Last Friday was the second time I drank this wine. I struggled to find the right wine for the evening but somehow I knew that it would likely be a Louis.
Anyway, I am going to get straight to the point.
The wine: I have emphasised my adorations towards this wine before. It is never just purely because it is Louis nor it is because it is a superb wine. Some vintages were down right disappointment, but occassionally something very unusual comes up. This was the case of 1988.
2006 on the other hand, was something unexpected for it had the sweetness and mellow simplicity of 89 Veuve La Grande Dame, along with soft white fruits of kiwi and white strawberries*, sweeter finish, hint of lemon sorbet and a very long but flattish finish (the finish just lasted and lasted and lasted). It was so good it made me forget the cardinal rule of all Chardonnay blends. I just delighted in every mouthful and clicked my tounge against my palette to enjoy the finish and the taste of the wine. I would like to think that by having such characteristics the 2006 was quite a warm year but 2003 was much warmer and the wine was much rounder.
DELISCIOUS!
And since I did not want to spoil drinking, tasting and enjoying the wine with any food, after the last sip, I got a reminder of what effects straight Chardonnay has on me; acid reflux.
* white strawberries don't actually exist as official fruit. As a boy I used to pick unripe strawberries just before they were blushing and ate them in haste because I just loved strawberries and learnt to love the green ones more because they had a very 'green' aspect to them similar to kiwi fruit. The acidity was higher and there was no frangrance typical to strawberries.
Thursday, 10 October 2013
Tuesday, 1 October 2013
CHAMPAGNE - WHAT YOU DON'T REALISE PART 1
There are so many hidden facts about Champagne which hardly ever make it to the surface. I will try and tell you as much as it is possible to digest but if you want the full story the details are all going to be in 'the book'.
It is hard to start with Champagne. The allure is just immense. When you think about it, you actually wonder why is it so?
I want to start with the most affordable Champagnes. Not the legendary tipples such as Dom Perignon, Cristal or Belle Epoque. But the bog standard (not sure I have ever had Champagne while in a bog) non vintage technically, and legally referred to NV.
NV is the most affordable, the accessible which makes it the perfect mode of expressing the style. A non vintage for any house not only requires a far amount of grapes to produce it but it is the vehicle of the expertise of the wine maker and the house style. The wines in themselves have various characteristics and this where the house needs to know how to blend them in order to achieve a consistent style. From these blends all other production develops. The vintages are inherently variable because no year is ever the same, but the NV has to be the same regardless of the year.
Every year produces differing quality of grapes and it is not uncommon that some vintage, while being abundant in grapes, the quality is inadequate. Legally speaking it is a requirement that certain amount of wine is stored as reserves. These wines are then used in NV to achieve the desired style, however, this increases the variable of error and diversity of individual blends.
So in the end it is often any houses greatest mission and pride of judgement to produce consistently high quality Champagnes and many house do want to be judged on NV.
enjoy!
It is hard to start with Champagne. The allure is just immense. When you think about it, you actually wonder why is it so?
I want to start with the most affordable Champagnes. Not the legendary tipples such as Dom Perignon, Cristal or Belle Epoque. But the bog standard (not sure I have ever had Champagne while in a bog) non vintage technically, and legally referred to NV.
NV is the most affordable, the accessible which makes it the perfect mode of expressing the style. A non vintage for any house not only requires a far amount of grapes to produce it but it is the vehicle of the expertise of the wine maker and the house style. The wines in themselves have various characteristics and this where the house needs to know how to blend them in order to achieve a consistent style. From these blends all other production develops. The vintages are inherently variable because no year is ever the same, but the NV has to be the same regardless of the year.
Every year produces differing quality of grapes and it is not uncommon that some vintage, while being abundant in grapes, the quality is inadequate. Legally speaking it is a requirement that certain amount of wine is stored as reserves. These wines are then used in NV to achieve the desired style, however, this increases the variable of error and diversity of individual blends.
So in the end it is often any houses greatest mission and pride of judgement to produce consistently high quality Champagnes and many house do want to be judged on NV.
enjoy!
Tuesday, 10 September 2013
CLOS DE GOISSES 2000
You have no idea how long I have been sharpening my clause to taste this wine. Since I am about to write about it, it is more than obvious that I have already tasted it and had a full bottle on my own. It also marks a milestone in my Champagne drinking existence due to the fact that the list of Champagnes I have not drunk has been reduced to a few that are left. Those that remain on the list are Veuve La Grande Dame Rose (any vintage), Krug Clos d'Ambonnay and Clos du Mesnil. The first I am very enthusiastic about, of course aware of my potential disappointment but at around £270 a bottle I think I can bear the disappointment. With the latter two that is a different story. As much as I would like to taste them I am more than reluctant to spend £2500 for Clos D'Ambonnay especially because it is Krug. And for Clos du Mesnil? The £400+ may not really be that big an issue but what amplifies the scale of the 'issue' is purely the fact that it is Krug and not exactly has Krug had an untarnished record with me.
But back to Clos de Goisses; I cannot say I was overwhelmed by the wine. I liked the woody character, delicate texture and balance were just as expected; One fine champagne.
That's all.
I will try it again especially the 2002 and 2004 vintages.
:)
But back to Clos de Goisses; I cannot say I was overwhelmed by the wine. I liked the woody character, delicate texture and balance were just as expected; One fine champagne.
That's all.
I will try it again especially the 2002 and 2004 vintages.
:)
CUVEE DOM PERIGNON 2003
'I have said once and I will say it again...' the problem with DP is the fact that it is DP. Is that bad? or is that good?
I am so beyond the good/bad bollocks. Yes my exasperation is beyond belief but it still does intrigue me to see how much I will like something.
My hype about DP has always been, to put it midly, practically non existent. Perhaps to show off, but never really felt the urge to taste it the minute new vintage came out. And naturally, it goes without saying that to celebrate 10th year of TICD, DP was not even considered as a possible candidate.
But so it happened that 2003 release was the only thing available that was remotely worthy of the day's celebrations and since I had tasted my first DP when they released 1993 vintage, it made sense to justify it. So I coughed up the odd £100 and got a back up too.
I wondered what it would be like, given the spec of the vintage and not to mention the fluff from the brochure included in the box. The reality of it was typically simple DP. Slightly duller (naturally due to the very high sugar content of the grapes and no surprise that the base wines were acidified which in Champagne is quite controversial, not illegal yet hotly disdained amongst all Champagneois even though some practice it in secret).
The wine as such was a typical mellow DP with rounder finish and short longevity, a nice overpriced and overglorfied lemonade to which I can get used.
:~)
Monday, 19 August 2013
10TH INTERNATIONAL CHAMPAGNE DAY 18TH AUGUST 2013
It is now over ten years since I declared 'May today be The International Champagne!'. I did wonder if there had ever been one so I googled it and there was none. Years later, in fact only 2 years ago, apparently it is celebrated in late October. Why on earth would you celebrate it then?
Anyway, that aside, I was going to celebrate the decade of celebrating.
I spent a week trying to find the right Champagne. I could not find the right one till literally, 5 to 12. And it was Cuvee Dom Perignon 2003.
And about that, later.
:)
Anyway, that aside, I was going to celebrate the decade of celebrating.
I spent a week trying to find the right Champagne. I could not find the right one till literally, 5 to 12. And it was Cuvee Dom Perignon 2003.
And about that, later.
:)
Wednesday, 7 August 2013
CHAMPAGNES I LOVE TO HATE
I am always asked: 'what is the best Champagne?'. I have addressed that question, albeit in a slightly convoluted fashion, in one of my previous entries, so I shan't bore you with that now. But I have never been asked is 'what is the worst Champagne?'. Perhaps we all know a bad one when we taste it or pay for it. Perhaps we see Champagnes as all great and thus we seek to find the better in all the greatness; I don't know, I am only speculating.
However, what I can conclude is that over a period of time there have been some shocking disappointments. Some wines were so disappointing and as it turned out that such disappointment was experienced in the entire range of the house that produced it. So I decided that I would write about those that stand out as the most disappointing Champagnes I have ever tasted:
1. Krug Rose
Seriously over priced tipple with lovely bluish/purple/pink hue but hint of spice on the palette but at £300
2. Krug Vintage 1990
Seriously overrated, with no longevity of the classic 1990 vintage so effortlessly demonstrated by Veuve's La Grande Dame; Krug is at at least £150 a bottle. Greatest disappointment was with 1995 vintage.
3. Dom Perignon Rose 1992
WTF? at £260 per bottle? No further comments!
4. Dom Perignon 1995
Such a disappoitment! Such a great vintage!
5. Krug Grand Reserve
Bollinger, Louis Roederer, Philipponnatt make more enjoyable non vintage at substantially lower prices (Krug is at around £100)
6. Moet et Chandon NV
I would not even bathe in it! Someone referred to it as the Coca Cola of Champagne and that Pepsi is Piper Heidseick. Principally don't drink it and have no idea how much it costs. But it is very popular in Oslo despite the fact that Pol Roger Vintage is cheaper, that Gosset is much cheaper, that Bollinger is much cheaper.
7. Cristal 2002
See special entry dedicated to this: Cristal Clear Disappointment!
As you can see they are all prety much high end bottles. The best of the best! Thus the price tags attached to them seems to reflect that, but then, you can also see that the higher the price the greater the expectation.
I am not exactly the richest man but the poor don't live like me.
Enjoy!
However, what I can conclude is that over a period of time there have been some shocking disappointments. Some wines were so disappointing and as it turned out that such disappointment was experienced in the entire range of the house that produced it. So I decided that I would write about those that stand out as the most disappointing Champagnes I have ever tasted:
1. Krug Rose
Seriously over priced tipple with lovely bluish/purple/pink hue but hint of spice on the palette but at £300
2. Krug Vintage 1990
Seriously overrated, with no longevity of the classic 1990 vintage so effortlessly demonstrated by Veuve's La Grande Dame; Krug is at at least £150 a bottle. Greatest disappointment was with 1995 vintage.
3. Dom Perignon Rose 1992
WTF? at £260 per bottle? No further comments!
4. Dom Perignon 1995
Such a disappoitment! Such a great vintage!
5. Krug Grand Reserve
Bollinger, Louis Roederer, Philipponnatt make more enjoyable non vintage at substantially lower prices (Krug is at around £100)
6. Moet et Chandon NV
I would not even bathe in it! Someone referred to it as the Coca Cola of Champagne and that Pepsi is Piper Heidseick. Principally don't drink it and have no idea how much it costs. But it is very popular in Oslo despite the fact that Pol Roger Vintage is cheaper, that Gosset is much cheaper, that Bollinger is much cheaper.
7. Cristal 2002
See special entry dedicated to this: Cristal Clear Disappointment!
As you can see they are all prety much high end bottles. The best of the best! Thus the price tags attached to them seems to reflect that, but then, you can also see that the higher the price the greater the expectation.
I am not exactly the richest man but the poor don't live like me.
Enjoy!
TARLANT CUVEE LOUIS
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)