Texture. Singularity.
Black licorice … most people don’t like. But people that do …
3 Likes
I like the interplay of fresh and not so fresh, which evolves and changes over the course of a glass.
I prefer Initial but haven’t consumed many of the other bottlings since the price explosion. Some of the lieux dits were attractively priced when we were in Paris recently and I found them to be more interesting to taste than delicious.
Ahm. Where in WA? #askingforafriend 
1 Like
Following answer closely. I love Selosse. They are unique, complex, vinous, and delicious. Alas they are out of my price range, and I didn’t stock ip way back when.
1 Like
Put me in the camp that loves them. Adores them. Back in the day whenever I could get Initial for under $200 and VO under $250 I would grab it. What I should have been doing was plowing my wine budget into it period.
As others have said it’s a depth of vinousness? Vinousocity? that is unique. I love autolytics in my champagne, pain grill, brioche, hazelnut, brown butter and Selosse has that in spades while also have a freshness and acidity that means the wine isn’t ponderous.
I"ve only had the rose I think three times and wasn’t a fan vs the other wines. Maybe I only had less impressive bottles because it should hit my sweet spot. I adore Substance though, probably more than the Lieux-dits.
Guillaume’s Au Dessus du Gros Mont that I had this summer is easily my WOTY and may be the best bottle of champagne I’ve ever had and that’s up against some stiff competition.
Drank a bunch at Friday Harbor House and the Met Grill.
1 Like
I love them, but if anything prefer the Initial over the Substance. The Initial may have a little bit of oxidative character, but I never honestly thought it was that strong, whereas in the Substance that is amplified. I don’t have much experience with the vintage wines, but the BdN single vineyard wines are superlative. I really love the hint of mint that I get in some of them, and I find that unique compared to other champagne. I definitely agree with other posters who mentioned the vinous character of these wines.
At current pricing I’m out of the market, though I do have a very small number of Initial that I will drink slowly.
2 Likes
gonna have to check out Friday Harbor house if/when we make it out there.
Met Grill sadly no longer has the selosse at those lovely prices. the Substance is near 1K, rose $750ish etc.
Always worth checking out QFC wine cellars around Western Washington. Redmond QFC out off Woodinville-Redmond Road had a bunch of 1996 Krug for instance. Issaquah good to peek into too, as well as Cap Hill.
@Mark_Y meet you there
Kid you not, the 1996 Krug may still have some bottles at W-R location, might be $225 in their lockup as you walk in to the left. Cap Hill had a ton of Barolo. Issaquah plateau had some Burgs, Barolo, and Oz.
Best wine hunting in WA is at QFC as they used to give stewards free reign of cellar.
I love Selosse. They are very vinous and you almost need to forget that they are Champagne. I reckon it helps if you have visited and tasted with Anselme, as things then make sense.
1 Like
I wish I was fortunate enough to know if I love these wines!
1 Like
I’m overdue for a trip up to seattle 
1 Like
Substance was my first introduction and it blew me away. For me it’s the incredibly rich texture and intense flavor profile. I really enjoy the oxidative touch but it’s also unique and rare(at least for me) so I really enjoy it when I get it. The prices here don’t make sense but it’s free market? I found it on a couple lists in Paris for way cheaper. What’re people’s thought on the Guillaume Selosse? Every place I went to in Paris was sold out and mentioned it’s harder than Selosse.
1 Like
When they are on i really like em. but whatever quirk causes them to oxidize randomly in bottle too quickly makes me very disappointed.
If the purpose of drinking selosse was something vinous i’d just drink more cedric
1 Like
I’m a fan. I’m a fan of many other quite different Champagne styles as well (e.g. Agrapart). I appear to have had less bottle variation than some of the comments above suggest, so perhaps that’s blind luck. I love the intensity, the textures, and some of the quirky flavours (I would not call them “funky” as they have never come across like that to me) particularly in the Rose and Substance. I’ve had far fewer bottles of the Vintage than the rest of the wines, which seems to me a great wine but in much more of a “normal” Champagne mode.
For me, it’s because the only other producer to produce such a powerful style of Champagne is Krug. The overall style is difficult to find. Selosse and Krug are the two best examples, at least for me.
Personally I wouldn’t compare Selosse and Krug. I love the former and dislike the latter.
1 Like
Selosse is my most favorite Champagne for similar reasons to what others have said. I find it rich, full, highly complex, always approachable in terms of acidity, and I love the oxidative flavors. Other producers I think show some of these qualities but never all of them together.
I haven’t drunk a whole lot of Selosse but have certainly had more than my fair share, and IMO Substance and La Cote Faron are the ones to get. Initial / Sous Le Mont / Le Bout du Clos can be underwhelming, and not liking them may not imply you won’t like the first two I mentioned. Never tried the BdB lieux dits. The millesime I’ve only had once - the 2008 earlier this year - and that is IMO headed towards wine nirvana given time, though that opinion is moot given pricing these days
Same. Krug has never done it for me, though I will reserve final judgement until I have some of the Mesnil
I believe it is the oldest solera of all the lieux dits, previously bottled as “Contraste,” which might explain why it is so intensely… uh… Selossian