Which Champagne are you drinking?

Message

#1 Post by **Steve Nordhoff** » April 24th, 2016, 11:03 am

Seems like this might be a good thread for the bubbleheads here.

I'll start it with three

2004 Jacquesson Champ Cain - love this, deep Chardonnay flavors, tons of structure and low dosage. Very young still, lots of lemon minerality and fresh apple.

2001 Vilmart Couer de Cuvée - From a terrible vintage. Not sure how Laurent managed to make this beauty, a testament to quality commitment. This is much rounder than the Jacquesson, more base notes on the fruit and less structure, no real oxidation though. In its prime, maybe not as good as the best vintages, but still excellent.

2006 Roederer Brut Nature Starck - I need to pour this for FMIII. Two parcels, one Hautvillers Pinot the other Cuis Chardonnay. Taste extremely dry and young. Lots of acid and lemony yeasty flavors. Bone dry on the back end. Maybe not for everyone, but if you like this style, definitely enjoyable.

Michael S. Monie · #2 Post by **Michael S. Monie** » April 24th, 2016, 11:40 am

We had Aubry Brut last night---delicious. A couple of day before, Egly Ouriet Tradition. It was very enjoyable.

#3 Post by **Russ Williams** » April 24th, 2016, 11:54 am

2004 Henri Goutorbe Special Club - took it dinner Friday night. The restaurant, Dutch & Company, has a great corkage policy; bring a wine 10 years or older and corkage waived, otherwise $15. The owners are obviously wine geeks as they get it. This showed very tight when first opened. Lots of structure, with steely acidity and citrus of the lemony variety. After 30 minutes of air it calmed down some, becoming better balanced as the acidity backed off a tad and the citrus notes show better. Finish continued to lengthen over time. Obviously no rush on these and a great food wine. Nice pairing with a beautifully cooked seared duck breast with grains and seeds, salted ham, pear, charred escarole, buttermilk & bread crisps. Anyone in Richmond should definitely make a reservation here or The Roosevelt, both are in Church Hill which is the oldest section of Richmond. The Honey Pot for dessert was extraordinary and also was the perfect accompaniment to the wine. Another case of champagne being the most versatile wine on Earth. Salute!!

#4 Post by **Scott Brunson** » April 24th, 2016, 12:00 pm

Russ, I'm a real fan of Goutorbe, especially the Rose.
We need a restaurant with that corkage policy around here.
We drank 06 J Michel BdB Brut yesterday.

Chris V. · #5 Post by **Chris V.** » April 24th, 2016, 12:50 pm

Steve Nordhoff wrote:Seems like this might be a good thread for the bubbleheads here.

I'll start it with three

2004 Jacquesson Champ Cain - love this, deep Chardonnay flavors, tons of structure and low dosage. Very young still, lots of lemon minerality and fresh apple.

2001 Vilmart Couer de Cuvée - From a terrible vintage. Not sure how Laurent managed to make this beauty, a testament to quality commitment. This is much rounder than the Jacquesson, more base notes on the fruit and less structure, no real oxidation though. In its prime, maybe not as good as the best vintages, but still excellent.

2006 Roederer Brut Nature Starck - I need to pour this for FMIII. Two parcels, one Hautvillers Pinot the other Cuis Chardonnay. Taste extremely dry and young. Lots of acid and lemony yeasty flavors. Bone dry on the back end. Maybe not for everyone, but if you like this style, definitely enjoyable.

Vilmart is an off vintage specialist. I've also had the 2001 and it is excellent.

#6 Post by **Russ Williams** » April 24th, 2016, 12:59 pm

Scott Brunson wrote:Russ, I'm a real fan of Goutorbe, especially the Rose.
We need a restaurant with that corkage policy around here.
We drank 06 J Michel BdB Brut yesterday.

For some ridiculous reason this was the first trip for my wife and I. We will be going on a much more regular basis with the wonderful corkage and food. I also really enjoy the Rose and probably the best QPR out there.

Tvrtko C. · #7 Post by **Tvrtko C.** » April 24th, 2016, 1:15 pm

Over the last week: Suenen Tradition, Piollot Brut Reserve, Fleury BdN, Ledru Brut Nature 2006... and then I switched to Prosecco over the weekend

#8 Post by **AlexS** » April 24th, 2016, 2:08 pm

Had a 2002 Pierre Peters Les Chetillons last Thursday that was off the chains, really in the zone right now unless you like them to taste older.

#9 Post by **BrianMarshall** » April 24th, 2016, 2:27 pm

Russ Williams wrote:2004 Henri Goutorbe Special Club - took it dinner Friday night. The restaurant, Dutch & Company, has a great corkage policy; bring a wine 10 years or older and corkage waived, otherwise $15. The owners are obviously wine geeks as they get it. This showed very tight when first opened. Lots of structure, with steely acidity and citrus of the lemony variety. After 30 minutes of air it calmed down some, becoming better balanced as the acidity backed off a tad and the citrus notes show better. Finish continued to lengthen over time. Obviously no rush on these and a great food wine. Nice pairing with a beautifully cooked seared duck breast with grains and seeds, salted ham, pear, charred escarole, buttermilk & bread crisps. Anyone in Richmond should definitely make a reservation here or The Roosevelt, both are in Church Hill which is the oldest section of Richmond. The Honey Pot for dessert was extraordinary and also was the perfect accompaniment to the wine. Another case of champagne being the most versatile wine on Earth. Salute!!

I love this one

#10 Post by **BrianMarshall** » April 24th, 2016, 2:30 pm

Just received a 2010 Laherte Extra Brut Vigne d'Autrefois from CSW that I'm looking forward to trying.

#11 Post by **alan weinberg** » April 24th, 2016, 3:44 pm

motoring through a case of NV Krug half bottles, each one as delicious as the prior.

#12 Post by **Warren Taranow** » April 24th, 2016, 4:41 pm

Last night, we had a 1999 Charles Heidsieck Brut Rosé. No signs of age, perfect bead, just beautiful.
We followed it with a NV Franck Pascal Cuvée Tolerance. Tasty, but I prefer a lower dosage.

Robert Pavlovich · #13 Post by **Robert Pavlovich** » April 24th, 2016, 4:48 pm

Not Champagne but really enjoyed a D&R 2013 Sparkling Pinot Blanc (Traditional Method) recently.

And more toward the thread, really enjoyed a G. Bruno Grand Reserve recently offered by Somm Select. It has some (15%) reserve juice, though not sure what year/s that would be, but this was delicious. About equal parts all three typical varietals, Chard, Pinot Noir, and Pinot M.

Scott Butler · #14 Post by **Scott Butler** » April 24th, 2016, 4:58 pm

Michael S. Monie wrote:We had Aubry Brut last night---delicious. A couple of day before, Egly Ouriet Tradition. It was very enjoyable.

Aubry is awesome

#15 Post by **Scott Brunson** » April 24th, 2016, 5:11 pm

Russ Williams wrote:
Scott Brunson wrote:Russ, I'm a real fan of Goutorbe, especially the Rose.
We need a restaurant with that corkage policy around here.
We drank 06 J Michel BdB Brut yesterday.
For some ridiculous reason this was the first trip for my wife and I. We will be going on a much more regular basis with the wonderful corkage and food. I also really enjoy the Rose and probably the best QPR out there.

We visited the Goutorbes on our 26th anniversary. Beautiful, generous, "real" people. I will always have bottles of their wines in my house.

#16 Post by **Brian Tuite** » April 24th, 2016, 5:12 pm

'12 Ultramarine Brut Rosé kicked ass.

#17 Post by **Brad Baker** » April 24th, 2016, 5:26 pm

Warren Taranow wrote:Last night, we had a 1999 Charles Heidsieck Brut Rosé. No signs of age, perfect bead, just beautiful.
We followed it with a NV Franck Pascal Cuvée Tolerance. Tasty, but I prefer a lower dosage.

Warren,

Interesting and very educational as the Charles Heidsieck has around 9 g/L of dosage while the Franck Pascal is around 6 g/L. It just goes to show how dosage numbers often don't tell the whole story and how the wine composition/style, age of the wine, and dosage type (plus much more) all come in to play in determining the impact of the wine. Just another reason why the actual dosage numbers do not matter all that much; it is the taste of the wine and the wine's balance that does.

#18 Post by **Dale Bowers** » April 24th, 2016, 5:36 pm

Warren Taranow wrote:Last night, we had a 1999 Charles Heidsieck Brut Rosé. No signs of age, perfect bead, just beautiful.
We followed it with a NV Franck Pascal Cuvée Tolerance. Tasty, but I prefer a lower dosage.

While on vacation in January, we had my last bottle of the '85 Charles Heidsieck Brut Rose. Was sublime. Still young, and could have easily gone another 5-10 years.

