I imagine this will be awesome one of these days but for now I find it rather closed and not showing much personality; pretty much any bone-dry rosé with bubbles will resemble this. I admit I've never had a rosé Champagne I prefer to its white counterpart so maybe that's why I'm having trouble getting a read on this - but I did find the Krug rosé very impressive today, so I think the issue here is just where this wine is right now.
Superb stuff, but you already knew that. It's interesting how this Œothèque version of the '96 takes the classic Dom profile and puts it in an even more bright, bracing, and precise package -- Champagne cut like diamonds -- and consequently, I think, probably a few years behind in the maturity curve than the regular '96 has been in terms of its freshness, even as it's picked up the typical flint-and-gunmetal mineral element that these usually need a few years of bottle age to develop. The aromatics on this are just soaring, a no-doubter as soon as you pass your nose in the vicinity of the glass that this is going to be wide-open and expressive, and it is.
Interesting to segue to this from the Doms as it really showcased the difference in the house style. You always hear the word "oxidative" bandied about to describe the Krug technique, which never really made sense to me because I've never gotten an oxidized note in any of them. But Seth explained it's really just about the initial wood fermentation which gives it that controlled micro-oxidation exposure that any wine in barrel is going to get which has the effect (his analogy) of a person being born 35 years old and staying that way for 35 years - in other words, more evolved on release, and with a very different developmental curve than the Doms. Both the evolution and the power are really evident here, as this has a rich aroma with cherries and something caramelly, and a much deeper fruit complexion than the Doms (even the rosé!): I found it remarkable how vivid the red-fruit character was here, and I forget what the blend was exactly, but I was surprised it wasn't even heavier on the red grapes based on how it tasted.
I liked this much better than the Dom P rosé. The pinot noir element is much more evolved here, as it's almost started to take on a more coppery, autumnal cast as well as some of the kind of secondary nuances that are more reminiscent of red wine than pink Champagne. It presents that stuff in a precise, bracing framework though, so you get the pinot noir depth and Champagne precision in one. This is what rosé Champagne should be!
This was the oldest wine here and unsurprisingly the most developed, with a deep-toned, brassy complexion and a fairly thick, bulbous palate presence. Some of that seems to have come at the expense of definition and I didn't get as much personality out of this as some of the younger wines (I actually liked the 2000 more). Interestingly, Seth mentioned that the Krug Collection program is different from the Dom Oenoteque program in that these are held by the producer already bottled and not disgorged for release, which surely contributes to the aged character.
I was simultaneously curious to try this wine and expecting to hate it, but it is actually impressive in its particular way. Nobody's going to call this an Audrey Hepburn wine but it is not a Barossa shiraz-style glop-monster, either. The fruit is rich, thick, and ripe, but not sweet or candied nor even especially slick and glossy, and it does show the poise you want to get out of such exclusive plant material (85-year-old ungrafted vines). You can even call it debonair (if it's not Audrey, a Cary Grant-style leading man isn't out of the question). Unfortunately it does have an unmistakable oak tattoo which the wine would have been better without, as it adds totally unnecessary flavors in the coffee / mocha / powdered milk chocolate family that really are as extraneous and discordant as if you had taken a perfectly pure red wine and stirred in some Nestlé Qwik powder. Even so, this is not the most aggressively oaked wine I've ever had - I can't say it's so dominant that it can't dissipate with enough time. It will probably, however, need a lot of it, as there is just an incredible amount of tannin here. At first the forward fruit masks it but as you swish it around your mouth these giant daisy-cutter mushroom clouds of tannins detonate everywhere.
2004 Moët & Chandon Champagne Grand Vintage 80 Points
France, Champagne
I actually didn't care for this one; it felt kind of tired and bland with a sweaty component to the aroma that turned me off.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
2002 Dom Pérignon Champagne Rosé
France, Champagne
I imagine this will be awesome one of these days but for now I find it rather closed and not showing much personality; pretty much any bone-dry rosé with bubbles will resemble this. I admit I've never had a rosé Champagne I prefer to its white counterpart so maybe that's why I'm having trouble getting a read on this - but I did find the Krug rosé very impressive today, so I think the issue here is just where this wine is right now.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
1996 Dom Pérignon Champagne Oenothèque 96 Points
France, Champagne
Superb stuff, but you already knew that. It's interesting how this Œothèque version of the '96 takes the classic Dom profile and puts it in an even more bright, bracing, and precise package -- Champagne cut like diamonds -- and consequently, I think, probably a few years behind in the maturity curve than the regular '96 has been in terms of its freshness, even as it's picked up the typical flint-and-gunmetal mineral element that these usually need a few years of bottle age to develop. The aromatics on this are just soaring, a no-doubter as soon as you pass your nose in the vicinity of the glass that this is going to be wide-open and expressive, and it is.
Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue
2000 Krug Champagne Vintage Brut 95 Points
France, Champagne
Interesting to segue to this from the Doms as it really showcased the difference in the house style. You always hear the word "oxidative" bandied about to describe the Krug technique, which never really made sense to me because I've never gotten an oxidized note in any of them. But Seth explained it's really just about the initial wood fermentation which gives it that controlled micro-oxidation exposure that any wine in barrel is going to get which has the effect (his analogy) of a person being born 35 years old and staying that way for 35 years - in other words, more evolved on release, and with a very different developmental curve than the Doms. Both the evolution and the power are really evident here, as this has a rich aroma with cherries and something caramelly, and a much deeper fruit complexion than the Doms (even the rosé!): I found it remarkable how vivid the red-fruit character was here, and I forget what the blend was exactly, but I was surprised it wasn't even heavier on the red grapes based on how it tasted.
Post a Comment / 2 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue
NV Krug Champagne Brut Rosé 93 Points
France, Champagne
I liked this much better than the Dom P rosé. The pinot noir element is much more evolved here, as it's almost started to take on a more coppery, autumnal cast as well as some of the kind of secondary nuances that are more reminiscent of red wine than pink Champagne. It presents that stuff in a precise, bracing framework though, so you get the pinot noir depth and Champagne precision in one. This is what rosé Champagne should be!
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
1989 Krug Champagne Vintage Brut Collection 92 Points
France, Champagne
This was the oldest wine here and unsurprisingly the most developed, with a deep-toned, brassy complexion and a fairly thick, bulbous palate presence. Some of that seems to have come at the expense of definition and I didn't get as much personality out of this as some of the younger wines (I actually liked the 2000 more). Interestingly, Seth mentioned that the Krug Collection program is different from the Dom Oenoteque program in that these are held by the producer already bottled and not disgorged for release, which surely contributes to the aged character.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
2009 Bodega Numanthia Toro Termanthia 89 Points
Spain, Castilla y León, Toro
I was simultaneously curious to try this wine and expecting to hate it, but it is actually impressive in its particular way. Nobody's going to call this an Audrey Hepburn wine but it is not a Barossa shiraz-style glop-monster, either. The fruit is rich, thick, and ripe, but not sweet or candied nor even especially slick and glossy, and it does show the poise you want to get out of such exclusive plant material (85-year-old ungrafted vines). You can even call it debonair (if it's not Audrey, a Cary Grant-style leading man isn't out of the question). Unfortunately it does have an unmistakable oak tattoo which the wine would have been better without, as it adds totally unnecessary flavors in the coffee / mocha / powdered milk chocolate family that really are as extraneous and discordant as if you had taken a perfectly pure red wine and stirred in some Nestlé Qwik powder. Even so, this is not the most aggressively oaked wine I've ever had - I can't say it's so dominant that it can't dissipate with enough time. It will probably, however, need a lot of it, as there is just an incredible amount of tannin here. At first the forward fruit masks it but as you swish it around your mouth these giant daisy-cutter mushroom clouds of tannins detonate everywhere.
Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue