Get documents about "MyTH OR MAGIC PReSTIGe Cuvée CHAMPAGNe
Document Sample
This article originally appeared in Issue 15 of
The World of Fine Wine magazine. The article may
not be sold, altered in any way, or circulated without
this statement.
pREsTIgE cuvéE cHampagNE Every issue of The World of Fine Wine features
coverage of the world’s finest wines in their
historical and cultural context, along with news,
reviews, interviews and comprehensive international
auction results. For further information, and to
subscribe to The World of Fine Wine, please visit
www.finewinemag.com or call +44 (0)20 8950 9177.
MyTH OR MAGIC?
Process and place Champagne houses problematic wine to me was
The tasting included both Dom Pérignon. It is undeniably
blended Champagnes and have long encouraged the notion a great wine, but even though
PReSTIGe
single-vineyard wines, which
highlighted the issue of
that a bottle is ready to drink the 1998 has developed
markedly since its launch, it is
terroir. Champagne is an when launched. This has contributed still a vino d’arrivo. It only
elaborate wine in which the makes me wonder whether all
to consumption but
Cuvée CHAMPAGNe
fermentations add layers of the people who drink it now
complexity over the fruit, as
does prolonged bottle aging on
at the same time hindered the can really enjoy the taste, or
whether its prestigious image
the lees. The addition of sugar perception of is able to hide its premature
(dosage) dilutes the aromatics, state. The first Dom Pérignon
Essi Avellan MW introduces a round-table open tasting while residual sweetness hides Champagne as a “serious” wine. vintage, 1921, was launched in
shared with Hugh Johnson OBE, Simon Larkin MW, delicate nuances as well as Moreover, many prestige cuvées 1936—at 15 years of age. And
masking imperfections. It is based on the Oenothèque 1992
and Anthony Rose, in which they reflected on therefore quite reasonable work against the entire tasted by the panel, 15 years
to ask whether a (positive) seems to be the earliest
the quality and range of the current releases of the region’s top wines gôut du terroir can be perceived
category if launched too early reasonable drinking age for
in such a highly processed this famous wine.
product. But at our tasting, Jacquesson’s most recent single- The multivintage luxury cuvées—Krug Grande Cuvée,
Champagne has perhaps the of these Champagnes made it— vineyard launch, Corne Bautray 2000 Non Dosé, and Philipponnat’s Laurent-Perrier Grande Siècle, and Piper-Heidsieck Rare—share
highest luxury:money ratio of as they should have—into the Clos des Goisses 1996 both afforded a striking vindication of the the positive attributes of being ready to drink while retaining
all things. A bottle at any 17-to-19-point range. With such terroir concept in Champagne. Krug’s Clos du Mesnil 1995 and significant aging potential. But while the multivintage nature of
price has the remarkable ability superb wines as the top luxury Cattier’s Clos du Moulin were comparative disappointments in these wines fits in well with the blending philosophy that will
to create atmosphere and cuvées, enjoyment was as good this respect, failing to deliver either the expected quality or suitable always prevail in Champagne, they somehow lack the kudos
deliver enjoyment, both as guaranteed. terroir expression. Rémi Krug has repeatedly stressed that “Clos of their vintage rivals. The Krugs insist that Grande Cuvée is as
gustatory and emotional. But I always find tasting du Mesnil is always different but never better than the other great as any wine in their range—but why then is it priced the
as the elitist image slowly Champagne blind one of the Krugs.” We agreed that the Champagne was by no means bad, but lowest? Connoisseurs, in particular, value the authenticity and
evaporates and Champagne most challenging exercises. But taking into account both its price (£470 a bottle from Berry Bros & variety seemingly vouchsafed by vintage. Lack of communication
becomes everybody’s drink, tasting these luxury cuvées open Rudd in London) and its reputation, it failed to charm the panel. It regarding the age of the wines in a non-vintage Champagne
there is a challenge in preserving proved to be an even tougher is a good example of scarcity’s effect on price, since only some (especially in luxury cuvées) is a controversial topic—and, to me, a
its carefully cultivated mystique. task. Champagne has always 8,000 bottles are produced in vintage years. major mistake. I can appreciate that buying Champagne is made
As major branding tools, the been one of the most strongly easy for the consumer who has no knowledge of vintages. But for
prestige cuvées represent super- branded fine wines, and it is Age, information, and style the connoisseur with a deeper interest in the wine, then its age,
Illustration by John Spencer www.centralillustration.com
luxury, with perfected contents impossible to let go of one’s past Champagne houses have long encouraged the notion that a bottle encépagement, and so on are of great interest. Champagne is one of
and exquisite packaging—not to mention extravagant pricing. experiences or present perceptions. I, at least, struggled to is ready to drink when launched on to the market. This has the world’s great wine styles—the greatest in my opinion; therefore,
They may well have started as product-line extensions, but their neutralize my palate from previous encounters and contributed to consumption but at the same time hindered the one would like to see a shift to a more serious focus on the wine per
importance has been increasing ever since. In these economically preconceptions. In an open tasting of prestige cuvées, the status perception of Champagne as a “serious” wine. After all, a se and an increasingly connoisseur target. How easy would it be on
sound times, with many new image-conscious markets opening up, of each wine will always play a role, no matter how hard we try to significant emotional value is derived from wines that continue to the Internet to let those of us who are deeply interested know more
demand for these luxury cuvées far outstrips supply. Production is be objective. Another issue to bear is mind is the commentary of improve with age. Moreover, many prestige cuvées work against about these great bottles?
generally rising, but most houses prefer to remain secretive about one’s fellow tasters, whose views will inevitably affect one’s own— the entire category if launched too early. Cristal and Salon are Returning to the question of the optimum age for Champagne,
the total volume. Scarcity does, after all, increase desirability. or at least those to which one gives voice. I did not agree with the classic examples of wines that require long aging. Cristal, happily, we were treated in the tasting to some late-disgorged wines:
At our round-table tasting we sampled a comprehensive range majority of the panel on a few of the wines but chose to remain is gaining an extra year of bottle maturation from the 2002 vintage Jacquesson DT 1989 and 1990, Dom Pérignon Oenothèque 1992,
of major houses’ prestige cuvées currently available on the market, silent, since the opinion of the rest appeared unanimous. The onward, but Salon’s tendency has been the opposite. The Salon and Bollinger RD 1996. These were the wines that swept me, at
including some older releases. Our emphasis was on understanding conclusions drawn toward the end of this introduction are largely 1996 is only now starting to approach maturity, showing, as Hugh least, off my feet. I hope that this category will thrive in the future,
the wines and vintages rather than on ranking them. After all, most mine, but I have also attempted to summarize the consensus. Johnson put it, “purity, simplicity, and class.” But the most because at a more mature age, Champagnes are able to reveal their
2 0 2 T H E W O R L D O F F I N E W I N E I S S U E 1 5 2 0 0 7 I S S U E 1 5 2 0 0 7 T H E W O R L D O F F I N E W I N E 2 0 3
1996 showed its class in riveting style. Its acidic backbone, concentration,
and ripeness make it the vintage of the decade, if not of the century.
Most 1996s were just starting to drink
full personality and potential. However to stock up on them for the years to
outstanding the RD 1996 is now, it still come. The 1995s were rich, weighty, and
seems too early a launch for this special drinking extremely well. Henriot’s Cuvée
style, resembling more closely than it des echanteleurs was a positive surprise,
should the regular Grande Année, which with its classy ripe fruitiness and richness.
compromises the RD concept. The Krugs were as good as ever, the
The tasting included only three Rosé vintage leaving no doubt of its excellence
Champagnes, but they were enough to and future potential. The Clos du Mesnil
generate lively conversation on the quality divided opinion and was viewed by some
of these wines, particularly in relation to as inferior in quality to the vintage due to
their premium pricing. Hugh Johnson a less complex and less harmonious
articulated his view that Rosés are fashion items first and foremost, nature. The fine 1990 vintage showed its balance and positive
whose high prices cannot be justified. I agree with Johnson’s view qualities in both the Dom Ruinart Rosé and the Jacquesson DT.
regarding the standard Nv and vintage wines. But the best luxury
cuvée Rosés show a different, more vinous style, which some Conclusions
Champagne lovers will welcome. The best of this admittedly All in all, the tasting let us compare the qualities of the major
outrageously pricey but wonderful style was exemplified by the houses’ prestige cuvées side by side. The Krugs were consistently
outstanding Dom Ruinart Rosé 1990. Billecart-Salmon Cuvée great, as was Cristal, with its powerful roundness and edgy
elisabeth Salmon 1998 was stylish, as usual, but not up to the great personality leaving no room for doubt. Among the others,
1996. Lanson Noble Cuvée Rosé Nv was considered a Jacquesson did exquisitely well, being able to show both
disappointment by the panel, with inadequate intensity and lack personality and fine terroir characteristics. Billecart-Salmon’s
of character and charm. phenomenal cleanliness and technical perfection combined to
great effect throughout the line. The lesser-known top cuvées
Vintages that charmed with character and elegance were Gosset’s Célébris
The tasting demonstrated the full range of recent vintages. The and Philipponnat’s Clos des Goisses, both counting for some of
Bollinger Grande Année 1999 was a delightful wine, as was the the best bargains on offer. Clear disappointments were Cattier
second bottle of Cristal 1999 (the first one likely suffered from very Clos du Moulin, Lanson Noble Cuvée Rosé Nv, Lanson Noble
light cork taint, which dampened down the fruit). The high level Cuvée Blanc de Blancs 1997, Mumm Grand Cru Nv, Perrier Jouët
of ripeness in 1999 was evident in both, but without the Belle epoque Blanc de Blancs 1999 and, to a lesser degree, the
correspondingly low acidity that afflicts many wines of the vintage. Belle epoque 1998. One wine that stood out was the Henri Giraud
The most represented year was 1998. Fine wines, undoubtedly, but Fût de Chêne 1998, with is high oak maturation influence and
the high yields must be responsible for the slight lack of fruit intensity intensely vinous style. This highly atypical Champagne has great
and finesse: a very good vintage rather than a great one. The 1997 had structure, and the style doubtless has its fans.
the misfortune to follow the superb 1996: no greatness, but some This tasting demonstrated the great range of quality and style
good wines for mid-term drinking. The 1996 showed its class in among prestige cuvée Champagnes, as well as the variety of the
riveting style. Its acidic backbone, concentration, and ripeness make region’s vintages. These qualities should be used even more
it the vintage of the decade, if not of the century. Most 1996s were just persuasively to strengthen Champagne’s position as a serious fine
starting to drink, with Dom Ruinart and Salon showing the elegant, wine. At the same time, Champagne’s big business interests, easily
tight-knit mineral side, whereas Billecart-Salmon Grande Cuvée, saleable image, high-profile marketing, rising grape prices, and
Jacquesson, Philipponnat Clos des Goisses, and Pol Roger Sir supply shortages all pose a threat to the future quality of some of
Winston Churchill demonstrated the vintage’s exceptional power the mass-produced prestige cuvées. So the gap between the best
and structure. Luckily there are still some available, and it is wise and the rest will surely widen.
2 0 4 T H E W O R L D O F F I N E W I N E I S S U E 1 5 2 0 0 7 I S S U E 1 5 2 0 0 7 T H E W O R L D O F F I N E W I N E 2 0 5
per se
pREsTIgE cuvéE cHampagNE
Flight 1: Non-vintage AR: Yes, I preferred it of the two. drink. A soft and caramelly nose, AR: It was quite delicate—surprisingly fruit, a touch of nut and steely fresh and tightly winey palate, but the acidity
Jacquart Brut de Nominée Nv HJ: I don’t think the Mumm quite hit harmonious and well put together, with delicate—with good berry-fruit acidity acid structure. Worth aging several brings juiciness as well as balance and
piper-Heidsieck cuvée Rare Nv the spot, a bit low key. a well-integrated mouthfeel. and freshness, though perhaps not years in bottle. personality. No hurry to open this for
cattier clos du moulin Nv SL: No great shakes. An aggressive bite, SL: Gently bready nuances, yes, but quite at cuvée-prestige level. SL: A very tight coil, certainly, fine, years to come.
mumm grand cru Nv darting acidity, little generosity, leaving still an appley, tangy nature to the fruit. EA: I also found it delicate on the nose, minerally cut, lean and precise, though, AR: Full-flavored Bollinger personality,
Laurent-perrier grand siècle Nv an unappealing, lean impression. Compact rather than expansive, but a with cherry and strawberry fruit and like Hugh, I noted a bruised-apple yes, and an intriguing iodiney evolution
Krug grande cuvée Nv HJ: Not short, though, and it had some lively, mouthwatering, pristine style, no discernible autolysis aromas. Fruity quality on the nose, and I can’t help on the nose, with baked apple, smoke,
Lanson Noble cuvée Rosé Nv qualities: It was pleasant and lingering. with good depth and length. palate with slight bitterness and feeling this is a bit stripped down, even ginger, cinnamon, and tobacco spice.
And I would defend the Jacquart: If HJ: I thought the Krug was an absolute refreshing acidity. Comparatively long, though the terroir does shine through. HJ: I think Marmite, a brown character
HJ: I hoped this would be a question of that’s commercial, good for commercial. knockout. with a pleasing bubble structure. A gastro-Champagne? typical of Bollinger, on the nose. But a
coming up with 40 synonyms for It had the advantage of being the first AR: The Krug and Cattier were top for HJ: I thought the nose gave room for HJ: Exactly, it needs food. real wake-up entry, the marshmallow
scrumptious. glass of Champagne, and I was dying me. The Cattier needs drinking now, imagination. With the whiff of Pinot AR: I find it beautifully creamy, but it taste at a tangent, leading on to slightly
SL: I thought this first flight ranged for a glass of Champagne. But it was but the Krug will last a long time... Noir, I could see the Montagne de would also be palate-cleansing before green oak. Dry, unfinished. Keep.
from the correct and refined to the very nicely put together, with shining HJ: Twice as much flavor. The nose is Reims. a meal. I’d be happy to have it as an SL: Yes, still very young, still not fully
more characterful. almond blossom on the nose and a absolutely arresting, like a Paris SL: I just kept wondering whether it apéritif as well. knit. Promising, but does need time.
AR: Yes, very mixed. My favorite for clean finish—very long and fine. perfume for men: musk, almond, vanilla. was worth the higher price as a Rosé… HJ: I still think it’s severe. There’s not AR: As does the Cristal, which I find
now was the Cattier, which had great EA: I agree it had an attractively toasty So brisk and fresh on the palate, but HJ: I don’t know why anybody pays much fun in it; it’s not made for joy, as the tightest of the first four in this
complexity, and I said more about it in nose, but the bubbles foamed too mouth-coating. extra for Rosé. It’s a complete rip-off. Champagne should be. flight, seemingly with the structure and
my notes. I liked its sourdough-yeast much in the mouth. I found it a little AR: Mmm. Nice, rich, mouth-filling AR: It would be interesting to know EA: There certainly couldn’t be a bigger texture for aging, and showing
quality, nicely evolved brioche aromas, rustic, a little short. mousse with some toasty evolution, how much more it costs to make. difference between these first two elegance in a tightly wound package,
and appley fruit richness. But the Krug HJ: It had character. What about the creamy texture, almost a touch of EA: It does require the best grapes and Blanc de Blancs… but elemental as yet.
was also classic, pretty spot-on… Piper-Heidsieck? For me this had a marmalade, good acidity, and a distinct is the most difficult style to make. AR: I’m disappointed by the Belle HJ: Marie-Antoinette, face powder.
HJ: Oh, I think the Krug stood out. The soft, unexciting nose. It started out touch of honey on the finish. HJ: I still think it’s a complete scam. Epoque. After the finesse of the Utterly Paris salon, sweet-smelling,
Cattier also stood out for me, but not quiet… and went on quiet… but then SL: Very ripe acidity, I agree; nothing Jacquesson, I found it a bit coarse on dangerous…
for such good reasons. there was some fine acidity and an edgy or nervy, and so well knit to the Flight 2: 2000, 1999 the nose, pongy, rustic… AR: Have you been to a Toulouse-
SL: I agree it was distinctive, evolved, appley finish, quite long. wine. In some of the others the acidity Jacquesson corne Bautray 2000 HJ: Absolutely. A boudoir nose, faint Lautrec exhibition recently, Hugh?
and a little oxidative on the nose, but AR: Yes, a vanilla, almond/marzipan seemed too perky for the fruit. Here Non-Dosé cheese… merde… All human life is there. HJ: No, but you could be forgiven for
more pristine on the palate. sweetness on the nose, with a nice the fruit was very ripe, too, with a hint perrier Jouët Belle Epoque Blanc de Better on the palate. Fine, penetrating, thinking that. Develops into a slightly
HJ: I wrote brown apple… feeling of evolved reserve wines, but of red berry. Complex, lingering, lovely Blancs 1999 fairly simple flavor, with a good, long, more predictable cooking-apple finish.
AR: I wrote Bramley apple… still very youthful. A slightly aggressive purity, but bready, toasty—this really is Bollinger La grande année 1999 fresh finish. All in a high register, Starts better than it finishes, so keep.
HJ: A shortcut to excellence in mousse and tartish acidity, finishing a very complete. Roederer cristal 1999 though: needs bass. SL: Yes, bready, loose mousse, mouth-
Champagne rather than the real thing. little angular and pointed, but goodish HJ: Absolutely. Don’t you feel you’re as SL: No real drive or purity. Soft, a sweet filling, good length but still not
Slightly too much sugar, too. quality and length. much in Burgundy as in Champagne AR: I love the Jacquesson. Lovely accent on the fruit, cream-soda touch. together. I’m less sure than I was of the
AR: For me it had complexity and real EA: Stylish. A broad, bready, but with Krug? The question is whether it’s finesse on the nose, subtly yeasty and HJ: Don’t you think it would be better ’95 and ’96. The vintages I’ve tasted
personality. cleanly elegant nose, beginning to white or red Burgundy. It’s Burgundy winey; slightly smoky, too, with a hint with other grapes? Its legs are bare. since then haven’t impressed me as
EA: I agree it had personality, but it broaden into brioche, dried fruit, nuts, plus, plus, plus. Wonderful wine. of bitter aloes. Very nicely textured, EA: It reminds me of not-very-good much as I expected.
lacked pedigree, and I was left wanting and toast. A finely made, Chardonnay- EA: A classic, very stylish, successful creamy mousse, full-flavored, with Chablis, with its gunpowdery, strawy EA: This Cristal isn’t as good as the last
more depth and length. dominant blend of several vintages. Krug blend, with perfect balance. The good length; bone-dry on the finish, nose. A tightly mineral Chardonnay still bottle I tasted a few months ago. Could
AR: For me the most commercial wines SL: Creamy and rich, certainly, on mouthfeel fulfills the promise of not austere but rather classic and almost undrinkable due to its young we try the other bottle?
were the Jacquart and the Mumm; the the nose. No great complexity, but the nose—mouth-filling, broad, mineral, with good potential. age. The promise of an interesting HJ: This second bottle is even better—
Jacquart with a slight plastic/plasticine mouthwatering, ripe acidity, and an winey, brought to perfection by the HJ: Is it not austere? I said austere, future, however: elegant structure fuller and longer. Heaven.
character on the nose and a finish that apéritif lift to the palate. Good length. gentle bubbles. After a few slight slight brown apple/bonbon anglais combined with a long, tight, and SL: More harmonious and intense.
was a bit sweet; the Mumm with a AR: Unlike the Laurent-Perrier, which disappointments, the last two Grande nose. A 2D severity on the palate, brisk, concentrated taste. AR: Better, yes, more concentration
rather aggressive acidity, making for a was a bit unexciting. I would have Cuvées have again reached the near- super-clean, with a strong finish, but SL: As on the Jacquesson, I get a very and intensity.
fresh, citrussy style, but not particularly thought Non-Vintage. Quite shy on the perfect level typical of Krug. no special fun. bruised-apple note on the nose of the EA: Not nearly drinkable yet. The
complex or long. nose, also a little strange, with a slightly AR: The fact that these have all been AR: I just love the balance. Bollinger—almost a little cinnamon and closed nose promises concentrated
EA: I agree the Jacquart was the most toasty element. Nicely balanced, with NV suggests they should be drinking. EA: Balanced, yes, though the wine is Brazil nut as well. Full, rich, not really fruit and charm, but the nuances are
commercial, but the Mumm was notes of toast and honey, but not EA: Yes, but the Krug can still age. totally dry. The nose has old wooden together on the palate at this stage, still hidden. Very powerful mouthfeel—
powerfully reminiscent of Pinot Noir overcomplex or long. After it, the Lanson Rosé was in a tough barrel and light oxidation, true to the but lovely intensity nevertheless, and strong and tight. Knowing the product,
for me: masculine, powerful, and HJ: The shortest of all of them. It didn’t spot… house style. But this is also a terroir good length. Very Bollinger. it is easy to have faith in its future, but
vinous, if missing grace and style, with go anywhere. SL: I’m afraid it did struggle there, and wine at its best—a tightly mineral EA: A wonderful nose, charmingly this needs to be locked up for another
a promising structure. EA: I liked it because it was ready to seemed a little bit lackluster. Chardonnay that is just opening. Ripe spicy, and I also got cinnamon. Austere 5–10 years at least.