#19 Post by **Warren Taranow** » April 24th, 2016, 6:07 pm

Brad Baker wrote:
Warren Taranow wrote:Last night, we had a 1999 Charles Heidsieck Brut Rosé. No signs of age, perfect bead, just beautiful.
We followed it with a NV Franck Pascal Cuvée Tolerance. Tasty, but I prefer a lower dosage.
Warren,

Interesting and very educational as the Charles Heidsieck has around 9 g/L of dosage while the Franck Pascal is around 6 g/L. It just goes to show how dosage numbers often don't tell the whole story and how the wine composition/style, age of the wine, and dosage type (plus much more) all come in to play in determining the impact of the wine. Just another reason why the actual dosage numbers do not matter all that much; it is the taste of the wine and the wine's balance that does.

Brad
Thanks for that. I would have guessed the opposite! The Heidsieck was fruity but dry, with a gentle bead. The Pascal tasted sweeter, with really aggressive bubbles. Shows what I know

I also had a fantastic '96 Jean Laurant BdN last month. You wrote a glowing review years ago.
Cheers,
Warren

#20 Post by **Warren Taranow** » April 24th, 2016, 6:09 pm

Dale Bowers wrote:
Warren Taranow wrote:Last night, we had a 1999 Charles Heidsieck Brut Rosé. No signs of age, perfect bead, just beautiful.
We followed it with a NV Franck Pascal Cuvée Tolerance. Tasty, but I prefer a lower dosage.
While on vacation in January, we had my last bottle of the '85 Charles Heidsieck Brut Rose. Was sublime. Still young, and could have easily gone another 5-10 years.

Dale,

I went through a case of the '96's about a decade ago. Too bad I couldn't keep my hands off of them.

Warren

#21 Post by **Brad Baker** » April 24th, 2016, 6:43 pm

Warren Taranow wrote:
Brad Baker wrote:
Warren Taranow wrote:Last night, we had a 1999 Charles Heidsieck Brut Rosé. No signs of age, perfect bead, just beautiful.
We followed it with a NV Franck Pascal Cuvée Tolerance. Tasty, but I prefer a lower dosage.
Warren,

Interesting and very educational as the Charles Heidsieck has around 9 g/L of dosage while the Franck Pascal is around 6 g/L. It just goes to show how dosage numbers often don't tell the whole story and how the wine composition/style, age of the wine, and dosage type (plus much more) all come in to play in determining the impact of the wine. Just another reason why the actual dosage numbers do not matter all that much; it is the taste of the wine and the wine's balance that does.
Brad
Thanks for that. I would have guessed the opposite! The Heidsieck was fruity but dry, with a gentle bead. The Pascal tasted sweeter, with really aggressive bubbles. Shows what I know
I also had a fantastic '96 Jean Laurant BdN last month. You wrote a glowing review years ago.
Cheers,
Warren

Looking back at notes, some releases of the Tolerance have been as low as 4 g/L. Sugar in the dosage doesn't tell the entire story. It really is all about balance and sometimes a lower dosage tastes too sweet and a higher dosage too dry. This also goes to show why you can't always just aim for something labeled low dosage.

IlkkaL · #22 Post by **IlkkaL** » April 24th, 2016, 9:48 pm

Brad Baker wrote:
Warren Taranow wrote:Last night, we had a 1999 Charles Heidsieck Brut Rosé. No signs of age, perfect bead, just beautiful.
We followed it with a NV Franck Pascal Cuvée Tolerance. Tasty, but I prefer a lower dosage.
Warren,

Interesting and very educational as the Charles Heidsieck has around 9 g/L of dosage while the Franck Pascal is around 6 g/L. It just goes to show how dosage numbers often don't tell the whole story and how the wine composition/style, age of the wine, and dosage type (plus much more) all come in to play in determining the impact of the wine. Just another reason why the actual dosage numbers do not matter all that much; it is the taste of the wine and the wine's balance that does.

I could have sworn that the dosage on Charles Heidsieck wines is even higher than that, even as high as 12 g/l. In any case with some post-disgorgement ageing the sense of sweetness seems to really disappear/integrate and only the freshly released bottles of the regular NV Brut have ever seemed sweetish to me.

Scott Butler · #23 Post by **Scott Butler** » April 25th, 2016, 5:55 am

My 2 favorites so far this year. Francis Cossy 2005 Millesime and David Leclapart L'Ameteur. Just delicious.

