Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Thanks, Brad, for the interesting read.
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.
Meadows July Article on P'ox
- Thread starter Ian Fitzsimmons
- Start date
I had some '96 E-O Bouzy rouge the other day and thought it was showing fine. Drank my last bottle of the champagne a few years ago, and thought it was still showing young.
Maybe we are talking about the same thing, but my issue with some of the '96 champagnes is that the acidity does not seem to be settling, so much so that I'm considering flogging off what I have. It's one thing to taste a laser light show vin clair, and another to savour a racy young Champagne, but at 14 years of age razor-sharp acidity worries me.
Also thought '96 Grande Annee showing much better than RD right now.
Maybe we are talking about the same thing, but my issue with some of the '96 champagnes is that the acidity does not seem to be settling, so much so that I'm considering flogging off what I have. It's one thing to taste a laser light show vin clair, and another to savour a racy young Champagne, but at 14 years of age razor-sharp acidity worries me.
Also thought '96 Grande Annee showing much better than RD right now.
robert ames
robert ames
i had a bottle of bollinger grande annee '96 a couple weeks ago, and it certainly is in a sweet spot. if it doesn't get any better it's still a great ride.
David M. Bueker
David M. Bueker
I've had mixed experiences with the '96s. I haven't seen the early maturity in the Bollinger so far (last taste of the '96 GA was early this year), but my bottles of '96 Egly-Ouriet crashed and burned a while ago, and that from completely independent sources purchased on release.
Brad Baker
Brad Baker
Can't disagree with the 96 Bolly GA tasting pretty good right now. To me, this wine isn't really a disappointment more one that seems to have hit its sweet spot a lot earlier than what I would have expected based on the vintage and track record of the wine. Nothing wrong with that and this was a great buy when it came out in the $50-$65 range. I just don't think it is a wine you want to lay down for decades. Other than for curiosity reasons, mine will probably be gone by 2015. The 96 Lanson is another one that I think is similar to this in that it is still a tasty wine right now, but I don't plan on holding mine long term as I think the acidity will remain sharp as the other flavors start tasting quite mature.
U
Unknown
Guest
There are some delicious crunchy whites made with this vessel, but the virtues of concrete eggs to me always seemed contradictary to the mthode traditionnelle. I would reckon they would only be used by r-m - do you know if the use of concrete eggs has increased in the champagne?originally posted by Brad Baker:
...but the concrete eggs are proving to be very interesting as they allow for some oxygenation without the impact of wood.
originally posted by David M. Bueker:
... my bottles of '96 Egly-Ouriet crashed and burned a while ago, and that from completely independent sources purchased on release.
Mine too.
Brad Baker
Brad Baker
originally posted by Anders Gautschi:
There are some delicious crunchy whites made with this vessel, but the virtues of concrete eggs to me always seemed contradictary to the mthode traditionnelle. I would reckon they would only be used by r-m - do you know if the use of concrete eggs has increased in the champagne?originally posted by Brad Baker:
...but the concrete eggs are proving to be very interesting as they allow for some oxygenation without the impact of wood.
Concrete eggs are gaining a little traction in Champagne, but it is still very small. The movement right now is definitely more RM with the main reason being that it allows the terroir to show through - concrete allows the wine to get some exposure to oxygen after the first fermentation, but without any oak effects. I don't have enough long term experience to know exactly how this will play out, but the logic of the egg makes sense to me and I don't have issues with it.
The overall movement is interesting as concrete in Champagne doesn't have the best reputation especially after the variability and bad wines made in the second half of the 20th century in large concrete tanks. I hope people can see that concrete eggs are completely different animals and we'll have to see what time turns out.
I haven't inquired if any studies are being done or have been done on the eggs, but I have to believe that the CIVC or someone else has done a study. For all the faults the big guys get, I do applaud them for their willingness to do studies on just about anything you can think of (and some stuff that is well ahead of its time).
Brad Baker
Brad Baker
Just popped into my head that another well known producer who delays any Sulfur use and is a big believer in allowing some oxidation to occur to the juice after pressing is Pierre Peters. Rodolphe (and before him his father) always allows some oxidation to occur as it helps stabilize the juice/wine and encourages the "bad elements" to drop out. The wine then enters a reductive environment and ages beautifully. If you have ever had any old straight vintage or Special Club/Cuvee Speciale, it is hard to argue with their beauty and purity.
Jay Miller
Jay Miller
originally posted by Brad Baker:
Just popped into my head that another well known producer who delays any Sulfur use and is a big believer in allowing some oxidation to occur to the juice after pressing is Pierre Peters. Rodolphe (and before him his father) always allows some oxidation to occur as it helps stabilize the juice/wine and encourages the "bad elements" to drop out. The wine then enters a reductive environment and ages beautifully. If you have ever had any old straight vintage or Special Club/Cuvee Speciale, it is hard to argue with their beauty and purity.
Good to know. thanks. I usually make FlJim's R&G error with their Champagnes (i.e., "but they taste so good young...").
robert ames
robert ames
so has anyone out there popped a 1996 pierre peters millesime or cuvee speciale?
a couple years terry theise told me that he thought the 1996 millesime should be getting up to speed.
a couple years terry theise told me that he thought the 1996 millesime should be getting up to speed.
