Of the three bottles of Jacquesson today, this was my favourite. It shows a good amount of bright fruit and some racy acidity. Not complex or powerful, but drinking pretty nicely now already. I'll say that despite the weak base vintage, I do prefer this to the 740 that I had a few months ago. One other thing I learned about this when reading the info on the bottle -- there's around 250k bottles of this made per vintage (not counting mags and double-mags)!

Not sure if this was an off-bottle or not, but it certainly wasn't very good. Very earthy and dirty on the nose, and a palate that just didn't seem to have anything there. A peculiar dusty finish as well.

Likely not the best-kept bottle of this; this just tasted old. Lots of bruised fruit and brown flavours. Past its prime.

Extremely dirty on the nose. Either very advanced or not stored well. Not interesting in either case.

This didn't seem to hold as much of the Vilmart style as some of the higher-end wines, but there's still a luscious richness to this wine here. A pleasant amount of fruit, and easy to drink, even if it is just a little simple.

Likely a very recent disgorgement. Kind of surprised I've never had the entry level Louis Roederer before (or at least remembered to write a note on it). A little sweet and generous on the palate, but with nice breadth and power. Again, not too complex, but quite enjoyable. I particularly like the slight creaminess and roundness, without all the bracing acidity.

Overall a little more coarse than champagne, but the flavour profile certainly beats a lot of the thinner, hipster profiles. There's an odd note of white grape juice on the palate, but otherwise, this is nicely balanced with a very pleasant fullness on the palate. I've generally been quite impressed by the English sparkling that has made it here, and I think it will only get better in the coming years.

The thing that sticks out here is this really odd bit of spice and some candied red fruit flavours. A touch sweet with a slightly shorter midpalate and finish and coarser bead, but nonetheless quite enjoyable.

There's a slightly herbal thing on the nose that actually seems to crescendo on the palate; I compared it to Chinese medicine, but the more western analogue is probably an amaro. A little off-putting in appearance, given the murky brown, but the taste is certainly far better than how it looks. Fairly sweet, with a bit of a caramel-like texture and not much alcoholic kick. Kind of like a sweeter-than-average tawny port without as much burn. Pretty fun, but not a wine that's easy to consume more than a little of at a time, despite a decent acidic backbone.

Pretty solid, entry-level champagne. Good crispness and a nice minerality, and with the meunier-heavy blend, you do get a little more mushroom and funk here.

Brilliant stuff. This is pretty much as good as the white-label. Without a side-by-side it's pretty hard to discern differences, but this does have a really nice breadth and a good balance of tart fruit, mushrooms, and minerality. It certainly tastes like the other examples of Chartogne's wines I've had in the past. If anything, there is maybe a bit more of a red fruit signature here, but without the side-by-side, I wouldn't rely on that note.

Served double blind. Clearly of a new-world persuasion, but done in the way wine ought to be done. The fruit is generous and ripe, and certainly speaks true to Napa (which is what I guessed), and the pyrazines make this an easy cabernet (blend) guess. On the reveal, this is exactly as I would have guessed; the weaker vintage gives this a lift and lightness that make it actually quite pleasant to drink. In fact, given the tannins, I'd love to see this with more age on it.

From magnum. Champagne is always better in magnums. There's this weird thing on the nose that smells a bit like straight up carbon dioxide. Overall, on the palate, this is quite lean and light, but it's not a bracing acid-bomb of a champagne. A touch herbal, but overall fair complexity and depth here, especially for such a tough vintage.

Reasonably consistent with my last tastings of this wine. There's a nice rounded palate with some stone fruit. Not bracingly acidic, this has a bit more roundness and plushness than some of the previous editions (2010 and 2011), and is a little more accessible right now. But at the end of the day (and I recognize that this may be a little controversial), my preference at this price point goes to the Taittinger Comtes.

I'm not sure what happened here -- this bottle must be primarily from the 2011 vintage, because it tastes like 2004 red Burgundy with bubbles. Thin, insipid, and weedy. Given the lack of disgorgement/lot information on this wine, I will now be approaching this bottling with a wary eye.

In a non-pejorative way, this is a rose that seems to hew more closely to a mass-market easy-consumption style. It's a little sweet and just has a very cheerful disposition. It's actually a bit more rich and layered than a pleasant fizzy chugger, and you can find that complexity if you want to spend the time to look for it.

Bottled March 14, 2018. This is beer as it ought to be. Clean, crisp, and refreshing, low alcohol and incredibly easy to drink. There's a slight bit of tropical fruit here, even though this is completely dry. No funky yeasty notes, or ostentatious hoppy ones. Perhaps the acidity is a tad higher than would make this gulpable, but there's no denying just how damn good this stuff is.

"Isn't this a band?" For my palate, this was a little more acid-driven than I would have liked, as I found it lacking a bit of body and showing a little thin. A touch of tart apples and maybe some breadiness too.

A little bit lean for a 2009, but still a good amount of body here. A nice amount of white fruit here, and while there's ample acidity, it's not overbearing. Overall, I can't help but feel that this has really good material, but is missing just a little more oomph to push it into great wine territory.

In some ways, this seems to taste more like Dujac than it does Chambolle-Musigny, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Quite a bit of brown spice is laid over a gossamer layer of delicate and perfumed red fruit. It's actually an interesting dichotomy, because it does seem like you get a bit of both worlds. Fairly ripe but not overly so; good balance and a touch of acidity make this drinkable even at this young age.

I wonder if this is just starting to shut down, given that the tannic structure here seemed to be more on display than in my previous experiences with this wine. Nonetheless, this is a veritable fruit bomb of silky black fruit with some of the requisite syrah characteristics of smoke and olive. However, it's a little less exuberant now than my earlier experiences.

This wine always seems to overdeliver for the price point. The nose shows a bit of peppery quality, as well as a slight bit of the classic Tuscan dried herbs flavour. On the palate, the fruit profile is distinctly red, with more of that herbal element on the palate. Quite a bit of acidity and tannin here, this does need food to really strut its stuff. This may well be the quintessential pizza wine...

This definitely shows a bit of the 2011 green on the palate. The beautiful red fruit and delicate touch is all there, and this is an incredibly pretty wine, but that slight green streak on the palate unfortunately does it in for me.

Despite the ripe vintage, this shows a lot of structure underneath all the fat. The nose has a slight touch of reduction and then there's a lot of opulent white fruit. Nonetheless, there's good mineral cut and quite a bit of acidity here. I think this will be quite a compelling wine once some of the baby fat is shed (similar to how the 2009s have been showing so well of late).