Champagne, Fonseca and two Ohio Chards

Last week my tasting group got together to drink some Champagne and Port. We thought that was a nice way to do both and not get too drunk on either. All wines were popped, poured and served over the course of about 2 hours or so. We had cuke sandwiches to go with the Champagne, and cheeses for the ports.

We started with one of Northeastern Ohio's premier winery Chardonnays from two of the better vintages in the last twenty years. Tasted blind.

• 2007 Harpersfield Vineyard Chardonnay Fût de Chêne 84 Points

  USA, Ohio, Grand River Valley

  Pale light gold in color. The nose nose has seltzer and slight limes. Very smooth if innocuous. Slightly oily and slightly tart on the finish. I thought perhaps Chard (blind) but really did not know. Kudos to Jeff K. for saying it tasted like Harpersfield only better. From my point of view, this is really a strong effort from Ohio, but coming from the same winemaker who told me they have no business growing Syrah in California as it gets too ripe, I have to wonder why grow Chardonnay in Ohio if this is the best effort? Actually, that is an overstatement. This is respectable and better than a lot of Cal Chards. I have no idea on the pricing.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 1991 Harpersfield Vineyard Chardonnay 85 Points

  USA, Ohio, Grand River Valley

  Apparently 1991 is a mythic vintage in the parts of Ohio. Deep golden in color. The nose is slightly oxidized but within reason especially after seeing how old it is. A bit of caramel and some burnt qualities. On the palate, this is slightly sweet and has an orange rind note. Not that dissimilar to an older Alsatian VT I just had (on the palate anyway). This was quite respectable and certainly worth drinking. I might have given an extra point for lasting power. I wonder how well it might have held up if vinified dry. Still, more impressive than 90% of Chards (at least) in the world from this vintage.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

The Champagnes were not served blind.

• NV Bollinger Champagne Special Cuvée Brut 92 Points

  France, Champagne

  Light golden in color. The nose is huge and fruity. Lemons and limes with some seltzer. On the palate, this is clean with some lemon/lime notes. Slightly clipped on the finish. Nice acidity. very nice, fun Champagne.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 2002 Geoffroy Champagne Premier Cru Brut 91 Points

  France, Champagne, Champagne Premier Cru

  This was good, but it should have been a bit better IMO. Light gold in color. The nose is seltzer and minerals and very complex. Maybe even some strawberries. On the palate, this is candied and sweet. Why? It seems to have some complexity and once I allowed for the sweetness, it was very good, but it was hard for some to get past that quality. Certainly the nose makes this wine a higher score.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 1990 Krug Champagne Vintage Brut 98 Points

  France, Champagne

  Looking back at my notes, this is about the 10th time I have had this wine, but the first time in a few years. I don't remember ever having a better bottle from this vintage. Outstanding, and for me, blew the doors off the other bottles. Why other felt different is mystery that I think is fascinating about taste, wine, and palate subjectivity. Golden in color. Lots of tiny, frothy bubbles. The nose is complex and deep. Seltzer and slight Vernor's notes. Ont he palate, minerals, oranges, and incredible depth and complexity. Finish lasts a long time. Wow.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 1988 Salon Champagne Blanc de Blancs Brut

  France, Champagne

  I don't believe this was a correct bottle. Golden in color. Slight oxidative notes. Still some lemon zest and minerals. On the palate, this seems a bit past prime, but has great interest and depth. While the fruit seems faded, there are still some citrus and minerals notes.Others liked it more than I. If I was scoring, I would give it an 86, but that is not fair. I suspect this saw heat somewhere in its life.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

The Ports were served blind.

• 1992 Fonseca Porto Vintage

  Portugal, Douro, Porto

  Despite the outstanding score, this was not a correct bottle. Cloudy and purple/ruby in color. The nose is chocolate covered raisins. Black raspberries on the palate, with a long finish. I think we all assumed this would be much older than it was. I would still give it 92 points but something was amiss. Apparently the cork came out easily and completely clean. I suspect that despite good storage the cork allowed too much air in.

  Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 1997 Fonseca Porto Vintage 93 Points

  Portugal, Douro, Porto

  This is quite young and in need of a long decant or better, more cellar time. Dark ruby in color. The nose is earthy with black raspberries. Full bodied. Young. Sweet turning a bit cough syrup like on the finish.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 1980 Fonseca Porto Vintage 95 Points

  Portugal, Douro, Porto

  Great showing for this bottle. Light ruby in color. The nose is incredible. Complex, earthy, with black raspberries and black licorice. On the palate, complex and smooth. No trace of heat. Cherries and raspberries. Long finish. Outstanding. Took 6 out of 8 first place votes.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 1985 Fonseca Porto Vintage 94 Points

  Portugal, Douro, Porto

  Deep ruby in color. Started out tight but with air, it opened well. Chocolate and raspberries on the nose. The palate is still big with slight heat. Complex and with air, really expanded. Long finish.

  Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue