I’m not saying that I don’t drink these “label” wines; I
do. In fact, my cellar is full of them. I know many people who enjoy
these high-end wines on a regular basis and I don’t consider them label
drinkers, as they are not afraid to call a wine out as disappointing or
under-performing. They have their own thoughts and that is the key to
not being a label drinker. A label drinker is someone who not only
drinks these expensive wines, but would drink them regardless of what is
in the bottle. They care not for the wine, they only care about the
label. So please understand that I’m not knocking the wine. I’m knocking
the people who think they should like the wine because of the label.
Trust your palate and say your true thoughts. Sometimes a $40 bottle can
drink better than a $200 bottle and that is okay. Price and fancy labels
aren’t everything. The world won’t end just because the famous label
wine doesn’t live up to its billing. Be true to yourself and don’t be a
label drinker.
I don’t have much patience for the opposite end of the spectrum from the
Label Drinker either: the Unknown Drinker. This type of person swears by
only small grower run operations that are unknown to most of the general
population. They believe that large producers are evil keepers of
weapons of mass destruction. Every small grower wine is good to them and
every large producer wine is bad. The small growers do indeed make some
great wine, but just as the large producers put out crap, so do growers.
To me, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It isn’t a battle of
labels & trends or big & small. It is a battle of good and bad. The one
thing I promise you is that I am an equal opportunity critic. I call
them as I see them, no matter the price or prestige. You have my word on
that.
1989 Veuve Clicquot Grande Dame
(38% Chardonnay, 62% Pinot Noir;
Disgorged 1996/97; $100-$125 US)
Oddly enough, I think I have had more of this vintage of Grande Dame
than any other over the last year or two. Across 6 different bottles it
has always remained consistent, showing both youth and also a bit of
“end of the line-ness.”
Deep flavors of citrus show off the young side of the wine while some
sherry, biscuit, and apricot notes bring in the maturity. That flavor
combination would make this wine a hit, but it also has a very drying
and slightly acidic finish that to me signals that it’s drying out. It
is still enjoyable, but I think its peak has passed. A good, but not
great vintage for Grande Dame. I will also add that this wine shows
better the longer the bottle is kept open. Past bottles have shown a bit
better when they saw more air than this bottle got.
Grade of High B (86-87 pts) with better bottles
or those seeing more air getting a B+ (87-89 pts). Find this wine
1990
Veuve Clicquot Grande Dame
(39% Chardonnay, 61% Pinot Noir;
Disgorged approximately 1998;
$100-$125 US)
1990 was a great vintage and Veuve took full advantage of the tools it
was given. A very large nose is the first thing that hits you as bold
spicy biscuits mix with peaches and citrus fruits. The flavor package
follows this same trend as a fruit parade of orange, lemon, juicy pears,
crisp Braeburn apples and peach tango with some fresh-from-the-oven
biscuits. It is very drinkable now, but nowhere near maturity.
Grade of A- (90-92 pts) for today with the
potential for further improvement over the next decade plus.
Find this wine
1996
Veuve Clicquot Grande Dame
(37.5% Chardonnay from Avize, Oger; &
Le Mesnil-sur-Oger, 62.5% Pinot Noir from Verzenay, Verzy, Ambonnay,
Bouzy; & Ay; All Grand Cru estate vineyards; $100-125 US)
I haven’t had a glass of this wine in over a year, after having had it
numerous times over the previous 18 months. I have always found it to be
very tasty, but rather mature for its age, and I have felt like it was
one to drink sooner rather than later. I was happy to get the chance to
sample this wine again and see where it is at.
Hmmm, this seems to be thinning out and it was never over the top, so
slimming down isn’t a compliment. The mature notes that were there in
the past seem to have faded, but nothing has replaced them. Chalky
citrus, biscuits, and faint pear notes make up the major flavor profile.
The finish really sums this wine up as it is ordinary and rather hollow.
It just isn’t very expressive.
I can’t write this off as a bad bottle because for this note, I sampled
multiple bottles at multiple times after opening to see if allowing the
wine to breathe would help it out. Maybe you can say this is sleeping or
changing. It could be, however I’m not betting on it turning into much.
The wine is good, but ordinary and for the price they are asking it
should perform better. We will see if time proves me wrong. In the past
this has gotten an A- (90-92) with the recommendation to drink sooner
rather than later. This time it gets a Grade of
High B (85-87 pts) and I have serious questions as to what the future
will bring.
Find this wine
NV
Krug Grande Cuvee
(Approximately 35% Chardonnay, 50%
Pinot Noir, 15% Pinot Meunier; Disgorged November-December 2005;
$110-140 US)
Lately, this wine has been on a roll. The uproar over the supposed style
change to match the label change of a couple years ago seems more and
more like a distant memory, and it should, as this wine just plain kicks
butt.
Lively citrus, creamy, spicy biscuits and wonderful hints of fresh
ground vanilla beans highlight this bubbly pleasure. Creamy pears baked
in a touch of butter and sprinkled with allspice finish the wine off. It
is still very young and bound to improve with a few more years, but this
is very good right now. What more can I say except to ask for another
glass? Grade of Solid A- (91-92 pts) with the
potential to improve slightly with some cellaring.
Find this wine
1995 Krug
(54% Pinot Noir, 30% Chardonnay, 16%
Pinot Meunier, Disgorged November-December 2005,
$175-225 US)
This is the fifth occasion I have been lucky enough to try this wine.
I’ve spent days with bottles I purchased and sampled glasses from
multiple bottles at tastings. I’ve had multiple disgorgements. Every
instance has yielded the same result. 1995 Krug is a good, yet
underperforming wine that doesn’t stand out and isn’t worth the money.
The wine is very young and still has a hint of greenness to it, but that
doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is that it doesn’t show any real
potential to be anything. It has that trademark Krug creamy, spicy,
biscuit flavor, but other than that there isn’t much going on. Some tart
pears and nutty vanilla work their way in, but everything is light and
subdued. It is almost like this bottle is sleepwalking through its job.
The finish doesn’t help as the strange citrus notes that I have found in
past bottles peak through in a cloying, late harvest type of way.
This bottle just lacks the normal oomph that I associate with Krug and I
can’t see it going anywhere. You can blast me if you want, but I call
them as I see them and I have seen enough of this bottle. If you want a
vintage Krug, for a similar price pick up the 1988 or the 1990 or wait
for the 1996 to come out. In fact, pick up the Grande Cuvee for a good
deal less money. It is a much better wine. If you don’t believe me, pick
up one of each and try them side-by-side. The mouth doesn’t lie.
Grade of B+ (87-89).
Find this wine
I’ve written about the 1995 Krug a couple times before (last year in
pre-Gang of Pour days) and quite a bit of debate arose over whether the
1995 Krug deserves “only” a B+ grade. To anyone who questions this
score, I ask you to recall what the 1988-1990 trio tasted like on
release or even go back to the 1981, 1982, and 1985 vintages. All six of
those wines were better on release, showed more promise, and are
wonderful today. The 1989 is probably the slacker (relatively speaking)
of the group and that is a solid A- wine. It is also a good deal better
than the 1995 is and will be. Also, the NV Krug Grande Cuvee is another
wonderful wine that comes in at the same level as the 1989. I think most
would agree that these wines are better than the 1995. I’ve had a few of
them side by side and the 1995 sticks out like a sore thumb (and not
just in a youthful way). To me that shows that the wine just doesn’t
deserve anything more than a B+ and is not worth the asking price. I
will now try to not talk about the 1995 Krug anymore.
NV
Ruinart Blanc de Blancs
(100% Chardonnay from Premier Cru
vineyards; Disgorged 2006;
$50-70 US)
I have always been a Ruinart fan, but over the last few years, it has
been more and more difficult to find anything except the basic NV Brut
(which is very good wine). I was happy to hear that Ruinart will be
focusing more on the US market and also bringing in their entire range
once again (including the excellent Dom Ruinart cuvees).
This is a very expressive wine with juicy tangerines, lemons, and pears
mixing with a young yeasty note. An extremely good drink right now, this
will only get better as toasty notes will develop to complement the
strong citrus core. I’m glad Ruinart is back on the shelves.
Grade of Low A- (89-91 pts).
Find this wine
1981
Ruinart Dom Ruinart Blanc de Blancs
(100% Chardonnay; Avize, Cramant,
Chouilly, Le Mesnil-sur-Oger, Sillery, & Verzenay; $150-$225 US)
I always love it when an older wine has a gentle mousse and plenty of
active, tiny bubbles. This one fits that bill perfectly. A golden yellow
color leads into a fragrant nose of toast, citrus, and minerals. It is a
gentle nose, but gains strength with time. The flavors follow the aromas
as soft scents of juicy tangerine and toast develop into strong tropical
citrus fruits, browned toast, and a creamy, buttery nutty note. My
excitement is toned down a bit by the shallow citrus and mineral finish
that leaves me wanting a bit.
This is developing nicely and is a touch better than it was a couple
years ago. The tropical fruit flavors are very nice, but I still don’t
quite get anything more than a very good experience from this bottle. I
wouldn’t buy it at current market prices, but for anyone who purchased
this on release or even 5 years ago, it is nice.
Grade of Low B+ (86-88 pts). This will certainly
age for much longer and change in profile, but is not likely to get
better.
