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!
:)
Friday, 20 July 2012
GOSSET (Vs) VILMART - well not really!
Ok! I admit! Comparisons never work!
And it is true!
I chose for my evening two companions, the long awaited Gosset's new baby, its NV Blanc de Blancs and Vilmart's Grand Cellier D'or 2006.
Yes, you're right; a non vintage along with a vintage? Perhaps a move against all reason but still I bought the two and felt it was important and even more so, interesting to run a duel tasting!
So as for Gosset: I cannot emphasise more how much I love Gosset, however the blanc de blancs isn't quite what I had hoped the cellar master would conjure but, and with Gosset there is always a 'but', I will die before I see this wine develop in a bottle or on lees. It is an impressive Chardonnay with the standard nose of one, perhaps a little more mineral but alas nothing too out of the ordinary. And the 'but': My god it will age spectacularly!
Vilmart on the other hand 'hello baby!'. Seriously, this one has a nose of a very strange character, I cannot really make up mind whether it is powdery (like some frangrances, yes odd I know) somewhat mushroomy, a little off, tad rummy, somewhat notes of milk and a little caramel, with a hint of bailyes. And after a while the nose develops slightly and a facet of a slight tinge of rose water comes in!
So if your Champagne experience gets a little too dull, then go against all reason...as one would anyway :)
and which one won? I shall save the answer for later; ask me again in 10 years!
LOUIS ROEDERER BLANC DES BLANCS 2003
Finally!
When I sometimes discover wines which over the years became my favourite my usual dilemma (what am I going to drink?) is resolved.
As you know the time I spend in wine shops has no limit. Today, for instance, I could easily sleep amongst all the bottles and feel so at home there! Perhaps a wrong idea but still!
Anyway, one day before Christmas I walked into the shop and spent at least 45 minutes for all the bottles to speak to me. And when I cast my eyes on Louis BB 2003 it was set! It turned out to be more expensive but hey....
Let's get the facts right. So we know that all Louis BB regardless of vintage deliver something very interesting and showcase masterfully the character of the vintage it is released. I would refer to previous entries on BB by Louis and also review the article about 2003 by Bollinger.
To sum up, 2003 was impressive vintage and an interesting one too, but why did I find Bollinger's 2003 and Louis very similar?
:)
When I sometimes discover wines which over the years became my favourite my usual dilemma (what am I going to drink?) is resolved.
As you know the time I spend in wine shops has no limit. Today, for instance, I could easily sleep amongst all the bottles and feel so at home there! Perhaps a wrong idea but still!
Anyway, one day before Christmas I walked into the shop and spent at least 45 minutes for all the bottles to speak to me. And when I cast my eyes on Louis BB 2003 it was set! It turned out to be more expensive but hey....
Let's get the facts right. So we know that all Louis BB regardless of vintage deliver something very interesting and showcase masterfully the character of the vintage it is released. I would refer to previous entries on BB by Louis and also review the article about 2003 by Bollinger.
To sum up, 2003 was impressive vintage and an interesting one too, but why did I find Bollinger's 2003 and Louis very similar?
:)
Saturday, 7 July 2012
NOT EVERY WINE FROM CHAMPAGNE IS FIZZY
Yes it is true! The bold declaration, strangely enough mostly in capital letters, on any label of Champagne as we know it can only be applied to the fizzy stuff.
But! There is not just the fizzy stuff made in our favourite patch of the wine world.
Years have I been looking, albeit not actively, for the red wine made in Champagne called, and as such, having its own appelation, Coteaux Champenois.
I found couple of producers from Champagne making wines under the aforementioned appelation and naturally with a bottle of Champagne in one hand I reached out for the more expensive one of the two that were in the shop.
I opened in a few minutes ago and my first reaction was 'Corked'! Bugger! The corked smelled as though it was but the wine did not taste very much like a corked one as the over powering smell of griotte liquor came through like a slap! I recalled pickled cherries in rum and dark chocolate which is a box of chocolate of very distinctive flavour and aroma. But the wine gives the impression that it has too much alcohol in it, which of course it does not as it is half a per cent below classic Champagne.
The wine is from Ay. Home to the likes of Gosset, Ayala, Bollinger and it is classified as Grand Cru.
The body is pronounced and the aromas big it does not lack softness. My first conclusion is that perhaps it is not the ultimate favourite and I would prefer the classic Ay Champagnes however, I can really see how some people can find this tipple immensely appealing! Cheers Jazz! :)
But! There is not just the fizzy stuff made in our favourite patch of the wine world.
Years have I been looking, albeit not actively, for the red wine made in Champagne called, and as such, having its own appelation, Coteaux Champenois.
I found couple of producers from Champagne making wines under the aforementioned appelation and naturally with a bottle of Champagne in one hand I reached out for the more expensive one of the two that were in the shop.
I opened in a few minutes ago and my first reaction was 'Corked'! Bugger! The corked smelled as though it was but the wine did not taste very much like a corked one as the over powering smell of griotte liquor came through like a slap! I recalled pickled cherries in rum and dark chocolate which is a box of chocolate of very distinctive flavour and aroma. But the wine gives the impression that it has too much alcohol in it, which of course it does not as it is half a per cent below classic Champagne.
The wine is from Ay. Home to the likes of Gosset, Ayala, Bollinger and it is classified as Grand Cru.
The body is pronounced and the aromas big it does not lack softness. My first conclusion is that perhaps it is not the ultimate favourite and I would prefer the classic Ay Champagnes however, I can really see how some people can find this tipple immensely appealing! Cheers Jazz! :)
Thursday, 2 February 2012
THE NAUGHTIES
The naughties have been over for over 2 years but we still managed to taste some very good tipples of the 90s. 09, 10, 11 were the best years for Champagne not so much in the fact that the vintages were good but because of the recession that hit the world and that Champagne suffered in that the good stuff was left unconsumed by all the bankers that were laid off.
But this jolly years were eventually going to end. It is 2012 and if we manage to lay our hands on something from the 90s (mostly latter years of the decade) is now becoming a matter of luck or funds as those years will have gradually moved into the realms of later disgorgements of vintages of most houses.
The more accessible stuff now available is anywhere from 2000 to 2006 vintages and some small houses have already released 2009 (I hope I am wrong in what I have written yet, my eyes do not often fail me). Which is still a bad thing as some of the vintages will fair at nearly 10 years of bottle age as opposed to i.e. 95 released in 2002.
One thing that is noteworthy is that we are now into the 3rd decade of since 1990 and I have not heard that any other vintage since would have been as good....well, actually 96 was pretty close but not same.
It has not even been a month, since someone played Evita on spotify and I noticed the year in which it was released and commented on the 1996 that last time I saw 1996 written like that it was on a bottle of Champagne.
So may this decade bring something just as good at least as 95, 90, 96. In truth global warming might not help, and even if there turns out to be a year to be remembered in Champagne we will not have the opportunity to indulge in it for at least another decade. Will be this the limbo decade for Champagne?
I have started to taste some of the recent releases up to 2004 and I cannot say I have been overwhelmed! (yet)
But this jolly years were eventually going to end. It is 2012 and if we manage to lay our hands on something from the 90s (mostly latter years of the decade) is now becoming a matter of luck or funds as those years will have gradually moved into the realms of later disgorgements of vintages of most houses.
The more accessible stuff now available is anywhere from 2000 to 2006 vintages and some small houses have already released 2009 (I hope I am wrong in what I have written yet, my eyes do not often fail me). Which is still a bad thing as some of the vintages will fair at nearly 10 years of bottle age as opposed to i.e. 95 released in 2002.
One thing that is noteworthy is that we are now into the 3rd decade of since 1990 and I have not heard that any other vintage since would have been as good....well, actually 96 was pretty close but not same.
It has not even been a month, since someone played Evita on spotify and I noticed the year in which it was released and commented on the 1996 that last time I saw 1996 written like that it was on a bottle of Champagne.
So may this decade bring something just as good at least as 95, 90, 96. In truth global warming might not help, and even if there turns out to be a year to be remembered in Champagne we will not have the opportunity to indulge in it for at least another decade. Will be this the limbo decade for Champagne?
I have started to taste some of the recent releases up to 2004 and I cannot say I have been overwhelmed! (yet)
Monday, 12 December 2011
DOM RUINART 1998 - LIVE
I am so weak! Seriously! I am so weak I can't resist the seduction of the thought that comes to my mind when there is a bottle I have not tasted. And it is that one bit more difficult if I even dreamt about it the night before.
I bought the bottle I had been thinking of and contemplating buying since 2003 and never actually found the courage to gamble the odd £100 on it. Have I ever spend more on Champagne? Yes!
Anyway, I really buckled under the weigh of the anticipation of the experience and in the few minutes I had or at least allowed myself to justify, opening the bottle I bought this morning for Christmas dinner, there was no bang but a mere seductive sigh.
I really did not know what expect. I haD tried Dom Ruinart Rose before, and it was a stunning tipple but the standard Blanc des Blancs had been on list of the most wanted for a while; 8 years to be precise.
So I opened the bottle and smelled the cork. 1st thought = hmmm, interesting! I smelt the cork again and I was almost certain that it was not corked. But you never know. My expectations of citrus, shortbread seemed slightly validated but I did not know if the classic blanc des blancs slightly sulphurous, at times a bit overwhelmingly so, aroma would be present. The cork indicated some aspect of it but it swiftly dissipated.
Dom Ruinart is a straight Chardonnay so there as some expectations and rules to which one must adhere.
My bottle is a bit colder which is ok, as the wine will develop and will continue to do so as the wine warms up.
1st glass did not demonstrate anything overwhelmingly clear. Images of lime, shortbread and something green ran through my head. I could not quite nail the green 'stuff'.
2nd glass about 10 min minutes later and the wine has slightly opened up and strated to develop a little more with more pronounced character. I am really enforcing myself to smell lemons in it as the slightly block-like yet rounded image of the experience reminds me of Taittinger non vintage with strong freshly baked baquette-like aroma and lemon juice squeezed over it. But more to the point this is definitely ONE HELL OF A CHARDONNAY! Of course it is not Salon! It is a little more creamy. I stuck my nose in the glass after swirling it for a while and inhaled to get the most out of it.
PAUSE.....II>
The delicate texture of the wine danced on my tongue and I felt as though I need to chew it delicately like a jelly with a finish that begged for more. The horrible thing with these top cuvees is that one can't really get drunk that quickly!
I do have to try it again and see how my experience measures up.
In terms of complexity it fair very well, richness and body it has its substantial weight and its meaty/muscular elegance gives it a very strong seductive character. Its citrus notes slap one's face to awaken from such seduction.
Enjoy!
I bought the bottle I had been thinking of and contemplating buying since 2003 and never actually found the courage to gamble the odd £100 on it. Have I ever spend more on Champagne? Yes!
Anyway, I really buckled under the weigh of the anticipation of the experience and in the few minutes I had or at least allowed myself to justify, opening the bottle I bought this morning for Christmas dinner, there was no bang but a mere seductive sigh.
I really did not know what expect. I haD tried Dom Ruinart Rose before, and it was a stunning tipple but the standard Blanc des Blancs had been on list of the most wanted for a while; 8 years to be precise.
So I opened the bottle and smelled the cork. 1st thought = hmmm, interesting! I smelt the cork again and I was almost certain that it was not corked. But you never know. My expectations of citrus, shortbread seemed slightly validated but I did not know if the classic blanc des blancs slightly sulphurous, at times a bit overwhelmingly so, aroma would be present. The cork indicated some aspect of it but it swiftly dissipated.
Dom Ruinart is a straight Chardonnay so there as some expectations and rules to which one must adhere.
My bottle is a bit colder which is ok, as the wine will develop and will continue to do so as the wine warms up.
1st glass did not demonstrate anything overwhelmingly clear. Images of lime, shortbread and something green ran through my head. I could not quite nail the green 'stuff'.
