Home > Wine Features > Bordeaux 2009: First Report

Bordeaux 2009: First Report

Let us cast our minds back to November 2009, and at the annual Claret Tasting at the Institute of Masters of Wine in London all our focus was naturally on the fabulous wines in front of us, all from the 2005 vintage. Well, nearly all of our attention; there was also more than a little chat concerning the latest vintage which was set, if some were to be believed, to give the 2005 crown a knock, if not displace it permanently. There were a couple of winemakers and proprietors present, and their opinions were clearly formed and stated; 2009 was a brilliant vintage. It was difficult, it was said, to know which was better; the famed 2005 vintage, with its uniform texture and quality, or 2009, with its fabulous growing season and its richly coloured musts. It was a very upbeat message, supported by a handful of reports from those attendees who had already visited the region during the harvest and early stages of the fermentations. The nascent wines were it seems rich, deeply coloured and characterful. Such was the level of confidence that, come primeur time, some punters on online wine fora questioned the need to travel and taste the wines at all. Clearly, the conclusion was that all the wines would be just fine, based on little more than some meteorological data and the colour of a few musts. Weathermen are the new wine critics, it seems; move over Bob Parker, Michael Fish* is here.

The decision had been made. It was already, for some, a great vintage. You could almost perceive their hands, resting lightly on their wallets, with just the occasional twitch of the trigger finger as it readied for action.

Were these the same people who were so vocal in their vehement rejection of Bordeaux 2008, I wonder? In that case the judgement - without a drop having been tasted - told us that the vintage was one to ignore. Tasting the wine in Bordeaux, I disagreed; there were some fabulous flavours in that vintage, fresh, crisp and crystalline fruits, and the wines were well worth exploring. This was a valuable lesson for all Bordeaux acolytes (and indeed acolytes of any other appellation); all wine regions have ups and downs, both between and within vintages, and assumptions on quality based on weather reports are unwise. After all, if a history of lovely sunny days are all that is required to make great wine, the Languedoc would have a great vintage every year, and the vineyards of France should perhaps be relocated to North Africa. No, there is more to it than that.

Bordeaux 2009: Consistent Inconsistency

If by the term 'great vintage' we mean a collection of wines of broad, universal success then I cannot conclude that 2009 is such a vintage. There are, however, some prodigious wines in this vintage. If, however, instead of looking for broad success it is a smaller collection of such extraordinary wines that we use to define the vintage - rather as any account of the success of the 1947 vintage always seems to focus on one star wine, that of Cheval Blanc - then with time, perhaps in 50 years or so, people will talk of the great 2009 vintage. But by this point many wines will have fallen by the wayside, their journeys from barrel sample through to maturity ending as they slide into a disjointed alcoholic stupor, much like those who might imbibe too heavily on these alcohol-rich cuvées.

To me a great vintage is one that has uniform appeal, a vintage of balance, richness, structure and freshness, where delicious and ultimately drinkable and desirable wines have been made at all levels, from the first growths through to the bottom-end, bargain Bourgeois estates. And in-between we could perhaps hope for a smooth quality gradient, ranked chateaux perhaps staying true to their classifications (there will happily always be those that overperform), and also displaying ties to their terroir and their commune, displaying typicity and savouriness. They should be wines with broad appeal, pulling in punters from all over, whether their preference is for the more classic structured clarets of bygone days (because the wines have that structure, but not too much exuberant richness) or for wines with more flesh and sweetness (because they have that too, and the structure does not impose itself).

This broad appeal isn't there in 2009; the story is more complicated than that. There are peaks and troughs, sweet-spots and death-traps in almost every appellation. Tasting across the communes, moving from one to the next, they were consistent in their inconsistency. There is plenty of hype out there, but don't be swept up by it. There is not guaranteed success in this vintage. The 2015 restaurant wine list offering you a selection of 2009 clarets should be regarded not with joy, but with circumspect caution. Let me state this clearly; 2009 - talking specifically of the red wines from Bordeaux - is not a great vintage.

Let's pick this argument apart by taking a look - in advance of the publication if my notes next week - at the arguments for and against this vintage. First of all, in the vintage's favour, 2009 has some great wines at the top end. Most of the first growths were spectacular, most of the second growths magnificent, with superb wines from the likes of Léoville-Las-Cases, Léoville-Barton, Ducru-Beaucaillou, Pichon-Baron and so on. Secondly, following on from these super-stars, there are some sweet spots for the vintage, especially in Pauillac and then St Julien, and indeed in many communes it seemed there were always a handful of wines that were wonderful, jewels set against a less-than-glittering backdrop. And when we look at these wines, they do indeed seem magnificent; they have amazing colour, substance, texture and acidity, and also an incredible wall of tannin, setting these wines up for a long life. Some wines will be drinking very well in 50 years time, and indeed this 'less than great' vintage has turned out what is certainly the greatest young wine I have ever tasted. "A glass of the legendary 2009 Latour, anyone?" will be a question to make the heart of any 21st-century Bordeaux drinker flutter.

Bordeaux 2009: Don't Believe the Hype

Why, though, are there 'sweet-spots' and not universal success? Why, given the above, am I not prepared to join the great vintage hype? First, although the Cabernet-based wines are delicious - which is reflected in the successes to be found in Pauillac and St Julien this year - those based on Merlot are not always so bright and harmonious. The Merlots ripen earlier than the Cabernets, and are harvested earlier as a result, and in this vintage this more precocious variety seems to have challenged the Bordelais, who had to hold off picking the sugar-ripe fruit while it slowly attained physiological ripeness, the ripeness of the skins and pips. And as they did so sugar levels rose, and so did the alcohol levels in the finished wines. Many wines as a result showed overt alcohol, either a whiff of spirit on the nose, or a firm kick on the palate, or indeed simple heat towards the back of the mouth. Such wines did not appeal to me, and where I spotted this characteristic I marked them lower.

Others, however, carried this rich alcohol very well. Much has already been said of Troplong-Mondot, a news-story in itself with its 15.5% alcohol (sufficiently high for it to qualify for a higher rate of alcohol duty in the UK, as it falls in a band intended for fortified wines such as Port and Sherry). I tasted this wine blind, with no inkling at that point as to the alcohol concentration, and I did not sense this component of the wine's make-up. Yes, it was certainly a huge wine, with an inky-black hue, a lush and sweet fruit texture, a pile of tannin too. But hot or spirity? No, not at all, in fact I thought it was delicious. Is this deliciousness indicative of this wine developing into a savoury, classically-lined Bordeaux suitable for drinking with a lightly seared filet mignon in ten year's time? Plainly not. Is it possible that the wine may evolve into a delicious, intense style of wine, full of well-framed sweet fruit and ripe, almost Californian-style tannins? Yes. In fact, the wine was so seductive I found it was one of my higher-scoring St Emilions. If ever there was a vintage where the notes are more important than the scores, then it is this one.

So this is a vintage of highs and lows, soaring peaks of quality but also catastrophic troughs. There are indeed some majestic wines, including one - perhaps I have already mentioned the name - that sent shivers down my spine, quite literally. Typing my notes at Latour directly onto my laptop, I found myself staring into my reflection in the screen, and I suddenly noticed my rather other-worldly expression, a look of disbelief, at the quality of what I was tasting. This is a wine which combines purity and power, structure with finesse and perfect balance, a wine to rattle your emotions. Our humbled group of tasters left in an uncharacteristically subdued silence, dumbstruck, before the inevitable hubbub began.

But what of the lows? They are there, often wines made on lesser terroirs, which is a surprise as you might think cooler soils may fare better in such a long, protracted summer. But I do not think it is the terroir that counts, it is more that these soils, rich in clay rather than gravel, tend to be planted with Merlot. And so a number of wines from the Médoc and from St Estèphe seemed - to be blunt - like a disastrous mess. Equally, on the clay and Merlot-driven right bank there were many hot and top-heavy wines, although there were also many that were finely elegant. Indeed, the top estates all seem to have had a stylistic congregation, as Ausone, Petrus and Vieux Chateau Certan all showed a fine almost Burgundian style that seemed to transcend the long, warm summer of the vintage. But there were many others that showed overt alcohol and massive tannins. And, to be fair, there were also those wines that seemed, despite being Cabernet-dominated, to be as unbalanced, hot and hard as the Merlot wines. Not many, but they were there, lining up behind their group leader, Cos d'Estournel.

Bordeaux 2009: Not Just Red

Before I finish up, a few words on the whites. Any definition of a great vintage, without stipulating which wines we are talking about, naturally assumes we are talking about the red wines. But we must not forget the whites. In the case of the dry whites, the vintages often do not match, such as 2002 (delicious dry whites, more classically austere reds) and the same is true of the sweet wines, for example 1997 and 2007 (delicious Sauternes, lesser reds).

In the case of 2009, the dry whites are varied, although my tasting is very limited. The flavours in some wines are super and bright, occasionally a touch crystalline. Some have the acidity we crave, but in some it is lower, more like that in 2005. If you value flavour over structure and acidity, this could be a very good vintage for you. If it is zip and vigour you crave most, choose a cooler vintage.

As for the Sauternes, these were stunning. The reds may show consistent inconsistency, but that is not the case here. As a group these were a joy to taste, and I found the acidity I needed, but also the texture and flavour of nascent botrytis in the wine. This is a great vintage for these wines.

So that rounds up my 'first thoughts'. This is not such a great vintage of uniform success as was initially suggested as, surprise, surprise, it's more complicated than that! All the more reason to find your critic, follow their guidance, look at their reviews and scores and - as vital as ever in this vintage - read their notes. If you wish to read mine, if I can find the time (a hectic family weekend lies ahead), my full report on the vintage kicks off on Tuesday next week. (2/4/10)

*For readers outside the UK, a famous UK weatherman.