2009 Château Margaux

Community Tasting Notes (55) Avg Score: 97.4 points

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View Cailles's profile
  • Report Issue

  3/6/2024 - Cailles wrote: 95 Points

  Margaux Extravaganza: Margaux vs. Palmer vs. Brane over two decades (1996/2009/2015). Given the pedigree of the vintages, particularly for Chateau Margaux, expectations were quite high, but especially the last two vintages didn't live up to past performances (I've previously rated Ch. Margaux up to 100pts, Ch. Margaux 2015 up to 99pts, and Palmer 2009 98pts) at first. There were some overripe aromas that were too prominent and an uncharacteristic imbalance. Of course, Ch. Margaux and Palmer showed remarkable complexity and precision, but the balance was a bit off. Still, these are some good to great wines, especially on day 2 and with more air they got better and better. Ultimately, Ch. Margaux 2015 (96pts) was the winner with its unique aromatic profile, slightly outperforming the 1996 and 2009 vintages, both at 95pts. Brane and Palmer were a notch or two below, with the Palmer 2015 particularly affected by premature oxidation. I don't doubt the potential of these wines, given the many fine examples I had last year, but I wouldn't open them today.
  
  TN: Impressive concentration with loads and loads of ripe dark and red fruit, seductive coffee notes, beautiful minerality, lots of earthy notes and some tobacco. At first it seemed a bit too packed and dense, too heavy but the more air it got, the better it got. On day two it even got more floral, lighter and more airy lifting it to a higher level. This vintage currently needs a lot of air, or better just wait another decade before opening it. This was the weakest bottle of Margaux 2009 I've had so far, all others were close to perfection (and one even at 100pts) but all wines today showed below their pedegree.

  2 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View GBFan's profile
  • Report Issue

  2/10/2024 - GBFan Likes this wine: 98 Points

  The nose is gorgeous. This is one of those rare wines that you don't even want to drink because then you can't smell it any more. On the palate, no tannin, totally sikly and wonderfully complex. This has the classic Chateau Margaux combination of elegance and power. It will probably be even better in 5-10 years, but even now it is sublime. This is either the best Chateau Margaux I have had or at least it's a tie with the '83 and '53.

  1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View alexbhurst1678's profile
  • Report Issue

  1/24/2024 - alexbhurst1678 wrote: 92 Points

  Drank w my dad and Carolyn; probably should have decanted more, but out of the gate was beyond underwhelming; finally warmed up after about 30 minutes -- though never really hit its peak; I'm unclear why everyone is so excited about this wine and Margaux in general; I've now had multiple bottles and haven't been blown away by any of them.

  1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View sirpat00's profile
  • Report Issue

  12/16/2023 - sirpat00 wrote: 94 Points

  Part of a Margaux appellation mini-vertical and horizontal comparing Margaux, Palmer, Brane Cantenac 1996, 2009 and 2015. The 1996 were double-decanted prior to the tasting while some of the 2015 spent time in the decanter. Unsurprisingly, Margaux came in first in all 3 vintages, Palmer in the middle and Brane last, expect in 2015 where I think we might have hit a bad bottle for Palmer. 1996 is coming along beautifully and appears to be in its prime drinking window while 2009 took a steep step down from its 10-years state a few years ago. For now, the 2015 appear to manage the concentration better (although Palmer was disappointing).
  
  Tasting note:
  Rather extracted fruit of black cherry, red cherry and black currant fruit. Sweet and peppery spices. Leather and a shot of black coffee. Sumptuous, sweet palate with lots of tension into the finish and supple tannins. While still easily more than solid, compared to 3-4 years ago this really seems to have fallen off a cliff in terms of elegance and lightness.

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View J_H's profile
  • Report Issue

  12/16/2023 - J_H Likes this wine: 95 Points

  Margaux battle: 1996 vs. 2009 vs. 2015: Overall conclusions:
  1) Margaux has a very nice stilistic and somehow a flowery character and was allways on spot today. I mean the prices of this 1996/2009/2015 are all high but you get a lot in reverse!
  2) 2009 vs 2015: They seem to be quite similar, mostly ripe fruit is standing out. Probably 2015 has a bit more acidity and freshness from the fruit side. It's possible that both of them can be great with more age - I have more hope for 2015s.
  3) Palmer seems to be much more volatile from a performance standpoint than the two other Margaux wine.
  4) Wine of the night was definitely 1996 Margaux. It was just outstanding!
  
  - Decanted for 30min.
  - Comparing to the 1996 drunk the same evening, this wine is bit more closed at the moment. The nose is much more influenced by ripe and dark fruits, almost no teritary aromas. Brombery, dried plums, flowery. Probably at the limit of not beeing overextracted, even liquorice is noticable. With time some leather, forest floor, balsamic touch.
  - The same on the palate, the fruit freshness is somewhat lacking for my high freshness requirements, the tannins are, like in the 1996, very velvety here. The acidity is there and provides the Margaux something positive. But overall I am critical because, in my opinion, this vintage is too ripe. With time, however, it somehow develops a great mouthfeel. Maybe I got used to the fruity weight of this vintage. It will improve with more cellaring.
  - 95 points

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

View all 55 Community Tasting Notes

Professional reviews have copyrights and you can view them here for your personal use only as private content. To view pro reviews you must either subscribe to a pre-integrated publication or manually enter reviews below. Learn more.