2 0 6 T H E W O R L D O F F I N E W I N E I S S U E 1 5 2 0 0 7 I S S U E 1 5 2 0 0 7 T H E W O R L D O F F I N E W I N E 2 0 7
per se
pREsTIgE cuvéE cHampagNE
Flight 3: 1998 the men. I kept waiting for the chaps to and needs time, but plenty of potential. HJ: So good. Wonderful perfume—that winey and structured, with a slight angular in terms of its steely acidity,
Taittinger comtes de champagne come in. Louise had super-fine ripe Quite an imposing style… boudoir smell again; a long-inhabited phenolic element to it, but improving but good, classic Chardonnay finesse.
1998 apple on the nose, but was all HJ: Absolutely, full-on, almonds and room. Sweet layers of flavor, almonds on the palate and becoming quite The Noble Cuvée also had an attractive
pommery cuvée Louise 1998 correctness. Straitlaced and unsexy. peaches. Big-bodied, winey, a food wine. prominent, but sugar-coated, leads on intriguing and potentially classy. fresh nose, good concentrated fruit,
Deutz cuvée William Deutz 1998 You’ve got to salute her. But austere; Finishes keen and long. Very good. and on… SL: The wood is less prominent than I tangy and zesty acidity. Also a little
perrier Jouët Belle Epoque 1998 more fine than fun. AR: Certainly the greatest cellar AR: Smoky coffee, cashew nut, and expected from the name and the linear, softer than the Blanc de Blancs,
veuve clicquot La grand Dame 1998 SL: I found the Belle Epoque rather potential of any of the ’98s so far. toasty aromas, nice evolution, elegant, winemaking. I think it carries it off though also quite fine and tangy.
Billecart-salmon cuvée Nicolas- lackluster… Elemental still on the nose, but good with a degree of richness and power. quite well. Minerally acidity, red fruit, EA: I thought the Noble Cuvée was a
François Billecart 1998 AR: I thought it more classic and intensity and richness of flavor, evolving Fresh mineral characters, a citrus-zest toasty, and I like the texture of the stylish, pure, and fruity wine, with more
Dom pérignon 1998 concentrated than the Belle Epoque nicely now, though still relatively zing, and a fine-textured richness that’s fruit—creamy, harmonious, layered, nuances than the Blanc de Blancs,
Billecart-salmon cuvée Elisabeth ’99 Blanc de Blancs. This has better youthful, the power and structure powerful but still youthful. Not sure yet vinous. The fact that it’s effervescent where the acidity felt aggressive.
salmon Rosé 1998 flavor and a degree of class. Straw and topped off by citrussy-zesty acidity. if it has the complexity of the 1996… is almost incidental.
gosset célébris 1998 biscuit on the nose, savory sourdough EA: The tight nose, with toffee, apple, EA: The ’96 was brilliant… HJ: Very unusual… Flight 5: 1996
Henri giraud Fût de chêne 1998 yeast and apple, quite good evolution, and brioche, needs time to open. Very AR: A great wine… AR: Yes, but well made; it stands up to Dom Ruinart 1996
nice, full-flavored richness. pure on the palate, concentrated and HJ: A great wine… scrutiny. It’s different but works well in salon 1996
SL: Among these 1998 wines it’s EA: A world of aromas, soft coffee and full, but this will not reach the quality EA: This is still very closed, very its own way. veuve clicquot La grande Dame 1996
difficult to see much vintage similarity— toffee, but the palate is a disappointment of the very best vintages. minerally and streamlined, but the time HJ: The oak brings a sort of dryness, pol Roger sir Winston churchill 1996
the house style is much more obvious. after the charming and promising nose. SL: I thought that the rest of these ’98s since its release has helped it over the and the fruit doesn’t seem to have Jacquesson 1996
The Taittinger was in a very refined, Will improve with maturation but does were very consistent… past few months. Toast and coffee are room to play. But maybe it just needs Billecart-salmon grande cuvée 1996
understated style: lovely ripe acidity, not have the makings of a top wine. HJ: At a high level, yes, and very young beginning to emerge, and the wine time. Arresting and spicy, certainly. Bollinger RD 1996
complex, creamy, fine, with a minerally HJ: The nose is delicate, far from still—all keepers. improves in the glass. If experience is EA: Personally, it’s not my style—it’s philipponnat clos des goisses 1996
touch, but fades a little on the finish. simple, but I agree the palate is less SL: The only one that seemed really anything to go by, this should be not Champagne at all to me. But it’s
The Pommery had a more aggressive interesting—apple and almond, good ready to me was the Billecart-Salmon delightful after another ten years! really well made, and the structure is EA: I’m a bit of a masochist, maybe,
bite on the finish and lacked a little length. But there’s something slightly Cuvée N-F Billecart. Already complex, SL: Yes, capable of serious evolution. great, if that’s what you like. Very but I loved the cold and steely style of
purity and length. specious about it. Do you ever use that with lovely intensity, but quite forward, Impressive, powerful, and refined. abundant, broad mouthfeel in which these ’96s.
AR: I thought the Taittinger was good, wonderful word, specious? It’s one of soft, and vinous, while still minerally EA: I really liked the Gosset and found the bubbles feel soft. Long and very AR: All were absolutely excellent, really
rich, full-flavored fizz, nicely creamy Michael Broadbent’s favorites. and pure. Complete and harmonious. it very enjoyable even now. Classic personal palate. A Champagne for a showing the class of ’96.
and textured, with toasty flavors in a AR: I enjoyed the Deutz: lightly smoky, Apart from the color, the Cuvée charm combined with a small red-wine aficionado, and one that HJ: I loved the Dom Ruinart. An
classic Chardonnay style, but possibly spicy, and yeasty on the nose, lovely, Elisabeth was barely discernible as a producer’s personal charisma. Open needs to be accompanied by food. extraordinary, seashell nose, resonant;
not for long aging. The Pommery had full, rich flavors on the palate, fine, Rosé on the nose or palate, and it was and giving nose, with cinnamon, spice, complex, a coffee element. It started
an attractive evolution, a touch of creamy mousse, with apple and toast tauter than the N-F. and red fruit. Charming, feminine. Flight 4: 1997 brilliantly, with sweetness and poise;
sweetness and quite straightforward— and real balance and finesse. HJ: I agree, very pretty, but no hint of HJ: I’m waiting for something to Lanson Noble cuvée Blanc de Blancs less good on the finish, but a real
classic rather than thrilling. EA: Aristocratic. Classic dignity and Rosé on the nose. Almonds give it happen—it’s so restrained. The fruity 1997 original, with lots of class. I thought,
HJ: Is it fair to put Blanc de Blancs in style. Toasty nose with ripe fruit. away, and a certain tannic tightness on entry is surprising, but it doesn’t yet Lanson Noble cuvée 1997 I’ve really made an old friend here.
with real Champagne? Strong, winey palate with well-balanced the palate. I prefer the N-F, which was follow through. An infant. AR: A fine nose, classic, winey, nutty,
SL: Maybe 1998 is more of a Pinot acidity. A fine personality. seamless. AR: Youthful, yes, but with evolved HJ: Of these two I enjoyed the Blanc de praliney, with good, creamy-textured
vintage… HJ: It shows various aspects of EA: Very balanced and charmingly toasty characters, in a very attractive, Blancs more. A really beautifully made fruit richness and concentration; full-
EA: I also liked the Taittinger, which Champagne very clearly without quite velvety structure typical of the full-flavored, winey style. wine, smelling more like Chablis than flavored with lots going on. Ripe, zesty
had an exquisite nose—creamy but turning them into a whole. Biscuity, producer. The Rosé was suitably winey, SL: A lot of power there, bold, Champagne, but very complete. There acidity, finesse and power, and nice
elegant and flowery. The creamy gingery, cooking-apple sharpness, with an exquisite, silky mouthfeel. Not distinctive, waxy fruit, very Gosset, was something sugary about it, but it nutty flavors on the aftertaste.
nuances of Chardonnay are beginning lovely brightness of flavor… At first I up to the majestic 1996, but clearly one huge potential… had very good acidity and single-line EA: Challenging, minerally, and coolly
to show on the palate, and there is wondered if it led anywhere, but there of the best Rosés of the vintage. HJ: All potential… length. The Noble Cuvée had another stylish nose, with a hint of cashew nut.
excellent acidity for the vintage. is a good, long line. AR: The N-F had expressive, sweet, SL: Too assertive to be enjoyable now. dimension, but less drive, less line. The steely structure lifts the wine to
Balanced and light as a breath. I agree SL: For me this was sound but not as marzipan aromas, nice, rich honeycomb AR: Assertive acidity… SL: I also thought the Blanc de Blancs lightness. But not easily approachable;
this is beginning to drink, but there is impressive as anticipated. A very fruit with a soft-textured mousse, and EA: No malo. But I still find this more was of good quality and, despite the powerful and puckering. Badly in need
no rush whatsoever. The Pommery bruised-apple nature on the nose— citrussy acidity for finesse, balance, drinkable now than the Dom Pérignon. sugary palate, was tightly wound. The of time to show the broad, charmingly
nose is delightfully fruity and toasty cooking apple, yes—but not much and purity. I thought the Rosé did have And while it’s not perfect, it has a lot of Noble Cuvée was almost sweet and creamy side of Chardonnay.
but slightly dusty. On the palate, there backbone or complexity, if good a good, rich, smoky, red-berry nose, personality. lacked some precision and poise. SL: Unappealing to me, very aggressive
is fullness and power, but the charm length. I preferred the Grande Dame, with good Pinot Noir character showing SL: I rated it highly too, and I’d love to AR: I also slightly preferred the Blanc and edgy. There’s also an almost
and harmony are not showing yet. which was rich but understated. A through on the palate. A delicate style come back to it. de Blancs. An almost floral nose, a hint piercing acidity to the Salon, but there’s
HJ: I thought the Taittinger had a sweet good biscuity character, firm, rich but with considerable vinosity. But I AR: The Giraud seemed more evolved. of lead pencil, some richness and lovely density and purity here, real
ripeness but not much backup. There mousse, bold, Pinot Noir-dominant, thought the Dom Pérignon was the An appley spicy nose, with a degree of concentration on the palate; perhaps a poise, but it needs years.
was a high register only. A choir without powerful and long, not quite knit as yet best wine so far… attractively evolved fruitiness, quite little linear and at the same time AR: Absolutely. Elemental, subtle
2 0 8 T H E W O R L D O F F I N E W I N E I S S U E 1 5 2 0 0 7 I S S U E 1 5 2 0 0 7 T H E W O R L D O F F I N E W I N E 2 0 9
per se
pREsTIgE cuvéE cHampagNE
aromas; nutty and yeasty; still very Jacquesson was lovely again. I’m a real AR: Intriguing, exotic nose, nutty, lead the Henriot, which was really good… is layered and nuanced. Exceptional, Taut taste, still very youthful and vivid,
tight on the palate; very good richness fan of that biscuity, savory, sourdough pencil, fruits, some of that typical AR: Really good, yes, as was the ’90… magnificent structure. The abundant full, creamy, and freshened by acidity. In
and concentration; very tangy, youthful character; very dry, but complemented ginger and cinnamon spice oak from EA: For me, this ’95 had an enticingly fruit of the vintage is exquisitely its optimal drinking age, but no hurry.
fruit with enormous potential. by a rich fruitiness that is tempered by cask fermentation, with lovely savory sweet and toasty ripe-fruit nose. On combined with the streamlined acidity The ’89 had a strong caramel and toasted
EA: Very pure and stylish nose with the yeasty character, the fine mousse, sourdough intensity, textured richness the palate, the complexity of aromas of Chardonnay. Good concentration palate—sweeter than the ’90, and not as
cream toffee and minerals. Tight palate, and the bite on the finish. and balance, with plenty of potential. was complemented by a long, dried- and length of palate that leaves nothing deep or as magnificently structured.
but made lighter by its steely backbone. EA: I agree that the concentrated EA: Light, house-style oxidation fruit finish. Perfect acid structure and to be desired. The 1995s are, generally Drinkable now. The Dom Pérignon
The palate is beginning to open, mouthfeel works very well with the steely combined with delicate oriental spice, soft mousse in the mouth. A very speaking, ready to drink fairly young, Oenothèque, on the other hand, was still
revealing both width and depth. acid backbone. Long and very stylish. citrus, and exotic fruit. An open, positive experience. but one would hope that the slightly very young for me. Minerally, still very
Beginning to be drinkable, but another SL: Almondy and nutty on the nose, extremely intense, and vivid wine AR: For me, too. Fine, toasty, autolytic loose oak aroma here will integrate youthful nose. Broad but clean and
ten years in the cellar will reveal the and quite viscous. But green acidity—a whose acidity promises an almost character, creamy rich mousse, very into the fruit over time. Already lots of streamlined on the palate. Concentrated,
real nature of Salon. little severe. endless life. A desert-island wine. The savory and dry, but intensely flavored; personality, though. fresh, but will benefit from cellaring for
HJ: With Salon I often find the structure HJ: Vivid nose but a slight Marmite Clos des Goisses, meanwhile, is one of delicacy and balance, lots of class, and HJ: My notes praise completeness at least another five years.
very youthful but the fruit a little note, the acidity dominant and raw. the best-kept secrets of Champagne. still plenty of time to go. The Heidsieck rather than personality. Balance is AR: Still surprisingly youthful in terms
oxidized. There’s a strongish color, and AR: I’d say austere and steely rather Stylishly reserved, powerful nose. Ripe also had a fine nose, grilled nuts, lovely the most wonderful thing. If you can of acidity, yes, and still a tad austere on
a touch of toffee on the nose. But on than raw. fruit, cherry, and promising toast. Tight fruit concentration, and toasty richness; describe it, it’s no good, really. I thought the finish. But a lovely, complex, and
the palate, lovely fresh apples lead into HJ: It feels very malic to me—the linear structure whose direct acidity full-bodied, creamy texture, yeasty- the Krug ’95 had more ginger and pure nose—honey and beeswax; winey,
a long finish. Purity, class, simplicity. I acidity bites. I thought that, of these, leaves nothing to be desired. Clos des toasty autolysis character. Still youthful spice than the Clos du Mesnil, softly voluptuous, rich fruit quality and
felt a little let down by the Grande the Pol Roger and the Billecart best Goisses has a reputation of needing with nice richness. voluptuous, still with vivid acidity. texture. But still with a lot of potential.
Dame. Face-powdery nose, fine, appley, reflected the art of blending, the need time to open, which is even more the HJ: The Heidsieck wasn’t special for EA: The ’95 is every Krugist’s dream. HJ: The wine seems more pungent
tarte fine, but a lot of acidity. Not quite to cover one thing with another… case with this brilliant 1996. me, but pretty; gentle, gingery nose; Toasty, strongly autolytic nose typical than rich to me; creamy almonds but a
what I expect from the Lady. AR: I agree that they are the two AR: Great nose, poised—brioche and sugared almonds. The Henriot was of the house, with a hint of vanilla. On bit of cabbage/sulfur on the nose; drier
AR: An almost austere acidity, yes, but classiest wines, though personally I cashew nut. Mineral, layered, complex, gently developed, with rich flavors. the palate, full, austere, and faultlessly than most DPs, and not their best
bringing intensity of flavor and length, love the Jacquesson. intense, and long on the palate, with AR: The one that doesn’t quite work harmonious: apple, nut, and toasted vintage by a long way.
and seemingly fine aging potential. HJ: The Grande Cuvée had a sweet and creamy, praliney richness on the finish for me is the Bruno Paillard. An odd bread. Long finish and great structure, AR: I think the Dom Ruinart Rosé is
Fine nose, floral, nutty, and toasty, with suave nose, tight knit and classic, the and excellent balance. nose, initially out of kilter, rather plain, the promise of a long life, but this wine exactly as it should be. Smoky nose, a
excellent concentration and length. high-acid finish still (almost) covered. HJ: A fine patisserie nose. Intense, and a slightly one-dimensional palate; can be enjoyed already. whiff of armchair leather, slightly
EA: The fine acid structure of a top Very good. mineral, more intense than complex in tangy, youthful acidity but lacking a bit AR: I agree, but this is still a very youthful animal, rustic, very winey, but still very
vintage really becomes La Grande EA: I also thought the Billecart was a a way. Straight to the point. Very good. of complexity in the present company. ’95. Nutty, praliney notes on the nose, fresh with good acidity and bone dry.
