One of those just super champagnes in a perfect spot. It’s closer to still wine than sparkling. But all evolved and interesting and delicious. It was a special treat.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
The bubbles were still present which was a nice surprise. Thought it was too heavy and too oxidized but still a nice experience. Not as elegant as expected.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Definitely much more of an older style of champagne. The bubbles are gone (although we did do a custom blend with the 2012 which brought back some bubbles and allowed all of the more aged champagne characteristics to come through). More caramel and slightly oxidized and yet this is a flavor that I find very compelling and after you have the older champagne I find the younger ones just aren't quite as complex or interesting. It's fun to get to try.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
DP, DPR, DPO, DPP2 (Ft. Lauderdale, Florida): If you think that champagne from the decade of the seventies is just too decrepit for anyone to like, you need to try this 1966 from the prior decade. Even though the ‘66 Dom Pérignon is now so old it’s beyond the usual experience of champagne despite there are still a surprising number of tiny bubbles to prickle the tongue. The dark gold color does not inspire confidence. But amazingly there’s no oxidation, no sherry, no mud. What is in there is what I’m told is a classical note in old Dom - expresso. Also some beef and smoke. Masculine as opposed to the filigree profile of young Dom Pérignon. Decadent. Truly fascinating and it lasted well in the glass other than quickly donating its carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Professional reviews have copyrights and you can view them here for your personal use only as private content. To view pro reviews you must either subscribe to a pre-integrated publication or manually enter reviews below. Learn more.
4/14/2023 - MC2 Wines Likes this wine:
One of those just super champagnes in a perfect spot. It’s closer to still wine than sparkling. But all evolved and interesting and delicious. It was a special treat.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
4/9/2023 - Oli_Vilmo wrote: 90 Points
The bubbles were still present which was a nice surprise. Thought it was too heavy and too oxidized but still a nice experience. Not as elegant as expected.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/9/2022 - MC2 Wines Likes this wine:
Definitely much more of an older style of champagne. The bubbles are gone (although we did do a custom blend with the 2012 which brought back some bubbles and allowed all of the more aged champagne characteristics to come through). More caramel and slightly oxidized and yet this is a flavor that I find very compelling and after you have the older champagne I find the younger ones just aren't quite as complex or interesting. It's fun to get to try.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
6/4/2022 - BradE wrote:
A great bottle of 66 DP. Just shy of the absolute brilliance this vintage often shows, but as I said, great.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/7/2020 - sdr Likes this wine: 94 Points
DP, DPR, DPO, DPP2 (Ft. Lauderdale, Florida): If you think that champagne from the decade of the seventies is just too decrepit for anyone to like, you need to try this 1966 from the prior decade. Even though the ‘66 Dom Pérignon is now so old it’s beyond the usual experience of champagne despite there are still a surprising number of tiny bubbles to prickle the tongue. The dark gold color does not inspire confidence. But amazingly there’s no oxidation, no sherry, no mud. What is in there is what I’m told is a classical note in old Dom - expresso. Also some beef and smoke. Masculine as opposed to the filigree profile of young Dom Pérignon. Decadent. Truly fascinating and it lasted well in the glass other than quickly donating its carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment