Hi all,
If funds permit, which of these Houses champagnes will you spend the money on.
Cristal '04, Pol Roger Churchill '99, Bollinger Grand Anne '02 and Perrier Jouet '04.
For me, Grand Anne '02, followed by Churchil '99 and PJ '04. Not sure about Cristal '04.
What are your thoughts??
Cheers
I’ve had both Cristal '04 and Bollinger Grande Annee '02 and would cellar the latter and drink the former
I would do the opposite 
PJ and Winston is not on the same level as the other two IMHO although I have not had the 04 PJ (but the 02 wasn’t all that).
Prices aren’t equal here, right? If they are, something is cheap or something is expensive. If I were looking at these in my market, the Bollinger is my go-to pick. I can’t recall being disappointed by a Grand Annee, although I haven’t been a buyer in every vintage given pricing in my market and a general lack of funds for this being a regular purchase. I haven’t had P-J in years. I find Winston Churchill to be really sulfur-ridden when young (again haven’t tasted one recently) and have liked Cristal when it has been poured in my glass but have never bought any given its pricing.
cheers,
fred
Hi Fred, sorry should’ve make it clear in my 1st post. Yes, prices aren’t equal and just assuming one have sufficient fund to splurge oneself on champers from the selection, the must have and the underachiever 
. Just curious that’s all, after taking out DP, Krug and salon from equation. Grand Annee '02 is a cracker!!!
Hi Frank, I haven’t tasted the '02 but did have the '04 for Xmas last year. My 1st impression was ‘bleh’ and moved to DP '02, but kept 2/3rd of bottle in the cellar and the next day it really sang. Reminded me of a picnic on a nice spring afternoon if that make sense. Mind you, the champagne was complex, and subtle. It drew you into it. Just to clarify the PJ is belle epoque
Hi Todd, is there any reason why you would drink Cristal '04 and not cellar it just like Annee '02? I’ve had no experience with Cristal, but from the '04 I had, it was yeasty, bready and just steely acid. Green apple and citrus, lingering finish. I wasn’t impressed with it, but perhaps due to young age? I just don’t know what to think about Cristal, most people I talked to, seem to indicate it’s not worth the $$, comparing say to Krug.
Cheers
I had the 04 Cristal at a tasting not long before New Years, and then drank the 02 Bollinger Grand Annee for New Years. To me it wasn’t even a comparison; I really enjoyed the Bollinger and thought it was excellent, but I could take or leave the Cristal, it was kind of meh.
I had the 04 vintage in a vertical of 04,02,00,99,96,90,89,88,85,82,79,76,75,74 last year and the 70 and 64 a couple weeks later. And although the 04 was not a top tier performer in this lineup it definitely belonged in the “runner up” category. Cristal is in my opinion a very demanding wine to taste when young and in this lineup no wine younger than 85 had really started to open up. The 79 was the youngest to have reached full maturity. 96 was a possible exception as it was pretty developed compared to 99,90 but it may not have been a perfect bottle (although it was stunningly good!).
In my opinion Cristal is second to none, even Krug or Salon. But it is a very different style than those two. Very clean and mellow at the same time.
Bollinger 2002 is a great wine, possibly not all that far from the absolute quality of the 2004 Cristal and therefore automatically a better buy. But the style is dramatically different, Bollinger always shows a lot better when young and (no longer) matures as predictably.
Out of the Cristals mentioned above, I would say the 1970 was the one closest to the absolute peak drinking window!
Regarding PJ Belle Epoque, I had my 02 side by side with a 76. The boring thing about this wine for me is that it seems to confined to it’s house style and therefore does not necessarily let the vintage characteristics shine. But I’ve only had a couple other (young) vintages so I don’t have all that much to base my opinion on. But no Belle Epoque has wowed me yet. It’s priced the same as Dom Perignon here, which makes it overpriced for me.
That’s actually good to know on the Cristal, Frank. I was not impressed by the 04, but I certainly don’t drink a lot of vintage Champagne and know that my knowledge is lacking on them. I just thought it was shut down and didn’t have much going on, but that certainly falls into line with it being far too young. I’ll have to find an older Cristal to try sometime! But my experience certainly reflects your comments, the young Bollinger I thought was excellent, but I was wondering where that same oomph was in the Cristal. Thanks for the info!
Speaking of the 04 Cristal, it’s on WTSO right now for 189.08 a bottle and free shipping on 1 or more…
http://www.wtso.com/email_redirect.php?products_id=2495&cart_quantity=1
I’ve got to agree on the Cristal - Although I do like it young and old, it really needs time.
Sitting on my 04s for at least a decade myself
Ted
I’m not normally a Champagne drinker but opened my only bottle of 90 Cristal about a year ago and loved it. I’ve never tried very old champagne (>20 yrs) other than the Cristal, so I may be missing an entire stage of champagne development. The Cristal was still fresh though, so I can only imagine that the 04 has a long way to go.
IMHO:
#1 Cristal '04,
#2/3 Bollinger Grand Anne '02
#2/3 Pol Roger Churchill '99,
#4 Perrier Jouet '04.
I can only speak to the first 3 from personal experience; theyre all winners and need a lot of tie to mature. 04 Cristal is drinking well enough early on to suggest it is a winner and for the long run. 02` Bollinger is not only from a great vintage, but is made in a style I love and would cherish having in my cellar. I always find the SWC to be a top tier wine. Enjoy.
Jouet is in last for me.
I’ve not had the Cristal, although I generally enjoy them. GA is vintage specific, and what a vintage. And while the 99 isn’t a great vintage, PR Winston Churchill is one of my absolute favorite styles of champagne. Tough call. If you’re planning to cellar, 2002 Bolly. Drinking now, 1999 Winston. Can’t decide? 2004 Cristal (or just pick that one, since it’s probably going to end up being top dog.)
Andy, based upon what I have tasted, this would be my ranking:
Hi all,
Thank you for all the input… And to Frank for explaining about Cristal vintages and drinkability - really inspire me to try and source a well kept older Cristal, otherwise will grab a few bottles '04 and hide it in the corner . Going to pick up few bottles of Grand Annee as well while at it. Now just need to do a bit of scouting for good prices here.
Cheers
Just a few years ago my wife and I popped an '85 Cristal that was just stunning. The '04 has the legs to make that run as well.
Also, it’s priced around $170 by some retailers.
(Like me hahaha)
The '02 Bollinger is STUNNING. Seriously tasty juice.
I think the Churchill is the better wine that Bollinger GA in general, but the vintage factor makes the Bolly the clear choice, IMO - have not tasted any of the wines.
These are four very different Champagnes so depending on your style preference, you really could make a case for liking any more than the others. The way I see it, the 2002 Bollinger Grande Annee is head and shoulder tops on the list for both drinking now and in the future. Just a great effort full of fruit and expression. I find the 2004 Cristal and 1999 Winston Churchill similar in quality, but have a slight preference for the Churchill. Both are very good and will show their best with more age. 2004 Belle Epoque is a very good wine, but is not in the same group as the other three.
Value-wise, the Bollinger really comes out on top. Not only is it the best IMO, but also the least or second least expensive wine on the list (whether it or the Belle Epoque is the least expensive depends on where you look).
In regards to aging these, I think all will age very nicely over time, but not all will take decades to peak. The 04 Cristal is quite classic “Cristal” in style so I think it will peak for my palate in another 8-10 years. It won’t fall apart after that, just not be as tasty to me. Some have mentioned the 90 Cristal in this thread and that is a great bottle although I don’t see it getting much better than it is right now and there is nothing wrong with that. The Bollinger and Belle Epoque should continue to improve for another 10-20 years and go on longer, but when to drink will depend on your preference for certain flavors. I’m not really sure how long the 99 Churchill will age as the 99 vintage is not a great one and one prone to have some baby fat that helps wines show best in their youth. I do see it improving over the next 5-8 years, but, personally, don’t see it as one I will cellar for a long time - not because it won’t taste good after that, but because I will likely find it best in 5-8 years.
Regarding 04 Cristal being too young, it is worth noting that the reason it is released so early into the market is a stylistic choice from Roederer: the yeasty/nutty aromas you get from longer storage on the lees goes against their target of the clean fruit style. It does not necessarily mean that it is “ready” for consumption at time of release, and Roederer do in deed recommend cellaring it.
An interesting anecdote about Cristal is that it can actually be regarded as Champagne’s largest “grower” champagne. Because the company is still family-run and all the grapes for the 400’000-bottle production is sourced from their owned vineyards. This details means they have a lot better control at the sorting table and therefore produce it in many more vintages than DP, Krug etc. And some “off” vintages like 74,77 can be every bit as good as an “on” vintage thanks to this selection.
I understand what Brad means about enjoying Cristal before it hits the 20 year mark because it will show as less clean and a bit “caramelly” after that. But I’m sure he also agrees that it can be one of the most long lived champagnes of all if you prefer the more developed style.
The 1970 Cristal mentioned earlier was served after a vertical of every vintage of Dom Perignon from 1961 to 2002 and the Cristal absolutely blew all the DPs out of the water - there was no contest and nothing to argue around the 12-person table.
But the clear bottle unfortunately means there can be more bottle variation in older examples than you would expect from other champagnes.
Unlike Brad I am a little concerned by the ageworthyness of Bollinger from the last couple of decades. I think neither the 99,97 or 96 has matured as nicely and predictably as I had hoped whereas the 90 is still singing. But the 2002 is excellent right now so why worry.