2009 Burgundy, 17 years on. Time for a reassessment? I've generally favored 2010 over 2009 for its precision, acidity and more classical expression of terroir. But several recent bottles have me reconsidering. The 2009 Faiveley Gevrey-Chambertin 1er Cru Les Cazetiers was gorgeous — ripe, perfumed, beautifully balanced, with plenty of life ahead. More recently, the 2009 Méo-Camuzet Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru Les Feusselottes was equally delicious, though quite different: cassis, graphite, noticeable tannins, almost a Cabernet drinker's Pinot! Yet the fruit was ripe rather than overripe, with lovely acidity and freshness. This got me thinking about the vintage more broadly. 2009 brought unusual generosity across Burgundy. Chambolle gained richness and muscle, while traditionally firmer appellations like Nuits-Saint-Georges and Pommard often showed softer tannins and more approachable fruit. Did that powerful vintage signature compress the differences between appellations? Did Chambolle become a little more Gevrey-like, while Nuits became less rustic? Or did 2009 simply reveal different facets of these terroirs? And now, with 17 years of bottle age, are those differences becoming more apparent as the primary fruit recedes? Perhaps we've been too quick to judge 2009 against the classical ideal represented by 2010, rather than appreciating its own character. The best bottles I've tasted recently have been surprisingly fresh, complex and beautifully balanced. For those opening 2009 Burgundies lately: how are they evolving? Are you finding more terroir definition with age, or does the vintage still dominate? And has your opinion of 2009 changed?