#24 Post by **Blake Brown** » April 25th, 2016, 6:07 am

alan weinberg wrote:motoring through a case of NV Krug half bottles, each one as delicious as the prior.

+1

#25 Post by **Er€z _ L.** » April 25th, 2016, 6:09 am

Taking notes here for next weekend

#26 Post by **M Passo** » April 25th, 2016, 6:20 am

Paul Dethune NV (2008 base) Blanc de Noir had a little bottle age and was crisp apple and spice and enough acid and minerality for beautiful balance. Serious QPR of the year.

#27 Post by **Warren Taranow** » April 25th, 2016, 7:03 am

M Passo wrote:Paul Dethune NV (2008 base) Blanc de Noir had a little bottle age and was crisp apple and spice and enough acid and minerality for beautiful balance. Serious QPR of the year.

His NV Brut Rosé is one of my QPR's of the year. Beautiful wines, wish I had bought more.

Cheers,
Warren

#28 Post by **brigcampbell** » April 25th, 2016, 7:09 am

Warren Taranow wrote:
M Passo wrote:Paul Dethune NV (2008 base) Blanc de Noir had a little bottle age and was crisp apple and spice and enough acid and minerality for beautiful balance. Serious QPR of the year.
His NV Brut Rosé is one of my QPR's of the year. Beautiful wines, wish I had bought more.

Cheers,
Warren

The rosé is great stuff.

#29 Post by **John Davis** » April 25th, 2016, 7:28 am

I have a P. Gimonnet 2005 Special Club chillin' right now.

JD

L. Wang · #30 Post by **L. Wang** » April 25th, 2016, 7:39 am

bereche et fils brut reserve is my weekly go to for pairing with fried chicken, oysters, and any salty and fatty bites. great value

had a 1970 Drappier Brut recently, surprisingly fresh, full of bubbles and apple cider, yogurt, honey yeast, tons of acidity even after 46 years.

also had a 02 Salon, very reductive champagne, balance of minerality and acidity, floral notes and super tiny bubbles, maybe drank 10 yrs too early.

Jerry Hey · #31 Post by **Jerry Hey** » April 25th, 2016, 8:08 am

Last night my wine group tried the 05 vs 06 Taittinger Comtes. Both are high quality with the 05 being a little fuller and yeasty while the 06 being razor sharp, tight and lemony. The 05 drinks easier while the 06 will probably be the longer lived. I'd drink either vintage and be very pleased, but not quite up to the 02 I had a couple weeks ago.

IlkkaL · #32 Post by **IlkkaL** » April 25th, 2016, 8:13 am

brigcampbell wrote:
Warren Taranow wrote:
M Passo wrote:Paul Dethune NV (2008 base) Blanc de Noir had a little bottle age and was crisp apple and spice and enough acid and minerality for beautiful balance. Serious QPR of the year.
His NV Brut Rosé is one of my QPR's of the year. Beautiful wines, wish I had bought more.

Cheers,
Warren
The rosé is great stuff.

As is the "regular" NV Brut Grand Cru which I find quite spectacular in its category, a great combination of richness and freshness. There is surprisingly little talk about this house considering how good their wines are.

#33 Post by **Jay Miller** » April 25th, 2016, 8:30 am

2002 Comte last night. Very good but IMO in need of more time.

#34 Post by **brigcampbell** » April 25th, 2016, 8:36 am

Jerry Hey wrote:Last night my wine group tried the 05 vs 06 Taittinger Comtes. Both are high quality with the 05 being a little fuller and yeasty while the 06 being razor sharp, tight and lemony. The 05 drinks easier while the 06 will probably be the longer lived. I'd drink either vintage and be very pleased, but not quite up to the 02 I had a couple weeks ago.

Jerry, agree 100% on the '06

2006 Taittinger Champagne Brut Blanc de Blancs Comtes de Champagne - France, Champagne (1/30/2016)
Blind guessed French and the bottle gave it away. Light and very fresh, ripping acidity. There wasn't the typical sour dough or bread note bit more like a cracker or Melba toast. Green apple lots of lemon fruit. Very nice.

Posted from CellarTracker

Jeff Wolniak · #35 Post by **Jeff Wolniak** » April 25th, 2016, 9:11 am

John Davis wrote:I have a P. Gimonnet 2005 Special Club chillin' right now.

JD

I just picked one of these up recently. I'm looking forward to reading your review.

