|
I have no doubt that 2009 will rank as a great vintage. During our trip to Bordeaux, I tasted more than two dozen wines where I concluded that the 2009 was one of the finest, if not the finest example I have ever tasted from that Château at such an early stage. Clearly these are unfinished wines, but the best of the vintage offer staggering potential. It may not be as even up and down the scale and across appellations as 2005, but the heights reached by this vintage comfortably exceed those of 2005.
Vintage Comparisons
In the Médoc, I found myself alluding to a structure akin to 1996, but with perhaps greater density of fruit. 2009 isn’t open and opulent in the same way as was 2005, the wines are much more restrained and taut. Additionally, although it was a ‘drought’ vintage, they do not show the headier aspects of a vintage like 2003 and are much more evidently structural than the remarkably harmonious 2000s. Perhaps the best the best comparison is a hybrid: the concentration of 2005, with the classical profile of 1996?
On the right bank, I found a natural association with a vintage like 1998; fresh, but with effortless density, although probably more concentrated and tannic in 2009.
On that note, much has been made of the concentration of tannin. However, the manner in which the tannins are expressed is far more important than its IPT (tannin index) rating. The tannic structure of the best 2009s is very classic.
|
|
|