served blind to start I could identify it as a champagne compared to the CA sparkler it was up against. This had more minerality, less sweetness, and greater depth. I won't kid myself, however, I had no idea it was 96 Dom. (In my defense, I've only ever had this particular wine once before, and other than that, probably 2 other vintages of Dom ever). After the reveal I let it sit in the glass as we tasted the reds, where it developed more complexity, at least in my head it did.
served blind to start clearly sweeter than the Champagne, it had that California fruit signature. I still found it taut and precise, though, without flaw. I preferred the Champagne to it, but I didn't think this was an 8$ sparkler, either. then again, when I found out it was $80 list price, I wonder why anyone would choose this over the real deal?
served blind nose: minty, eucalyptus notes, but still plummy fruit. The palate tasted like a textbook cab, but it did have a lingering soy sauce note that made me mark it as the oldest example in the flight. Well done - definitely pleasurable tonight.
served blind the nose was steeped in caramel, it felt gooey, almost like dessert. I was very hesitant to drink it, suspecting an over-oaked mess. However, the palate was amazing. Not the thick, gooey mess I feared, but firm tannin, pure blackberry fruit and an oaky signature that did not overwhelm. A lovely bottle, though for my palate, the Dominus was the winner.
served blind my least favorite of the flight (discounting the corked Realm). It smelled sweetly pruned and the alcohol was high. After it turned out to be Cab Franc, I tasted it again, and would never have guessed it - it seemed to lack any particular personality, other than too boozy. Meh.
I knew this was my bottle when served, so it wasn't really blind for me. It was more spicy than the others in the flight, and more cohesive. I liked it best, but I recall enjoying it more at home than in a blind tasting setting. (Blind tastings rarely do the wines justice, though they sure d0 humble the palate.)
1996 Moët & Chandon Champagne Cuvée Dom Pérignon
France, Champagne
served blind to start
I could identify it as a champagne compared to the CA sparkler it was up against. This had more minerality, less sweetness, and greater depth. I won't kid myself, however, I had no idea it was 96 Dom. (In my defense, I've only ever had this particular wine once before, and other than that, probably 2 other vintages of Dom ever). After the reveal I let it sit in the glass as we tasted the reds, where it developed more complexity, at least in my head it did.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
2001 Schramsberg Vineyards Blanc de Blancs Late Disgorged 150th Anniversary
USA, California
served blind to start
clearly sweeter than the Champagne, it had that California fruit signature. I still found it taut and precise, though, without flaw. I preferred the Champagne to it, but I didn't think this was an 8$ sparkler, either. then again, when I found out it was $80 list price, I wonder why anyone would choose this over the real deal?
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No