SheilaAdams · #36 Post by **SheilaAdams** » April 25th, 2016, 10:14 am

Tonight I am drinking Chiquet's 2000 Special Club

#37 Post by **Howard Cooper** » April 25th, 2016, 11:02 am

I am probably too boring for you guys, but I still really like Bereche and Bouchard. Also, Roederer.

Does the fact that I like Chartogne-Taillet make me any hipper?

#38 Post by **Todd F r e n c h** » April 25th, 2016, 11:06 am

I need to subscribe to this thread - particularly for Nordhoff's posts...

C. Tumey · #39 Post by **C. Tumey** » April 25th, 2016, 12:29 pm

Started my birthday dinner with an '04 Dom P this weekend. My notes are at home but it was a definite hit. The "yeasty brioche" on the nose really stands out in my mind. It was somewhat heavy and full, but countered with a crisp, lively acidity. The bottle didn't last 30 minutes...

m. ristev · #40 Post by **m. ristev** » April 25th, 2016, 4:18 pm

05 disgorged in 08

#41 Post by **Steve Nordhoff** » April 25th, 2016, 5:44 pm

Todd F r e n c h wrote:I need to subscribe to this thread - particularly for Nordhoff's posts...

Well then....

2007 Pierre Peters Chetillons - I have not had a lot of 2007s but seem to like those I have had. First bottle of this. This is quite dense and has ripping acidity. Classic Mesnil. I buy this bottling pretty much every year. If the 2005 is the fattest, then this might be the leanest and closer in style to the 2004. As the glass sat this opened up much more and seems to have a great future. I use to drink a lot of these early after release and this reminded why now I don't. Really excellent though.

2004 Cedric Bouchard Roses de Jeanne Inflorescence Blanc de Noirs La Parcelle - There is a fair amount of hype on this producer and from everything I have had (maybe 15 bottles of various years and vineyards) it is well deserved. This is actually an "older" bottling so I was curious to see how it had aged. From a tiny vineyard, all Pinot Noir and I believe no dosage. Yellow fruits and some minty herbal element, deep on the plate and long on the finish. Excellent balance and seems like it has 10 more years easy. Very fine.

#42 Post by **scamhi** » April 25th, 2016, 6:22 pm

Steve- good to hear on the 07 PP Chetillons. I bought a 6 pack without tasting. Loved the 06.
I also really like the 06 Roederer Staark- super bone dry

#43 Post by **brigcampbell** » April 25th, 2016, 6:49 pm

scamhi wrote:Steve- good to hear on the 07 PP Chetillons.

This wine was super wound up, high acid, and aggressive. Needs time.

#44 Post by **scamhi** » April 25th, 2016, 7:10 pm

brigcampbell wrote:
scamhi wrote:Steve- good to hear on the 07 PP Chetillons.
This wine was super wound up, high acid, and aggressive. Needs time.

it went directly to offsite storage. will check back in 2017 at some point

#45 Post by **Andrew Christiansen** » April 25th, 2016, 9:38 pm

C. Tumey wrote:Started my birthday dinner with an '04 Dom P this weekend.

...and it paired well with the drapes. Happy Birthday!

Steve...excellent idea! Thanks for starting this thread!

#46 Post by **Craig G** » April 25th, 2016, 11:00 pm

We had Ulysse Collin Les Maillons (2010 version) last night. My guest asked if it was Krug!

#47 Post by **Jay Miller** » April 26th, 2016, 6:31 am

m. ristev wrote:05 disgorged in 08

So how does it age? I already love it young.

m. ristev · #48 Post by **m. ristev** » April 26th, 2016, 7:41 am

it was perfectly resolved. for me they can be a bit aggressive when young...this was far more pleasurable. no fear of decline and not even a hint of oxidative character. super floral aromatics and perhaps a richer fruit profile on the palate. one of the top bottles of rose i have tasted.

#49 Post by **Jay Miller** » April 26th, 2016, 8:08 am

m. ristev wrote:it was perfectly resolved. for me they can be a bit aggressive when young...this was far more pleasurable. no fear of decline and not even a hint of oxidative character. super floral aromatics and perhaps a richer fruit profile on the palate. one of the top bottles of rose i have tasted.

Sigh, I resolved to age more Champagne years ago and have only managed it sporadically.

R@y.Tupp@+sch · #50 Post by **R@y.Tupp@+sch** » April 26th, 2016, 1:04 pm

Been drinking up my Champagnes from the 60's lately. Many are starting to get long in the tooth and definitely won't improve with any more bottle age other than the late disgorged versions.

Here's the partial line-up for tonight, Wed and Thurs.