Cuvée du Clos Notre Dame 2004 Vve Fourny et Fils

This was really good, though production is miniscule. So small, in fact, that I don't think the UK agent (Thorman Hunt) actually stocks this particular cuvée. It comes from a tiny monopole that is only 0.29 hectares. I think that's about the size of my garden. It's 100% Chardonnay from the 1er Cru village of Vertus.

Slow, purposeful mousse.

Chantilly cream and lemon shortbread on the nose. Very good biscuit/fruit balance. Closed but intense. As it gets air, there's a fresh cep earthiness that comes through.

Beautiful balance to the mousse on the palate. Tight, ungiving and youthful. Needs at least 5 years. Gloriously lemon-sherbet dips. Sees a bunch of oak, but it serves only for texture. Harmony but promise as well. Nerve-y and exciting.

****(*)

Tasted 24 November 2013 somewhere in Fulham

Duval Leroy Blanc de Chardonnay 1998 (served blind)

I served this blind on Champagne Sunday a few weeks ago. It showed better than I expected.

Slow bubbles - colour showing perfectly for the age - a hint of gold and bronze.

Nose is buttered mushrooms, a bit of oyster shell, and a touch of licorice. It gets more floral with air

Mature and toasty on the palate to start with, with a refreshing mousse. The texture of the wine beneath the mousse manages to be both citrus waxy and a touch sinewy. Not terribly complex, but very pleasurable. However, the finish seems part of a different wine, lifting with youthful, floral, exuberant spritz.

*** 1/2

Tasted somewhere in Fulham, 1 December 2013 

sweet bubbles

Champagne, more than any other wine region or wine, represents a great deal more than the sum of its parts. It’s a cold-climate, usually blended, white (I don’t really want to talk about rosé right now) wine that undergoes a secondary fermentation in the bottle. And yet it is the strongest generic wine brand in the world, and there isn’t really a second place. Not only that, but it’s been that way for well over a century. People love bubbles. People love bubbles that show off how discerning in taste they are and buy bubbles with the right labels. They’ve done so for a long time. And so much of the success comes down to the bubbles. Still wines from the region tend towards the relentlessly astringent.

But the success isn’t just about bubbles. Plenty of wines have bubbles. Nowadays, people pointing at Champagne’s underlying brilliance talk about the chalky soil and all the other dreaded “t” word stuff. I’m not really interested in that today. The main reason for Champagne’s continued success the world over isn’t its bubbles or its chalk: it’s the remarkable adaptability of the Champagnois.

Champagne’s stratospheric rise to acclaim came on the shoulders of a much different wine to what we drink today. Yes, there were bubbles, but there was also sugar. Lots and lots of sugar. Champagne was sweet, or at the very least, off-dry. The levels of sugar in the dosage were far higher than today, and were often tailored for specific markets, depending on the sweet teeth of the intended destination. One of the reasons they could do this was the bracing natural acidity of the wines. Champagne can take a lot of sugar. 

As tastes changed, so too did the producers. Dosages were reduced. Doux, Sec, Demi-Sec and Rich all gave way slowly to Brut and Extra Brut. There’s no right or wrong to this. Champagne simply changed to something slightly different. Perhaps it’s because, historically speaking, Champagne wasn’t all that wine-y a region. It became a wine region to meet the demand of those buying bubbles. Before that, it was famous for textiles and chalk mines. And as a wine region, it supply always seemed to be chasing demand. It’s a luxury every wine region dreams of. It also doesn’t allow for much dogma. 

Nowadays, the ability of these producers to change is being tested in different way. Climate change has accelerated in the last decade and a half, and the cool weather that brought high-acid wines is becoming a thing of the past. The big houses are building new presses closer to the vines - speed to press and reductive vinification is seen as essential to maintain freshness and combat lowered acidity brought by warmer weather. NVs these days are more green apples and lemons than orange peel and marmalade. 

Of course, these are sweeping statements. The smaller houses in Champagne are some of the most exciting independent wineries in the world right now. More attention has turned to viticulture than ever, and the result is wines that are redefining brilliance in the region. I’m not talking about gold-clad melchiors or single-Clos Krugs (though the latter are nice too), I’m talking about wines no one’s ever heard of, that I don’t even remember the name of. Tiny little Champagne houses making incredible wines… hipster Champagnes if such a thing could exist… 

I’m sorry - I got sidetracked. I was supposed to be talking about the style of sweet Champagne being lost to history, a footnote for nerds to look at in their WSET texts. I remember when I did my advanced, they were unable to name a single Doux cuvée still in production. I’m a nerd. I love footnotes. I also love residual sugar from 0g/l all the way up to PX at 400g/l and Essencia at 650g/l. So when Pete, my resident Champagne lunatic, showed me some of his latest additions to his hilariously overstocked cellar, I said “let’s buy a shitload of pâté and drink some sweet Champagne”. He thought this was a great idea. 

I don’t think sweet Champagne is on the verge of making a tremendous comeback. The only sweet wines that seem to succeed beyond the adoration of wine nerds are the ones that lie about their sweetness. Wines for consumers that think they like dry wines but are really drinking cunningly concealed sugar-bombs. It’s a shame, but there you go. 

Doyard Le Libertine Champagne Doux

This is really expensive. It was €120 at the cellar door. They wouldn’t tell us anything about it, other than it was bottled in 2008 and dosaged to 135g/l of residual sugar. I’d never had a Doux Champagne before. My closest comparison, in my mind, was sparkling Icewine from Canada. Boy was I wrong.

Rich gold with tiny bubbles that move at their own pace.

Intense, slightly funky nose of candied peaches, baked honey. Earthy at times, and with a hint of beeswax. Very heady once it comes out, but it needs coaxing.  

Incredible richness, both ripe and candied fruits. Incredible with duck liver pâté and orange. It’s like plugging it into a socket with food - brings out so much lift and energy. The fatty pâté and delicious goose rillettes bring out spices - cloves and cinnamon. Earthy and surprisingly grippy. Oats and honeyed peaches and apricots rolled with pastry. It fills every corner of the mouth and demands you move your tongue around as much as possible, tracing every complex nuance of sweetness and savoury. I reckon this could age a century, because once that sweetness grabs the food, there’s a bracing, almost brazen, acidity underneath. It’s utterly bloody delicious. And it’s somewhat like tasting a bit of the past. This is what Champagne used to be like. Bubbles and a sugar rush. Amazing.

*****

Pierre Legras Demi-Sec Grand Cru Blanc de Blancs 

This is not normally sold to the public, but Pete was given the opportunity to purchase it after a half-hour tasting turned into a 3 hour tour/tasting and discussion of all things Champagne. It’s not normally sold because Monsieur Legras likes to drink it himself with his wife, and no one wants to buy Demi-Secanymore. But he likes to drink it, so he keeps back some of his bottles to dosage a bit heavier. This cuvée is a blend of the 1995 and 1996 vintage and is dosaged to 35g/l of residual sugar. 

Beautiful, mature gold with speedy, medium-sized bubbles.

Heady, rich nose - honey and and a touch of earthiness. Then there are some biscuit notes and clean, fresh mushrooms.

Rich and complete on the palate. Honeyed, with a bit of hay, a touch of cep. Gorgeous with the food (selection of pâtés) always seeming to lift. There's a touch of that dirty honey sweetness on the finish. It's a pleasing, structured darkness. Very firm at its core, layered, with the flavours quite happy to play off each other’s nuances. They never quite hit the same points twice. It’s exciting to drink with the food, and see what happens next. Quite brilliant.

*****

Tasted somewhere in Fulham, 1 December 2013

Champagne Savart 'Calliope' 2006

This was a bizarre moment. I was at a grower Champagne tasting with my mate, Pete, the Champagne lunatic. We tried the wines, some of which were lovely and some of which were not-so-much. We were in the gallery where Ronnie Wood from the Rolling Stones hangs his art. It made for surreal surroundings to say the least, as did the presence of those working in the gallery. High fashion, ridiculously glamorous art nerds meet low fashion, low glamour wine nerds. Anyway, at the end of the tasting, our host pulls this bottle out and tells us we've got to try it. It's the first bottle to leave Savart's cellars and he's only made 600 or so bottles. It's 60% Chardonnay 40% Pinot Noir and zero dosage - he doesn't really know what he's going to do with it. After tasting it, I reckon cellar half and drink the other half: it was awesome.

Pale lemon gold with fine, quick bubbles.

Hay and lemon and apple and salted shortbread with just a hint of sweet butter.

Champagne shot through a laser. Incredibly tight, lemons rind spray, touches of salinity bit of quince, remarkable stone finish that lasts a good long while. Lean but powerful stuff. This is seriously fine Champagne - I'd put it up against a gamut of prestige cuvées without hesitating. I don't know if it's going to be available for sale, but if it is, you should buy it.

*****

Tasted in Mayfair, 14 December 2012

 

Buy My Book. Please.

Lilbert - Fils Blanc de Blancs 'Perle'

So one of the things about this particular cuvée is that it's bottled at a different pressure than the average Champagne bottle. It's bottled at 4psi rather than 6psi. I've done no research on what difference this is supposed to make, but anecdotally, I would say it lead to a more silkily textured wine. My friend Pete is banging the drum very loudly for this particular grower at the moment, and with good reason. The wines are stunning.

Light gold and silver. Excited, speedy bubbles.

Incredibly ripe, zingy lemon cookies and chantilly cream. Lemon meringue pie? Touch of biscuit and apple on the edges, plus some flint on the back.

That's absolutely stunning. Ripe lemon wrapped in vanilla and one of the more sensuous mousses I've ever encountered. It's like a sugar lemon crepe, though there are cookies being baked next door. The hardness and zing iness of the citrus is matched by a creaminess of mousse that wouldn't be out of place on a scone at high tea. Mouthfilling, with silky texture and length. With air, richness builds and they get somewhat more biscuity. More depth. Superb.

*****

Tasted 14 October 2012 somewhere in Fulham

Buy My Book. Please.

Lamandier-Bernier Terrestrial de Vertus 2007 1er Cru Blanc de Blancs

A bit of a let-down, this. I've enjoyed their other cuvées.

Silver, slightly wild bubbles.

Fresh pears on the nose, with edges of citrus and orange flower water.

Somewhat of a let-down on the palate. Flabby round the edges. Improves with food, but not by much. Pleasant stuff, but reflects the shortcomings of the vintage.

***

Tasted 14 October 2012 somewhere in Fulham

Georges Laval Les Chênes Cumières Premier Cru Brut Nature Millésime 2005

This started brilliantly, but didn't hold up.

Quite deep gold. Tiny, focused bubbles.

Intense nose of lemons, apples, sand and oyster shell that brings out soft chantilly cream on the finish.

Crunchy green apples. Like biting into a fresh golden delicious, but with a richness and sense of depth and sweetness that's stunning considering there's no dosage. That apple fruit gets earthy and savory as goes, and that mousse grips, that fleshy start tightens up, there's a touch of salinity and biscuity-ness and touch of savoury mushroom. Long on the end. To start. But as it goes on, that voyage on the palate goes awry. The apples become stewed and cidery. The structure disappears. It remains interesting, but not as much. It shortens over the course of a bottle, as though it doesn't like the air. Surprising, really, for it to fall apart so quickly, and massively disappointing. 

**(*?)

Tasted somewhere in Fulham 12/10/2012

 

Buy My Book. Please.

Lilbert-Fils Blanc de Blancs Grand Cru à Cramant NV

I loved the Olympic opening ceremony. It managed to be nostalgic while still connecting to why people love Britain; why Britain is fantastic now. I also loved the Champagne I drank. I hope to drink more. 

Silver and pale gold, with fast, pinprick bubbles.

Pears, apples and walnuts with a hint of butter and shortbread.

The palate begins with a pleasingly sharp tang of lemons and green apples, grabbing with a hard, angular tug. That leads to the mid-palate and that quick, fine mousse dissolves itself across the tongue, bringing out a beautiful fibrous white fruit fleshiness. Its gentle lusciousness then falls away, revealing a hard, stone-like core. Great finish. Superb wine.

***** Tasted somewhere in Fulham, 27/7/2012, whilst watching the Olympic opening ceremony.

Champagne Week Finale: Epic Dom Perignon tasting of Epicness at Naughton, 7 April 2012

Drawing Champagne Week to a close with notes from a special tasting and some thoughts.

This tasting was originally just going to be a side-by-side between the 2003 and the 2002. One thing led to another, though, and we wound up with a full-fledged vertical tasting. It was huge fun, sparked off some good debate and we all got to drink a metric ton of DP.

However, throughout the tasting, and not for the first time, I wondered at its practical application. Comparative wine tasting at any level removes the tasters from the context for which the wine is meant. Richard Geoffroy, when he made Dom Perignon 2003, made it to be enjoyed as a singular wine, to accompany excellent food, not to be tasted with several other of its brethren. As such, how valid are our conclusions? How much further does this widen the gap between 'wine folks' who pass judgement with authority and the average consumer? This is oft-tread ground as wine discussion goes, but recent chat on Twitter and elsewhere has thrown it all into sharp relief. I don't have any answers, but it's something to ask yourself while your tasting.

Dom Perignon 2003

Mature colour, with slow and tiny bubbles.

Fat, rich nose with buttered shortbread and brioche. Roasted strawberry pips.

Big and brash on the palate with almost burnt toast and strawberry jam. The burnt notes give the impression of a shell, or skin that you bite through to gain access to the fruit. It seems to replace acidity in terms of structure, as everything rides on it and it's delivered through that toastiness. Remarkable winemaking. Not my favourite by any means but I'm kind of blown away by it anyway. Infinitely superior to Bollinger 2003.

Dom Perignon 2002

Paler, more lively mousse and brighter.

Flecks of lemon peel, apple and a touch of cream to it. Lemon curd.

Palate is buoyant, bursting, tight knit citrus and incredible grip, mouthfeel, and tightness. Fruit and secondaries are woven perfectly into each other. Great harmony. Slatey and chalky texture. So young, remarkable and brilliant. Lovely nerve and energy.

Dom Perignon 2000

Beginnings of brass on the gold.

Bushels of butter and hay on the nose.

Soft on the palate, sensual mousse but lacking grip. There's a bitterness on the finish that's not pleasant. Perhaps a touch too flabby.

Dom Perignon 1999

Active mousse, nice colour.

Very mute on the nose at first. As it opens it's all pencil lead and limes. Flinty and citrusy.

Disjointed on the palate. Rambunctious mousse that stops abruptly midway through, releasing an almost oily butteriness. Needs perhaps to be wrapped around som fore gras. Instead we have it with pheasant and it really livens up. It grabs the food and lifts with lush, tropical notes.

Dom Perignon 1998

Shed its silver and and bright gold.

Heady nose of balanced hay, chantilly cream and crunchy green and red apples.

Lovely harmony on the palate. Subtle and pleasing combination of all the barnyard - hay and biscuits and brioche, and fruit basket - pear, apples and a touch of quince, all held together with a lovely creaminess. At its peak. Not the best wine, but perhaps the best wine now.

Dom Perignon 1996

Superb brilliance with lively, pinprick, racy bubbles.

Brioche, toffee apples, clotted cream, candied lemon peel and quince on the nose.

Full and youthful. I'm sure this is one of the more youthful wines on the table. Big, mousse, exciting but not aggressive. Younger and livelier than the last time I tasted it, I imagine this is about to close down for its awkward teenage years. Just beginning to show fleshy white fruit and quince. No mushrooms yet. Perhaps a touch of cep. Its class is indisputable.

------------------------------------------------

Put simply, the 2002 and the 1996 were the champions of the tasting; their reputation as fantastic vintages is wholly justified. I can only hope that I am fortunate enough to taste them as they mature over the next three or so decades.

The 2003 is remarkable for existing, but I do not think it ranks highly in the echelons of vintages that I have tried. Time may change that, but for now, it is what it is, an accurate reflection of that hot summer. When I interviewed Richard Geoffroy, he made it clear to me that reflecting the vintage was paramount to his mission as a wine maker. As such, it's a success. But when held against wines like the 2002, the shortcomings of the vintage become apparent.

By the end, we wound up asking more questions than the wines were answering. Wine can't really answer questions, but it provokes the asking in spades. The biggest question was how much more reductive the wine-making style in Champagne has become over the last decade. It's not unique to this region, by any means, but my own anecdotal, tasting evidence suggests that more and more houses are going this route, most likely to counter the noticeably hotter summers. Has anyone else noticed this? Young wines are paler, with more apples, pears and pear drops. Tangy, youthful marmalade in a young Champagne seems to have become a thing of the past. It's fascinating, tasting the changes in the world and our response to it through wine.

Champagne Week: Pol Roger 1990 (from magnum)

Magnums are fun.

Still very youthful colour with steady, small bubbles.

Nose of forest fruits and lemon rind. There's a bright fresh pithiness there as well. Still very youthful and exuberant.

Beautiful velvety texture on the palate. Quite fibrous and quince-like. Light red fruit followed by a citrus grip. The toast and brioche are still in hiding but there is a nice early note of mushroom and earth that shows up on the finish. This is lovely now, but there is a great deal more to come.

***(**)

Tasted at Naughton, 29 December 2011

Champagne Week: Champagne Roses de Jeanne Blanc de Blancs Lieu-Dit 'La Haute Lemblé' 2006 Cedric Bouchard

The middle wine of a three wine tasting, this was the best combination of fun and serious. Not terribly tasty with pizza, though.

Quite pale; silvery, with lazy bubbles.

Bready, floury nose, with hints of candied lemon peel. Quite blossom-y, with a richness that comes with coaxing.

The palate rides the mousse and then erupts as it hits the middle of the tongue. It's rich and doughy, with roasted citrus that melts to leave a flinty anise note along the edges. Generous, but still with good focus. Vibrant - hums a bit.

*****

Tasted somewhere in Fulham, 4/3/2012

Champagne Week: Champagne Larmandier-Bernier Tradition 1er Cru Extra Brut

We opened this as the last wine in a tasting of complex, intense, serious wines and it was glorious relief. 100% Biodynamic.

Very pale. Quick mousse.

Clotted cream, strawberries and floury scones and lemon curd. Bubbly high tea on the nose.

Strawberries and lemon rind, nicely integrated fruit, mousse and texture. Soft, but not flabby. Not as cerebral or complex as some of the bubbles I've tasted recently, but relaxingly so. Gentle and elegant wine that is delicious and more-ish.

****

Tasted somewhere in Fulham, 04/03/2012

Champagne Week: Blind Blanc de Blancs Tasting at Naughton, 18/2/2012

What better thing to do on a cold, February night than to taste a selection of Blanc de Blancs blind? Well, kind of blind - we knew what the cuvées were, we just didn't know what order they were being served in. Which can lead to mistakes, as that little knowledge of what's available can bring preconceptions and affect how you interpret your tasting.

I don't blind taste often enough, though I do find myself designing blind tastings quite often. From my experience, the less you focus on what the wine could be and the more you focus on what you're tasting, the better you'll perform. The three of us tasting all scored 50%, though we didn't get the same 50% right.

Wine A

Quite a straw colour.

Hay and coconut nose - manages to be exotic and restrained at the same time.

Gentle palate. Creamy with green and red apples that develop caramel notes and a touch of marzipan. Textured and gentle with a long finish that leaves a slightly sweet, powdered sugar sensation. Charming, delicious and harmonious.

My guess: Pierre Péters 'Les Chétillons' Cuvée Spéciale Grand Cru 2002

Wine: Pierre Péters 'Les Chétillons' Cuvée Spéciale Grand Cru 2002

Wine B

Again quite pale, silver.

Nose more apple-y and forward.

Palate quite balanced, luscious but with good acidity. Soft. Possibly a touch of dirtiness. Short.

Immediately pleasing, but doesn't hold up with air, sadly, and falls apart after about an hour.

My guess: Taittinger Comtes de Champagne 2000

Wine: Delamotte 1999

Wine C

Darker. Feel this has a bit more maturity than the others.

Lean nose that seems a touch disjointed. Bit dirty.

Loud on the palate with big mousse and a lack of balance. A bit of teenage Champagne rambunctiousness.

My guess: Delamotte 1999

Wine: Taittinger Comtes de Champagne 2000

Wine D

Just the very beginnings of brass on the edges of rich gold.

Clotted cream, apples and a hint of toffee on the nose.

Rich palate that is just starting to caramelise with age. Initially quite simple, though. As it breathes, complexity reveals itself with bready, textured mouthfeel and more expressive fruit. The other wines shut down a bit as the night went on, whereas this just got better and better.

My guess: Pol Roger Chardonnay 1996

Wine: Pol Roger Chardonnay 1996

The most disappointing of the bunch was the Comtes, and it increased my conviction that 2000 is not a great year in Champagne. The Pierre Peters was delicious, though that powdered sugar finish still has me scratching my head. Regardless, they're a grower I recommend seeking out, as the wines are compelling from entry level up to the top. Delamotte's continued inconsistency frustrates me, and the next time some wanker from Corney & Barrow waffles on about how 'it's basically Salon', I shall have to be restrained from punching them in the face.

The Pol's another story all together. On the one hand, it was easily the best wine of the evening. On the other hand, it took about three hours of breathing time for that to become apparent. Now, the folks I taste Champagne with are strange, and we are more than happy to let a bottle breathe as needs be. But I would venture that we're the exception. Champagne tends to be cracked open and drunk, often in haste, which is, forgive the rhyme, a waste. That said, I have a hard time telling someone to open a bottle and let it sit for three hours.

Champagne David Léclapart 'L'Amateur' Blanc de Blancs 1er Cru

A tiny cuvée from a tiny producer - only 8000 bottles per annum.

Fast bubbles - already some deeper gold and green.

Nose is intense; layered. Fino notes- flor-y, sour dough-y that lead to limes. Green apples. Changes with with every sniff.

Remarkably bracing, gripping palate. Like sparkling manzanilla, with an unmistakable salinity. Piercing precision and nerve. Tastes like both the oyster shell and the liquor. Biting right from the beginning to the sharp, lingering finish. Rigid structure and focused mouthfeel. Demands food. Gets sharper, more citrussy as it opens and the temperature rises. Flint-shard mouthfeel that reveals flavour, rather than the other way round. While I keep tripping over the idea of a fizzy Manzanilla, it occurs to me that the sensation is more like base wine - Champagne pre-secondary fermentation. If you've ever tried a base wine, you'll know it's a jarring experience.

I don't really know what to score this. It's extraordinary, but pretty weird. Perhaps with the right food. It is certainly not for everyone. I've never had a champagne like it - the focus and purity is awesome.

***(**) - buyer beware; not for the faint of palate

Tasted somewhere in Fulham, 4/3/2012

Jacques Selosse Lieux Dits Mesnil-Sur-Oger 'Les Carelles' Grand Cru Extra Brut.

Wine tasting is often laden with expectation. Experience does little to assuage this, though it probably should. It's a double-edged sword: experience can enforce pre-conceptions whilst also exposing the taster to more and more peculiarities that don't fit that palate's world-view.

I approached this wine with a degree of expectation. Selosse and his wines are legendary in Champagne circles, both for their quality and their divisiveness. His vinification techniques seem more at home further south, on the Cote d'Or. Devotion to detail in both the vines and the winery is his hallmark.

Information on this cuvée is few and far between. Selosse's Lieux Dits are small parcels of superb vineyards in various Grand Cru villages, parcels he took control of at the beginning of the last decade. Initially released as vintage wines, as reserves have built up he has started using the solera system favoured in Jerez (and that he uses for his 'Substance' cuvée). I couldn't find production numbers, but from what I understand the bottling is infinitesimal and strictly allocated. This particular wine is 100% Chardonnay.

We served this a bit differently. Kept in the fridge for only 15 minutes, the wine was cool, but not chilled, when first poured. We then put it in an ice bucket and it got colder as we topped up. The effect was interesting.

As far as my expectations go, I thought it would be bracing and grippy. Selosse is known to keep dosage to a minimum. So as we were examining the bottle and peeling the foil off, I prepared myself for cerebral, piercing bubbly.

Quite rich and golden colour, medium bubbles with excitement.

Nose is farmyardy in a pleasant way. Mushrooms, strawberries, salt caramel, prickly quince and herbal honey.

Full, broad, rich, toasty palate with bubbles forming the impression of a honeycomb lattice. Roast apricots. Brioche with light butter. Very soft and silky. There's almost a maltiness to it. Strikingly low acidity- luscious, giving and very much a 'now' wine. Foie gras please? My expectations are confounded. Instead of a 'thinking' wine, this is every bit a 'feeling' wine. As it gets colder, it gets racier but far less expressive. There's also a peculiar powdered sugar finish that comes in with the cold. Much of what makes this wine is lost with the chill, and I would say it should be drunk no colder than cellar temperature.

*****

Tasted somewhere in Fulham, 29 February 2012