"Flat" champagne?

WINE TALK
1

NV Charles Ellner Brut Rose…
Big mousse, but in the glass it was almost totally flat.
Served chilled, glass was clean (but had a residue from of a previous blanc de noir in it) bottle had rested for a good half hour after transport to the restaurant.
The flavors were nice, but the flatness really bugged me and detracted from my enjoyment.

Your thoughts on what happened here??

2

Was there very much pressure released upon uncorking the bottle? I am thinking you could have had a bad seal on yours. You can get a slow leak which can still cause a bit of pop, but causes poor performance, not terribly unlike a half inflated tire on your car.

3

Thats a good question, alex, but the waiter opened it so I can’t say. But I can say that each glass poured had a very exuberant mousse. (that was the weird thing imo)

4

The inside of the glass was too smooth due to the restaurant’s usage and cleaning the glasses with detergent over and again. Next time that happens, take a car key and scratch the inside bottom of the glass. I know a champagne maker who regularly does that when he goes out to restaurants.

5

Hi Chris,

Did it also taste flat? Glasses which have been dish-washer cleaned can often show no bubbles when fizz is poured into them because they are so clean they have no nucleating points on which bubbles can form. The wine will still fizz when you taste it, though. I know of several Champagne agents in the UK who have had reports of their fizz being flat when poured; on experimentation by the agents it turned out the glasses were just too clean.

If it did taste flat it wasn’t this effect and it could well be a low-pressure bottle, in which case you should have sent it back.

Cheers,
David.

6

Yes David, it tasted flat. Also, previous sparklers were just fine in the same glass, so I guess we are left with a low pressure bottle. I guess I’ve seen this same thing with the occasional bottle homemade beer that I’ve made that foam up but have little carbonation when you drink them.

As far as sending it back goes; I brought it myself from my cellar at home and for some reason it was not cataloged properly as to source. Its not like its vintage krug so I’ll just chalk it up to a relatively inexpensive learning experience.

BTW the 99 bollinger that we had along side this was a beautiful well rounded wine.

7

Hello again Chris,

Inexpensive learning experiences can often be the best kind.

I’m pleased you enjoyed the Bolly 99, but it has been another vintage of the wine which I felt was a bit on the pricey side for a less than brilliant example of ‘oooh fancy!’ vintage fizz. I expect more from Bollinger. I suppose I was just too wowed by the pile of 96s I purchased (Bolly 96 needs drinking up, by the way). I eagerly await their 2002 vintage release (which I am convinced will be the best Champagne vintage since 96).

I love your Kitler, by the way:)

Cheers,
David.

8

While we don’t agree on Jadot Musigny, we agree on the '96 Bolly [basic-smile.gif]

I’ve become disenchanted with Bollinger’s wines. Their vintage and RD wines from the '70’s and older are great. Not so for the more recent ones.


9

Hello Ray,

Yeah, I’ve gone off Bolly quite a bit. They are too far on the muy expensivo side of vintage fizz for the quality delivered. Moreover, when as great a vintage as 1996 doesn’t age almost forever you’ve got to wonder what they are doing. I rather enjoyed the 1985 (I used to pop a bottle each time I moved into new university accommodation to use as a hammer to put pictures up and, more importantly, to draw in people to help me carry stuff), but since then the ageing profile of the wines has just been disappointing. The 1990 aged shocking quickly.

I’ll try the 2002 when it comes out, but I’ll have to be terribly impressed to shell out my hard-earned fun tokens on it.

RD is pointlessly expensive and of only so much interest.

Cheers,
David.