this had plenty of tiny bubbles for its age and had a rich nose of truffled honey, the palate was maybe missing a bit of depth but had good freshness to cut through the rich food and I enjoyed the pairing with truffle dishes a lot
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Lovely champagne just beyond peak. Poised and very elegant. Modest mousse, perfect acidity. Light to medium weight. Agrume and white flowers. So easy to drink. With a bit more freshness it would be truly outstanding.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No
/ Comment
Very good tonight. High acidity and drive, then with air it broadens a bit, with bitter finish, and just a hint of sherry notes. But after more time in open bottle, it again begins to gain energy again and to find balance between that striking acidity and some secondary flavors.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No
/ Comment
So much fresher than the last bottle, this was a lovely bottle of fizz, there was plenty of stem ginger, orchard fruits and toasted nut, the fizz was still quite lively and the acidity was crackling on the palate.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Acquired from someone who had cellared since release. Gold colour. Complex with stem ginger, baking spices, apples, creme brûlée and a line of citrus acidity. The mousse faded in the glass very fast and on the palate a short while after, not wholly convincing but certainly intriguing.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
It's everything you want in a newly released champagne, which is to say this is about 15 years too soon; at least 10 years, anyway. Tight, edgy, great cut, good purity and correct, just way too young. Thru 2039, at least. HOLD. recommended
PnP, served non-blind
3 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No
/ Comment
Very big, hefty, rich nose. More earthy than toasty. Very full palate, with some deep flavours. But overall, while it's very good, it's somehow falling short of impressing me. Does it need more time?
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Not a bad drink, but I was hoping for more from Vilmart's prestige cuveé in a great vintage. It's light, refreshing, citric and clean but lacks density and weight. Still, it drinks very young so maybe more bottle age will bring some magic.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
The Ultimative 1996 Champagne Tasting with Richard Juhlin (Behrens am Kai in Düsseldorf 1 star restaurant): Guessed right because of the yeasty taste, I think if we drank it a la volee it would be much better or it would need some more rest in the bottle. A lot of power and future. The Chardonnay from Montagne is different from Cote de Blanc. You have the feeling the PN terroir goes over into the Chardonnay grapes 93(95).
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No
/ Comment
Popped and poured, followed over the course of the evening. This was by far the lightest in colour of the opening flight, with a light straw gold colour in the glass. Initial bead is quite fine, but dissipates rather quickly. Somewhat reticent to start and really never came around. A touch musty on the nose, with lemon zest, fresh herb, tequila, spice, and some damp earth aromas. On the palate, no malolactic fermentation here, so the acidity is just raging. Finish is moderate, with linger tastes of green apple, lemon/lime zest, and a touch of mineral. Even with my expectations being rather low on this bottle, it was still a disappointment.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Year 3 - Super Tasting 2 of 5 - Andrew does 96 Chamapgne (Langdon Hall, Cambridge, ON): This wine pours the lightest of this flight of 1996 grower champagnes, a medium/light straw. Nose is a tad tight (low intensity) with herbs, musty attic, lemon, green apple and oyster shell. The palate is alive with bright citric notes, low dosage and a biting, malic, green apple finish. Solid, but really not anything special. As I understand it this bottle was totally representative and Vilmart just wasn't really knocking it out of the park yet.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Year 3 - Super Tasting 2 of 5 - Andrew does 1996 Champagne (Langdon Hall - Andrew Little's Rooom (Also known as the Red Room)): This was quite herbal on the nose and for a brief moment I thought it might have been subtly corked but the musty basement and dust aromas blew off revealing lemon, salty oyster and chalk. Vilmart blows malo-lactic fermentation for tho cuvee and it shows...there is tonnes of malic acid....green apple, ginger, chalk, minerals, lime zest and a bit of a musty transition to the finish. Finish is medium and a touch simple. This is a bit of a disappointment as I have loved Vilmart in other vintage...the 2001 blew my mind.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Really interesting, white peach, tequila nose. Saline, mineral palate that is broad and complex. Despite some mutterings about TCA and immaturity, I found this fresh, open and engaging.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
The wine has sorted out. It is rich, it is balanced, but the flavors are not particularly appealing to me. My thought is that this is the terroir coming out. It is not for nothing that villages are rated in terms of the quality of the grapes they produce. The underlying grapes here are from Rilly, and 100% rated it is not. But the concentration is certainly there as is the balance.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
This is gross. I half-suspect some goût de lumière here from the nose, but I also think this is a malformed and contorted Champagne where the acids ate holes in the oak and then mercilessly slaughtered the oncoming waves of yeast whose savaged bodies piled in a ravens' feast - and those ravens got incorporated into the mix too.
I had high hopes for this super rare luxury cuvée, but it was not to be. Seemingly fully mature in that easy going Vilmart way, but fairly simple and almost sweet. Notes of pie dough and flowers are enticing but not much intensity or length, and lacking acidity. Pleasant but slight.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No
/ Comment
Unquestionably and show stoppingly rich - lemony acid - but nowhere near ready. That said, plenty of new wood overlay. My personal view is that lots of new wood and chardonnay based champagnes don't at all mix to produce a more interesting champagne. Doubly true I think because these new wood champagnes, like new wood white burgundies, cost plent of extra $. I should have added the new wood has now come to the fore. The question is whether it will integrate to become a different more interesting champagne. My guess is not. The hallmark of new wood white burgundies - Coche Dury Compte Lafon - is intense vanilla new wood. Never goes away really. You love that flavor, it stays there until the wines crater. We'll see how the new wood adventure in champagne goes.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
This wine has now emerged fully. Maybe not quite up to the 1990, but time will tell. In the context of 96, this is really elegantly rich, much like for example, the 96 Gratien. Creamy brioche notes with this elegant purity. Absolutely great apertif, not much for food. In the context of any other champagne vintage, this is maybe a 97 or so. In 96 it is up against much stiffer competition. Year after year, deserves all the high marks it gets.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Light yellow. Marzipan and warm bread aromas. Also scents of vitamin tablets and honey. Very subdued and round in the mouth. Medium bodied and slightly lacking in concentration and intensity. And somewhat short on the finish. But probably just up against tough competition.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
5/18/2023 - nphase Likes this wine: 93 Points
significantly better than the last bottle!
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/3/2022 - kingkanu wrote:
this had plenty of tiny bubbles for its age and had a rich nose of truffled honey, the palate was maybe missing a bit of depth but had good freshness to cut through the rich food and I enjoyed the pairing with truffle dishes a lot
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/8/2021 - nphase wrote: 90 Points
Enjoyable Not particularly impressive for the vintage.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/4/2020 - Trydebull Likes this wine: 90 Points
Bra vin, fantastisk på näsan och i munnen, tråkig flaska med få bubblor men i övrigt i ok skick.
Bra flaskor bör ligga 2-4 poäng högre.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
8/9/2020 - sdr Likes this wine: 93 Points
Lovely champagne just beyond peak. Poised and very elegant. Modest mousse, perfect acidity. Light to medium weight. Agrume and white flowers. So easy to drink. With a bit more freshness it would be truly outstanding.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment
6/26/2020 - vintage_whine wrote:
Fantastic, perfectly mature and fresh with still succulent fruit. acidity has softened. can't imagine this isn't at peak drinking
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
3/12/2019 - Montecalvo Likes this wine: 92 Points
typically great bottle
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment
12/3/2018 - LW31 Likes this wine:
Very good tonight. High acidity and drive, then with air it broadens a bit, with bitter finish, and just a hint of sherry notes. But after more time in open bottle, it again begins to gain energy again and to find balance between that striking acidity and some secondary flavors.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment
9/3/2017 - kingkanu wrote:
So much fresher than the last bottle, this was a lovely bottle of fizz, there was plenty of stem ginger, orchard fruits and toasted nut, the fizz was still quite lively and the acidity was crackling on the palate.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/16/2017 - kingkanu wrote:
Acquired from someone who had cellared since release. Gold colour. Complex with stem ginger, baking spices, apples, creme brûlée and a line of citrus acidity. The mousse faded in the glass very fast and on the palate a short while after, not wholly convincing but certainly intriguing.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
3/1/2017 - Tim Heaton Likes this wine:
It's everything you want in a newly released champagne, which is to say this is about 15 years too soon; at least 10 years, anyway. Tight, edgy, great cut, good purity and correct, just way too young. Thru 2039, at least. HOLD. recommended
PnP, served non-blind
3 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment
1/8/2017 - AllRed wrote:
Rich orchard fruit aromas with mineral and citrus undertones. The palate follows the bouquet. Good, but somewhat simple.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
6/11/2016 - andrewstevenson.com wrote: 89 Points
Very big, hefty, rich nose. More earthy than toasty.
Very full palate, with some deep flavours.
But overall, while it's very good, it's somehow falling short of impressing me.
Does it need more time?
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
4/30/2016 - sdr Likes this wine: 88 Points
Not a bad drink, but I was hoping for more from Vilmart's prestige cuveé in a great vintage. It's light, refreshing, citric and clean but lacks density and weight. Still, it drinks very young so maybe more bottle age will bring some magic.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/8/2016 - aquacongas Likes this wine: 94 Points
The Ultimative 1996 Champagne Tasting with Richard Juhlin (Behrens am Kai in Düsseldorf 1 star restaurant): Guessed right because of the yeasty taste, I think if we drank it a la volee it would be much better or it would need some more rest in the bottle. A lot of power and future. The Chardonnay from Montagne is different from Cote de Blanc. You have the feeling the PN terroir goes over into the Chardonnay grapes 93(95).
