I'm told this was the most recent release of this wine, which I believe means the youngest wine in this is from 2010. To be fair, this is a decent bottle of champagne, but if it's going to sit at the price point it does, it really needs to bring some more oomph to the table. The nose and palate are relatively demure; there are some nice high-toned, slightly aldehydic almond notes to go with some white fruit and florals. For a solera, I'd have expected a little more richness and depth as well (or has Selosse just spoiled me?).
I quite liked this, though it was a little bit of a laggard behind the 2008 (which was showing just brilliantly today). This has a bit of the leanness and mineral cut that I remember tasting the 2008 when it was released, but it seems to be much better integrated and less angular. It's not overly thin either, and it's not an acid bomb -- there's a nice touch of fruit and sweetness here that rounds it out.
Probably my favourite wine at the table today (and pretty much the rest of the table's as well). This has moved away from the leanness of angularity that I remembered from having it on release. In fact, this has a really nice sweetened roundness about it that plays very well with the minerality. This is quite chalky and minerally as well, and that certainly is playing in full force today. There's also still plenty of fruit here, so all the acid and minerals never feel out of balance.
Sadly, this bottle was nowhere as good as another bottle I had in 2017. Truthfully, this bottle seemed a little advanced, with some baked fruit flavours and a little more nuttiness than I would expect. It's definitely a disappointment, given my excitement at the chance to try this wine again and how much I remembered loving it. Chalk (pun partially intended) this up to suboptimal storage?
Served single blind against a blend of 50/50 Oubliee/2010 Chetillons. The blend was preferred unanimously at the table. This wine seemed unfocussed and unintegrated on the palate. High-toned, disjoint, and a little bitter on the back end. Certainly it shows some of the characteristics of both wines, but it wasn't particularly impressive. It did integrate a bit better with air, but it never really seemed to knit together as well as our hillbilly blend.
Our DIY Etonnant M. Victor, I thought, was much more expressive, and showed a full-bodied richness that the real deal did not have. However, the back end of our blend did suffer from some additional bitterness that I never picked out in either of the constituents. (For the record, I would have scored our DIY version higher than this wine.)
This was another outstanding bottle of 2010 champagne. Sometimes I get scared of the vintage because it can get too heavily acidic and bracing, but this bottle showed a really good balance where that wasn't a problem at all. Perhaps coming a bit riper or maybe a spot more dosage than most?
Yeah, I have to say, I think this is a wine that is far more interesting than good. It's certainly a heavy-bodied wine (I mean, I don't know if I can even remember having a heavier-bodied champagne than this). Krug got nothing on this. But I think that heavier style has a limit and this wine has gone past it. There's almost a sense of botrytis here, with the ripeness and sweetness and nuttiness all amped up to max. There seem to be flavours here that just don't really belong in champagne. Oh, it's super oaky too (though I've generally never had a problem with oak in champagne). This was also a little less spritzy than it could have been, leading me to the perception that this was just a little bit tired, too.
I will concede, for California pinot, which is inevitably going to be riper and richer than the pinots that I am accustomed to drinking, this is excellent. There's red fruit here that's as crisp as the ripeness will allow. The palate holds up the ripe fruit quite well, with a nice dose of acidity and some minerality, even. Perhaps there's a slight bit of orange peel as well? It's not particularly overripe or over the top, but it still shows its Californian origins very well.
NV Pierre Péters Champagne Grand Cru Blanc de Blancs Réserve Oubliée 88 Points
France, Champagne, Champagne Grand Cru
I'm told this was the most recent release of this wine, which I believe means the youngest wine in this is from 2010. To be fair, this is a decent bottle of champagne, but if it's going to sit at the price point it does, it really needs to bring some more oomph to the table. The nose and palate are relatively demure; there are some nice high-toned, slightly aldehydic almond notes to go with some white fruit and florals. For a solera, I'd have expected a little more richness and depth as well (or has Selosse just spoiled me?).
Post a Comment / 2 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue
2010 Pierre Péters Champagne Grand Cru Cuvée Speciale Blanc de Blancs Les Chetillons 93 Points
France, Champagne, Champagne Grand Cru
I quite liked this, though it was a little bit of a laggard behind the 2008 (which was showing just brilliantly today). This has a bit of the leanness and mineral cut that I remember tasting the 2008 when it was released, but it seems to be much better integrated and less angular. It's not overly thin either, and it's not an acid bomb -- there's a nice touch of fruit and sweetness here that rounds it out.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
2008 Pierre Péters Champagne Grand Cru Cuvée Speciale Blanc de Blancs Les Chetillons 93 Points
France, Champagne, Champagne Grand Cru
Probably my favourite wine at the table today (and pretty much the rest of the table's as well). This has moved away from the leanness of angularity that I remembered from having it on release. In fact, this has a really nice sweetened roundness about it that plays very well with the minerality. This is quite chalky and minerally as well, and that certainly is playing in full force today. There's also still plenty of fruit here, so all the acid and minerals never feel out of balance.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
2002 Pierre Péters Champagne Grand Cru Cuvée Speciale Blanc de Blancs Les Chetillons 88 Points
France, Champagne, Champagne Grand Cru
Sadly, this bottle was nowhere as good as another bottle I had in 2017. Truthfully, this bottle seemed a little advanced, with some baked fruit flavours and a little more nuttiness than I would expect. It's definitely a disappointment, given my excitement at the chance to try this wine again and how much I remembered loving it. Chalk (pun partially intended) this up to suboptimal storage?
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
2010 Pierre Péters Champagne Grand Cru L'Etonnant Monsieur Victor 90 Points
France, Champagne, Champagne Grand Cru
Served single blind against a blend of 50/50 Oubliee/2010 Chetillons. The blend was preferred unanimously at the table. This wine seemed unfocussed and unintegrated on the palate. High-toned, disjoint, and a little bitter on the back end. Certainly it shows some of the characteristics of both wines, but it wasn't particularly impressive. It did integrate a bit better with air, but it never really seemed to knit together as well as our hillbilly blend.
Our DIY Etonnant M. Victor, I thought, was much more expressive, and showed a full-bodied richness that the real deal did not have. However, the back end of our blend did suffer from some additional bitterness that I never picked out in either of the constituents. (For the record, I would have scored our DIY version higher than this wine.)
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
2010 Launois Pere et Fils Champagne Grand Cru Brut Millésimé 90 Points
France, Champagne, Champagne Grand Cru
This was another outstanding bottle of 2010 champagne. Sometimes I get scared of the vintage because it can get too heavily acidic and bracing, but this bottle showed a really good balance where that wasn't a problem at all. Perhaps coming a bit riper or maybe a spot more dosage than most?
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
2002 Henri Giraud Champagne Grand Cru Argonne Brut 90 Points
France, Champagne, Champagne Grand Cru
Yeah, I have to say, I think this is a wine that is far more interesting than good. It's certainly a heavy-bodied wine (I mean, I don't know if I can even remember having a heavier-bodied champagne than this). Krug got nothing on this. But I think that heavier style has a limit and this wine has gone past it. There's almost a sense of botrytis here, with the ripeness and sweetness and nuttiness all amped up to max. There seem to be flavours here that just don't really belong in champagne. Oh, it's super oaky too (though I've generally never had a problem with oak in champagne). This was also a little less spritzy than it could have been, leading me to the perception that this was just a little bit tired, too.
Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue
2012 Williams Selyem Pinot Noir Burt Williams' Morning Dew Ranch 88 Points
USA, California, North Coast, Anderson Valley
I will concede, for California pinot, which is inevitably going to be riper and richer than the pinots that I am accustomed to drinking, this is excellent. There's red fruit here that's as crisp as the ripeness will allow. The palate holds up the ripe fruit quite well, with a nice dose of acidity and some minerality, even. Perhaps there's a slight bit of orange peel as well? It's not particularly overripe or over the top, but it still shows its Californian origins very well.
Post a Comment / 2 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue