A question of style.

Bienvenue Richard, thank you for joining us on the board. It’s a pleasure and an honour to have you here.

I’ve been a huge fan of Cuvée Dom Pérignon for many years. 1964 and 1966 being my two favourite Doms of all time, with perhaps '76 and '85 behind them. Though I’ve never had the pleasure of anything older.

I find for my palate I like Dom Perignon at two stages. The first plenitude when it is fresh on the market, and then not again until it is somewhere in the third plenitude from 20 - 30 years +.

I would like to ask about the change in style that was documented (and very noticeable) from the 2000 Vintage. I understand the sentiment behind trying to give Dom more of a “wow” factor when it is young (even though I personally disliked the new style in this vintage) but am concerned about how this will alter the personality of Dom Perignon when it reaches it’s third plenitude.

As the current caretaker of Dom Perignon can you tell us about some of the thinking that was behind the style change, and also your thinking at the time (and now) around how the future aging curve of the wine might be affected by this? I haven’t had the opportunity to try the 2002 yet as it has not arrived, but was there any change in your approach for this year from your experience of the direction change in the 2000 Vintage?

Thank you very much for your time.

Dear Regan,

Dom Pérignon keeps evolving with every vintage, we will keep pushing the envelope forever. It is a quest towards an absolute in the expression of style. I believe there isn’t such an important change with the 2000 vintage—or simply a combination of minute factors, the sum of invisible parts eventually getting apparent?

Dom Pérignon is renowned for its ageworthiness and this is just as true for the 2000 Dom Pérignon. I noticed that your comments start with the 2000 vintage. I would like to hear from you after you have tasted the 2002 Dom Pérignon, to know if your perception of a change is confirmed.

Best regards,