Some quick impressions from a fun lineup from Friday:
1996 Bollinger GA
Initially seemed a little advanced, sporting some sherry notes. Wasn’t as acidity-driven as a bottle I drank a couple years back, showing more density to the fruit.
1996 Pol Roger Brut
Just a beautiful, elegant wine. I always get shrooms in Pol Roger wines (excl the SWC) and they’re here in spades. Weightless, creamy and depth out the wazoo.
1997 Mugneret-Gibourg Echezeaux
Very refined and precise flavors, though I don’t think this will improve with time.
2000 Hubert Lignier MSD 1er VV
Signature Lignier funk on the nose, if every burgundy smelled like this I’d be a happy camper. Another knockout from Lignier, this seems to be in a perfect spot.
2000 Vogue Chambolle Musigny
The youngest tasting of the 3 burgs and brimming with juicy acidity and snappy red fruits. Wish I owned some of this.
The 96 Bolly GA was showing early maturity pretty much right from release. It isn’t as bad as some other Pinot driven 96s and I still find it enjoyable now, but it isn’t a classic GA IMO. I wouldn’t hold much past 2015 unless you want to experiment. The key with this wine was/is knowing when to drink it for your palate. Personally, I don’t care that it isn’t a long ager as it was tasty on release and is still very, very good to me today, but it isn’t anything more than an early-medium term wine on the aging potential.
Due to the negative connotations associated with it, I don’t know that I would use the pre-mox term with Champagne as it is pretty clear what the issue is with some of the 96s and even then I think it comes down more to knowing when to drink them. I have no issues drinking the 96 GA today; it is way more advanced than common knowledge would have you guess and I think it is at its peak, but it isn’t declining yet IMO. I don’t think well stored bottles will start on their downward slope for a little while longer. There are numerous worse examples of mess ups in 96 Champagne than Bollinger.
Peter - I’ll also note that 2 bottles isn’t a huge sample size especially with Champagne purchased in the US. The damaged bottle rate is quite high and it can sometimes take a few years to really show through. Mix that with an early maturing wine and you have a bad combination.
I always thought that this was just headed into a tunnel and the potential was there for it to come out but it seems that isn’t the situation…
I’ll have another one soon to confirm or deny with my bottles. Very disappointing if this is the case… The very first bottle I had of this on release was right up there with the best young champagnes I’ve ever had.
I have had one bottle and it was phenomenal. Just a terrific wine. Chalk it up to bottle variation, no palate, or temporary insanity, but I was in heaven drinking it.
No formal notes from this night, but that Lignier was spectacular that night. I loved the Vogue too, but definitely not quite as ready as the others. The 97 ech, although very enjoyable, was a little past it’s prime for my tastes (maybe the wine, maybe just that bottle).
Ps - there was more Vogue where that one came from!
I am no longer a buyer of Bollinger GA, RD or VVF new releases except for a few bottles for very short term consumption. I have sold the vast majority of my Bollingers post 1970’s. I do not like the way they age. The bottles of '96 GA I have consumed - not a huge sample but 14-18 bottles - have gone from fresh on release, to aging rapidly, to holding on by its fingernails in the six or so years since release. I can’t speak to younger vintages since I haven’t drunk but a couple of bottles, but I don’t have confidence in their ability to age until I see otherwise.
All of the above is of course just my opinion.
However, what would be hard for anyone to argue with is how well and gracefully Bollingers from the 60’s and 70’s, both original and RD (less so RD ) have aged. Bottles from older sturdy vintages that have seen proper storage also are still drinking great.
Something would seem to have turned at some point in the production of Bollinger. The 61/66/73 are tremendous delicious wines. In the case of the 61/66 quality bottles hold tremendous life and acidity. 73 is fat and flavorful but not oxidative though it is aging. I just don’t understand what they are doing since then.
I think the wines age very very quickly and don’t reach the highs of these older bottles: not even close. I also do not understand their RD program and think in the last couple decades the quality is quite weak. There is a bit of a stylistic issue here too as it seems to be an oxidative style as well, or perhaps just ages quickly, or both. The wines get blocky and lack vigor for their age.
If you get the chance to taste quality older bottles and compare to the last 20 years you find tremendous difference.
The VVF series does not age well. It also slides and cracks up well before the highest levels of quality are reached. This is not what I’m looking for. I recall several great bottles of young 96 VVF…but it was still a young Champagne and can only be so great. It has aged rapidly. All Pinot Noir plus the Bollinger style is a tricky combination. I think as a category VVF is the most overpriced (initial and secondary market) Champagne.
My stance on the Bollinger RDs is that they tend to taste best within a few years of release/disgorgement. I know others disagree and I’m not saying that they go bad, but they do start a decline rather quickly IMO. In almost all cases I prefer a well stored Grande Annee to an RD, but both can present great drinks and they are very different wines.
Part of the problem with the Grande Annee in the past has been the fact the disgorgement window on a bottle of a particular vintage could be 4 years - this means that you could get very different wines from multiple bottles of the same Grande Annee.
As far as the questions on the 90 and 96 RDs, my opinions are that the 90 RD was a really, really good wine within 2 years of disgorgement especially the disgorgements in the 2001-2003 time range. I’ve never found the 96 RD to be worth the price though it is a nice wine. Development wise, I think you want to drink a 96 RD within a few years of disgorgement; it is a different wine from the Grande Annee so different aging curves apply.
I won’t argue that Bollinger made some great wines in the 60s and 70s. I also think they made some really good wines in the 80s and 90s. The 82, 85, 88 GAs are really good (especially the 88) and the 90 and 95 are also very nice. I do think the 96,97,99, and 00 vintages of the GA are more open than normal and drinking well at a young age, but I think the quality is very high. Also, interestingly, I was never a fan of the Bollinger Rose until the 96 vintage and since then, this wine has been firing on all cylinders.
There is a bit of a stylistic issue here too as it seems to be an oxidative style as well, or perhaps just ages quickly, or both. The wines get blocky and lack vigor for their age.
I agree with Todd completely here. For me the RD wines are only good within a few years of release and then they go downhill quickly.
If you hit them just right though they can be right up there. I recall a Magnum of RD1990 about 5 years after release that was really spectacular in every way.
Now to keep my word, for research purposes I opened the Grand Annee 1996 this weekend.
Alongside an RD1995 that got totally blown away so we won’t bother talking any more about that.
There was no sign of ‘premox’, premature aging or the wine breaking up at all. In fact I would say it was the second best bottle of GA96 I’ve had after the very first one when it landed. I’ve had a bottle a year since then and every one was slightly worse than the one before. The last time I had this all the elements were there, but not the harmony. This bottle had it all going on together.
It’s entirely possible though as Brad says that this is at or near it’s peak. I’d like to try again in another 2 or 3 years now. This bottle has certainly corrected the previous downhill slide in a big way.