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment
7/18/2015 - alittle wrote: 88 Points
Popped and poured, followed over the course of the evening. This was by far the lightest in colour of the opening flight, with a light straw gold colour in the glass. Initial bead is quite fine, but dissipates rather quickly. Somewhat reticent to start and really never came around. A touch musty on the nose, with lemon zest, fresh herb, tequila, spice, and some damp earth aromas. On the palate, no malolactic fermentation here, so the acidity is just raging. Finish is moderate, with linger tastes of green apple, lemon/lime zest, and a touch of mineral. Even with my expectations being rather low on this bottle, it was still a disappointment.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/18/2015 - Wine Canuck wrote: 88 Points
Year 3 - Super Tasting 2 of 5 - Andrew does 96 Chamapgne (Langdon Hall, Cambridge, ON): This wine pours the lightest of this flight of 1996 grower champagnes, a medium/light straw. Nose is a tad tight (low intensity) with herbs, musty attic, lemon, green apple and oyster shell. The palate is alive with bright citric notes, low dosage and a biting, malic, green apple finish. Solid, but really not anything special. As I understand it this bottle was totally representative and Vilmart just wasn't really knocking it out of the park yet.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/18/2015 - Dave Canada wrote: 90 Points
Year 3 - Super Tasting 2 of 5 - Andrew does 1996 Champagne (Langdon Hall - Andrew Little's Rooom (Also known as the Red Room)): This was quite herbal on the nose and for a brief moment I thought it might have been subtly corked but the musty basement and dust aromas blew off revealing lemon, salty oyster and chalk.
Vilmart blows malo-lactic fermentation for tho cuvee and it shows...there is tonnes of malic acid....green apple, ginger, chalk, minerals, lime zest and a bit of a musty transition to the finish.
Finish is medium and a touch simple.
This is a bit of a disappointment as I have loved Vilmart in other vintage...the 2001 blew my mind.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
11/11/2013 - andtheodor wrote: 92 Points
Really interesting, white peach, tequila nose. Saline, mineral palate that is broad and complex. Despite some mutterings about TCA and immaturity, I found this fresh, open and engaging.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
4/8/2013 - theusualsuspect wrote: 89 Points
The wine has sorted out. It is rich, it is balanced, but the flavors are not particularly appealing to me. My thought is that this is the terroir coming out. It is not for nothing that villages are rated in terms of the quality of the grapes they produce. The underlying grapes here are from Rilly, and 100% rated it is not.
But the concentration is certainly there as is the balance.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/23/2012 - AndrewSGHall Does not like this wine:
This is gross. I half-suspect some goût de lumière here from the nose, but I also think this is a malformed and contorted Champagne where the acids ate holes in the oak and then mercilessly slaughtered the oncoming waves of yeast whose savaged bodies piled in a ravens' feast - and those ravens got incorporated into the mix too.
2 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comments (1)
2/19/2012 - sdr wrote: 90 Points
I had high hopes for this super rare luxury cuvée, but it was not to be. Seemingly fully mature in that easy going Vilmart way, but fairly simple and almost sweet. Notes of pie dough and flowers are enticing but not much intensity or length, and lacking acidity. Pleasant but slight.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment
7/1/2011 - Johann Von Mastiff wrote: 93 Points
Super bright wine with some seroius concentration for champagne.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/5/2011 - Montecalvo wrote: 93 Points
Excellent. Needed decanting.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/25/2010 - concord wrote:
Maturing nicely, nutty with lemon acidity.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
8/22/2010 - theusualsuspect wrote: 93 Points
Unquestionably and show stoppingly rich - lemony acid - but nowhere near ready. That said, plenty of new wood overlay. My personal view is that lots of new wood and chardonnay based champagnes don't at all mix to produce a more interesting champagne. Doubly true I think because these new wood champagnes, like new wood white burgundies, cost plent of extra $.
I should have added the new wood has now come to the fore. The question is whether it will integrate to become a different more interesting champagne. My guess is not.
The hallmark of new wood white burgundies - Coche Dury Compte Lafon - is intense vanilla new wood. Never goes away really. You love that flavor, it stays there until the wines crater. We'll see how the new wood adventure in champagne goes.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/2/2010 - j45 wrote:
Still a baby. Let 'er rest.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
4/19/2009 - theusualsuspect wrote: 94 Points
This wine has now emerged fully. Maybe not quite up to the 1990, but time will tell. In the context of 96, this is really elegantly rich, much like for example, the 96 Gratien. Creamy brioche notes with this elegant purity. Absolutely great apertif, not much for food. In the context of any other champagne vintage, this is maybe a 97 or so. In 96 it is up against much stiffer competition. Year after year, deserves all the high marks it gets.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
6/20/2008 - SimonG wrote: flawed
UK Wine Forum 'Vintage Pairs' Offline (Le Colombier, London): Paler than wine A (that turned out to be the 98 of this). Corked. Seems tarter and more acidic than sample A. Vintage or TCA stripping the fruit?
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
3/8/2003 - Joe Belmaati wrote: 91 Points
Light yellow. Marzipan and warm bread aromas. Also scents of vitamin tablets and honey. Very subdued and round in the mouth. Medium bodied and slightly lacking in concentration and intensity. And somewhat short on the finish. But probably just up against tough competition.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment