Normally, from July 17th I go on Champagne holiday, that is that I don't drink it and I don't buy, but since I am approaching 10th anniversary of International Champagne Day I thought I could make an exception and dedicate more time 'to work'; and have a shorter holiday!
Anyway, it was not a deliberate intention but so it happened that one day I walked to a shop with wines and noticed how marvelous their selection had been. Then, I made that mistake of turning my head toward their Champagne selection.
Few minutes later, and in great delight that someone shared the same views and sentiments about wines, I was committed to buying something I had never seen before but had heard of (read about).
On paper this wine seem technically excellent. Multivintage blend of 96, 97, 98, aged in wood, plus 12 years on lees, 50/50 chardonnay and pinot noir and extra bottle age. Winner! With a price tag under £50 my elation was climbing very high. I say that but in reality I was impressed with how great the wine looked on the tech spec. 'I could have not thought of better!' I thought to myself, but only if I were to construct a cuvee of my own without tasting the specific base wines.
Complex, big, caramel notes with brunt bread (more like baguette rather than toast) hint of roundness resembling cream; all of which are expected. But then I tasted it.
While I was indulging in the opulent aromas of the wine sipping it was something different. I was shocked at how acidic the wine was. I nearly thought that the wine was acidified to such an extent that naturally the grapes were so inferior and there was no other way to make it drinkable. There are only two ways to tell with some certainty; one the speed with which you get drunk, two the hang over. Neither of which gave any indication validating the inferiority of the grapes.
So what was wrong? I don't know! Probably the maker!
Still wine worth tasting as it is a perfect example of technically perfect a Champagne can be, but then even paper perfect can manifest a massive error!