In general, over the last 2-3 years, I have had some great 2002 Cristals, a few tired bottles, and few that seemed younger than expected. I don’t really think it is disgorgement related unless you get an official “2002 Late Release”. I think the main difference probably is in how the wine was handled prior to original purchase (and afterwards as well). For the original releases, I have preferred the later disgorgements over the earlier ones, but this difference seems to be narrowing over the last five years.
The official 'Late Release 2002 Cristals" come in the modern Cristal dress and are a mini-Vinotheque with much longer lees aging and less shaking during riddling that gives the wine a deeper, darker character since the wine essentially absorbs a lot of the post-autolysis lees that normally come out during disgorgement. The official Late Release is a completely different animal from the original disgorgements/original releases and the late winery releases which were original to slightly late disgorgements (normally disgorged 4-6 years after the vintage). The late winery releases of these original to slightly late disgorgements do seem to show more freshness.
Great information. Although, unless I’m mistaken, going back and looking at @Blake_Brown’s photo, his bottle appears to have been a late release based on the placement of the vintage on the label.
Yes, I saw Blake’s post only after my reply to you. The official Late Release Cristal is a very different wine IMO to the original release so I am not shocked to see a different response to the wine. It has a lower dosage as well which just goes to show that the perception of sweetness is not always linked to dosage.
Two favorites at very sharp prices to end the Spain trip yesterday. The red from Rias Baixas was great, too. There are a few incredible wine lists here.
We have been doing this weekly for 4 years now and all of us have learned the makeup, depths and ranges of most of the wines each of us have in our cellars; so, there is some educated guessing that goes on with who brought what compared to what they like and have brought in the past.
Just to keep things honest, I brought an entry level champagne in lieu of the usual Grande Marque champagne and although good, it got some unexpected comparisons for it being even greater.
NV TAITTINGER BRUT LA FRANCAISE- served blind to the others; following its full on yellow color came aromas of hay, straw, lemon grass and honey suckle that gave way to spicy and sweet citrus fruit plus some yellow apple; it had some bright acidity, was medium bodied and light in weight, and therefore less serious which suggested to me, along with the sweetness factor, it was designed with the idea of appealing to a broader range of palates; this bottle came from a few 6 packs purchased a few years ago and had a gold neck capsule that distinguishes it from the more recent releases that sport a back neck capsule; it is a blend of 40% Chardonnay, 35% Pinot Noir and 25% Pinot Meunier sourced from at least 35 villages; the high proportion of Chardonnay is unique among fine nonvintage Champagnes; also unusual is that it spent close to 4 years on the lees; it was dosed at 9 gpl which the others came close to guessing; one of the others had it as a young Dom Perignon and another had it as vintage Krug.
First bottle of six and not as shrill as some of the notes I have read here. Lemon a bit of baked apple, mineral and fine acidity. I will give my remaining bottles another year or so. Nice bottle with some Achiote Adobo fish.
Opened by Ma friend. I last had this in 2019. A blend of 57% Pinot Noir and 43% Chardonnay. Disgorged 6/2011. 10g/l dosage. Solid yellow color the bead faded in the glass to tiny bubbles. A deep and introspective Champagne. Creamy white fruit with chalk and brioche notes. Excellent wine which was slightly better than the 2002 or 2009 but not hitting the heights that the 2005 did for me. Better now than my 2019 tasting but I would not hold this much longer. 95 points
Interesting. From my cellar, 2004 Cristal is at the beginning of maturity, not approaching the end. I like aged Champagne in general and aged Cristal in particular.
I found 2004 Cristal (like most 2004s that aren’t blanc de blanc) to be too acidic and shrill to me without enough fruit. It was marginally better when I had it this march relative to when I’d last had it in 2019, but I prefer the 2005 (which we just had from magnum at La Paulee), but prefer the 2002 and 2009 much more than then 2004-2005. The only 2004s I’ve really liked have been CDC, CdM and Salon. Idk if @Sarah_Kirschbaum has had the Fleur de Passion and can comment on that one.
That’s been my experience as well. In fact, the few that I have had were just starting to show some maturation and still needing time, like 2-3 years. if there were many different disgorgements like I’m discovering about the 2002, it could be ll over the place.
