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?
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.
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
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.
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.
This.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.