2nd glass about 10 min minutes later and the wine has slightly opened up and strated to develop a little more with more pronounced character. I am really enforcing myself to smell lemons in it as the slightly block-like yet rounded image of the experience reminds me of Taittinger non vintage with strong freshly baked baquette-like aroma and lemon juice squeezed over it. But more to the point this is definitely ONE HELL OF A CHARDONNAY! Of course it is not Salon! It is a little more creamy. I stuck my nose in the glass after swirling it for a while and inhaled to get the most out of it.
PAUSE.....II>
The delicate texture of the wine danced on my tongue and I felt as though I need to chew it delicately like a jelly with a finish that begged for more. The horrible thing with these top cuvees is that one can't really get drunk that quickly!
I do have to try it again and see how my experience measures up.
In terms of complexity it fair very well, richness and body it has its substantial weight and its meaty/muscular elegance gives it a very strong seductive character. Its citrus notes slap one's face to awaken from such seduction.
Enjoy!
Sunday, 30 October 2011
A.D.O.P.T.
How often do we stand perplexed trying to discern some smell or taste or both when tasting Champagne that some other person commented on in his/hers books about wine and Champagne?
How many of us have wondered about 'Am I any good at this if I can't smell what I am supposed to be smelling (or that everyone else says they smell)?
Personally, I try and avoid describing anything I taste in great detail. I do describe it to people to offer guidance in understanding the differences between various Champagnes but ultimately my approach to tasting is somewhat reactive. I rarely skim through books to have an understanding of what a Champagne that I have not tasted should be like. I do admit that when stripped for cash I revisit other peoples' notes on some Champagne to psychologically relive the wine and strangely, I often reminisce in such detail that it seems as though I am drinking the Champagne. What a bloody cheat! And believe it or not, often my memories of the Champagne and the notes in the books could not be more different.
My point however has always been to allow people to explore Champagne in their own way. I wish I had the wisdom of the world of Champagne, but fortunately I don't so I am still left with desiring more and desiring new discoveries. The truth is that with my excessive consumption the rate of major discoveries has diminished and that is why I am always slightly envious of those who with great interest immerse themselves in learning about Champagne and more importantly the discoveries they will make. There is a tax of disappointment in that but with time that diminishes yet even I take a risk of being disappointed. My risk taking is now much dependant on my budget which is not as overflowing as it was some 6 months ago but it is truth undisputed that the higher the price the higher the expectation.
The reasons behind my being very limited in speaking about Champagne is manifold. I often feel that my experience of it is not so adequate nor as pristine as it used to be, but in the days when it was I thought it was inadequate because it was not objective and hardly ever consonant with what the big names of wine world said about any specific wine. From innocence to prostitution I realised, what Jung worded in following, that 'any form of formal training inhibits freedom of expression' (Amen!). So as much as I was interested in taking on formal training, I reconsidered and thus sabotaged my career as a sommelier, but at least I preserved at least some form of innocence and desire to learn and in fact more so, to experience an unadulterated pleasure of drinking Champagne. Differing tastes of fruits of the same sort are just as confusing.
Some might despair in that 'Oh I wish I could taste this and that that someone has written about'. Wish for it and it might just happen, but as the old gypsy curse goes 'be careful what you wish for as you might just get it and then you ll have to pay for it'.
Red apples, green apples, strawberries, cherries, white flowers, honey, acacia flower, acacia wood, raspberries, blood oranges, limes etc etc. Ever wondered how differently they taste? or smell? When they write about all the fruits, has it ever occurred to them that when you buy strawberries they often hardly taste of anything. Or when green apples are mentioned is there any specific reference to golden deliscious or granny smith or some forgotten summer variety? In fact I really would like to meet the person that knows what acacia wood smells like! It is a childhood smell of my grand mother's barn in which she stored all the wood for winter from the near by forests plagued by acacia trees and killed all the local and original habitat. Still the scent is unmistable! And if I were to describe it my words would not correctly convey the experience in such a fashion that as such I would be able to evoke the exact or at least some convincing proximation of the image I perceive.
