Tasted at Glengarry in Wellington, hosted by Meredith. Tasted non-blind with cheese and baguette. Three flights of three, with the Krug second in the lineup on the theory it is a NV.
NV G. H. Mumm & Cie Champagne Mumm de Cramant Blanc de Blancs
Pale gold. Fresh nose of lemon, pear and some chalk. Citric sweetness on entry. Frothy, moussey. Relatively racy acidity. Crisp with some minerality. Medium weight, but a fairly straightforward expression in this lineup. 89.
NV Krug Champagne Grande Cuvée Brut
Similar old gold colour to the Mumm. A symphony of aromas. A floral top note (jasmin?). Attractive yeast autolysis character, biscuity and toasty. White fruits: poached pear and peach. Some citrus, but more mandarin than lemon. Nutty character, tending almond. Oxidative aromas (in a positive sense). On palate, rich, generous and toasty, complex and multilayered. Excellent balance. Mid palate depth and richness but with real freshness, tension and tautness. Excellent structure and length. Rich but not cloying, light on its feet. Sings across your palate. Will only grow in stature and interest with age. By head and shoulders, WOTN (and most other tasters agreed). 96.
NV Laurent-Perrier Champagne Grand Siècle
Deeper colour than the first two Champagnes. On the nose, some musk and spice, with honey, hazelnuts and a lactic, cheese-like element (Brie de Meaux?). Aromas of an old Chardonnay (55% grand cru Chardonnay). Fairly sweet on entry. Vibrant fruit, with good concentration and a lovely acid balance. Finishes with nice minerality and chalkiness. An interesting and attractive Champagne. 92.
2000 Pol Roger Champagne Cuvée Sir Winston Churchill Brut
A fresh, citric nose with lifted aromas. Toast and a lactic quality, perhaps creme brûlée. Some chalkiness. An intriguing nose. On palate, a vibrant, taut wine with excellent tension. Very elegant and quite approachable. The racy acids, with a rich, full, creamy body and complexity combine to make this a lovely Champagne. However, there was doubt in the room, that I shared, as to whether this would make really old bones. Still right now, or in the next few years, 94.
2000 Taittinger Champagne Brut Blanc de Blancs Comtes de Champagne
There were traces of sulphur on some of the other Champagnes and I am reasonably tolerant of them at low levels but here, for me, it was quite overpowering and off-putting. If you could dig below the sulphur there was quite an attractive, pungent nose of dried fruit, candied orange, Turkish delight, Asian spice and some smokiness. On palate, again beneath the sulphur, there was some beautiful fruit expressing peach and caramel. The flavours were rich and complex with relatively vibrant fruit. I also worried that the wine was a bit too broad, but decided that it was not. Real intellectual interest but flawed, so 90.
2002 Piper-Heidsieck Champagne Cuvée Rare
Aromas of white flowers, pear, rock melon and ginger. Some yeastiness on the nose with an awkward oxidative note. On the palate reasonable precision and vibrancy, apple flavours, with sufficient mid palate weight. However, for a wine of this stature, lacking sufficient complexity and a bit of a disappointment. The fruit seemed a little tired. 89.
2004 Moët & Chandon Champagne Cuvée Dom Perignon Jeff Koons Label
A bit of an awkward nose due to some sulphur and the oxidative nature. Detected aromas of lemon peel, grapefruit, almonds, pear and dried flowers. Better on palate, a well balanced Champagne with good intensity, complexity and nuance. Flavours of yellow fruits and pastry. Relatively vibrant, well balanced acids. 91.
2004 Bollinger Champagne La Grande Année
The nose here is all exotic, tropical fruit, particularly pineapple. Also an obvious lactic element reminiscent of clotted cream or thickly buttered toast. The palate is very rich, for me a bit overdone, tending brioche or creme brûlée, a little cloying. The oxidative style here seemed a little old fashioned and one dimensional, lacking sufficient focus or precision. 90.
This was a real disappointment after the remarkable 1996 Grande Année we enjoyed a week ago.
Thinking back to the 2004 and 2002 Rose Grande Année we had a couple of weeks ago (see Thierry’s notes below), I wondered if, for me, the issue is one of the 2004 vintage not suiting the house style. The 2002 Rose Grande Année was my WOTN at the Rose Champagnes tasting compared with the broader, slightly confected, more oxidative, but still good 2004. However, I know that both 2004s are highly rated by some critics, so if you like this richer style …
Back to the tasting, the final Champagne was a highlight …
2005 Louis Roederer Champagne Cristal Brut
Pale gold. Delicate perfume on the nose, rosebuds, and some citrus. Also stone fruit: apricot and peaches, some pear and honey. Nice purity with some minerality. A sweet entry leads to lovely texture, with nice precision of flavour. Acids are racy and well balanced. The Cristal displays lovely, ripe fruit, flavours of peach, apricot and pear. It is well concentrated and complex, with multilayered flavour and pleasing minerality. There are oxidative elements here but they are tightly constrained. It may not have sufficient acids for long term cellaring but, who cares? This is gorgeous now, 94.
Thanks to Meredith and Glengarry for organising.
For notes of the other two recent Glengarry Champagne tastings see: