I bought three bottles of this. I drank the first and it was off putting in that bad Champagne way with burnt sugar, dark(perceptually), and a little metallic. Since the first was bad I opened the second one and it had similar characteristics, but was drinkable. It still had some of the burned perceptions, but there was also an off-putting decadent nearly rotten strawberry fruit profile. I opened the third a week later, since I had no faith and don’t want to store bad bottled anyway. It was more like the first, definitely flawed, but still that rotting red fruit perception. I don’t think this is severe reduction in my bottles, maybe the second. I saw a few other notes where sweetness was an issue and steeliness. Anyone else have issues?
Terry Theise on the vintage: “2005 has a common flaw, under the heading of rot. There’s no consensus as regards which rot it may be, or if there’s more than one. The most plausible theories I heard were, one, a rot attacking the actual flowers that could not be seen at the time and of course could not be seen later on the grapes, and two, geosmin, which seems to give the “nasty potato” aroma with which many of the wines were afflicted.” https://www.skurnik.com/terry-theises-overview-of-recent-champagne-vintages/
If there was some kind of invisible rot problem, it’d be hard to imagine it didn’t surface somewhere in those millions of liters from all across the region that go into DP.
Thanks buddy. Lots of tasting notes that question or hint at an issue, but still good scores. Probably hard to dis something you pay $250-$300 bucks.