BOLLINGER LA GRANDE ANNEE 2005

At last I finally managed to taste this tipple! It had been a very long time since I had Bollinger, and if it weren't for my latest trip to Champagne the likelihood and the chance to taste or drink it on my horizon would have been very slim; not improbable though.

I realised though, that I had been very lucky! To have tasted the likes of 1990, 1995, 1996 as my first experiences of Bollinger and of Champagne, on reflection I understand that the bar had been set extremely high and so many grand and great and exquisite Champagnes had paled in comparison. Worse, and to add, was, that at the time, fortune smiled at me brilliantly with La Grande Annee having little competition and whatever there was, rang the loud bells of the likes of Cristal, Krug Grand Cuvee, Dom Perignon, La Grande Dame. 

There and then, I was right at the beginning of the new millennium and more interestingly at the rebirth of Champagne and at the rebirth of Bollinger's vintage wine from mere vintage to a cuvee de prestige. And what better harvests to mark this transition?

When at Bollinger, the grand daughter of Charles Heidsieck with a sigh commented on 1996 La Grande Annee as 'the pact between God and Bollinger'. I don't disagree.

After the 1997 vintage release, doubts have started creaping up and I had longed for the experience of 96, 95, 90 of which the most memorable was that of 95 but I was  aware that in terms of vintages my luck was running ashore. The new millennium was dawning and with it so was the global warming along with new socio-cultural trends which, as I later found out, contributed to some fundamental shifts in Champagne. 

I do need to reflect on my experiences of 02, 03, 04 in order to offer some justification.

In one of my previous entries, I mentioned the comparisons of those harvests on the backdrop of previously tasted vintages from the 90s. I must add the almost-forgotten harvest of 1992, not purely for the record but this vintage has been surprisingly important for the naughties than the sensational 95, 90, 96. 

And the 92, was the expression of Bollinger's highest low; exceptional style, ok harvest, exceptional wine but nothing divine. 

And those are the words that best describe 2005.

When I tasted 02, 04, 03, 05 my reluctant but acute disappointment had something to say. I thought, 'Something isn't right here', and my doubts were confirmed when I found out that La Grande Annee had been subjected to malolactic fermentation which made the wines rounder and slightly creamier.

I would be both unfair and unjust, if I continued to rant on with my disappointment. La Grande Annee as a wine is a style that charms many, it consumes other peoples' souls like no other Champagne does, there is something intrinsically visceral to it that binds human souls to it in an inexplicable way. Perhaps it is the viticultural androgyny that the wine manifest, being at once a fizz, and a red wine of incomporable character, depth, elegance and style and it is no wonder that in Champagne, Bollinger is one of the most respected brands.

And I don't need address again the effects of the word: BOLLINGER. 

CHAMPAGNE THE BEST - WHO KNOWS?

This is the black hole of any wine maker, critic, and consumer. And trust me, not even a bubble can escape it.

Is there such thing as the best Champagne?
The process of understanding what 'the best' may be I have already addressed and in conclusion I was no clearer.

But since, years have passed and I had the chance to ponder again.

I realised that it is nobody other than merely the consumer that declares the BEST CHAMPAGNE. And this means that there are many, and not just one.

Admittedly there are conventional attitudes toward this definition but they are only relevant as far as motivation to drink it is concerned. And the experience? is unique to every individual.

So what is your best Champagne?

p

FORTNUM AND MASON - HOUSE - BLANC DES BLANCS, GRAND CRU.

How many times have I actually been at Fortnum's?

I don't know! I suppose I lost count!

I have always been a bit reticent to buy 'house brand' Champagnes, but since Fortnum's seems to be the brand of excellence, I had had my eye set on their range. But I never committed to buying a bottle.

Why? Perhaps distrust to house labels!

I have always been wary of recommending Champagnes; chiefly due to the incomprehensible power of the word 'Champagne' and moreover the expectation that the word induces. And I was no different.

But back to Fortnum's; if it weren't for my ex boss, now a very dear from mine, I would probably never taste the house stuff from them. It happened because chocolates not Champagne but once my friend produced the box, it was clear who would get what! She got chocolates and I got Champagne. We shared of course but....

So what was it like?

Hmmmm, if you roam around the shop on Piccadilly it is not difficult to ascertain the mood, and I think the Champagne embodied the 'mood' of the shop. It was soft, lingering, enticing, non-confrontational, somewhat plain but in its own simplicity a memorable tipple. I will have to ask if the Champagne is expected to manifest the ideological heritage of the shop.

Chances of my buying it? Quite slim, but when chance permits I will be looking out for it.

A good experience nonetheless.

Peter

CHAMPAGNE - THE DRIFT AND THE SHIFT

How long has it been? 13 years that I actively decided to explore Champagne? In fact I have always been fascinated by it. There are things I can't explain and some I do not want to. Once I said, 'love, genius and beauty are incomprehensible' and this applies to Champagne, with exaggeration, ten fold. 
In the previous entry I indicated that objectifying can be more damaging than helpful, in fact, I had per-pended for years how relevant it actually is. I have always been reticent to dictate to anyone what a wine tastes like. To taste this and that might serve a purpose but over the years and with the expansion of 'trained noses' the message that is often conveyed is like a code of something that is indeed incomprehensible. I recall reading Metro at my usual wine shop and read in amazement that comparative assessment of three rose Champagnes was a selection of the same words in different in different orders. And how on earth is the reader supposed to orient himself in that? My professional experience of the wine professionals wasn't the best. I don't intend to be bitter, but I think that cashing on ignorance is rather unfair. From my entries it is apparent that my assessment of wines from Champagne is reduced to a distinctive characteristic. Take for instance Louis Roederer; its silky and fruity character lingers in all its wines. For Pol Roger I can only say that it is a fine (I mean refined) Champagne. So as much as I will be condemned for it, everyone's experience is a unique one and reduce it to objects deprives us all of the enjoyment of the experience. I drifted from the objectiveness, although, I had attempted it, but now I shifted toward describing the experience of the wine rather than reduce it to a few words. And this is where my policy of one bottle person, on one's own is the best place to experience the wine. I don't like mixing emotions from the environment with the emotions that the wine induces. Champagne is art, and so is poetry and when we describe our experience of poetry we describe the emotions it evoked. More on this in the book! p.

POL ROGER 2004

When I first had Pol Roger, I was not very impressed. Why? I suppose it was too opulent too round and with aggressive bubbles. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps, I was inexperienced. But that was over 12 years ago and since then I tasted a few vintages and other products from the Pol Roger range. And over those 12 years I have selected a few producers whose vintage releases I follow religiously to taste the expressions of the year in which they are released. I am happy to say that Pol Roger Vintage is one the new additions to the club. So what was it like? The vintage 2004 in Veuve, Bollinger, showed similar signs as 1995. Great, and I mean grand, chunky, rich, lean in taste and expressive on the nose. Typically pinot noir based wines, and rich oxidative character this year and the wine have a very down to earth character. Where 95 was elusive, almost esoteric with Bollinger, structured and bodied in Veuve they both showed exquisite potential for aging with almost eternal elegance. 2004, is slightly old for its age in the bottle, but bearing in mind that the wine had a lot more on lees than 95 it is only to be expected. In 2006 I tasted it as R.D. and I could draw very interesting parallels without compromising the expression of the house styles. Anyway, I highly recommend it. I am reticent to ambush you with my 'objectified' notes on it because I stopped making them and started to focus on spontaneous expression. Cheers Peter

12TH INTERNATIONAL CHAMPAGNE DAY

I am almost a month overdue on writing the entry of an event that I invented. I also completely broke the tradition of highlighting the best Champagnes of the year past and failed to issue recommendations on what would be the best tipple. This year's ICD was for lack of a better word, and in fact when you think about it, an oxymoron, quite modest (modest Champagne? ehm!). I spent it in the company of friends who this summer almost adopted me as a member of their family as my own family seemed to have disowned me. So I celebrated it with the best of the modest Champagnes and that was nothing more but Bollinger Special Cuvee. Peter p.s. the list of Champagnes that I have yet to cover is growing very thin. I do have a few things that I want to share.

LA GRANDE DAME - ROSE 1988 - THE PINK CHANGE!

At long last! The pinnacle of Rose/pink expression by the house that invented the style. Years I had been lusting to try this but the price has always stopped me. Sacrificing £360 for a single bottle and gamble on top of that wasn't exactly my true commitment to the wine. But as it happens by random chance which is a result of many being at the right time at the right place I found a rare bottle of this marvelously prestigious wine in the middle of nowhere and at only £100. Having a general knowledge of Champagne wines I was acutely aware that the wine would be old but that did not prevent me from coughing up the money. So what was it like? Well, old. Not dead as acids were quite interestingly alive. Colour was like polished copper and the nose slightly waxy and powdery. With minor notes of coffee and caramel the wine was clearly a dead end with no future anymore. And this is always the gamble with champagne which exacerbate the thrill of buying and add to the expectation of the wine. They either exalt the experience or completely ruin it. Won't be rushing to get another one. :)