If you want mature, I’d go with the '88 Krug.
I doesn’t sound like that’s gonna be a problem considering the comparables he mentioned.
What is kinda crazy?
96 Salon and 96 Krug . . . can’t go wrong with either.
96/04 Salon
1999 Philoppannat Clos des Goisses
Drunk beautifully just the other night.
Agreed, my wedding wine…and it was beautiful!
Yeah, compared to '96 Krug? Selosse? It’s half the price of either.
My votes go to Krug 1988 and Pol Roger Winston Churchill 1988. Both stellar wines last time I checked in on them. Krug 1996 was also on superb form when i last tried it.
Let me clarify: the wine is certainly a bargain still compared to some of the others suggested here, at about 130/bottle. I seem to remember buying this a while ago for ~$80. Sort of like the Billecart mentioned above. My memory may be failing me though
Since all suggestions here except for Selosse are for big house Champagne, here are some grower suggestions that I would personally prefer to Krug, Salon, etc., also because they are way less expensive:
- Egly-Ouriet NV Blanc de Noir Les Crayères with some bottle age (100% Pinot Noir)
- De Sousa Cuvée de Caudalies Millésime - 1999 or 2000 if you don’t mind oaky notes in your Champagne (100% Chardonnay)
- Tarlant NV Cuvée Louis (the version based on the 1996 to 1999 vintages that was disgorged in 2014) (50% Chardonnay, 50% Pinot Noir)
- Jerome Prevost NV Les Beguines, LC06 or LC07 (100% Meunier)
- Jacques Lassaigne NV Le Cotet Brut Nature (100% Chardonnay)
This is a very interesting wine, but it tastes very mature/old to me, so it might not suit Mark’s palate. I’ve only had Substance once, but I actually prefer the far less expensive Initial.
It’s hard to argue with the '96 Krug suggestion.
I also agree with Don Cornutt and go with 96 Salon or 96 Dom.
for me substance is the perfect contradiction between mature and young. the acidity is incredibly bright. i would take it all day over any vintage blanc des blancs including salon.
I’ll dissent from '96 Salon and say that unless it’s developed significantly from the last time I had it about a year ago, it is still too young and primary to deliver the goods that make Salon Salon. The '97, on the other hand, developed faster and is a good way to see what Salon is about, right now. If Krug is your favorite champagne though, Salon is just about the opposite style. Plenty of people dig both, but plenty of people…don’t.
Raises hand. I love Salon when it’s on and find Krug uninteresting any day of the week (root, fruit, etc.).
In looking at the list of the wines recommended I decided to look into some pricepoints and availability. To add some info I also am generally a fan of low dosage and am not sure of the dosages of the following. I guess overall the perfect Champagne to celebrate would be one that does not need food. Had some NV Egly Ouret and it was powerful but not suave or classy enough. I like the earth, smoke qualities I have gotten in Dom and Winston Churchill and wonder if that is the Pinot talking… Something really complex, definitely not so old to have lost it’s effervescence. But yet I also like a little butter cream like in that Taittinger '96 I had and that presumably is the Chard. So perhaps I need to buy 2. One inexpensive and one out of the park. As far as grower vs. big house - I have had some great grower Champagnes over the years but none has approached a big name like Krug. Can they really be on the same playing field? Just haven’t tried enough grower Champagnes… I’m not afraid of the oxidative influence just not a lot. Sherry is not my bag. But the amount in that '90 Krug was spot on.
Salon '97 - $350
Salon '96 - $500
Krug '96 - $425
Krug '88 - $650
Dom Perignon '96 - $300
Pol Roger Winston Churchill '88 - Couldn’t find it
Pol Roger Winston Churchill '96 - $350
Taittinger Comtes '95 - Couldn’t find it
Taittinger Comtes '96 - $300
Cristal '06 - $189 (Intrigued but is it too “Hollywood”? and not complex enough, had one once, forget vintage but did not blow me away))
Charles Heidsieck Blanc Des Millenaires '95 - $120
Veuve Cliquot Grande Dame Rose '88 - $280 (Have had the '06 Grande Dame Regular and found it too streamlined and elegant, not complex enough but still good - fear that’s the house style)
Selosse Substance - $289 (This intrigues me. Found it available with the 12/12/2014 and the 2/25/2015 disgorgement - any preferences?)
Billecart-Salmon Cuvee NFB '99 - $85
Philoppannat Clos Des Goisses '99 - $200
Tarlant NV Cuvée Louis - $70
Jacques Lassaigne NV Le Cotet Brut Nature - $75
Jerome Prevost NV Les Beguines - $90
For the ones I recommended, you can see them below in red. If you didn’t like the grower fizz you had so far as much as the Big House Prestige Cuvées, you are unlikely to be blown away by the below. Personally, I enjoy Krug and Taittinger Comtes and Bollinger LGA and Pol Roger Millésime and some other Big House champagnes, but - except maybe for Krug - they’re not the same to me as grower Champagnes. I have gotten so used to Zero Dosage or Extra Brut Dosage that it’s hard for me now to drink Champagne with higher dosage. They often (not always, obviously) taste a little sweet for me.
StevenB - I hear you. The older I get the drier I want them. So which one of the 4 you recommended would you pick for complexity. Any chance of any “creaminess” without the sugar?
Lately I have been drinking like the regular Piper Heidseik ($36) and yes I find it too “sweet”. I will say that with the big houses I have tried it seemed that Taittinger Comtes was “sweet”. Thinking back I actually think it was the '95 I had rather than the '96…
zero dosage can be misleading if the grapes are on the riper side of the spectrum.
also, la closerie is fantastic champagne but certainly not mind bending. i would start with the 14 disgorgement of substance. still cheaper than the salon or krug and for me it is one of the most unique wines I have tasted.