. In fact the acid levels of 2009 are not low and the alcohol levels not that much different from 2008. So the main difference between 2008 and 2009 is the quality of the raw material. In 2009 the fruit was way healthier, the phenolic ripeness better, the tannins silkier, the balance between all elements pretty perfect. So it´s only natural and logic to think that 2009 is a way better vintage than 2008. I admire the good domains of producing some very good wines in a year that was more than challenging. But IMO from a pure quality standpoint 2009 towers way ahead over most other vintages of the last 20 years. Only 1999, 2002 and 2005 are as good but certainly different in style. And what I think is the biggest advantage of 2009: Even the entry level wines are made of good and ripe fruit so one musn´t buy the top Premiers and Grands Crus to have a very good wine. The village wines of 2009 are of a rare quality.
Jurgen, I appreciate that you love the 2009 vintage and think 2008 is far inferior. But these things are opinions, not subject to mathmatical proof. For example, how would you respond to someone who has tasted widely from 2001 and 2002, and prefers 2001?
Lewis,
everybody can like what he wants. But wouldn´t you agree that at least some things should be common sense like the quality of the fruit or with other words the quality of the raw product from which wine is made?
The fruit of 2009 was very healthy. That is not a given on the terroirs of Burgundy. in 2008 for instance vintner had to put tons of chemical products into their vinyards to battle several illnesses. It was really difficult in that year to have good raw material. In 2009 it was no problem for almost any Domaine to pick fully ripe and healthy fruit with good acid due to a moderately warm growing season with cold nights. These are the weather conditions any vintner I know dream of. And normally the best wines comes from the best fruit. At least to me their is some logic behind this.
BTW: I don´t say this because I have no respect for you. It´s more an reaction to the statements some people made sometimes 2009 wines are jammy, overripe and lack freshness. I think all this is not true. That is my motiv.
I hadn’t notice that “towering” statement.Calling those three vintages “as good” is certainly putting 2009 way “up there”…maybe prematurely. (Weird things can happen to wines once in bottle; the 2004 plague mainly showed its ugliness after bottling, seemingly starting in 2007, for example.)
It all gets back to definitions/criteria…and the issue raised on another thread: people who don’t look at highly fruity pinot noir as a plus…
RE: 2001 vs. 2002…I think, Lew, you answered the question: it’s a “preference”…and needs more definition to even know what someone is talking about. Like the guy on the other thread who thinks that 1993 is the greatest vintage he knows…you really do have to know his criteria and point of view to even understand what he is trying to say about 1993-- other than that he obviously bought a lot of it and likes the character of the best wines…and maybe ignores the dropoff in quality from those best wines, in judging the vintage.
You said fruity Pinot Noir. But the question to me is still: What should a vintner other prefer than having ripe and healthy grapes? I mean vintners are farmers and they do their best to get ripe and healthy grapes. And anybody at the Cotes ´d Or confirmed that 2009 was not a hot year and the nights were cold. There is no lack of freshness and the wines will become more elegant with time when the baby fat melts.
Let me be a bit sarcastic and I hope you don´t get me wrong and you tolerate my slightly ironic question: Why should a vintner prefer unripe or unhealty fruit? To make wines people are familiar with and love because the Burgundy vintners have seldom years with such an ideal growing season like 2009? Because a wine with full fruit expression AND a good structure is not the model for Burgundy? Why? Because people know Burgundy with some problems more or less like 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2008? I mean one has to admire the good producer that they were able to make some good wines in all those less than ideal years. But most people I know familiar with Burgundy look for red wines from vintages 1978, 1985, 1990, 1991, 1999, 2002, 2005 and - I am sure - 2009. Why?
Again - I don´t say there are no wines from lesser vintages that are interesting and worth of buying and drinking. And I agree with you that surprises happen all the time. But I would be more than surprised if 2009 didn´t produce many superb Burgundies.
Jürgen, I understand what you are saying and it makes much sense.
The thing is, when we were at Mugnier, Frederic explained something interesting about 2009. He said that when the grapes are ripe, the pulp tends to stick to the stems, which was not really the case for him at least in 2009 because the ripening was relatively fast. What intrigued me however was how he also told us that 2009 is a “great vintage” and will last “a long time”.
He told the same to none other than David Schildknecht, who in his reviews wrote: “Mugnier describes the 2009s as rich, powerful and exceptionally dense wines that will be at their most exciting in several decades’ time, or – as Mugnier says with his typically dry sense of humor – when he’s no longer around.”
Still, it seems that Frederic honestly prefers vintages like 2008 because the ripening is more gradual, even though the summer weather was less interesing. He explained that 2008 is not like 1996 (if I recall correctly) because temperatures are higher these last few years when compared to the mid 90s - he was talking about the effects of global warming. And that even though the summer was not so appealing in 2008, the ripeness levels necessary to make fine Burgundy were achieved.
Could one compare then Pinot Noir to how the Alsatians address Riesling: a grape that likes the sun overhead and the rain underneath?
On the other hand, I share your feeling that some of this is a bit overkill. The 2009 vintage was marked by fine weather and the grapes were ripe. How many times did I hear that when I was in Burgundy in September 2009 at the time of the harvest? Everyone was VERY happy with the weather conditions and the harvest… from Alex Gambal to Philippe Prost at Bouchard. And when I tasted at Louis Jadot with Jacques Lardiere in December last year, he said he preferred 2009 to 2005! And compared 2009 to 1959, another “great vintage”…
Although it must be said that some vintners - drawing the inevitable comparison with the last “great” vintage 2005 - said that 2009 will not last as long as 2005. See this story:
Again, I am not nearly as experienced as many posters here with Burgundy, but based on what we tasted - and what I tasted in December last year even at less “prestigious” estates - the 2009 vintage is pretty darn good and even superb. I mean, again, it was not overly hot either (the fresh nights). Some wines we tasted did show a bit of heat, at least I thought so, but most were just fine. The 2008s we tasted were not always that interesting, I agree. Although I liked the 2008s we tasted at JF Mugnier a bit more than you did 
.
The 2008 Clos de la Marechale and the Bonnes Mares we got to taste had a slight green aspect. I didn´t thought it´s a flaw. It added complexity and the wines were certainly a cool expression of Pinot Noir. To me the wines were good and I liked them. I even would buy a bottle or two of the Clos de la Marechale or the Bonnes Mares if the price is correct. But I think the 2009 are the better wines and they will last longer. I am not sure if the 2008 wines we talk about here do really last that long. Time will tell.
BTW: It´s certainly interesting what the producer say and everybody should listen. As important is to taste the wines.
Remember too, guys, what Marie-Christine told us, that they were very careful at the pre-fermentation stage and only used the freshest grapes. I’ve made some of my own comments in my epilogue post but I’ll continue to stick to my own humble guns and say that there existed potential to make non-burgundian wines, just as there existed potential to make some of the best wines of the decade, it will all be in how it was handled in each case, and I think the ageability of these wines in 09 will be the most interesting thing to track. I would welcome the chance to taste some great 08s. In general, I can’t say that I really did on this trip…and Jurgen, I do think more and more that the 95 Chicotot NSG we opened…that particular wine could act as the telltale for where the 08s are headed.
Yes Mike, I am with you, if the fruit is fragile drink the wines better earlier than later. That is my experience because the fruit is the first what disappears in a wine. Tannins and acid will always outlive the fruit. Not every 2009 Burgundy is a success. But many are IMHO. And if the Domaines made a good job the wines will certainly be among the best of the last 25 years. That is my opinion. There are certainly very good wines made in 2008. That is no question. But the circumstances were really not favorable compared to those of 2009. You mentined Mugneret Gibourg and Taupenot-Merme. The 2009 we tasted of this producer will ever be in my mind. A memorable experience. Thank you for the great moments we shared!