2008 champagne question

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Post Reply
Message
Author
crickey
Posts: 393
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm

2008 champagne question

#1 Post by crickey » August 8th, 2019, 11:33 am

I am deciding among the following three champagnes from 2008: Dom Perignon, Philipponnat Clos des Goisses or Pol Roger Winston Churchill. What are the important differences between them? I'm relatively inexperienced with champagne, but I'm trying to expand into the region. Any help would be much appreciated.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

julianseersmartin
Posts: 352
Joined: February 27th, 2018, 10:16 am
Location: Santa Monica

Re: 2008 champagne question

#2 Post by julianseersmartin » August 8th, 2019, 12:35 pm

What's the context of the purchase - is it for immediate consumption?

There's a few defining features of each wine.

Dom's production is gargantuan. Far outweighs the other two combined. It is typically around a 50/50 blend with Chardonnay and Pinot Noir but it's never formally disclosed. It is majority grand cru fruit from various sources around Champagne. Around 5g/l dosage which is pretty dry for DP.

CdG is from a small, walled vineyard on a very steep slope, predominantly planted with Pinot Noir. 2008 is 61% PN and 39% Chardonnay. It's an extra-brut dosage at around 4g/litre to bring out the vinosity of the PN. It's the smallest production of the three.

Pol don't disclose their cepage but it's like to be slightly more PN again, 70-80% with the rest chardonnay. Like Dom it's sourced fruit, but slightly higher dosage at 7g/l or so. Pol make around 120k cases of this wine in total.

These three champagnes are both young and fighting with each other on the same level. It'd be good to know what you're looking to achieve by assessing these at this point in time. If it's academic, there's probably better value alternatives. If it's just a bottle to drink, go with Dom. The other two are rarely drunk in youth and the winemaking is aware of that.
Last edited by julianseersmartin on August 9th, 2019, 7:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

crickey
Posts: 393
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm

Re: 2008 champagne question

#3 Post by crickey » August 8th, 2019, 1:08 pm

That was helpful, thank you. It was not for immediate consumption, although I have seen enough tasting notes on this board to realize that many people are currently enjoying the DP, so I suppose if I bought a few bottles I could try one. I had intended to store for later consumption.

If the second two are produced in much smaller quantities, am I better off buying those now before they are sold out?
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

julianseersmartin
Posts: 352
Joined: February 27th, 2018, 10:16 am
Location: Santa Monica

Re: 2008 champagne question

#4 Post by julianseersmartin » August 8th, 2019, 1:48 pm

Pol will take some time before it sells out, but I understand the 2nd tranche release already has a greater price. CdG is most likely to have a quick meteoric rise in price in my view, but it will plateau until its consistency is clear (there have been bottle variation issues in the past).

Pol Roger is on a bit of a weird journey these days and the straight vintage bottlings are a dangerous buy. Most of my friends have offloaded their vintage holdings from 2000 onwards, and I happen to agree - everything post 1998 is all over the shop. I do not know enough to say that it also applies to the winnie, but that alone wouldn't make me invest when something like Dom is so safe in comparison.

To be honest, if you want all of them then you might as well get on and buy them. The cat is fully out of the bag with the 2008 vintage and if you want these in 10 years+ when they are entering maturity then you'll be paying big bucks, irrespective of where these wines individually go.

The one you haven't included that's certainly on the same plane, is 2008 Veuve La Grande Dame. I would include that if I were you. 2008 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne is yet to come, but will almost without doubt be fantastic.

Scott Jameson
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 474
Joined: April 1st, 2009, 6:26 am
Location: Houston, TX

Re: 2008 champagne question

#5 Post by Scott Jameson » August 8th, 2019, 1:55 pm

In my market, Houston, TX, DP is less than half the cost of the other 2 - about $135 vs $300 for the Winston Churchill. If I found the Churchill significantly cheaper, I'd probably pick up a few bottles, but I don't expect that to happen. I've had the DP a couple of times and while it's very enjoyable now, I expect it to have a great future. Even though I haven't tried the other 2, with the $ being roughly equal, I'm pretty sure I'd rather have twice as many bottles of the DP in the cellar.

J. Rock
Posts: 177
Joined: March 11th, 2019, 4:53 pm

Re: 2008 champagne question

#6 Post by J. Rock » August 8th, 2019, 2:29 pm

I've only had SWC once, and it was the 2008. While I thought the Champagne was great and I'd be very happy to drink a lot of it, it didn't blow me away and didn't come anywhere close to tempting me to spend that much money on the bottle. I'd hope that the premium price becomes more justified after many years in the cellar, but based on how it drinks today, I couldn't see a reason to buy that as opposed to Dom or any of the several other high quality Champagnes priced under $200. Obviously your tastes may differ and the pro critics disagree.
J o r d a n

User avatar
William Kelley
Posts: 1379
Joined: June 4th, 2014, 1:36 am
Location: London, Calistoga & Beaune

Re: 2008 champagne question

#7 Post by William Kelley » August 8th, 2019, 4:14 pm

It depends on pricing and when you plan to drink the wines, as others have observed, but perhaps the easiest and most pleasurable way to decide would be to purchase one of each and to open them and taste them side-by-side. No better way to learn.
The Wine Advocate

R. Frankel
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1578
Joined: January 24th, 2014, 11:07 pm

Re: 2008 champagne question

#8 Post by R. Frankel » August 8th, 2019, 4:25 pm

I am mostly aligned with others here. While I’ve enjoyed every Winston I’ve had (most recent is the 2004) I have voted with my wallet and only bought the DP and CDG. Not planning on opening either for some years. With others, I’m very much looking forward to the Taittinger CdC. I’d also recommend the Krug 164 MV (2008 base). Hard to find now but the 2008 Vilmart Coeur de Cuvée is going to be very competitive in quality with these other better known wines. If you really are interested in the $250+ price point then I’d recommend the Cristal over the Winston as well.

All of these wines are going to get very expensive in the future. That’s a certainty. The CDG has already gone up ~30% since first release!
Rich Frankel

pnitze
Posts: 63
Joined: February 13th, 2012, 7:32 am

Re: 2008 champagne question

#9 Post by pnitze » August 8th, 2019, 4:58 pm

julianseersmartin wrote:
August 8th, 2019, 12:35 pm
What's the context of the purchase - is it for immediate consumption?

There's a few defining features of each wine.

Dom's production is gargantuan. Far outweighs the other two combined. It is typically around a 50/50 blend with Chardonnay and Pinot Noir but it's never formally disclosed. It is majority grand cru fruit from various sources around Champagne. Around 5g/l dosage which is pretty dry for DP.

CdG is from a small, walled vineyard on a very steep slope, predominantly planted with Pinot Noir. 2008 is 61% PN and 39% Chardonnay. It's an extra-brut dosage at around 4g/litre to bring out the vinosity of the PN. It's the smallest production of the three.

Pol don't disclose their cepage but it's like to be slightly more PN again, 70-80% with the rest chardonnay. Like Dom it's sourced fruit, but slightly higher dosage at 7g/l or so. Pol make around 120k cases of this.

These three champagnes are both young and fighting with each other on the same level. It'd be good to know what you're looking to achieve by assessing these at this point in time. If it's academic, there's probably better value alternatives. If it's just a bottle to drink, go with Dom. The other two are rarely drunk in youth and the winemaking is aware of that.
Quick correction to this post. Pol Roger does not make 120,000 cases of Winston Churchill. They make approximately 1.5 million bottles across all cuvees annually. Production numbers for WC are not released, but I have seen estimates of 4000 to 8000 cases per declared vintage.

This article cites a “whisper” figure of 4000 cases, which seems a little low to me.
http://www.jammywine.com/fine-wine-revi ... churchill/
P@ul N!tze

User avatar
William Kelley
Posts: 1379
Joined: June 4th, 2014, 1:36 am
Location: London, Calistoga & Beaune

Re: 2008 champagne question

#10 Post by William Kelley » August 8th, 2019, 5:06 pm

FWIW, the 2008 Winston is a terrific wine and well worth tasting. I drink quite a bit of Pol, admittedly mainly in the UK and France, and I don't really relate to the notion of it being a "dangerous buy".
The Wine Advocate

User avatar
Mattstolz
Posts: 1215
Joined: June 26th, 2017, 7:46 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: 2008 champagne question

#11 Post by Mattstolz » August 8th, 2019, 5:24 pm

julianseersmartin wrote:
August 8th, 2019, 1:48 pm
Pol will take some time before it sells out, but I understand the 2nd tranche release already has a greater price. CdG is most likely to have a quick meteoric rise in price in my view, but it will plateau until its consistency is clear (there have been bottle variation issues in the past).

Pol Roger is on a bit of a weird journey these days and the straight vintage bottlings are a dangerous buy. Most of my friends have offloaded their vintage holdings from 2000 onwards, and I happen to agree - everything post 1998 is all over the shop. I do not know enough to say that it also applies to the winnie, but that alone wouldn't make me invest when something like Dom is so safe in comparison.

To be honest, if you want all of them then you might as well get on and buy them. The cat is fully out of the bag with the 2008 vintage and if you want these in 10 years+ when they are entering maturity then you'll be paying big bucks, irrespective of where these wines individually go.

The one you haven't included that's certainly on the same plane, is 2008 Veuve La Grande Dame. I would include that if I were you. 2008 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne is yet to come, but will almost without doubt be fantastic.
I was wondering if you could elaborate on this a little more? champagne is definitely not my area of strongest knowledge and I hadn't heard this.

User avatar
Kelly Walker
Posts: 924
Joined: June 6th, 2009, 7:01 pm

Re: 2008 champagne question

#12 Post by Kelly Walker » August 8th, 2019, 5:32 pm

Drank the 2008 DP at the domaine in June. Rock star bubbly! It will be great. Given the price differential it is a no-brainer for me.
White wines matter

User avatar
alan weinberg
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 11590
Joined: April 25th, 2009, 1:23 pm

Re: 2008 champagne question

#13 Post by alan weinberg » August 8th, 2019, 5:44 pm

I’m lucky to have all 3 and G. Dame but I went deep on DP. That would be my advice. Waiting for CdC 08.

User avatar
Kirk.Grant
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3110
Joined: May 27th, 2012, 1:29 pm
Location: Bangor, Maine

Re: 2008 champagne question

#14 Post by Kirk.Grant » August 8th, 2019, 6:46 pm

William Kelley wrote:
August 8th, 2019, 5:06 pm
FWIW, the 2008 Winston is a terrific wine and well worth tasting. I drink quite a bit of Pol, admittedly mainly in the UK and France, and I don't really relate to the notion of it being a "dangerous buy".
The last two bottles of 1996 SWC that I had have seemed advanced and underwhelming. The last bottle was tasted at an offline with folks from this forum. It was ok...and even enjoyable, but not on the "other-worldly" level like it was back in 2011.
Cellartracker:Kirk Grant

User avatar
William Kelley
Posts: 1379
Joined: June 4th, 2014, 1:36 am
Location: London, Calistoga & Beaune

Re: 2008 champagne question

#15 Post by William Kelley » August 8th, 2019, 6:54 pm

Kirk.Grant wrote:
August 8th, 2019, 6:46 pm
William Kelley wrote:
August 8th, 2019, 5:06 pm
FWIW, the 2008 Winston is a terrific wine and well worth tasting. I drink quite a bit of Pol, admittedly mainly in the UK and France, and I don't really relate to the notion of it being a "dangerous buy".
The last two bottles of 1996 SWC that I had have seemed advanced and underwhelming. The last bottle was tasted at an offline with folks from this forum. It was ok...and even enjoyable, but not on the "other-worldly" level like it was back in 2011.
I'm sorry to hear that! I had it last 8 months ago and it was very good. But, a lot of 1996 Champagnes are evolving a bit erratically at the moment. Given the reputation of the vintage out of the gates, one's mileage varies a bit more than one might wish at this stage.
The Wine Advocate

Tom Reddick
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1225
Joined: June 30th, 2009, 9:56 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: 2008 champagne question

#16 Post by Tom Reddick » August 8th, 2019, 8:53 pm

crickey wrote:
August 8th, 2019, 1:08 pm
That was helpful, thank you. It was not for immediate consumption, although I have seen enough tasting notes on this board to realize that many people are currently enjoying the DP, so I suppose if I bought a few bottles I could try one. I had intended to store for later consumption.

If the second two are produced in much smaller quantities, am I better off buying those now before they are sold out?
From the perspective of market availability, I would definitely get the Clos des Goisses ASAP. Like Scott, I am in the Texas market- except that I am in Dallas. I got my box of 2008 Clos de Goisses this week and it was a real ordeal to get it, because what little there is all went to Houston. In great vintages, it also seems to go up more quickly in secondary market value than the other two (presumably due to rarity- and note this is an anecdotal observation- I have not done the statistical research to back this assertion.)

I have not tried the Goisses yet- hoping to do that next week in NYC if I can find a spare bottle in town- nor the Winston Churchill, but based on past experience I will have both of them and Dom in my cellar. And while each has its great merits, I generally share Scott's sentiment when you factor in pricing and at the end of the day I will be cellaring more Dom than the other two combined by a wide margin. Dom Perignon is amazing with age and the 2008 is spectacular.
ITB - Cellar appraisals

julianseersmartin
Posts: 352
Joined: February 27th, 2018, 10:16 am
Location: Santa Monica

Re: 2008 champagne question

#17 Post by julianseersmartin » August 9th, 2019, 7:23 am

Mattstolz wrote:
August 8th, 2019, 5:24 pm
julianseersmartin wrote:
August 8th, 2019, 1:48 pm
Pol Roger is on a bit of a weird journey these days and the straight vintage bottlings are a dangerous buy.
I was wondering if you could elaborate on this a little more? champagne is definitely not my area of strongest knowledge and I hadn't heard this.
It's a widely reported situation on wine pages across the pond. Pol Roger's vintage bottlings have been incredibly inconsistent after 1998-2000 or so, main issue being is that they're advancing into maturity way too early. Magnums seem much less affected. You wouldn't catch me spending a dollar on them now, I've been burnt too many times.
Last edited by julianseersmartin on August 9th, 2019, 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

crickey
Posts: 393
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm

Re: 2008 champagne question

#18 Post by crickey » August 9th, 2019, 11:25 am

Are there stylistic differences between them as a general matter (across vintages)?
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

User avatar
William Kelley
Posts: 1379
Joined: June 4th, 2014, 1:36 am
Location: London, Calistoga & Beaune

Re: 2008 champagne question

#19 Post by William Kelley » August 9th, 2019, 5:28 pm

crickey wrote:
August 9th, 2019, 11:25 am
Are there stylistic differences between them as a general matter (across vintages)?
Very big stylistic differences.

Clos des Goisses is a wine produced in finite quantities from a specific place - a steep, south-facing vineyard in Mareuil-sur-Ay which typically produces the ripest grapes in the region. Production is typically around 20,000 bottles, but as low as 5,000 for the 2010 vintage. It is a very complete, age worthy Champagne, indeed, a strong case could be made for it being the most age worthy wine in Champagne. Since Charles Philipponnat took over the direction of the estate in 1999, the soils have been worked and great attention been paid in the vines. The wine doesn't see malolactic and dosage is on the low side. In short, one of Champagne's most exciting and unique wines and one that will appeal to lovers of great Burgundy in its spirit. The 1952 Clos des Goisses might be the best mature Champagne I have ever tasted.

Pol Roger's Winston Churchill is rich, lavish and powerful, the style supposedly reflecting Churchill's taste in Champagne. It ages very well in my experience but is also fun to drink in its youth. To my palate, it's among the finest 'tête de cuvée' bottlings produced by the important houses today, and I appreciate its somewhat old fashioned aesthetic.

Production statistics have never been disclosed for Dom Pérignon, but estimates range between 5 and 8.5 million bottles, so an order of magnitude more than either of the other two. The winemaking style is quite reductive (perhaps partly a function of big fermentation tanks), resulting in quite a smoky, toasty signature which is hard to mistake once you are habituated to it. It is a very nice luxury cuvée and readily available all over the world. Looking back at its history, until the late-50s/early-60s it was effectively just a special label for the Moët vintage; the 1960s were really the glory days, and back then it was vinified in wood AFAIK; beginning in the early 80s, production really started to ramp up and the wine took on its more reductive profile.
The Wine Advocate

User avatar
Brad Baker
Posts: 1632
Joined: May 4th, 2009, 7:47 pm
Location: Motown, USA

Re: 2008 champagne question

#20 Post by Brad Baker » August 9th, 2019, 6:14 pm

These are three very different wines. With the Dom Perignon, you have a smooth, creamy, zesty, young wine that is enjoyable now for its youthful citrus profile, but has a ton of potential for improvement and should age for a long time. The Clos des Goisses is a bigger wine even though its blend of Pinot Noir and Chardonnay is fairly similar to Dom Perignon. It sees oak and is a deeper, bolder wine with a lot of darker tinged citrus, tart peach, touches of bread, minerality, salinity, and cream. A very complex wine that is also young and full of potential. As for the 2008 Pol Roger Winston Churchill, it is a bold, viscous, fruity wine that drinks well, but lacks complexity and depth to me. It comes across as quite simple and is very disappointing. I wouldn't spend my money on it.

For drinking today, I think the Dom Perignon is the most enjoyable and I also think it has the most potential too. As a bonus it is the least expensive of the three you asked about. The Clos des Goisses is the most expressive and complex and is a wine that can really get you thinking. I am a big fan of both, but would go heavier on Dom Perignon as I think it is the better wine and it is lower priced plus easier to find.

To address some other Pol Roger comments in this thread, I completely agree that this is a house in need of finding itself. A situation that is similar to what Bollinger is going through IMO. The Pol Roger NV and Vintage Rose are always good, but after that it is a crapshoot and the Winston Churchill has been very disappointing in many top vintages such as 1985, 1988, 1990, 1996, 2002, and 2008.

As to Dom Perignon, production is still in the 5M bottle range. They might be able to get up to 6M in some vintages, but they don't have the vineyards to get above that right now. It was supposedly the same as the Moet vintage until the 1943 release (transvasaged bottles) though Richard Geoffroy swears that is not true. There were also reports that in the 1970s when supply of DP ran out they dumped regular Moet into DP bottles. Regardless of any of that, you can be pretty sure that every DP vintage since at least 1943 is a unique wine from the regular Moet. As for oak in DP, I think the oak was completely gone by the 1966 vintage, but a few barrels may have still been around. 1969 was definitely all steel. The 1960s were indeed a great DP decade, but the 1970s and 1980s are coming on strong too. The real ramp up in production didn't happen until the 1990s when Moet had the Lanson and Pommery vineyards to add in. As high as production is at DP, they have that much high quality land to support it. If anyone else had the land DP does, they would make this much prestige wine too.
Brad Baker
The Champagne Warrior

crickey
Posts: 393
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm

Re: 2008 champagne question

#21 Post by crickey » August 10th, 2019, 6:43 pm

Thank you to everyone who weighed in. This was a most helpful discussion. I, uh, ended up buying one of each. I will find out in 10-15 years how I did. It's just money, right?
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

User avatar
Otto Forsberg
Posts: 708
Joined: December 28th, 2017, 4:26 am
Location: Finland

Re: 2008 champagne question

#22 Post by Otto Forsberg » August 11th, 2019, 2:03 am

I've never understood drinking young Dom Perignon. To me, it is just way too reductive for the handful of years after the release. The smoky character mentioned by William above is what dominates a young vintage - often up to a point that the wine really doesn't smell of anything but gunpowder smoke. This smoky reduction certainly does blow away with air, but with younger vintages it normally takes more time to blow off the reduction that it does to blow off the carbonation. We had a 2006 DP a few years ago - quite soon after the release - and the wine certainly was impressively built, but was just smoky and reductive with very little in the way of pleasure.

I've noticed that waiting even for just 4-5 years does miracles to the wine. The wine still retains that smoky DP reduction for some more years, but it normally isn't as dominant at that point, more of a subtle nuance in the background, letting the quality of the fruit shine on the fore.

User avatar
Blake Brown
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5694
Joined: May 2nd, 2010, 11:17 pm
Location: Santa Barbara

Re: 2008 champagne question

#23 Post by Blake Brown » August 11th, 2019, 7:43 am

crickey wrote:
August 10th, 2019, 6:43 pm
Thank you to everyone who weighed in. This was a most helpful discussion. I, uh, ended up buying one of each. I will find out in 10-15 years how I did.
That would have been my rec although if you were to go for just 1, then the DP would be it. Some really good information in this thread and I share the remarks about SWC being very disappointing in the last 20 + years with a few bottle exceptions.

Enjoy
"In victory you deserve Champagne. In defeat, you need it".
Napolean Bonaparte

“Remember gentlemen, it’s not just France we are fighting for, it’s Champagne!” – Winston Churchill

User avatar
R@y.Tupp@+sch
Posts: 2534
Joined: February 19th, 2009, 8:22 am

Re: 2008 champagne question

#24 Post by R@y.Tupp@+sch » August 11th, 2019, 8:58 am

Otto Forsberg wrote:
August 11th, 2019, 2:03 am
I've never understood drinking young Dom Perignon. To me, it is just way too reductive for the handful of years after the release. The smoky character mentioned by William above is what dominates a young vintage - often up to a point that the wine really doesn't smell of anything but gunpowder smoke. This smoky reduction certainly does blow away with air, but with younger vintages it normally takes more time to blow off the reduction that it does to blow off the carbonation. We had a 2006 DP a few years ago - quite soon after the release - and the wine certainly was impressively built, but was just smoky and reductive with very little in the way of pleasure.

I've noticed that waiting even for just 4-5 years does miracles to the wine. The wine still retains that smoky DP reduction for some more years, but it normally isn't as dominant at that point, more of a subtle nuance in the background, letting the quality of the fruit shine on the fore.
While I will agree with you for most vintages, I think '08 DP is an exception and '02 was as well to a lesser extent.
Killer, Staggering, Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor ®

User avatar
Otto Forsberg
Posts: 708
Joined: December 28th, 2017, 4:26 am
Location: Finland

Re: 2008 champagne question

#25 Post by Otto Forsberg » August 11th, 2019, 2:09 pm

R@y.Tupp@+sch wrote:
August 11th, 2019, 8:58 am
Otto Forsberg wrote:
August 11th, 2019, 2:03 am
I've never understood drinking young Dom Perignon. To me, it is just way too reductive for the handful of years after the release. The smoky character mentioned by William above is what dominates a young vintage - often up to a point that the wine really doesn't smell of anything but gunpowder smoke. This smoky reduction certainly does blow away with air, but with younger vintages it normally takes more time to blow off the reduction that it does to blow off the carbonation. We had a 2006 DP a few years ago - quite soon after the release - and the wine certainly was impressively built, but was just smoky and reductive with very little in the way of pleasure.

I've noticed that waiting even for just 4-5 years does miracles to the wine. The wine still retains that smoky DP reduction for some more years, but it normally isn't as dominant at that point, more of a subtle nuance in the background, letting the quality of the fruit shine on the fore.
While I will agree with you for most vintages, I think '08 DP is an exception and '02 was as well to a lesser extent.
Haven't tasted the 2008 myself yet, but 2002 certainly was surprisingly approachable for a DP.

Erik Rachwalski
Posts: 94
Joined: April 29th, 2010, 8:38 pm
Location: PA/IL/NJ/OH/KY

Re: 2008 champagne question

#26 Post by Erik Rachwalski » August 11th, 2019, 3:14 pm

Thanks for posting this crickey - Similiar questions/dilemma...

Not trying to hijack the thread... for the well versed Champy drinkers/collectors, where would you place Bollinger in regards to the 3 above? At ~125/b, and “great scores”, seems like an ok idea for me to throw some in the back of cellar

Would love to hear thoughts, thx

User avatar
R@y.Tupp@+sch
Posts: 2534
Joined: February 19th, 2009, 8:22 am

Re: 2008 champagne question

#27 Post by R@y.Tupp@+sch » August 11th, 2019, 4:07 pm

Erik Rachwalski wrote:
August 11th, 2019, 3:14 pm
Thanks for posting this crickey - Similiar questions/dilemma...

Not trying to hijack the thread... for the well versed Champy drinkers/collectors, where would you place Bollinger in regards to the 3 above? At ~125/b, and “great scores”, seems like an ok idea for me to throw some in the back of cellar

Would love to hear thoughts, thx
There have been several posts, including by me, that many have severely cut back or stopped buying entirely due to Bollinger's way too rapid aging especially since their '96 Grande Annee.
Killer, Staggering, Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor ®

User avatar
Blake Brown
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5694
Joined: May 2nd, 2010, 11:17 pm
Location: Santa Barbara

Re: 2008 champagne question

#28 Post by Blake Brown » August 11th, 2019, 4:56 pm

R@y.Tupp@+sch wrote:
August 11th, 2019, 4:07 pm
Erik Rachwalski wrote:
August 11th, 2019, 3:14 pm
Thanks for posting this crickey - Similiar questions/dilemma...

Not trying to hijack the thread... for the well versed Champy drinkers/collectors, where would you place Bollinger in regards to the 3 above? At ~125/b, and “great scores”, seems like an ok idea for me to throw some in the back of cellar

Would love to hear thoughts, thx
There have been several posts, including by me, that many have severely cut back or stopped buying entirely due to Bollinger's way too rapid aging especially since their '96 Grande Annee.
Agreed. e.g. Had the 05` GA recently and it was oxidized with little redeeming qualities.
"In victory you deserve Champagne. In defeat, you need it".
Napolean Bonaparte

“Remember gentlemen, it’s not just France we are fighting for, it’s Champagne!” – Winston Churchill

User avatar
C Chen
Posts: 735
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 9:30 pm
Location: California

Re: 2008 champagne question

#29 Post by C Chen » August 11th, 2019, 7:39 pm

Blake Brown wrote:
August 11th, 2019, 4:56 pm
R@y.Tupp@+sch wrote:
August 11th, 2019, 4:07 pm
Erik Rachwalski wrote:
August 11th, 2019, 3:14 pm
Thanks for posting this crickey - Similiar questions/dilemma...

Not trying to hijack the thread... for the well versed Champy drinkers/collectors, where would you place Bollinger in regards to the 3 above? At ~125/b, and “great scores”, seems like an ok idea for me to throw some in the back of cellar

Would love to hear thoughts, thx
There have been several posts, including by me, that many have severely cut back or stopped buying entirely due to Bollinger's way too rapid aging especially since their '96 Grande Annee.
Agreed. e.g. Had the 05` GA recently and it was oxidized with little redeeming qualities.
Same. Not sure how Bollinger gets so much hype within some circles.
curt1S ch3N
CT: C Chen

User avatar
C Chen
Posts: 735
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 9:30 pm
Location: California

Re: 2008 champagne question

#30 Post by C Chen » August 11th, 2019, 7:39 pm

R@y.Tupp@+sch wrote:
August 11th, 2019, 8:58 am
Otto Forsberg wrote:
August 11th, 2019, 2:03 am
I've never understood drinking young Dom Perignon. To me, it is just way too reductive for the handful of years after the release. The smoky character mentioned by William above is what dominates a young vintage - often up to a point that the wine really doesn't smell of anything but gunpowder smoke. This smoky reduction certainly does blow away with air, but with younger vintages it normally takes more time to blow off the reduction that it does to blow off the carbonation. We had a 2006 DP a few years ago - quite soon after the release - and the wine certainly was impressively built, but was just smoky and reductive with very little in the way of pleasure.

I've noticed that waiting even for just 4-5 years does miracles to the wine. The wine still retains that smoky DP reduction for some more years, but it normally isn't as dominant at that point, more of a subtle nuance in the background, letting the quality of the fruit shine on the fore.
While I will agree with you for most vintages, I think '08 DP is an exception and '02 was as well to a lesser extent.
This.
curt1S ch3N
CT: C Chen

User avatar
Brad Baker
Posts: 1632
Joined: May 4th, 2009, 7:47 pm
Location: Motown, USA

Re: 2008 champagne question

#31 Post by Brad Baker » August 11th, 2019, 7:46 pm

The 2008 Bollinger Grande Annee is a step back in the right direction for Bollinger compared to other recent releases as they are using some sulfur again. It is still a big, rich, zesty, nutty, wine that is tasty now, but it does not show the same early maturing characters as other recent vintages. Not saying it will go long term, but it is a very good wine to enjoy now and over the next 10-15 years.

I would rank the Bolly behind the DP and Clos des Goisses, but ahead of the Winston Churchill. It is a very nice 2008, but not top level.
Brad Baker
The Champagne Warrior

brodie thomson
Posts: 855
Joined: May 23rd, 2010, 9:25 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: 2008 champagne question

#32 Post by brodie thomson » August 11th, 2019, 9:40 pm

Brad Baker wrote:
August 9th, 2019, 6:14 pm


To address some other Pol Roger comments in this thread, I completely agree that this is a house in need of finding itself. A situation that is similar to what Bollinger is going through IMO. The Pol Roger NV and Vintage Rose are always good, but after that it is a crapshoot and the Winston Churchill has been very disappointing in many top vintages such as 1985, 1988, 1990, 1996, 2002, and 2008.
Hi Brad, thanks for these comments. The only vintage of Winston Churchill I have is the 2004 which does not get mentioned in the list off disappointing vintages. Any thoughts you can share on the 2004 WC

I also have a couple of the bottles of 2008 Vintage Rose as well

cheers Brodie

User avatar
Brad Baker
Posts: 1632
Joined: May 4th, 2009, 7:47 pm
Location: Motown, USA

Re: 2008 champagne question

#33 Post by Brad Baker » August 12th, 2019, 5:29 am

Brodie,

The 04 Winston Churchill is a nice wine. It is brighter than normal which I attribute to the vintage characteristics. It also has a biscuity, slightly honeyed richness which gives it a fuller, rounder profile that that wine is most well known for. It should continue to age well though can be enjoyed now too for its younger bitter, red citrus flavors. I wouldn't put it with the best from 2004, but it performs as expected.

As for the 2008 Pol Roger Rose, I think it is a nice, honeyed, richer red fruited wine that lacks a little bit in complexity, but is very fun and should drink extremely well in the 15-20 year old range.

As an aside, I prefer all of the other Pol Roger vintage wines in 2008 over the Winston Churchill.
Brad Baker
The Champagne Warrior

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 32731
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm

Re: 2008 champagne question

#34 Post by Neal.Mollen » August 12th, 2019, 5:31 am

I have 2 bottles of the 99 Winnie. Suppose I'll have to pop them sooner than later
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

User avatar
Jay Miller
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 13694
Joined: June 19th, 2009, 5:18 pm
Location: Jersey City

Re: 2008 champagne question

#35 Post by Jay Miller » August 12th, 2019, 5:53 am

Neal.Mollen wrote:
August 12th, 2019, 5:31 am
I have 2 bottles of the 99 Winnie. Suppose I'll have to pop them sooner than later
I love the 1999. Had a wonderful bottle of 2006 this year as well as a 2004 which was shut down hard.
Ripe fruit isn't necessarily a flaw.

User avatar
Brad Baker
Posts: 1632
Joined: May 4th, 2009, 7:47 pm
Location: Motown, USA

Re: 2008 champagne question

#36 Post by Brad Baker » August 12th, 2019, 6:36 am

The 1999 Churchill is one of the better wines of the vintage and I prefer it over its 1996 and 1998 vintages which in theory should have been better wines than the 1999. I wouldn't hold the 1999 long term, but any time over the next decade should see it drink really nice.

The 2006 Chruchill is the best release of the wine since the 1995 in my book.

The Churchill is a funny wine to me. It seems to underperform in many years when it should be great, shines brightest in years that you wouldn't always expect and seems to mature much faster than it should. Add in the high price and I don't have a lot in my cellar, but it can be a very good wine.
Brad Baker
The Champagne Warrior

User avatar
David Glasser
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 6231
Joined: August 16th, 2009, 6:03 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: 2008 champagne question

#37 Post by David Glasser » August 12th, 2019, 8:07 am

My vote would have been for Dom on a QPR basis. Quality is on a par with the Clos des Goisses, though they are very different wines so style preference could push you in one direction. I didn’t want to pay the tariff for the Philipponnat so the only 2008 I bought was the Dom.

I drank a fair amount of 1988 and 1990 Winston Churchill, all within 20 years of the vintage, and loved every bottle. I mostly stopped buying as the prices increased but still have some 2002. A bottle last year was excellent. There are better 2002s, but still only disappointing in terms of QPR relative to other top producers.

User avatar
Blake Brown
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5694
Joined: May 2nd, 2010, 11:17 pm
Location: Santa Barbara

Re: 2008 champagne question

#38 Post by Blake Brown » August 12th, 2019, 8:27 am

Brad Baker wrote:
August 12th, 2019, 6:36 am
The 1999 Churchill is one of the better wines of the vintage and I prefer it over its 1996 and 1998 vintages which in theory should have been better wines than the 1999. I wouldn't hold the 1999 long term, but any time over the next decade should see it drink really nice.

The 2006 Chruchill is the best release of the wine since the 1995 in my book.

The Churchill is a funny wine to me. It seems to underperform in many years when it should be great, shines brightest in years that you wouldn't always expect and seems to mature much faster than it should. Add in the high price and I don't have a lot in my cellar, but it can be a very good wine.
Good news re the 06` SWC as its the only one I have left and after this thread, I've been wondering about it. I loved the 99` out of the gate and couldn't stay away and drank them up.
Thanks Brad for all of your input.
"In victory you deserve Champagne. In defeat, you need it".
Napolean Bonaparte

“Remember gentlemen, it’s not just France we are fighting for, it’s Champagne!” – Winston Churchill

Tom Reddick
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1225
Joined: June 30th, 2009, 9:56 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: 2008 champagne question

#39 Post by Tom Reddick » August 12th, 2019, 8:24 pm

While we are talking about 2008 Clos des Goisses, has anyone had the 08 or 06 Les Cintres? (the new 100% Pinot Noir cuvee from specific plots within Clos des Goisses.)
ITB - Cellar appraisals

Tom Reddick
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1225
Joined: June 30th, 2009, 9:56 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: 2008 champagne question

#40 Post by Tom Reddick » August 12th, 2019, 8:26 pm

R@y.Tupp@+sch wrote:
August 11th, 2019, 4:07 pm
Erik Rachwalski wrote:
August 11th, 2019, 3:14 pm
Thanks for posting this crickey - Similiar questions/dilemma...

Not trying to hijack the thread... for the well versed Champy drinkers/collectors, where would you place Bollinger in regards to the 3 above? At ~125/b, and “great scores”, seems like an ok idea for me to throw some in the back of cellar

Would love to hear thoughts, thx
There have been several posts, including by me, that many have severely cut back or stopped buying entirely due to Bollinger's way too rapid aging especially since their '96 Grande Annee.
And going back even further with the Vieilles Vignes. Bollinger can be great, but after a very expensive lesson in sherried VV (several bottles), I have not gone back- and will need to see a good track record of recovery before I do.
ITB - Cellar appraisals

User avatar
lleichtman
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1340
Joined: June 28th, 2014, 6:28 pm
Location: Santa Fe NM

Re: 2008 champagne question

#41 Post by lleichtman » August 13th, 2019, 12:54 pm

Scott Jameson wrote:
August 8th, 2019, 1:55 pm
In my market, Houston, TX, DP is less than half the cost of the other 2 - about $135 vs $300 for the Winston Churchill. If I found the Churchill significantly cheaper, I'd probably pick up a few bottles, but I don't expect that to happen. I've had the DP a couple of times and while it's very enjoyable now, I expect it to have a great future. Even though I haven't tried the other 2, with the $ being roughly equal, I'm pretty sure I'd rather have twice as many bottles of the DP in the cellar.
When I was there recently, I couldn't even find much vintage champagne but maybe that's because I was going to Specs that doesn't seem to have much vintage champagne.
Lawrence G. Leichtman

User avatar
lleichtman
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1340
Joined: June 28th, 2014, 6:28 pm
Location: Santa Fe NM

Re: 2008 champagne question

#42 Post by lleichtman » August 13th, 2019, 12:55 pm

C Chen wrote:
August 11th, 2019, 7:39 pm
Blake Brown wrote:
August 11th, 2019, 4:56 pm
R@y.Tupp@+sch wrote:
August 11th, 2019, 4:07 pm


There have been several posts, including by me, that many have severely cut back or stopped buying entirely due to Bollinger's way too rapid aging especially since their '96 Grande Annee.
Agreed. e.g. Had the 05` GA recently and it was oxidized with little redeeming qualities.
Same. Not sure how Bollinger gets so much hype within some circles.
Certainly agree on that. Bollinger seemed to have lost their way about 10 years ago.
Lawrence G. Leichtman

User avatar
Blake Brown
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5694
Joined: May 2nd, 2010, 11:17 pm
Location: Santa Barbara

Re: 2008 champagne question

#43 Post by Blake Brown » August 15th, 2019, 11:04 am

Just received an offer with this hype re the 08` SWC: "This is the next Legendary Vintage that you will want for your cellar!

Each vintage that is lucky enough to be made is always one of the most captivating vintage Champagnes out there. Amazing complexity in its youth and vivacity that captures the true essence of Champagne, along with an amazing array of fruit, toasted accents and brilliant acidity and bubbles, this is truly a remarkable young Champagne.

Then things change when you get some bottle age, complex, deep aromatics and subtleties kick in with rich and lingering flavors. This really gives everything right out of the gate, and continues to do so for many years. The sensational release of the 100pt 2008 is not to be missed, especially when you can score this at the best price around! This parcel was just confirmed direct from champagne coming in this winter. This is a champagne worth putting in the cellar as well as enjoying when it’s time to enjoy world class Champagne."

I have never bought a wine based upon its Wine Enthusiast rating and very few from any other critic`s rating and none in the last 10+ years re any rating. Brad`s comments have persuaded me to avoid the 08` regardless of points assigned.
"In victory you deserve Champagne. In defeat, you need it".
Napolean Bonaparte

“Remember gentlemen, it’s not just France we are fighting for, it’s Champagne!” – Winston Churchill

Jayson Cohen
Posts: 1777
Joined: July 9th, 2016, 4:29 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: 2008 champagne question

#44 Post by Jayson Cohen » August 17th, 2019, 10:59 am

Surprised Brad you are not a fan of ‘88 SWC. That has always been my favorite.

Agree on 2008 though and generally that SWC is often not as good as it should be. My favorites in 2008 were the Rose and the straight Brut. I have confidence the 2008 Rose will gain complexity in bottle, and think it plays a nice line been taut drive and playful red-fruited flavor.

User avatar
Brad Baker
Posts: 1632
Joined: May 4th, 2009, 7:47 pm
Location: Motown, USA

Re: 2008 champagne question

#45 Post by Brad Baker » August 17th, 2019, 11:19 am

Jayson,

I was a fan of the 88 SWC when it was young and thought it had loads and loads of potential. It started to age a little irregularly in the 2005-2010 timeframe and I find a lot of the bottles now quite mature and they never reached the peak I thought they would. The 88 isn't as bad as the 90 in this manner, but still disappointing considering the promise it showed in its youth.
Brad Baker
The Champagne Warrior

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 32731
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm

Re: 2008 champagne question

#46 Post by Neal.Mollen » August 17th, 2019, 1:20 pm

Brad Baker wrote:
August 12th, 2019, 6:36 am
The 1999 Churchill is one of the better wines of the vintage and I prefer it over its 1996 and 1998 vintages which in theory should have been better wines than the 1999. I wouldn't hold the 1999 long term, but any time over the next decade should see it drink really nice.

The 2006 Chruchill is the best release of the wine since the 1995 in my book.

The Churchill is a funny wine to me. It seems to underperform in many years when it should be great, shines brightest in years that you wouldn't always expect and seems to mature much faster than it should. Add in the high price and I don't have a lot in my cellar, but it can be a very good wine.
Thanks Brad
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

User avatar
Josh Grossman
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: August 30th, 2017, 11:26 am

Re: 2008 champagne question

#47 Post by Josh Grossman » August 17th, 2019, 2:09 pm

I bought a case of the 2008 Philipponnat Blanc de Blancs Grand Blanc and have some of the 1522. Looks like I need some of the Clos des Goisses too. What are your thoughts on the Extra Brut Mareuil-Sur-Ay compared to the Clos des Goisses?

Post Reply

Return to “Wine Talk”