1999 Vilmart & Cie Champagne Coeur de Cuvée- France, Champagne (3/11/2012)
(Magnum) Absolutely wonderful - a gorgeous silky texture, incredibly creamy on the palate. Saline, a hint of citrus, and if you keep your nose in it long enough, some yeasty/bread aroma as well. Over the course of two hours, this wine showed no hint of degradation, just further richness. One of my top Champagnes of all time.
Great note. I need to put together an all Vilmart tasting for my wine club this spring. The 2001 was off the charts and of course not a good year for Champagne. I should have bought more when I had a chance.
2001 Vilmart & Cie Champagne Coeur de Cuvée - France, Champagne (12/8/2011)
Wow! My Champagne House of the year just got better! Amazing nose of apples, pear, strawberry, coconut, minerals and spices. On the palate an amazing smoke flavor develops and this changes over time with a really long finish. I loved the texture as it really had a full bodied experience. Complex and amazing what they did in the 2001 vintage! (95 points)
And the '01. [CT notes has the '01 scored 1 point higher than the '99, at an average 93.3, median 94. The '02 scores about like the '99. Of course, all of this means nothing.]
Tasted the 1999 Vilmart Cuvee Creation a while back. Maybe a bad bottle, we probably should have tried another, but chalky, dry, lacking substantial fruit. Very much at odds with the tasting note from Galloni.
I had to take the way-back machine to find a thread on the '99. I just found four of these and took a flyer. My first TN will follow soon after delivery.
I had it last night to celebrate five years of owning a Champagne bar. It’s hit prime time, but should stay there for a good, long while. My staff flipped for it as our end of night celebratory toast.
The 99-02 quartet makes for an interesting flight. I think Vilmart killed it in every year, especially 99, a vintage that has done very little for me since release (Cuvee Creation 99 also shines - it just took a long time to absorb its oak). The 01 excites on its own, but tasted in line with the other vintages, it shows some of the limitations of the year, but in the same way a lesser vintage d’Yquem shines brilliantly on its own, but less so in the context of greater vintages.
I think so. A number of producers didn’t declare it a vintage year, and a few, such as DP, are a bit coarse. At any rate, 90, 95, 96 and 98 would be superior to it in most people’s opinions. Qualitatively, it’s probably equal to 1997, albeit different.