I had the chance to taste my first 2009 Burgundies last week - we had a tasting at a friends shop with the Domaine Bernard Moreau, the wines were introduced by Alexandre Moreau. I really like their white Bourgogne and Chassagne Montrachet, very good, solid wines for a good price, even I’m not so fond of their reds. Anyway, we tasted the 2009 Bourgogne, Puligny Montrachet 2009 and the Bourgogne Rouge 2009, plus some 2008 and 2007.
The Bourgogne white It was a surprise. Since the Moreau wines are very typical Burgundies, I expected something completely different. I’m not so experienced with young wines, but this Bourgogne was more like a Chardonnay from Australia or the States – not the same body, but very easy to drink very, very low acidity, some hints of lemon, a lot of honey and an open, floral character.
The 2009 Puligny Montrachet was a bit different – there was the impression of more acidity, but at the second sip I realized that it was the typical Puligny minerals, more structure then the Bourgogne (no surprise) but very low acidity, a lot of floral notes (which I found more in modern versions of Sauvignon Blanc before) and hints of Lemon, too.
I really liked both wines – but wouldn’t drink them if I want a Burgundy.
The 2009 Bourgogne Pinot Noir was a bit disappointing. A bit flat, very low acidity, too, some black fruits, you could literally smell the warm summer, it was like the fragrance of a hot sunset. Very charming, but not exciting and not very dynamic, lets say. In this way, I can understand the comparison to 2003, even if the 2009 definetely lacks the cooked fruit.
Unfortunately I lost my notes, so the impressions are not very detailed. But overall I wouldn’t compare the 2009 with 1999. 2009 is much lower in acidity, has more body and is less well balanced (at least in my opinion - I expect more acidity in a burgundy if its described as well balanced). Alexandre told me, that the 2009 (in contrary to the 2005) will be for early consume – “good wines for restaurants” to quote him. And in fact, in a way I had the impression of the 2000 vintage, very charming and open. Alexandre said that the 2009 will last much longer then 2000, anyway. Bottomline: Roelof (see above) paints a pretty good picture of the 2009 here.
So, basically I’m more confused then before. OK, I just tasted a Bourgogne and a Village, and I don’t drink the wines so young normally, but still this has nothing to do for me with 1999, neither with 2005. But probably Bill is right when he says, that 2009 is more like 2009 ;-)