Dame. Creamily broad and opening magnificent wine. Very strong nose, HJ: Still pale, still tight on the nose, intense cask-fermentation aromas of EA: Very winey, yes, and a developed
layers. Deceptively light for a Pinot with cream and toast. The concentration Flight 6: 1995, 1992, 1990, 1989 delicate, with a slight spice. But seems ginger, spice, and citrus, with sourdough nose with a distinctive toasty note. On
Noir-dominant Champagne. Austere, continues on the palate, with hardly charles Heidsieck Blanc de a little feeble, however interesting. yeast and almonds; creamy, complex, the palate, full and round, velvety
linear, but stylish wine that still belongs discernible oak aromas. Velvet millénaires 1995 EA: Distinctive and nuanced on huge structure, and excellent aging smooth, and stylish. Like good red
in the cellar. combined with power and purity, Henriot cuvée des Echanteleurs 1995 the nose, with dark-berry aromas potential. The Jacquessons strike me as Burgundy. A mature wine still retaining
SL: Still very Grande Dame for me: brought to a shine by the super acidity Bruno paillard Nec plus ultra 1995 reminiscent of bubblegum and wax. purist’s wines. Initially I didn’t like them, brilliant acids and classic elegance.
expressive, heady, rich, Pinot Noir of the vintage. Krug clos du mesnil 1995 Very concentrated, winey palate. A but they grew on me. At first, odd notes HJ: Deeper pink than most Rosé
aromas, powerful palate. AR: Still very youthful on the nose, Krug 1995 dinner wine to be taken seriously and on the nose of the ’90, slightly minty; Champagnes, but by no means tawny.
HJ: I thought the Sir Winston was almost elemental, a hint of toasty and Jacquesson 1990 Dégorgement Tardif at a very enjoyable stage. ditto on the palate, as if the fruit was Creamy mousse; a rich, soft, strawberry/
beautifully handled, so delicate, a nutty evolution, confirmed on the (1996) Non-Dosé HJ: I wasn’t absolutely knocked out by drying up; peppermint characters, Pinot Noir nose, creamy and sweet,
model of balance; plenty of body, but palate by nutty, coffee flavors, Jacquesson 1989 Dégorgement Tardif the Clos du Mesnil. Spice and vanilla on which you don’t look for in Champagne, suggesting old red Burgundy.
still teasing. Very good. sourdough, savory-fruit richness, and (1996) Non-Dosé the nose. Big, spicy, vanilla-flavored, but and an austere drying finish. But it Sumptuous but still structured; big-
SL: Yes, pristine; brioche notes but very tangy acidity. Very pure fruit quality Dom pérignon Oenothèque 1992 quite severe; slightly 2D, but very long. improved on the palate, delivering more bodied but elegant. A wonderful wine.
focused, linear, and taut. and fine aging potential. Dom Ruinart Rosé 1990 AR: Intense, buttery, nutty, and smoky complexity and interest. The ’89 was a Looking over my notes for the entire
EA: Beautiful. A full nose with ripe fruit SL: Yes, but already complex. A lovely, rich nose of new oak that’s not yet tad over the top, but intense and pure. tasting, my overall conclusion is that
and toast—close to perfection. Full, fine weave; scintillating acidity. HJ: On the whole, I liked the previous quite integrated; a hint of appley HJ: I found the ’90 smooth and complex, Champagne needs Pinot Noir. Blanc de
round palate freshened by fine acidity. HJ: The Bollinger is such a contrast. flight better than this one. oxidation, with cinnamon; more like a austerely dry and yeasty, but better Blancs just don’t really do it for me, let
Still a very young wine whose harmony Nothing very subtle about it: almost EA: More heaviness and richness here. fine Corton-Charlemagne or Bâtard- balanced than the ’89, which was alone justify higher prices. But red
promises a long, magnificent future. beefy on the nose, ginger and Marmite, But I liked the Heidsieck, which was Montrachet. Hugely rich, smoky, wonderfully fragrant on first opening, Pinot Noir is not a good idea either, let
AR: Yes. An almost exotic, pineappley- there to be noticed. That marshmallow pretty classic. Well developed, very and winey, with honeyed, almost then rather austere, lean, and lemony, alone justifying silly prices for Rosés.
citrussy nose. The classic, firm acidity of flavor again, vivid, eccentric, lingering. toasty and full, cream-and-coffee nose. honeycomb-like character. Toasty, developing a mature mushroom/ Only the Dom Ruinart Rosé 1990 stood
the vintage and plenty of fruit intensity,
yet with great finesse, balance, and
SL: Yes, again very Bollinger, heady,
apple and cinnamon on the nose, but
Correspondingly stylish, winey palate.
Very harmonious and attractively
savory richness and complexity, with a
refreshing zing on the finish.
Marmite character. Very long.
EA: The 1990 had a developed nose
out as totally special.
·
aging potential. I also thought the dense, poised, taut on the palate. rounded whole, if not quite as fine as EA: The toasty, even slightly oaky nose, reminiscent of burned sugar and caramel. Glasses kindly supplied by Riedel UK
2 1 0 T H E W O R L D O F F I N E W I N E I S S U E 1 5 2 0 0 7 I S S U E 1 5 2 0 0 7 T H E W O R L D O F F I N E W I N E 2 1 1
