Luck is unreliable! Truth is unbelievable! And reality unknowable. Then there is Champagne. Strangely it combines the unreliability of luck, the ignorance of reality, and it is the most potent truth serum in the world because a detector of lies will only encourage you lie more successfully.
Champagne needs luck, though it can't rely on it, to be so unbelievably good, hidden behind the curtain of enigma.
Champagne as we know it, is not an old age thing, it is fairly new in the world of wine. But I am not here to address the past but to look into to the future.
What many of us don't realise that we do live in, perhaps the second*, Golden Age of Champagne. Champagne now combines not only the viticultural expertise of around 200 hundred years of trial and error (method of learning, I, unofficially, deem as the most expensive ever - yes, I learnt from my own experience), advances not only in technology which unreservedly are now practiced in Champagne as a given (the likes of giro palettes, and more importantly the invention of puppitres which was no miracle but an act of genius), the resilience of the spirit of the champenois people (both the wars and Champagne was right in the centre of it all as well as the Champagne revolt), their adaptability and zeal has always shaken off the horrors of the past to persevere to make the best drink, or more simply to make Champagne, the science which combined with the intuitive knowledge accrued over the 200 years, the trends which has gone and some have stayed and, perhaps, some are returning. And that is not all!
The luck of the 90s and the success of the naughties. The stock in the cellars takes usually 3-6 to deplete, and in contemporary times that is a long long long time (just think how many new phones with new cameras were released in 3-6 years, and how many system updates we faced - the frustrations!)
It is true that the global warming has an impact to an extent and it is very likely that we will be experiencing considerably more and more warmer years and bigger, perhaps more stressed vintages, but we mustn't overlooked that Champagne is still the most northern wine region of France and snow, hale, frosts, storms are very normal in that part of the world and that's were luck comes to play its most important part. Although validated by intuition and now scientific records, plus the creativity and adaptability of the people that make it, the wine of Champagne is now at its absolute best. And it looks like it is going to be for another decade. And then?
and then.... re-read this article and engage your brain, because to enjoy Champagne you need brain, not a phone app.
* I said 'second' in reference to The Golden Age, although in my time I am convinced that that is my first, but historically the first Golden Age from my perspective would be the beginning of the 20th century - belle epoque, Maxim's, Perrier Jouet, Pommery, Alfons Mucha, the roaring 20's and many other names and phrases synonymous with that period. I did not live then, so I can't really pass a valid judgement, but I am happy to instill a healthy doubt to my point anyway.
THINK, DRINK, BELIEVE CHAMPAGNE!
Saturday, 30 April 2016
Sunday, 13 March 2016
BOLLINGER - COTEAUX CHAMPENOIS - LA COTE AUX ENFANTS 2009
Yes this is Bollinger. In a way, again! But not again the usual way.
Red wine, Pinot Noir, that makes up a tiny proportion of the blend for La Grande Annee Rose. It is also released in its still expression as the wine does stand out.
For years I thought, that the essence or, if you would have it, Le Perfume, the essence, of Bollinger was its Vielles Vignes Francaise, but I wasn't willing to accept that. Somehow, I just wasn't ready or comfortable to make the comparison and the declaration.
Bollinger is one of the few houses that are horizontally consistent in style. Laurent-Perrier being another one, just for comparisons. By that I mean, that certain characteristics of its wines are always manifest in its entire range of wines with, of course, some variable in intensity. With Bollinger, La Grande Annee Rose had always thrown me off course.
So in a nutshell, the viticultural expertise and the practices of Bollinger, its vines express what I have always been saying best manifest the style of Bollinger, and that is plums. This tipple however encompasses and is the basis of Bollinger's every fizz's variable intensity. From plums to prunes, to coffee. Their red Pinot Noir is rich, big, bold, elegant and tastes and smells of backed plums on a thick crust sourdough base pastry.
Red wine, Pinot Noir, that makes up a tiny proportion of the blend for La Grande Annee Rose. It is also released in its still expression as the wine does stand out.
For years I thought, that the essence or, if you would have it, Le Perfume, the essence, of Bollinger was its Vielles Vignes Francaise, but I wasn't willing to accept that. Somehow, I just wasn't ready or comfortable to make the comparison and the declaration.
Bollinger is one of the few houses that are horizontally consistent in style. Laurent-Perrier being another one, just for comparisons. By that I mean, that certain characteristics of its wines are always manifest in its entire range of wines with, of course, some variable in intensity. With Bollinger, La Grande Annee Rose had always thrown me off course.
So in a nutshell, the viticultural expertise and the practices of Bollinger, its vines express what I have always been saying best manifest the style of Bollinger, and that is plums. This tipple however encompasses and is the basis of Bollinger's every fizz's variable intensity. From plums to prunes, to coffee. Their red Pinot Noir is rich, big, bold, elegant and tastes and smells of backed plums on a thick crust sourdough base pastry.
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.
Wednesday, 23 September 2015
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
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
Tuesday, 22 September 2015
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
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
Saturday, 5 September 2015
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.
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.
Friday, 4 September 2015
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)