It looks like sobriety is increasingly fashionable. 'oh I don't drink' is the new I-am-so-cool-for-being-able-to-deal-with-reality-unaided that ethanol containing beverages are gradually shunned. However, the sale of Champagne rocket. Mumm once declared that 'in recession (hard times) Champagne is the first luxury to go'. I am not sure that it holds true anymore, but my point is truly and yet, still, purely about consumption. The days when I consumed copious amount of Champagne and clad it in the garb of slight delusion of assessing consistency in styles, had, in retrospect, at least that to conclude. I have dramatically reduced consumption based on the conclusion that yes the styles of various producer are very consistent and decided, following a private conference with my liver and kidneys, that it is time to review and reassess the original strategy of monitoring consistencies.
In other words; I am 10 years older now and I can't drink as much as I used to, which of course I don't mind because, naturally, I prefer being sober rather than drunk. But I have developed a strong antagonistic attitude with my body which, naturally, without prior consultation, decided that after certain amount of ethanol enriched drink the recovery process will double. God knows I have tried to disprove that but I later realised that that would be a fight I was going to lose. Still, the failure had a profound effect on me. Fiscally, I suddenly ended up with considerably more cash. I actually experienced again what it used to be like to fall asleep rather than unconscious and I have shed a few pounds. Not that I have ever been obese or fat; on the contrary! I have always had a lean physique, but for a few months I started to feel that on the sides of the waist something strange started have a movement of its own, and worse, but still not too much, I developed ab flab that had a temperature of its own, colder than the rest of the body. Several months later, the words of Kate Moss resonate like the bells of a church: 'Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels'; the relevance of the statement is applied selectively because her passionate interest isn't overly calorific where mine generally is.
I used to see bottles of Champagne with price tags attached to them, now, with the extra cash I don't see those tags anymore, but what beams to my face is the amount of calories which in itself is not that big a deal, but conversely, the problem amplifies once the calories are translated into minutes on the treadmill at the gym. And it is there where all bottles of Champagne are equal!
P.
p.s. I could nto resist and with the extra cash I bought something lovely....but that is next.
Wednesday, 17 July 2013
Tuesday, 21 May 2013
AWKWARD SILENCE
I have no interest to deprive you of my stories with Champagne and I have absolutely no interest to deprive myself of Champagne, but I have considerably reduced my intake. Yet again, and the last one lasted nearly two years. Still there are plenty of stories which are in drafts and some thoughts on Champagne do need a sober head and apparently sobriety is very becoming. Well...
Veuve 2004
I have to borrow words from Richard Juhlin to start raving about this tipple. Though the loan is not in relation to the same wine, nor the same vintage let alone the same house but they are still the best. 'I am always curious what this house releases'; still paraphrased and in essence not really a Juhlin's phrase but the train of thought originate there.
I have raved about Veuve's vintages before but this one was nothing short of a miracle. Strangely, my brother and a friend of mine could not disagree more! Neither of liked it while I had my nose stuck in glass inhaling the aromas or real caramel and cream. A little unusual for Veuve vintage, but then every vintage is different.
This was my first encounter with 2004 and I was impressed just as I was impressed with Bollinger's La Grande Annee.
:)
I have raved about Veuve's vintages before but this one was nothing short of a miracle. Strangely, my brother and a friend of mine could not disagree more! Neither of liked it while I had my nose stuck in glass inhaling the aromas or real caramel and cream. A little unusual for Veuve vintage, but then every vintage is different.
This was my first encounter with 2004 and I was impressed just as I was impressed with Bollinger's La Grande Annee.
:)
Thursday, 11 April 2013
VEUVE CLICQUOT PONSARDIN 1995 MAGNUM
Sniff sniff and I found this gem again. 3 years later after my first tasting of the same wine it was with enthusiasm I wanted to taste the difference of those years; and in a magnum!
The first magnum I had, turned out to have a story of its own as en route to a friend's house I was assailed by six hooded youths who wanted to steal my phone and when asked to hand it over I refused. Of course I refused I was in the middle of a conversation trying find a way to my friends house! Seconds later, which seemed like minutes, one of them grabbed my arm and insisted I gave him my phone. I pulled my arm away and started to run. Fortunately I outrun them but I managed to trip and splashed on the middle of the road with my precious cargo bouncing off the road at least twice. 'Oh F..., I hope it won't break' was my immediate concern and fortunately it did not. I collected myself then the magnum and fret. My life and the life in the magnum rescued with 4 sexy scratches on the glass and an unsexy tear in my new jeans.
Sniff sniff but now a week later after tasting the second magnum, but from my bed with a pretty nasty cold unable to taste anything, with lips the size that could compete with Naomi Campbell I am left with memories to recount the second encounter with this life in a magnum.
So the first magnum March 2010 had a very fine mousse which understandably was a result of the age. The nose was strongly toned of an overbaked almost charred baguette. I did hope for very well baked 'apple strudel' but I got something else instead. Nevertheless, I was very impressed with the wine. The mousse was delicate reminiscent of La Grande Dame but will less intensity of flavours of red apples that is signature of Veuve. Unlike the 89 (naturally) this wine had such great acids!
March 2013, my expectations were based on the 2010 tasting and who new I was in for a surprise. Bang, the mousse was big as if the wine had not even in the bottle for over 10 years! What happened to the charred baguette? Fruit fruit fruit, life with great vigour, zesty acids and no sign of aging! Minerality on the nose with occassional of hints of bread. WOW!
Is 95 a year full of surprises? Strangely, I think it might be as Bollinger release R.D. 1995 again. Well, I best get paid to drink it. :)
Although, Veuve 95 drank in 2013 was not an overwhelming wine in itself, what was fascinating was the variation from 2010. Veuve vintages are fortunately slightly underpriced but they often deliver beyond expectations. So, as I have said before on a few occassions watch out for these!
The first magnum I had, turned out to have a story of its own as en route to a friend's house I was assailed by six hooded youths who wanted to steal my phone and when asked to hand it over I refused. Of course I refused I was in the middle of a conversation trying find a way to my friends house! Seconds later, which seemed like minutes, one of them grabbed my arm and insisted I gave him my phone. I pulled my arm away and started to run. Fortunately I outrun them but I managed to trip and splashed on the middle of the road with my precious cargo bouncing off the road at least twice. 'Oh F..., I hope it won't break' was my immediate concern and fortunately it did not. I collected myself then the magnum and fret. My life and the life in the magnum rescued with 4 sexy scratches on the glass and an unsexy tear in my new jeans.
Sniff sniff but now a week later after tasting the second magnum, but from my bed with a pretty nasty cold unable to taste anything, with lips the size that could compete with Naomi Campbell I am left with memories to recount the second encounter with this life in a magnum.
So the first magnum March 2010 had a very fine mousse which understandably was a result of the age. The nose was strongly toned of an overbaked almost charred baguette. I did hope for very well baked 'apple strudel' but I got something else instead. Nevertheless, I was very impressed with the wine. The mousse was delicate reminiscent of La Grande Dame but will less intensity of flavours of red apples that is signature of Veuve. Unlike the 89 (naturally) this wine had such great acids!
March 2013, my expectations were based on the 2010 tasting and who new I was in for a surprise. Bang, the mousse was big as if the wine had not even in the bottle for over 10 years! What happened to the charred baguette? Fruit fruit fruit, life with great vigour, zesty acids and no sign of aging! Minerality on the nose with occassional of hints of bread. WOW!
Is 95 a year full of surprises? Strangely, I think it might be as Bollinger release R.D. 1995 again. Well, I best get paid to drink it. :)
Although, Veuve 95 drank in 2013 was not an overwhelming wine in itself, what was fascinating was the variation from 2010. Veuve vintages are fortunately slightly underpriced but they often deliver beyond expectations. So, as I have said before on a few occassions watch out for these!
Thursday, 24 January 2013
LA GRANDE ANNEE 2002 AND 2004
It is about time I wrote something on here! Though I cannot say that I have been bored, my only excuse that I have been writing too much and too many email yet none about Champagne.
I do admit that my Champagne intake has hardly dimished.
I have been following every vintage of Bollinger since 1990 harvest which of course had ideal characteristics and great longevity. The youth of the wine was best manifest in Bollinger's RD 90. The next best year was 95 which was a relief to everyone in Champagne that finally something truly structured came about. I fell in love with 95. Then came 96. On paper it looked just as ideal as 90 but it had one minor problem and that was a complex acidity where some houses declared that 96 was difficult without MLF (malolactic fermentation). I tasted 96 at Bollinger and my first comment was 'just like 90 save the MLF'. The person who was showing me around was shocked that I could spot it.
Anyway, years 97, 99, in VVF also 98, 2000 and I followed like a true stalker! Nearly at every bottle I sighed with disappointment. Don't be fooled! The disappoitment was a natural result of not discovering something sensational becuase 90, 95, 96 were completely sensational if not surreal! In general all La Grande Annee are great but there come times when they reach heights that very very few Champagnes can match and there are genuinely fewer than 5 in the last 10 years that I have tasted (that is 30 years of vintages).
Came La Grande Annee 2002 and I thought: 'oh will there ever be something sensational again?'. 2002 did not impress me. It was great a typical bollinger but....I had to have it and I was obliged to drink it.
And then arrived the 2004 harvest and my God I shouted: 'Finally!' and yes, I finally had my sensational Bollinger Grande Annee back in my life!
So the point is, even though 2002 was proclaimed the best since 1996 it is yet to develop to something the 2004 is already showing. And I am not going to be far from the mark by saying that these two vintages will be referenced in tandem just as 88, 89 and 90 were regarded as trilogy. I did leave out 2003 as that was a year very special and very unique.
I do admit that my Champagne intake has hardly dimished.
I have been following every vintage of Bollinger since 1990 harvest which of course had ideal characteristics and great longevity. The youth of the wine was best manifest in Bollinger's RD 90. The next best year was 95 which was a relief to everyone in Champagne that finally something truly structured came about. I fell in love with 95. Then came 96. On paper it looked just as ideal as 90 but it had one minor problem and that was a complex acidity where some houses declared that 96 was difficult without MLF (malolactic fermentation). I tasted 96 at Bollinger and my first comment was 'just like 90 save the MLF'. The person who was showing me around was shocked that I could spot it.
Anyway, years 97, 99, in VVF also 98, 2000 and I followed like a true stalker! Nearly at every bottle I sighed with disappointment. Don't be fooled! The disappoitment was a natural result of not discovering something sensational becuase 90, 95, 96 were completely sensational if not surreal! In general all La Grande Annee are great but there come times when they reach heights that very very few Champagnes can match and there are genuinely fewer than 5 in the last 10 years that I have tasted (that is 30 years of vintages).
Came La Grande Annee 2002 and I thought: 'oh will there ever be something sensational again?'. 2002 did not impress me. It was great a typical bollinger but....I had to have it and I was obliged to drink it.
And then arrived the 2004 harvest and my God I shouted: 'Finally!' and yes, I finally had my sensational Bollinger Grande Annee back in my life!
So the point is, even though 2002 was proclaimed the best since 1996 it is yet to develop to something the 2004 is already showing. And I am not going to be far from the mark by saying that these two vintages will be referenced in tandem just as 88, 89 and 90 were regarded as trilogy. I did leave out 2003 as that was a year very special and very unique.
Friday, 7 September 2012
9TH INTERNATIONAL CHAMPAGNE DAY
I am late! I am late with writing about the last ICD. Any excuse? Lack of inspiration to write!
But not lack of inspiration from drinking.
Ten years after I resumed, in fact fully immersed myself in, drinking Champagne I changed my mind about what I was going to drink and took a chance on a recommendation from a shop assistant and bought two bottle of a small producer.
One, I thought was a straight blanc des blancs but when I tasted it was a very unusual Chardonnay but I doubted what I tasted. The colour had pinkish hue, the nose was earthy and big, the taste was robust, the impressions were of Pinot Noir not of Chardonnay. Three glasses in, and I could swear it was Pinot but I dismissed the notion because all the time at the shop the assistant was telling me it was a straight Chardonnay, but just as I poured the fourth glass I looked at the label and realised that it was indeed a Pinot Noir.
A few weeks later, I met up with someone who had been in the hospitality industry for years and knew the ins and outs of it in Norway. I know very little, save the results of my limited research. Despite my research or his validating experience, I was told something interesting: 'In Norway sommeliers (and laymen too) prefer smaller producers to the big ones'. He stated the reasons why that was so, which were mostly regarding the production ethics.
Whilst I can understand the reason behind the professionals' attitudes toward smaller producers, when a layman is actively encouraged to drink the same wines as the professional and dissuaded from experiencing the big one, I strongly object! Of course, objection of any kind in Norway, let alone strong ones, are frowned upon.
I think it unfair that taking advantage of someone's ignorance for financial gains, and I am not naive, it impairs the layman's ability to assess wines intrinsically.
Why do I think that? Simply, the big ones, Grande Marques, are big for a variety of reasons. Their production extents over at least dozen of decades and the knowledge and expertise is passed on with the view of maintaining individual style. Not only there is a greater proven record of the variables of vintages, but, with generosity, four decades, don't compete with in the case of the oldest house, 251 years of experience. Of course trends have changed among other things but the 'CHAMPAGNE' buzz is essentially based on those brands. The big brands have more capital to invest into the sources, the training of wines, extended contracts of growers etc.
The most important aspect however is the end user. What does he know? How much does he drink? How much does he earn? I often face the objection of money. I was a student when I started exploring Champagne, and to date I maintain a view that students are the richest consumers of alcohol.
At any rate, a layman would have to drink at least 100 liters of Champagne a year and dedicate a enormous amount of time and funds to learn about the big names of Champagne. While for a professional, the big ones are unexciting at times, nevertheless, they already have the experience of the big ones while the layman, with credit, has only little experience. To devalue the professionals, it is not often the case where an average professional would drink a full bottle on his/her own and experience the development of the wine after opening. A layman must bear in mind that a professional often looks for flaws in the wine, and they have to encompass the entire world of wine to give a layman some idea of what it is they are about to purchase. And at last, it is the big ones that established the mark up on Champagne that the professionals make money on, so no wonder they will recommend the best they can for their pocket with the notion that their recommendation has to live up to the expectations of the layman, but on what experience are the expectations of a layman based?
