You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Champagne, for the win
- Thread starter Sharon Bowman
- Start date
originally posted by SFJoe:
There is nothing at all wrong with P. Peters. The regular stuff is very nice. It is not stylistically radical, won't spin your head around, but it's very good and I drink it with some frequency.
But I don't guzzle mass quantities of Champagne.
Essentially what Joe said.
originally posted by Yixin:
My house champagnes are Peters, Vilmart and V et S, you fucking newbie.
Peters and Vilmart, sure. V et S is fucking hipster bullshit. You Asians are such suckers for marketing.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
As said above, E-O and Peters are apples and oranges. Not everyone admires E-O's wines -- I don't and know plenty of others that don't either. Rustic and powerful they are, but that's not what I seek in Champagne.
Peters is one of my favorites, and a bottle of NV BdB that had been stored for a few years was stunning last weekend. (Most Champagne is shipped too early and improves with a few years in the cellar, IMO. TPG disagrees and says that Champagne is dead six mos. after it hits the shelf, or something like that).
But there are plenty of really good Champagne producers in all styles. Alas, though, just as I am sad that I didn't buy cases and cases of Chauvet's Beaujolais, so am I sorry, though, that I didn't buy cases and cases of Batiste Pertois's Champagnes when I knew that the line was finished.
Peters is one of my favorites, and a bottle of NV BdB that had been stored for a few years was stunning last weekend. (Most Champagne is shipped too early and improves with a few years in the cellar, IMO. TPG disagrees and says that Champagne is dead six mos. after it hits the shelf, or something like that).
But there are plenty of really good Champagne producers in all styles. Alas, though, just as I am sad that I didn't buy cases and cases of Chauvet's Beaujolais, so am I sorry, though, that I didn't buy cases and cases of Batiste Pertois's Champagnes when I knew that the line was finished.
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Yixin:
My house champagnes are Peters, Vilmart and V et S, you fucking newbie.
Peters and Vilmart, sure. V et S is fucking hipster bullshit. You Asians are such suckers for marketing.
Being a newbie, hipster Asian weaned on MTV and Fox, I'm especially susceptible to marketing, so I think I will have to drink V et S, its flavor be damned. Much in the same way I like Dos Equis solely because of the Dos Equis guy. If only I can be as interesting as him. He is so boss. Sigh. [insert winky emoticon here].
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
As said above, E-O and Peters are apples and oranges. Not everyone admires E-O's wines -- I don't and know plenty of others that don't either. Rustic and powerful they are, but that's not what I seek in Champagne.
Peters is one of my favorites, and a bottle of NV BdB that had been stored for a few years was stunning last weekend. (Most Champagne is shipped too early and improves with a few years in the cellar, IMO. TPG disagrees and says that Champagne is dead six mos. after it hits the shelf, or something like that).
But there are plenty of really good Champagne producers in all styles. Alas, though, just as I am sad that I didn't buy cases and cases of Chauvet's Beaujolais, so am I sorry, though, that I didn't buy cases and cases of Baptiste Pertois's Champagnes when I knew that the line was finished.
That's pretty interesting. I might have to try E-O on my own and get Pierre Peters for the party then. From all the posters here, it sounds like Peters might be the more traditional "bubbly," and it might go over better with more people than E-O. But, the E-O sounds like it could really be up my alley (even if it isn't as hipsterish as V et S).
FWIW, I finished off the last of several cases of NV Pierre Peters from whatever blend would have been sold in 1998 over the last two years, and it was still quite delicious. The first batch of bottles (10 years exactly) were better than the second (11+), so the former would appear to be the limit.
Scott Kraft
Scott Kraft
Fleury has become my favorite "inexpensive" champagne. It's certainly not hipster.
originally posted by Yule Kim:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
As said above, E-O and Peters are apples and oranges. Not everyone admires E-O's wines -- I don't and know plenty of others that don't either. Rustic and powerful they are, but that's not what I seek in Champagne.
Peters is one of my favorites, and a bottle of NV BdB that had been stored for a few years was stunning last weekend. (Most Champagne is shipped too early and improves with a few years in the cellar, IMO. TPG disagrees and says that Champagne is dead six mos. after it hits the shelf, or something like that).
But there are plenty of really good Champagne producers in all styles. Alas, though, just as I am sad that I didn't buy cases and cases of Chauvet's Beaujolais, so am I sorry, though, that I didn't buy cases and cases of Baptiste Pertois's Champagnes when I knew that the line was finished.
That's pretty interesting. I might have to try E-O on my own and get Pierre Peters for the party then. From all the posters here, it sounds like Peters might be the more traditional "bubbly," and it might go over better with more people than E-O. But, the E-O sounds like it could really be up my alley (even if it isn't as hipsterish as V et S).
Egly was the first serious grower Champagne that I was exposed to, back in 1994. It was very wine-y and intense and very leesy. They can be great, but are an acquired taste. I was brought up in a Bollinger/Pol Roger household, so the weight seemed natural to me.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
Bollinger gives finesse with the power, and so do, e.g., Paul Bara and Camille Savs. So I'm not unappreciative of power per se.originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Yule Kim:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
As said above, E-O and Peters are apples and oranges. Not everyone admires E-O's wines -- I don't and know plenty of others that don't either. Rustic and powerful they are, but that's not what I seek in Champagne.
Peters is one of my favorites, and a bottle of NV BdB that had been stored for a few years was stunning last weekend. (Most Champagne is shipped too early and improves with a few years in the cellar, IMO. TPG disagrees and says that Champagne is dead six mos. after it hits the shelf, or something like that).
But there are plenty of really good Champagne producers in all styles. Alas, though, just as I am sad that I didn't buy cases and cases of Chauvet's Beaujolais, so am I sorry, though, that I didn't buy cases and cases of Baptiste Pertois's Champagnes when I knew that the line was finished.
That's pretty interesting. I might have to try E-O on my own and get Pierre Peters for the party then. From all the posters here, it sounds like Peters might be the more traditional "bubbly," and it might go over better with more people than E-O. But, the E-O sounds like it could really be up my alley (even if it isn't as hipsterish as V et S).
Egly was the first serious grower Champagne that I was exposed to, back in 1994. It was very wine-y and intense and very leesy. They can be great, but are an acquired taste. I was brought up in a Bollinger/Pol Roger household, so the weight seemed natural to me.
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
What's up with Ambonnay? For unknown reasons, I have not enjoyed any recent Egly-Ouriet or H. Billiot wine nearly as much as I did 5-10 years ago.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
For sure, Billiot has been in a slump for several years -- confirmed it with one of his agents.originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
What's up with Ambonnay? For unknown reasons, I have not enjoyed any recent Egly-Ouriet or H. Billiot wine nearly as much as I did 5-10 years ago.
As for E-O, never have found the wines to be in a style I can appreciate (and I can appreciate wines that I don't particularly care for, e.g., Selosse, who for me is the Coche-Dury of Champagne, and I say that meaning that I appreciate C-D but, other than the CC, really don't care for the wines; I can find more interesting ways to spend relatively large sums on wine).
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by mlawton:
Gonet, maybe? If so, which one? I have liked one very much but not the other. One is in located in Mesnil, roughly between Peters and the Salon/Delamotte facility. The other is further down the hill near de Souza, IIRC.originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I like Pierre Peters too. At a large Champagne tasting, Gonnet stood out for me, maybe because I had never had it before, but another vote for that. And it costs fewer dollars to boot.
Indeed Gonet, and from les Mesnil. I didn't see another cuvee at the tasting.
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
As for E-O, never have found the wines to be in a style I can appreciate (and I can appreciate wines that I don't particularly care for, e.g., Selosse
Out of curiosity, what's your displeasure with vinous champagne?
I let slide earlier on your remark that champagne should be light bubbles and mineral frivolity (I paraphrase).
(For what it's worth, I also adore Pierre Peters NV brut; as VLM can tell all and sundry, I downed nearly a magnum myself, last spring. But that was because he had bailed on me for stressful cooking duties at the home of le Chateauneuf de chez Joe's*).
*pace BJKane.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
I said I liked them when they had finesse, e.g., Bolly, Bara. As for the others, I think they're more or less like the majority of Chteauneuf-du-Pape -- some love them, I don't. Chacun son got.originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
As for E-O, never have found the wines to be in a style I can appreciate (and I can appreciate wines that I don't particularly care for, e.g., Selosse
Out of curiosity, what's your displeasure with vinous champagne?
I let slide earlier on your remark that champagne should be light bubbles and mineral frivolity (I paraphrase).
(For what it's worth, I also adore Pierre Peters NV brut; as VLM can tell all and sundry, I downed nearly a magnum myself, last spring. But that was because he had bailed on me for stressful cooking duties at the home of le Chateauneuf de chez Joe's*).
*pace BJKane.
I'm guessing E-O, Bollinger, Pol Roger, Billiot, and the others mentioned here tend to be more intense in flavor because they have a lot of pinot noir in the blend or maybe it has more to do with the terroir of Ambonnay (though I don't know where Bollinger and Pol Roger gets their grapes)? Or is it just house style and cellar work that accounts for their power, weight, and intensity?
Peter Creasey
Peter Creasey
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Billecart-Salmon lineup.
. . . . . Pete
. . . . . Pete
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
As for E-O, never have found the wines to be in a style I can appreciate (and I can appreciate wines that I don't particularly care for, e.g., Selosse
Out of curiosity, what's your displeasure with vinous champagne?
I let slide earlier on your remark that champagne should be light bubbles and mineral frivolity (I paraphrase).
(For what it's worth, I also adore Pierre Peters NV brut; as VLM can tell all and sundry, I downed nearly a magnum myself, last spring. But that was because he had bailed on me for stressful cooking duties at the home of le Chateauneuf de chez Joe's*).
*pace BJKane.
Yeah, but you said it was OK and I brought flowers. That means I'm in the clear.
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
It's not just the pinot noir. Godme and Lallement make mostly pinot noir Champagnes from Verzenay, and while I wouldn't call them nimble they aren't nearly the powerhouses of Billiot and Egly from Ambonnay. I stopped buying Bollinger when the NV went over $35 and never grokked Pol Roger, even SWC, so I can't speak to those.originally posted by Yule Kim:
I'm guessing E-O, Bollinger, Pol Roger, Billiot, and the others mentioned here tend to be more intense in flavor because they have a lot of pinot noir in the blend or maybe it has more to do with the terroir of Ambonnay (though I don't know where Bollinger and Pol Roger gets their grapes)? Or is it just house style and cellar work that accounts for their power, weight, and intensity?