And the last sentence of the paragraph is exactly what happens when you read what the connoisseur is trying to say to so many yet without a shadow of doubt he fails, but succeeds in impressing. Because drinking a lot is impressive! and have tasted a lot is equally impressive!
There are invariably differences just as there are difference in experiences and in life experiences so I would never dare assume that my life experience would indicate what others ought to experience. If however, someone says a politically correct diffuser 'All Depends On Personal Taste' (A.D.O.P.T.) well quite frankly, it does not depend on the choice but the experience so, smile and drink on your own!
How many of us have wondered about 'Am I any good at this if I can't smell what I am supposed to be smelling (or that everyone else says they smell)?
Personally, I try and avoid describing anything I taste in great detail. I do describe it to people to offer guidance in understanding the differences between various Champagnes but ultimately my approach to tasting is somewhat reactive. I rarely skim through books to have an understanding of what a Champagne that I have not tasted should be like. I do admit that when stripped for cash I revisit other peoples' notes on some Champagne to psychologically relive the wine and strangely, I often reminisce in such detail that it seems as though I am drinking the Champagne. What a bloody cheat! And believe it or not, often my memories of the Champagne and the notes in the books could not be more different.
My point however has always been to allow people to explore Champagne in their own way. I wish I had the wisdom of the world of Champagne, but fortunately I don't so I am still left with desiring more and desiring new discoveries. The truth is that with my excessive consumption the rate of major discoveries has diminished and that is why I am always slightly envious of those who with great interest immerse themselves in learning about Champagne and more importantly the discoveries they will make. There is a tax of disappointment in that but with time that diminishes yet even I take a risk of being disappointed. My risk taking is now much dependant on my budget which is not as overflowing as it was some 6 months ago but it is truth undisputed that the higher the price the higher the expectation.
The reasons behind my being very limited in speaking about Champagne is manifold. I often feel that my experience of it is not so adequate nor as pristine as it used to be, but in the days when it was I thought it was inadequate because it was not objective and hardly ever consonant with what the big names of wine world said about any specific wine. From innocence to prostitution I realised, what Jung worded in following, that 'any form of formal training inhibits freedom of expression' (Amen!). So as much as I was interested in taking on formal training, I reconsidered and thus sabotaged my career as a sommelier, but at least I preserved at least some form of innocence and desire to learn and in fact more so, to experience an unadulterated pleasure of drinking Champagne. Differing tastes of fruits of the same sort are just as confusing.
Some might despair in that 'Oh I wish I could taste this and that that someone has written about'. Wish for it and it might just happen, but as the old gypsy curse goes 'be careful what you wish for as you might just get it and then you ll have to pay for it'.
Red apples, green apples, strawberries, cherries, white flowers, honey, acacia flower, acacia wood, raspberries, blood oranges, limes etc etc. Ever wondered how differently they taste? or smell? When they write about all the fruits, has it ever occurred to them that when you buy strawberries they often hardly taste of anything. Or when green apples are mentioned is there any specific reference to golden deliscious or granny smith or some forgotten summer variety? In fact I really would like to meet the person that knows what acacia wood smells like! It is a childhood smell of my grand mother's barn in which she stored all the wood for winter from the near by forests plagued by acacia trees and killed all the local and original habitat. Still the scent is unmistable! And if I were to describe it my words would not correctly convey the experience in such a fashion that as such I would be able to evoke the exact or at least some convincing proximation of the image I perceive.
And the last sentence of the paragraph is exactly what happens when you read what the connoisseur is trying to say to so many yet without a shadow of doubt he fails, but succeeds in impressing. Because drinking a lot is impressive! and have tasted a lot is equally impressive!
There are invariably differences just as there are difference in experiences and in life experiences so I would never dare assume that my life experience would indicate what others ought to experience. If however, someone says a politically correct diffuser 'All Depends On Personal Taste' (A.D.O.P.T.) well quite frankly, it does not depend on the choice but the experience so, smile and drink on your own!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)