Find this wine
1981
Taittinger Comtes de Champagne Blanc de Blancs
(100% Chardonnay; Most of the grapes
are from Avize, Chouilly, Cramant, Le Mesnil-sur-Oger, Oger & Pierry;
$150-$225 US)
I’ve always enjoyed this wine and for the last couple years it has
really been in its sweet spot. I figured it was time to check in again
and see if it was still as good as I remember. After all, I did give
this wine a rare A+ grade in 2005 (though a bottle last year was “only”
an A).
As with past bottles, the wine is full of bubbles dancing through a deep
gold. This wine just looks majestic. It smells majestic too as melons,
caramel drizzled on white toast, candied pecans, juicy peaches, and an
array of citrus fruits fill my nose. I feel like I have gone and died in
wine heaven and I haven’t even tasted it yet. Once I take a sip, my
mouth is startled by the youthful citrus notes that form a core for
notes of honeydew, cantaloupe, peach, apricot, butterscotch, hot
buttered nuts, and honey to grow from. As for the finish, it is caramel
drizzled over an array of peaches, melons, and nuts.
This is a brilliant wine that is still firing on all cylinders. It is
bottles like this that can turn you crazy searching for that next
“great” bottle. That search can take a long time. You can’t go to the
wine shop, buy a new release and get this type of experience. It takes
time, care, and a little luck. I’m glad I was lucky enough to have one
like this. Grade of A+ (96-98 pts).
Find this wine
1989 Bollinger Grande Année (from Magnum)
(Approximately 30% Chardonnay, 70%
Pinot Noir; Disgorged mid 1990s; $200-$250 US)
1989 was not the greatest vintage for Bollinger. The Grande Annee was a
big disappointment to me and Bollinger never deemed it worthy of the RD
tag. I have never had a Magnum of this before, but past 750 mL bottles
have always been full of nutty, meaty biscuits, but devoid of fruit and
out of balance to me. Lucky for me, the magnums appear to have fared
better (or at least this one did).
A sweet peachy nose with hints of oak leads into a spicy palate full of
peaches, pears, and biscuits. There is a raciness to this wine that
really differentiates this from past bottles I have had. However, as
with the 1989 Grande Dame above, there is a dried out aspect to it that
is worrisome for the future. I believe this is likely peaking now as the
fruit shows signs of starting to fade. Regardless, it is a nice wine.
Just make sure you buy it in Magnum. Grade of
low B+ (86-88 pts); when out of a 750 mL bottle, this grade drops to a
B- (80-83 pts).
Find this wine
1999
Moet & Chandon Dom Perignon
(Approximately 50% Chardonnay, 50%
Pinot Noir; Disgorged 2006;
$100-120 US)
What better wine to review under the topic of label wines than the
original and most popular label wine? Everyone knows what it is and many
“non wine geeks” buy it when they want to drink and give the best.
Sometimes it's great stuff and other times overpriced bubbly grape
juice. As with Cristal, it is literally a license to print money and
that can be bad if the contents don't warrant the hype and price. Just
remember that it is what's in the bottle that counts. So how is this
vintage?
The 1999 Dom is a tough one for me to get a read on. I tried it on two
occasions from a total of four bottles and I’m still left scratching my
head a bit. That isn’t a bad thing, as this wine is quite good. I just
can’t quite place where on the quality ladder it fits. It has a very
lively and fragrant nose that shows lots of creamy citrus flowers and
hints of a more concentrated citrus as well. The palate shows touches of
spice, biscuit, fresh mushrooms, and lots of jagged citrus that jumps
from orange to lemon/lime to tangerine to grapefruit.
Overall, I think this is a good example of the 1999 vintage and one that
will improve. To put it in perspective with past vintages, I find this
to be a bit of bucking bronco and it almost shows to be a slightly
softened version of the 1995, which I very much enjoy. It isn’t as good
as the 1996 or 1995, but is better than the 1992 and 1993. I feel it
will be better than the 1998 over time, but isn’t drinking as well right
now. There is a raciness to this and I can put it no better than Jorge
Lopez-Chavez from Village Corner in Ann Arbor, MI who commented to me
that it was full of pungent flavors. I think that sums this bottle up
nicely, but I would still like to spend more time on the bottle to get a
better read on it. For now, I will score it in a very wide range.
Grade of B+/A- (87-93 pts) with a narrower score
to come in the future.
Find this wine
Cheers!
Brad Baker
BACK TO THE TOP
BACK TO BRAD BAKER'S
INDEX PAGE
May 2007 © Brad Baker
1995
Krug is a great wine to study in an effort to understand what label
drinking is. 1995 was a very good vintage and the wine was highly
anticipated. I cannot recall any recent vintage of Krug being a
disappointment. In fact, it is rare to find the non-vintage Krug Grande
Cuvee disappointing. Add to this the pre-release hype that many of the
glossy wine publications gave the wine and you had lots of excitement
and pre-orders. I was one of those excited pre-ordering in quantity
fools. Then I tried the wine and it was good, but very disappointing.
