TNR: 2012 Cédric Bouchard Inflorescence Roses de Jeanne Côte de Val Vilaine

My normal go-to (Brad, where are you?) has no note on the wine; has anyone tried it? Seems like a good price at Rare Wine

Ask and you shall receive. I don’t think Brad will mind me posting this. I know he likes this wine because it was part of a trade deal when I needed an 89 Krug(new nephew’s birth year) to celebrate my niece’s wedding in May.
I have bought a case of Inflorescence every year since the 2007 “vintage” and all have been great.

NV Cédric Bouchard Roses de Jeanne Côte de Val Vilaine - pure 2012
Potential 85-87 86-88
This is the first vintage of the Val Vilaine under the Cédric Bouchard label (he now has complete control of the vines and wines, in addition to full ownership of the vineyards). This is a dazzling release from the spectacular, though low yielding (in the Côte de Bars) 2012 vintage. Like many 2012s, the nose is generous with its aromatics - in this case of the red apple and nutmeg variety. A youthful palate is controlled by apple flavors that take on a tart, biting, and bright character for an almost electric edge. A touch of biscuit dough adds body and a slight, creamy edge. Already very good, if given a little time this should come even more into focus. A wonderful release and very good value for a Cedric Bouchard wine.
(100% Pinot Noir; Pure 2012 vintage; 1.419 ha Val Vilaine vineyard in Polisy; Stainless steel; Malolactic fermentation; Disgorged early 2014; $50-70 US)

Wait . . . I subscribe, although I access it through CT, and it didn’t come back with a review. Where did you see this?

And thanks by the way

I get Brad’s email newsletter. It’s in issue 19 of the Champagne Warrior.

You are welcome.

Hmmmm. I think this may be a CT issue.

Issue 19 is the April 2015 issue. The email was April 14. I think it comes out quarterly.

Had a bottle of this a few months ago. I remember thinking it was good, but not great. Red apple is certaintly the best descriptor. I never have been a huge Blanc de Noir fan though. Much prefer BdB.

Still, worth a taste if the price is right. I think i paid about $75 for it which I think was a little steep.

It is there :

We have an ongoing issue with these NV but single vintage wines like CB’s. (And compounded due to CB now releasing proper vintaged wines.) The releases are all technically NV and our third party content is not always consistent on handling this. Brad’s previous reviews were attached to a vintage, but this was not. (I also need to tinker with the nomenclature since these are no longer Inflorensence.)


Had the Cédric Bouchard 2009 Roses de Jeanne Rosé de Saignée Creux d’Enfer last friday - good but not great !

Thanks Andrew. The wine is a selectable item, but it doesn’t show a Brad review

Are your CT account and CW accounts linked so other reviews show up? If so, click on tab “Pro Reviews.”

eta - I just checked - your CW is enabled and the review shows up. What happens when you look at the Pro Reviews section?


It shows zero reviews.

Doesn’t show a CW review for me either and I’m a subscriber as well. I wonder how many other champagne warrior notes I’m missing…

The NV, right? The review is not attached to the 2012. But the review of the NV (2012) from CW #19 4/15 is attached to the NV.

How about here : ?

Paid CT users can see CW scores but NOT CW reviews.

CW users on CT CAN see all CW content, but we just match up based on email addresses.

If you are a CW subscriber and can’t see CW content on CT, then you need to get Brad Baker to email me.

Neal, the CW content IS turned on for you on CT. Please send us links and screenshots.

Maybe that is the problem. It is listed as a 2012 elsewhere, there is a 2012 entry for this wine, and that is what I searched

Yep. That is what I was explaining (badly).

CW (and Vinous) enter the reviews as NV with the text noting that it is pure 2012. We follow their lead and map the reviews to the NV.

These wines are all labelled NV (and CB does have vintaged wines now.) Users do enter them as vintaged wines and we let the entries stand since the vintages are none from the LNN codes, but our flexibility here has a downside of some confusion.


IMO, it seems like the reviews for these growers who make Champagne from a single vintage but legally must call it NV due to aging requirements should be under vintage years and not the NV. It is entirely pointless to go to the entry for NV Val Vilaine (or Prevost, or Vouette et Sorbee, etc.) and read a professional review for a vintage that may not be the one you’re buying (or have already bought). Vintage variation in Champagne is quite high, and therefore the reviews are misleading. Savvy consumers should be logging these wines under the vintages, and I think CT should be siding with the savvy, not the ignorant.

I agree, for what it’s worth