I didn’t get it. You can buy Dom on release at about 11 years of age for a fair price–the 96 was “given” away a few years ago, about $84. And you can age it and drink it over decades. Or you can wait a few years, get the late-released Oenoteque with a fancy black label for about $350, wait even longer and get it in a silver label twenty-plus years later for even more money.
So what’s the deal? Why buy that expensive late release wine at 3 to 4 times the original price?
Aged on its lees for several more years, the 96 Oenoteque absolutely blows away the original release “first plenitude”, as Moet calls it. It’s got great mousse, and the bouquet and palate that follow are stunning. The richness and depth of the ripe clean fruit have intertwined with a musky, mushroomy quality that floats along with the flavors and adds both complexity and interest. It’s a much more interesting wine, layered with pretty citrus zest notes. Great champagne. Now I get it.
from what i’ve tasted – and Ray will hopefully see this and i think he agrees – i think you need to divorce what you might think about a particular vintage from the oenotheque bottlings. Even within oenotheque bottlings there is a lot of variation (see the 2 very different 1995 bottlings and how they greatly differ from the 1995 regular).
tough question, as 96 Salon is my all-time favorite champagne. If you like or love the regular 96 DP release, then, yes, you’ve got to try the Oeno at least once.
alan
I prefer the Oenotheque’s, but that’s b/c I love the more Burgundian flavors of an RD style of Champagne. In theory, in may be the same juice, but the late disgorgement can really rattle the flavor profile and make it more approachable. Both of my 96 Oeno experiences were side by side with the regular cuvee. Today, the Oeno is rocking the regular. In 20 years? Could be a whole different story.
The 95 original is quite different than the 2005 Oeno disgorgement and the 2006 Oeno disgorgement. For me, the 06 disgorgement pancakes the 05. Much fuller rounder flavor. No way to know, but I think there was a lot more 06 disgorgement than 05 released. It appears something significant was tweaked between those batches. The original 95 has improved over the years and while I greatly prefer the 06 Oeno, I’d rather have an original 95 release over an 05 disgorgement. 06 disgorged 95 Oeno is flat our tremendous and a tremendous value as well.
As to 96 Oeno, I greatly prefer the original release. The Oeno is much leaner, does not have a depth of fruit and it’s tight but not intense in the way of say 96 Salon (not that one should be comparing DP to Salon!). The dosage is clearly lower on the Oeno. 96 Oeno is very nice but to me, I’d greatly prefer to drink 95 Oeno or 96 regular DP.
People will prefer different wines obviously, but the different disgorgements can be vastly different based on lees time and the dosage levels can vary significantly. It is fantastic Dom releases the information and love the Oenotheque program. I drink more Dom than any wine, but you are best off evaluating each bottling on its own.
I can’t believe how few have posted on this wine. It’s absolutely fabulous and I find it quite intense and nearly profound. It’s funny how the best Bordeaux and Burgs cost $1000 or more, yet the best Champagnes are available for a fraction of that tariff.
It is interesting that I was at Moet this year and did the dom perignon tour. The lady giving me the tour said that once the bottles are corked up there is absolutley no improvement in the wine. Only the oneo range will show extra development (due to the wine continuing to have the yeast inside the bottle). I did ask her why people would pay more money for wine that was older at auctions?? It would seem crazy as the best according to her would be to drink it straight away when released as that would be the perfect condition of the wine. She seemed to think people who spent a lot of money on these old bottles were ill informed… This was most embarassing as I had 4 other people with me and my wife then pointed out to the group that I had a load of champagne in the cellar that was according to the tour guide turning to sherry. What an idiot!!!. After being laughed at for a good 5 minuites we continued the tour…
I’m not a frequent DP drinker, but it sounds like your tour guide doesn’t know her ass from her elbow. Have you ever heard any serious drinker/reviewer of Champagne say vintage bottles from good producers do not change over time?
I think it might be a marketing thing also in the sense that it adds weight to the oneo range being far more superior to aged regular bottles, hence the mark up.
Interestingly enough on the same trip I also got into the same conversation with a local frenchman who was the grooms (i was at a wedding) father. An avid lover of wine and champagne. He had the same conviction that I was wasting my money and that I was just turning my champagne to sherry.
Most public/regular tours at houses tend to espouse that you should drink Champagne on purchase as it doesn’t improve - in fact, they often say NV Champagne will get bad after a year or so, but they will say you can keep vintage Champagne for 5 or sometimes 10 years before it turns to “sherry”. It is all part of marketing as for some reason they believe higher sales come when you drink on purchase. I don’t quite understand this thought process and it is starting to change, but many bigger tours still pump this false info (along with lots of other falsifications that are created to promote their own Champagne).
In the French market, historically, young Champagne has been preferred and not many folks like it with age. France also isn’t a big market for the prestige cuvees. Younger generations have changed this a little, but it doesn’t surprise me that a Frenchman would take this route. Stereotypically, even for the French that like Champagne with some age, it tends to be more what I would call medium term aging at best.
As for the 1996 and 1995 DP and DP Oeno:
I feel the 95 vintage is underrated in general especially the DP. I love the 95 DP and all three Oeno disgorgements (2005, 2006, 2007). They are all a bit different at this point in time with the 05 version lagging the others a little, but I think they will eventually all meet back up in one place (and over the past couple years.
Like Todd, I prefer the original 96 to the current 96 Oeno on the market. I think the Oeno was released a bit too early for my liking and bowed to marketing demand rather than when the wine was really ready. Don’t get me wrong, it is a good wine, but I would rather spend my money on well stored original 96s or 95 Oenos or originals.
In this case, a fraction of $1000 is still $350, and that might explain, at least in part, why you haven’t seen more notes on this wine. There are always the price insensitive, but maybe they haven’t tried the wine yet.
true, but most grand cru burgs and first growth Bordeaux sell out in a flash, these equal Champagnes are in the marketplace for years, and there are so few notes about them. $350 is a lot of money, but the price of admission for a great show is so much less than in Bordeaux, Burgundy and even cult California cabs.
alan
Brad, let’s test your marketing acumen. Which of the following do you think is going to lead to higher sales:
just go to any wine shop, supermarket (in France at least), restaurant or bar, order a bottle and it will be ready to drink immediately. Furthermore if you keep it for too long it will go to waste so be sure to drink it as early, as often and as quickly as possible.
go to a wine shop or retailer where you can be sure of the provenance, as Champagne is particularly subject to light and changes in temperature. Store the bottle for at least 5 years in a dark, cold, damp cellar before you can start enjoying it. Failing to store the bottle properly means it will be undrinkable when you open it.
Furthermore, since Champagne has been extremely well marketed to be associated with parties, celebrations and immediate gratification, it’s no surprise that people prefer to drink it on the spot, since I know of only very few people who manage to plan spontaneous celebrations 5 years in advance
That isn’t what I am saying. There is nothing wrong with popping a bottle on purchase, I do it all the time, but marketing this and only this makes no sense to me. Here is why:
The majority of consumers are going to buy and drink regardless of any marketing.
Parties and such are always going to be buy and drink affairs (in 99.99% of the cases).
If you happen to like a Champagne at a certain age say 5 years after release, you are going to buy it continuously and drink it at 5 years. Whether you drink on purchase or cellar, you still buy the same amount of wine.
In many cases, you will actually buy more at the start of your Champagne “cellaring days” as you will probably buy to drink on purchase and try the Champagne at different intervals plus also purchase bottles for longer term cellaring. In the process of discovering what you like, you actually buy more not less.
Based on my experiences and from what I know of others, when you cellar Champagne, you still drink fresh bottles too and your overall purchase volume of Champagne is often higher than if you only purchased for immediate consumption.
My point was that I think many of the Champenois are not looking at the bigger picture and short selling themselves with the old school mentality of secrecy and drink on purchase only promotion. By being a bit more open minded and looking at all angles, they really could capture even more sales. I probably shouldn’t speak so broadly as a number are doing this - heck, look at Roederer’s Brut Collection for Restaurants in New York - it is aged an extra year after disgorgement vs. the Brut Premier specifically to make it more attractive to customers. This type of thing isn’t uncommon amongst the big guys and Roederer has done it in Europe without changing the label. Seems to me this could be something worth mentioning and maybe paying a little more attention to from a marketing perspective.
there’s certainly a difference between marketing early drinkability and making up or spreading false information that the wines go bad when cellared.
alan
brad - the vast majority of people who buy champagne do not have the option or even inclination to cellar it. I think Guillaume is making the point that the producers don’t want to make the casual buyer think that they “have” to cellar it to drink it at it’s best.
![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}