Brad Baker
Brad Baker
Robert,
The 96 Millesime is far more ready than the 96 Cuvee Speciale, but I don't think either are really ready. The Cuvee Speciale will go on and on for a decades; you can pop it now, but for fans of creamy, toffee, peach, and apricot filled Champagne, you will want to wait. The Millesime won't hit the same highs and doesn't need as long to deliver a bit of toasty, creamy toffee, but it still needs at least another 5-8 years in my book. Now, if you prefer things more on the zippy, zesty side and don't want the creamy, toffee notes then now is a good time to check in on the Millesime.
The 96 Millesime is far more ready than the 96 Cuvee Speciale, but I don't think either are really ready. The Cuvee Speciale will go on and on for a decades; you can pop it now, but for fans of creamy, toffee, peach, and apricot filled Champagne, you will want to wait. The Millesime won't hit the same highs and doesn't need as long to deliver a bit of toasty, creamy toffee, but it still needs at least another 5-8 years in my book. Now, if you prefer things more on the zippy, zesty side and don't want the creamy, toffee notes then now is a good time to check in on the Millesime.
originally posted by Brad Baker:
Ray,
I haven't had the 96 RD in over a year. To clarify what I meant about Bollinger - it doesn't mean the wine is bad; it just means that it is aging on a much faster curve than I think most would expect. This isn't a wine I would personally keep much longer than 2015 and I don't think it will get much better than it is right now.
Specifically speaking of the RD, I preferred the Grande Annee in 1996 to the RD. Don't get me wrong, the RD is good, but I don't think it is worth the price especially when the Grande Annee is less. In general, I have not found Bollinger's RD series to be worth cellaring more than 2-5 years post-disgorgement with 2-3 being the sweet spot for most vintages (1988 being a recent example of one where I thought 5 years was the sweet spot). I'm not saying the wine goes bad after 2-5 years, but it starts a slow downward spiral.
Most of the pre-maturity seen by the 1996 cuvees really starts taking place post disgorgement and can take a few years to start showing. With the 96 RD, I think the wine would likely be on the downslope (for my palate) by the time any other pre-mature factors would be kicking in.
Hi Brad - had a 96 RD the other night. It was June 2006 disgorgement. To me, it did not seem to be on a premature aging curve. Rather it was very disjointed and in an awkward phase right now. The acid was very pronounced - I did not get the sense it was aging any faster than other 96s I have tried recently. If anything, I think its still at least a few years away from being "ready".
Brad Baker
Brad Baker
Ray,
I don't think that the 96 RD is going to balance out. When the 96 RD was only 1-2 years past disgorgement the acidity stuck out less and the wine was actually quite more balanced. At this point, I think the acid is likely going to stick out more and more while the fruit will slowly dry up. I can't say I have picked up any premature notes in the RD like I have in the Grande Annee, but I have picked up disjoint due to very high acidity and slowly disappearing fruit. I've yet to see a Bolly RD that was disjointed and awkward when young turn it around. That just isn't the style of the wine. The 1981 RD is a great example of this.
As I mentioned, I think the 96 RD will be past its peak (which I think most disgorgements already are) before any early maturity even enters the picture. Early maturity might make the 96 RD less tasty down the road, but by that point I think it will already be past its best.
Part of the issue with a number of 1996s isn't that they don't have acidity, it is that the fruit is ahead of schedule and the acidity is still piercing. Makes for a bit of an awkward mess that time doesn't fix. Piercing acidity doesn't mean a wine isn't ahead of the curve aging wise or that it will balance out.
I do know a number of folks who like RDs a long time after disgorgement; I'm not one of them. I also know people who went ga-ga over the 96 RD; I wasn't one of them either. No harm in keeping a 96 RD to see what it turns into, but I don't think it will get better.
I don't think that the 96 RD is going to balance out. When the 96 RD was only 1-2 years past disgorgement the acidity stuck out less and the wine was actually quite more balanced. At this point, I think the acid is likely going to stick out more and more while the fruit will slowly dry up. I can't say I have picked up any premature notes in the RD like I have in the Grande Annee, but I have picked up disjoint due to very high acidity and slowly disappearing fruit. I've yet to see a Bolly RD that was disjointed and awkward when young turn it around. That just isn't the style of the wine. The 1981 RD is a great example of this.
As I mentioned, I think the 96 RD will be past its peak (which I think most disgorgements already are) before any early maturity even enters the picture. Early maturity might make the 96 RD less tasty down the road, but by that point I think it will already be past its best.
Part of the issue with a number of 1996s isn't that they don't have acidity, it is that the fruit is ahead of schedule and the acidity is still piercing. Makes for a bit of an awkward mess that time doesn't fix. Piercing acidity doesn't mean a wine isn't ahead of the curve aging wise or that it will balance out.
I do know a number of folks who like RDs a long time after disgorgement; I'm not one of them. I also know people who went ga-ga over the 96 RD; I wasn't one of them either. No harm in keeping a 96 RD to see what it turns into, but I don't think it will get better.