Bottoms up!
But not lack of inspiration from drinking.
Ten years after I resumed, in fact fully immersed myself in, drinking Champagne I changed my mind about what I was going to drink and took a chance on a recommendation from a shop assistant and bought two bottle of a small producer.
One, I thought was a straight blanc des blancs but when I tasted it was a very unusual Chardonnay but I doubted what I tasted. The colour had pinkish hue, the nose was earthy and big, the taste was robust, the impressions were of Pinot Noir not of Chardonnay. Three glasses in, and I could swear it was Pinot but I dismissed the notion because all the time at the shop the assistant was telling me it was a straight Chardonnay, but just as I poured the fourth glass I looked at the label and realised that it was indeed a Pinot Noir.
A few weeks later, I met up with someone who had been in the hospitality industry for years and knew the ins and outs of it in Norway. I know very little, save the results of my limited research. Despite my research or his validating experience, I was told something interesting: 'In Norway sommeliers (and laymen too) prefer smaller producers to the big ones'. He stated the reasons why that was so, which were mostly regarding the production ethics.
Whilst I can understand the reason behind the professionals' attitudes toward smaller producers, when a layman is actively encouraged to drink the same wines as the professional and dissuaded from experiencing the big one, I strongly object! Of course, objection of any kind in Norway, let alone strong ones, are frowned upon.
I think it unfair that taking advantage of someone's ignorance for financial gains, and I am not naive, it impairs the layman's ability to assess wines intrinsically.
Why do I think that? Simply, the big ones, Grande Marques, are big for a variety of reasons. Their production extents over at least dozen of decades and the knowledge and expertise is passed on with the view of maintaining individual style. Not only there is a greater proven record of the variables of vintages, but, with generosity, four decades, don't compete with in the case of the oldest house, 251 years of experience. Of course trends have changed among other things but the 'CHAMPAGNE' buzz is essentially based on those brands. The big brands have more capital to invest into the sources, the training of wines, extended contracts of growers etc.
The most important aspect however is the end user. What does he know? How much does he drink? How much does he earn? I often face the objection of money. I was a student when I started exploring Champagne, and to date I maintain a view that students are the richest consumers of alcohol.
At any rate, a layman would have to drink at least 100 liters of Champagne a year and dedicate a enormous amount of time and funds to learn about the big names of Champagne. While for a professional, the big ones are unexciting at times, nevertheless, they already have the experience of the big ones while the layman, with credit, has only little experience. To devalue the professionals, it is not often the case where an average professional would drink a full bottle on his/her own and experience the development of the wine after opening. A layman must bear in mind that a professional often looks for flaws in the wine, and they have to encompass the entire world of wine to give a layman some idea of what it is they are about to purchase. And at last, it is the big ones that established the mark up on Champagne that the professionals make money on, so no wonder they will recommend the best they can for their pocket with the notion that their recommendation has to live up to the expectations of the layman, but on what experience are the expectations of a layman based?
Bottoms up!
Friday, 20 July 2012
GOSSET 1995 CELEBRIS
Another Gosset today. Well not exactly. This entry has remained in my drafts since Christmas.
I found a bottle of Gosset 95 very unexpectedly and was I happy! Yes of course I was! My favourite vintage and my favourite producer too! However I cannot say that on the first few occasions I was impressed! But this time, I cannot say I was disappointed.
Although with Gosset the Grand millessimee is beyond Celebris on many accounts, Celebris is evidently made with future in mind. This wine was first tasted in 2002 then in 2005 and then in 2011. And what more can I say other than some Champagnes show their beauty with age!
Notes of honey and nuts with exquisite taste of lemons gave the wine such life in 2011 that even Bollinger's RD could not measure up, in fact not even Louis' BB 88. As if it were saying : 'I might have matured/developed, but I am full of life and nowhere near retirement' and for 95 harvest it could not have been a better statement!
:)
I found a bottle of Gosset 95 very unexpectedly and was I happy! Yes of course I was! My favourite vintage and my favourite producer too! However I cannot say that on the first few occasions I was impressed! But this time, I cannot say I was disappointed.
Although with Gosset the Grand millessimee is beyond Celebris on many accounts, Celebris is evidently made with future in mind. This wine was first tasted in 2002 then in 2005 and then in 2011. And what more can I say other than some Champagnes show their beauty with age!
Notes of honey and nuts with exquisite taste of lemons gave the wine such life in 2011 that even Bollinger's RD could not measure up, in fact not even Louis' BB 88. As if it were saying : 'I might have matured/developed, but I am full of life and nowhere near retirement' and for 95 harvest it could not have been a better statement!
:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)