I am about a month behind on posting TNs to CT, and so wanted to get this one out there now in case it is helpful. As with other recent champagne releases, 2012 CWC is coming out in small quantities here and there. And with the ongoing holidays, that will only further accelerate the sale of what little has been released at the best prices we are likely to see in our respective markets.
2012 Pol Roger Cuvee Sir Winston Churchill
pale champagne color, elevated and elegant nose, pastry crust, pear blossom, apple, orange peel, on the palate creamy already with a slight sweetness, white orchard fruits, fine mousse just becoming evident, grand length and a sublime finish with floral notes and mousse leading into citrus peel acids, a berry note comes on with time as the wine integrates perfectly, as with 2012 Dom Perignon- everything there is to love about CWC is here in classic proportion to yield a wine that shows beautifully now and could potentially be approachable for all of its very long life, achingly elegant and splendidly refined, a magnificent future ahead.
Tom, thank you for sharing! The '96 Sir Winston Churchill was the Champagne that started my passion for Champagne. Sounds like this is a special bottle.
Great note. I have a love/hate relationship with Winston Churchill and have been disappointed in past heralded vintges like 1996, 2002, and 2008 especially as all three were years where Winston Churchill should have done well, but disappointed in my book. 2012, though, changes things. This wine is delicious and, as you said, will only get better. Compared to the 2012 DP, I found this to be a slight bit more put together, but similar in how giving it is, yet still has so much potential to grow. The hallmark of 2012 is that many wines will always drink well, yet continue to develop and improve - this wine exemplifies that.
*Edited for misspelling ‘where’ in the second sentence/line of this post
Brad- curious to ask if I may your reservations about the 1996, especially because I have fond memories of it at release and very recently bought a 6 pack at auction in the hopes the wine is currently singing at peak as are the Dom Perignon and Dom Perignon Rose. I have not tried the wine in over 10 years.
FWIW, I do more generally share your love/hate experience with CWC. The 2004 came out quite nicely, but I was not too fond of 2008 and without digging deep into my tasting books I can at least say 2002 was not a standout (though should have been.)
‘96, ‘02, & ‘08 spans 2, different Chef de Caves, and winemaking facilities were renovated/upgraded during this period. Interesting that your disappointment is consistent across these changes. From the Dominique Petit era, are there vintages you deem a success other than, seemingly, 2012?
So, are we to assume that your love/hate relationship has been hate until the 2012 vintage? I had the 1999 recently and thought that it was wonderful. It’s beginning to seem to me that you are making a career with outlier opinions.
If memory serves, ‘99 is the first vintage managed in entirety under Dominique Petit. Again, if memory serves, Petit bottled ‘98, but did not vinify vin clairs. The ‘96 was the last vintage released under James Coffinett.
I found the 1996 to be lacking fruit on release and a bit hollow on the mid-palate. It tasted like acidic Sprite liqueur and over time, the fruit and freshness that it had on release has faded even more while the acidity is still loud and proud. My opinion is that it has fallen victim to the under ripe phenolics of 1996 Pinot Noir that has led to a lot of the wines from the year early maturing.
Interesting listing to me, as my favorite CWC vintages of the last two decades are 1995, 2000 and 2004. I had two bottles of 1996 many years ago, and they were big disappointments. I have a few bottles of the 2006, and will try to open one soon.
2006 was a stunner when I opened it 2 years ago and I felt like it would just keep on keeping on. If it drinks like mine did, you won’t be disappointed!
After a fairly extensive search, of professional critiques, (as recent as 2019) Cellartracker, and here, I can find no opinion that is even remotely similar to the one stated here regarding the 2002. If anyone has had it and agrees with Brad’s assessment, please say so here.
I had an epiphany with the 1996 Sir Winston Churchill on X-mas eve in 2010. However, later bottles all disappointed. I bought a pair of the 2002 as well, and both while enjoyable underperformed. In my mind, Brad is spot on in his assessment. Hearing him say this is making me think I need to buy a bottle or two of the 2012. I had written the Champagne off as highly variant and at $300/bottle then I’m no longer a buyer. In my note below, I’d say that this wine is “rated” in the 88-90 realm for me. Did I enjoy the wine, yes…but that’s a tough pill to swallow at $225 a bottle, even tougher at $300.
2002 Pol Roger Champagne Cuvée Sir Winston Churchill- France, Champagne (6/16/2018)
A big and richly styled Champagne…golden yellow in the glass with notes of brioche, Bartlett pear, yellow apple, and brow butter sauce. The palate is medium-full bodied, medium-high acidity, with notes of Macintosh apple, cherry, and kiwi. There’s a depth to this that is lovely…but it is sadly not the caliber of wine I was hoping it would be. Excellent!!!
We drank 1999 last night, and the wine is delicious. The wine began to slightly fade for the last 1/2-1/3 of the bottle, but was a fantastic bottle of Champagne. 1999 was the 150th anniversary at Pol Roger and less than a dozen 3Ls of 1999 were released in the USA. A friend has drunk the wine from 3L and said 1999 from 3L is exceptional.
We opened 2000 on Thanksgiving, which was more evolved than the 1999 and arguably had some (prematurely?)oxidative character. It was still pleasurable to drink, but not as energetic as the 1999. We will drink 2000 again sooner than later and will be less of a rush to drink 1999 again, although 1999 is completely ready to go.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
