85` Cristal Rose, 86` Taittinger Comtes de Champagne Rose, 15` PYCM La Comme, 03` Raphet Charmes

We once again enjoyed a fine evening on the rooftop, this time with a good friend who is a major contributor of fine wines to our dinner group and my intent was to thank him for his gracious contributions by opening up some special champagnes I had just purchased.

Roelanda put together some really delicious appetizers, cheeses, breads, fruit and nuts accompanied by a fresh tossed spinach salad and salmon entree and we opened up some bottles while taking in a stellar sunset with magnificent views of the local mountains, city ocean and channel islands.

Just 4 days prior, I purchased 1 bottle of 3 legendary champagnes, albeit with highly questionable provenance hoping they were viable and if so, I’d opt for more. They were the 85 Cristal Rose, 86 Taittinger Comtes Rose and the 82` Salon. With fingers crossed, we sacrificed our palates to explore the first two:

1985 LOUIS ROEDERER CRISTAL BRUT ROSE- the bottle came in a colorful, ornate cardboard box which is much more elaborate than the packaging used in the past 10 years and it was wrapped in the traditional orange-red cellophane; as much as I could determine, the medium amber color of the wine looked good for a 35 year old rose; the fill was mid neck, there was no sign of leakage nor damage to the label, no cork push and even it came out with a little effort and in perfect condition; once poured, it showed minimal bubbles; the nose confirmed this was oxidized, but only a taste would verify as to what extent; first came some maple and at the end came some honey; in between was caramel, butterscotch, apricot and almonds with a heavy dose of sweetness; as a dessert wine, it could work, as a brilliant, classic, epic champagne, not so much and my heart sunk.

With trepidation, I opened:

1986 TAITTINGER COMTES des CHAMPAGNE BRUT ROSE- this was also nicely presented in a bright, shinny rich amber colored box and the capsule and label were in good shape; the fill was low neck, the cork was in great condition and came out with a little effort and Im a stitch more hopeful; the color was a dark amber, not good and I lost the stitch, and the nose was the worst case scenario with strong oxidative notes that were even more off-putting once tasted and now Im a few stitches in the hole; it had very unusual speckles of sediment/ particles floating in the glass and was basically undrinkable and I’m looking for a seamstress while we tossed it down the sink; we went back for another overly optimistic try at the Cristal ,but just couldn’t vibe it into something decent; I had an 06 Dom Ruinart in the ready, but our guest called the white Burg Id pulled.

2015 PIERRE-YVES COLIN-MOREY LA COMME SANTENAY 1er Cru- our guest and I have had and loved a ton of PYCM wines over the years and this is one of my favs and so it was an easy choice for this night; it had the requisite mineral and flint aromatics along with ripe citrus fruit which on the palate translates into lemon zest and lime plus apple and pear join in along with a touch of spice and lots more minerality; it’s medium bodied, has a nice viscous texture and a finish that carries the streak of minerals along with the nice citrus/ acidity to the back end and then holds on for extended pleasure.

2003 GERAD RAPHET CHARMES-CHAMBERTIN GRAND CRU- thanks to our friend and another, I’ve had 3 bottles of this lately and all have had similar notes; each time, I liked a lot about the wine except that it was definitively laden with yeast Brett, the 4-ethlyphenol type, that gives the barnyard and band-aid like notes; it wasn’t so strong that it compromised the joy factor which was embellished by the mature blueberry and black raspberry fruit and a touch of spice; it was medium to full bodied and had a nice finish albeit while being covered with a band-aid.

I’ve read many a tasting note from some of those who I consider my mentor when it comes to drinking aged champagnes and first am envious of the incredible number of bottles they have consumed, some going back almost 100 years, and the delight they share when writing up their notes and I’ve often thought how wonderful it would be to have that experience.

Over all of the years I’ve been a champagne hound, I’ve only once experienced an “older” champagne that was close to being enjoyable and that was an 82 Cristal. All others, including the oldest I’ve had, a 53 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne, have had oxidative color, aromas and tastes that tend to unify them into a similar profile that includes nutty, Sherry like notes, caramel, butterscotch, honey and super sweet stone fruit, more like a dessert wine as the 85 Cristal just was. Perhaps I’m over generalizing some of the proponents of aged bubbly, but that is what my experience has been and I’m so desiring to have that stellar experience. I’ve had one and am grateful for that 82 Cristal. I`m ready for another one or three.

Cheers,
Blake

#KeepTrudging

I feel you with the 80s disappointments, my friend. Less experience than you; similar results. I feel you. So bizarre.

Thanks Nick. My tears were in the shape of small bubbles.

I’m leery of older bubbles that have been on the cork for 20+ years, but special late disgorgements are really special. I had the '79 Veuve Cliquot Cave Privee Rose last Thanksgiving (note in the Laura’s House Charity “Empty My Wallet” Thread) and it was a great mixture of fruit and decay without going into that oxidized space. I’ve had middling results with late disgorgements that I then hold onto for several years (say 5-10, not 20+). I’ve got a few bottles of original disgorgement '88 Krug that I purchased 15+ years ago, so am heading to a place where I can have a look at a true oldie. I will say that the last bottle I sampled from that case was my least favorite, precisely because the aged notes detracted.

Maybe it’s just better to enjoy them in their prime and let the occasional old surprise be something you let your guests impress you with, Blake.

Cheers,
fred

Well done Blake.

Good luck with your 88 Krugs Fred. My first 3 bottles of a 6 pack of original disgorgement 96 Krug were way oxidized when opened in the last couple of years. I should have included one on this night to get a compatible threesome.

Sorry you had such a bad experience but you disobeyed the first rule of ageing champagne - magnums…!

I am so sorry about your bad experiences. You deserved much better.

I was fortunate a number of years ago (around 2007 or 2008 or so) to be invited to attend a large tasting of Dom Ruinart wines. The 1979 Dom Ruinart Rose (from a magnum) was really magnificent and the wines we tasted got me more interested in Champagne. I still consider this to be the best Champagne I have had. The tasting was led by Frédéric Panaiotis, who then was the new Chef de Caves for Ruinart Champagne. So, all the wines we had were well stored and all the older ones were from magnum. I hope that you get to a tasting or something where you are able to experience how great an aged Champagne can be.

I totally agree and would have preferred these bottles to be in magnum formats. It’s obvious when most of the houses bottle and store their own stashes in magnums that there is a good reason for that. I’ve been buying mags over the past 20 years but the vintages have been since 96` so I haven’t had the true test of aged bottles.

The opportunity to purchase 4 bottles each of the Salon and Cristal and 10 bottles of the Comtes Rose were presented and I had to at least check them out and when they met the eye inspection parameters, I opted for 1 of each by paying a total of $500. If one is a winner, I’m good, but there’s not so much hope for the 82` Salon to be anything different. I’ll find out when I return home from a vacation and if so, move on and chalk it up to another well intended adventure.

Thanks Howard. I love the experience you had and would relish the time when I might also replicate something like that. As I have just mentioned above, mags allow for the best opportunity to have a viable wine and that wasn’t part of this deal.

It was very special. I was not a big Champagne fan before that night - too many Champagnes were thin and acidic. But, I learned that night the possibilities in Champagne and have been enjoying them more and more over time. I still feel nervous buying a Champagne blind and have had to learn which Champagnes I like and which to buy. Your frequent tasting notes have been really helpful in this regard - sometimes “too helpful” when it comes to Taittinger Comte de Champagne , which along with Dom Ruinart are probably my favorites right now.

Respectfully, why is this? I have seen many of you here discuss enjoying older champers. Do you feel this way about all wine in general, or do you perceive greater risk of failure of Champagne in particular? Or, am I misreading you? I would hope that properly stored Champagne could last 20 years, but perhaps that is naive.

Champagne is widely thought to be more susceptible to poor storage and be more fragile than other wines in that regard. No idea why.

Thanks, Dan. I’m wondering about properly stored Champagne and it’s ability to age.

It simply has been my experience that the misses are more frequent than the hits. It could be my samples have all been subject to mishandling or it could just be that the characteristics that come from aging after disgorgement are just not appealing to me. I do have numerous examples of old, recently disgorged bottles that are fabulous. I love the juxtaposition of aged and fresh character that only seem to be delivered from that sort of “origin story”.

Cheers,
fred

Thanks for explaining

There at least 2 major players on this board that are strong proponents of older champagnes, Francois and Ray, and it’d be great to get their input here. And I’m talking about champagnes that are 45-100 years old that they’ve raved about.

Indeed, Blake. I’ve been paying attention to them for years and have been patiently cellaring wines to that end.