Community Tasting Note

• Krugman wrote: 94 points

  January 14, 2013 - After recently drinking a bottle of the 2002 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne, I figured I would open a bottle of the 2002 Bollinger Grande Annee to see how these two heavyweight tete de cuvee's stacked up.
  
  As usual, the Bollinger was extremely rich and powerful, but also held in check by its acidity and razor sharp precision. The nose showed aroma's of yellow fruits and honey, while the palate displayed flavors of creamy red apples, caramel, cinnamon, honey, nutmeg, allspice, raisins, biscuits, bright citrus, chalk, and a touch of yeast. For some reason this bottle also tasted a bit more mature than previous bottles of the 2002 Grande Annee, but I still believe that this champagne has a long future ahead of it.
  
  While this Bollinger is stunning, I do not believe that it quite reaches the same level as the 2002 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne. What separates these two wonderful champagnes today is the fact that the 2002 Comtes is able to maintain a feeling of true weightlessness, despite being rich. However, both champagnes are extremely good.

  6 people found this helpful 10,097 views

29 Comments

• Sundbyberg commented:

  1/15/13, 11:42 AM - Thanks for you comment. I have both these champagnes, however only singular bottles.
  
  A question: I had the 1999 PR Sir Winston Churchill and thought it was very complex, smokey, with depth etc. Not at all fruity and with no or very little citrus. Quite different from how one expects a champagne to taste.
  Taittinger Millesime 2004 had a somewhat similar taste, I thought.
  
  Can you recommend any champagne that is similar in taste, preferably cheaper than Sir Winston?
  
  Br/Rickard

• Champagneinhand commented:

  1/15/13, 12:08 PM - If people are looking for a Champers that is rich and powerful, but where the fruit isn't dominant, look towards the NV Piper Heidseick with the red grippy sides. Taittinger will really show its stuff, as will the Bollinger GA in 6-10 years from now. Aged vintage champagnes tend to show their fruit in a totally different light, and their oak turns into complex nuances of anything from toasty brioche all the way to pretzel stick dipped in burnt caramel. Nice notes on both Champers.

• Seth Rosenberg commented:

  1/15/13, 1:31 PM - Yeah, Krugman, nice notes on both, and a great and useful comparison of two great Champagnes. I love them both, and like the way you contrasted them. How do you think they stack up to other high-end 02's - DP, Cristal, Dom Ruinart, or Clos des Goisses ???

• Krugman commented:

  1/15/13, 3:16 PM - Sundbyberg - Off the top of my head the most obvious champagne that fits your description is the Krug Grande Cuvee. Most people who like the Winston Churchill also really like the Krug style. Having said that, another champagne that I really like that is complex and not to fruity in its youth is the Louis Roederer Blanc de Blancs. It does have some citrus in its youth, but that starts to go away with age. In fact, the Roederer BdB is made from the same chardonnay grapes that go into Cristal. Just incredible balance, precision and complexity. The current vintage is the 2006 and it is something special. Also, it retails in the $65 per bottle range which is amazing considering you get roughly the same quality as a $200 bottle of Cristal. In some vintages I like it even more than Cristal.

• Sundbyberg commented:

  1/15/13, 3:21 PM - Many thanks to both of you for the recommendations.

• Champagneinhand commented:

  1/15/13, 3:26 PM - I would concur that if you are a fan of Blanc de Blanc, then the Roederer is quite good. I really like the Pinot part of the Cristal, but again that is a champers that requires a lot of cellar time to hit its stride. I would also suggest NV Dosnon & Lepage BdB, as they make a great style of Champagne. Another NV with less fruit and more structure is the Heidseick Monople Brut Reserve. A very good buy around $35-$40. That wine is all about the structure as is the NV Piper-Heidsick. Chhers to fellow lovers of Champagne!

• Krugman commented:

  1/15/13, 3:31 PM - Seth - Thanks. Once I have tried all the top 2002's I think I will do a report that compares and contrasts them all. That would be a fun one!
  
  In terms of my experiences with the 2002's you mention today, here are some thoughts.
  
  2002 DP - I have only had one bottle of this so far and it was roughly 18 months ago. So it might be time to re-visit this. At the time I think I scored it 91 points (and that was mostly potential). In fact, it was one of the most closed down champagne's I have had in a long time. There was also lots of sulphur on the nose. I remember almost not scoring this at all. However, I do believe this will turn around. I recently had a bottle of 1996 DP Oenotheque and that bottle was incredible.
  
  2002 Cristal - I have only had a small half glass of 2002 Cristal at a party a couple years ago (and that was after many other drinks!). So I really don't have the best memory of it. But I do remember it being very good and that it was richer than expected. Not close to the level of the 2002 Comtes or Bollinger though in my opinion. However, take this with a grain of salt because I really need more time with the Cristal to make a proper judgement. Also, the 2002 Roederer BdB is phenomenal! In my opinion the Roederer BdB is one of the best buys in all of champagne considering its pedigree and $65 price tag.
  
  2002 Dom Ruinart - Again, I had this a little over a year ago, so I am sure it has opened up a bit more since then, but when I drank this, it was very steely and closed. I did score it 90 points, but at the time it was really way to soon to render judgement on this one. One thing I will say is that I tend to like chardonnay from the Cotes des Blancs more than from the Montagne de Reims. So style wise, I tend to lean toward Taittinger Comtes than Dom Ruinart.
  
  2002 Clos des Goisses - I have a bottle of this and am planning to try it in the next few months. But so far I have not given it a whirl yet. Really looking forward to this though! I scored the 1996 Clos des Goisses at 97 points. I don't think I have scored any other champagne higher.

• Krugman commented:

  1/15/13, 3:43 PM - Sundbyberg and Champagneinhand - I would be remiss if I did not recommend the 2004 Gaston Chiquet Special Club as well. This is one of my favorite young grower champagne's and has a ton of potential. It also won't break the bank. I think I already have about 10 reviews on that one!

• Sundbyberg commented:

  1/16/13, 1:06 AM - Many thanks again.
  Bought a small bottle of Krug NV and according to their website, using the bottle number, this bottle was released in 2011 (spring?).
  How long should I wait in order for this bottle to develop a more interesting nose and palate?

• Krugman commented:

  1/16/13, 8:02 AM - Sundbyberg - Nice choice on the Krug Grande Cuvee. Your question on how long to wait is a tough one. The general answer for this topic is that the Grande Cuvee gets better and better the longer you wait. I recently had a bottle that I held for 7 years and it was incredible. So much, depth, power, and richness. Younger Grande Cuvee's are still really good, but don't quite taste as good in my opinion as bottles with at least several years of bottle age. However, if this is your first Krug Grande Cuvee, then I would drink it now just to get an idea of how the champagne tastes young. You might find that you just love it. You can always buy another couple of bottles to put away in the cellar.

• Sundbyberg commented:

  1/16/13, 8:22 AM - Many thanks yet again.
  Has just recently discovered that champagne is a very diverse type of wine.
  You recommend Roederer bdb 2006.
  It is it so that bdb champagnes in general develelop an intereresting nose and palate or is it just the bdb champagne from Roederer?

• Krugman commented:

  1/16/13, 9:14 AM - Sundbyberg - I was more just talking about the Roederer BdB rather than BdB's as a type of champagne. The Roederer BdB also responds extremely well to aging. I just recently had a bottle of the 1999 Roederer BdB that was fantastic. It had developed a layer of rich secondary flavors to go along with some nut, spice, and caramel. The current 2006 Roederer BdB is also extremely good, but will become even better. Another really nice BdB that you might want to try is the 2006 Pierre Peters L'Esprit Millesime. The Peters is also a fantastic value for the quality that you get. Let me know what you think of the Krug when you give it a try!

• Sundbyberg commented:

  1/16/13, 10:41 AM - Thanks for taking your time to answer my questions.
  Another question:
  I got the impression that the NV Bollinger would respond favourably to cellaring, as it was much better when I had it day two.
  Have you ever stored a more normal NV (Not Krug)? If so, what happened?

• Krugman commented:

  1/16/13, 10:55 AM - Sundbyberg - You are correct about the NV Bollinger Special Cuvee, it is indeed better with some age on it. I have aged bottles of this in the past as much as 3-4 years and it made a big difference. In fact, most NV's can benefit from some additional bottle age. However, the NV's that tend to be extremely fresh and fruity are the ones that I like to drink right away. Bottle age tends to reduce the fruit forward character of a champagne, so if you like that aspect of certain champagne's, then it is better to drink right away in my opinion. But overall, aging is a very good idea for NV's as well.

• Champagneinhand commented:

  1/16/13, 11:11 AM - Aging champagne has always been more of a vintage game, but the rules have changed. Most NV Champers include disgorge dates or have digits which can be looked up online to get a disgorge date. My thoughts on buying NV would be to buy in multiples of 2-3. Drink one in the first year and then drink another down the road. It educational and should help you get an idea for each house's blend and aging capacity. The best Champagne I've ever had where 22 year old 1990s, but so many can get better with time. I really think current Piper-Heidsieck and the monopole Heidseick reserve will be really good in another 2-3 year's. Just remember that you will also discover NV that slowly go downhill. Pol Roger champagnes have some of the best records for aging and are bargains. Make sure you pop a bottle to pour a glass then put the bottle on ice for 1-3 hours. It will be a different wine with airtime. I also don't like flutes, but use a chardonnay glass. Pour down the side, but end with the pour in the middle. You guys should come on the forum. Many good threads about sparklers.

• Krugman commented:

  1/16/13, 11:31 AM - Champagneinhand - Good advice on buying the NV's 2 or 3 at a time and putting at least 1 away for aging. Some of the best NV's I have had were aged several years. As Sundbyberg noted, NV Bollinger is a perfect candidate for aging.
  
  Also, I agree that narrow champagne flutes are the wrong choice for any sparkling wine. They really seem to hide flavors that come out with a wider glass. However, my preference is more for something like a Zalto stem champagne glass that offers a wider surface area, but is also curved in at the top. Some chardonnay glasses can cause champagnes to open up too quickly in my experience. But everyone perceives this differently. I like your comment on Piper Heidsieck as I think that house has really improved in the last five years.

• Sundbyberg commented:

  1/16/13, 11:50 AM - Hello once again,
  Champagneinhand, you write that the PR NV can be stored.
  I was once served a NV PR which was totally different from the NV I had had previously.
  This was more like the aged Sir Winston 99, but without the heavy mousse.
  
  Can that be the case, that also the PR NV develops the same flavours, i.e smoke etc, or does my memory fail me?

• Champagneinhand commented:

  1/16/13, 12:03 PM - I can't give you a solid 100% on that as the cuvee changes as their reserve wine stock changes, but I can tell you that the major Marques try and keep a house style in their NV champagnes. The blending person tries to compose the NV wines as close to the last cuvee as possible, and they keep many a spare so the can taste and re-taste in order to ensure consistency. (I wish I had that job!) The multi- bottle thing is really the best way to find each different cuvee out, but I do think its possible for them to develop the smokey burnt toast, which will turn to butterscotch's and dark caramel with time, then black truffles appear, as well as other mushrooms flavors, then the best will lose the mushroom part and some of the bubbles go. Aging wine is a wonderful thing. PR SWC, was made as SWC was given a lifetime supply of the 1945. He drank a small bottle (500ml) I think every day after the war. It had to be getting a bit better each day.

• Krugman commented:

  1/16/13, 12:13 PM - Sundbyberg - I would also add to Champagneinhand's comments that I believe there certainly are similarities between the NV Pol Roger and the Winston Churchill due to the similar house style and the ratio of pinot to chard grapes. Those similarities become more obvious with additional bottle age on the NV because the dominant portion of the NV blend is much younger than the vintage wine in the Winston Churchill when it is released.

• Sundbyberg commented:

  1/16/13, 12:33 PM - Once again, thank you for taking time to answer my questions.
  Champagne certainly is a very interesting winedistrict.

• Sundbyberg commented:

  1/17/13, 7:42 AM - Hello once again.
  I have singular bottles of the following champagnes. What should I expect will happen if I store them long enough, compared to where they stand today:
  *Bollinger La Grand Anné 2002
  *Taittinger Comtes 2002
  *La Grand Dame 2004
  *Pol Roger Brut Vintage 2002
  *Diebolt-Vallois Fleur de Passion 2004

• Krugman commented:

  1/17/13, 8:26 AM - Sundbyberg - Here are some thoughts.
  
  *Bollinger La Grand Anné 2002 - To me this Bollinger is already drinking extremely well. Well enough that I have no problem continuing to pop additional bottles. However, this will continue to gain additional depth and richness over time and will lose a little bit of its up front sweet flavors. So for me this one is for now and for the future (5-10 years out)
  *Taittinger Comtes 2002 - Comtes has a long history of aging and typically doesn't really start coming into its own until its 20th birthday and lasts way longer than that. Around that time everything seems to get smoother and silkier with additional depth and richness. It also ends up with an almost sweet tasting perfume that doesn't exist when the wine is young. One thing I will note about the 2002 is that this champagne is so good that it is actually drinking well today, but it is sure to gain additional points with another 9-10 years in the bottle.
  *La Grand Dame 2004 - I actually had a small glass of this around Christmas time and I thought it was pretty good already. It was lighter than a typical Grande Dame with nice minerality, but still very pinot centric. This will drink very well young (over the next 2 years) and will then likely close down some until around its 18th birthday when it will likely gain some additional depth and richness.
  *Pol Roger Brut Vintage 2002 - I currently have 4 bottles of this, but have not had the pleasure of trying it yet. I have talked to a couple people who have opened it and they were impressed with this champagne already. What I can say is the Pol Roger vintage champagne's have a good track record for aging, so it is a safe bet that this one will continue to improve.
  *Diebolt-Vallois Fleur de Passion 2004 - The 2004 Diebolt-Valois Fleur de Passion is still extremely young and needs many more years of bottle age in my opinion in order to taste anything close to its full potential. Historically this champagne hasn't shown the beginning of its true colors until around 20 years old. The one exception to this rule seems to be the 2005, which is drinking extremely well today.

• Champagneinhand commented:

  1/17/13, 9:42 AM - I would always recommend holding your vintage bottle an additional 10 years. I love aged Bollinger. Make sure to keep champagne in the coldest part f your cellar or the bottom of you wine fridge. Avoid light if possible and keep the humidity at a decent level. I store mine in the coldest, darkest parts of my cellar/storage room and have humidity that is almost always about 50%. You only get disappointment in good aged vintage champagne when its corked or has lost all the fizz, much to do with low humidities that can dry out your corks it standing upright or wick the wine into the cork, but that is in the 20 year old neighborhood+. Cheers to some good Champagne, may it rest in your cellar for a bright future.

• Sundbyberg commented:

  1/19/13, 5:53 AM - Hello,
  Followed your advice and opened my half bottle of Krug.
  Quite complex and with a lot of potential, I would say.
  
  Now I need to follow up with a more mature Krug. Is it wise then to buy the 2000 and store it for 2-4 years? That way I should save some years of storage? Right or wrong?

• Krugman commented:

  1/19/13, 9:37 AM - Sundbyberg - Really glad you liked the Krug Grande Cuvee. Now that you have a reference for how a young Grande Cuvee tastes, I would buy a couple of bottles and cellar them for different periods of time. The first one I would cellar for around 3 years and the second for about 7 years. This will give you 3 separate references for how the champagne tastes with varying degrees of age compared to a young version. I always find that Krug Grande Cuvee improves tremendously with additional bottle age.
  
  In terms of trying a Krug vintage champagne, you could certainly buy the 2000 and cellar it for a few years, but I would recommend finding an older vintage from a great year (if you have access to a shop that sells older champagnes). My recommendation would be to seek out the 1988 Krug. In my opinion the 1988 is one of the best vintage Krug's ever made and is really just entering its peak drinking window today. However, you do have to be careful about provenance when dealing with older champagnes. If you do not have access to the 1988, then I would look for the 1996 and cellar it for an additional 5-10 years.
  
  To answer your question about buying a vintage Krug and cellaring it for less years in order to save time versus cellaring the Grande Cuve, I am sorry to say that it doesn't really work that way. In fact, it takes more years for a vintage Krug to enter its drinking window that it does for the Grande Cuvee. The reason for this is because the Grande Cuvee is a blend and includes many older vintage champagne's from the Krug library. So the Grande Cuvee is almost always ready for peak drinking earlier than the vintage. Depending on the vintage, it can take up to 25 years for a vintage Krug to really hit its peak. The 1988 I mentioned is a good example, as it only really started to drink near its peak a year or two ago.

• Champagneinhand commented:

  1/19/13, 9:52 AM - The '98 Krug got spectacular reviews and the 2000 shouldn't disappoint. I have 2 from '96 and they will hold until they have at least 22 years in the bottle. Quite a commitment, but with just 2, I don't want to chance it. I have 13 DP left from they same vintage. They really haven't changed much since release. They are a less oxidized style, but the '90 was perfect last year. Since I have so many, I will pop one this Spring. The 2000 should age nicely and I think a 5-8 year rest is appropriate. When 2002 comes out they should be great, but pretty expensive. Sometimes older vintages are not so horrible if you want to chance an auction bottle.

• Sundbyberg commented:

  1/19/13, 3:47 PM - Thanks again.
  Still drinking on this small bottle late day 2 and it just keeps improving. This was quality stuff. I upgraded it to 95 today, the same as for Sir Winston 99, but maybe this is even better.
  As I'm European its fairly easy to import from France, I do that with Bordauxs and bourgognes, but aucitons was a good idea. We have some in the country I live in (Sweden) and they are actually controlled and run by the government (it is a long story...), so auctins should be a fairly relaible option.
  A trip to Champagne is maybe the best option. Only 2 hours away for me.
  
  Once again, many thanks to both of you. Champagne certainly requires both my respect and attention.

• Champagneinhand commented:

  1/19/13, 8:15 PM - Take this with a grain of salt, as I have been at a Black Tie , but almost all champagne rocks.". Why do Swedish women like American accents? I still am looking for the "American Accent," either way we all like parties. :-).

• Krugman commented:

  1/19/13, 9:17 PM - Sundbyberg - Cheers and good luck in your champagne search. If you really like the Grande Cuvée then don't try the 1988 Krug, as you might not want to drink anything else again! I love Sweden, used to live there in the past. My brother lives in Stockholm.

Add a Comment