Of course, I hope all wines outperform my minimum expectations, but I just don’t believe you can expect a mind blowing experience out of every bottle, every time. I never expect any wine to ever be more than an A- wine. I don’t expect A, let alone A+ scores no matter what a wine costs. The A and A+ wines are works of art and just cannot be counted on or expected. To me that type of score is a bonus and a treat. An A+ is my equivalent to the popular 100 pts; I just have levels in my A+ scale (97-100) because even perfect or near perfect bottles will vary by a few points. I say all this because I don’t want anyone to think I don’t like a wine because I didn’t give it a “90” and I want you to understand the context of why I might praise one B+ wine more than another. I also want you to understand that it is okay to buy and like wines that score in the 80s.

Hopefully you made it this far because there is some good stuff below. Here are a few wines from the end of 2006 and start of 2007.

1996 Philipponnat Clos des Goisses
(Approximately 70% Pinot Noir, 30% Chardonnay; Single vineyard in Mareuil-sur-Ay; Disgorged April 2006; $110-135 US)
A very light golden color and tiny bubbles greet me and invite me in. I’m excited as this wine has gotten numerous accolades. What will it be like? The nose is rather rich with thick biscuit & toast dough, hints of baking spice, and cinnamon flowers (do they even exist?). Fresh citrus blossoms (lemon, orange and lime with lime dominant) are growing right next to the cinnamon flowers and they are both located near a crystal clear brook rolling over stones, making for one heck of a nose. It even has a finish of its own as I keep catching drifts of it long after the glass has been pulled away.

With an hour or so of air time, it is near perfection for a young wine. But a nose does not make a wine. We must also taste it, so taste it we do, and we get a completely different wine, but that is okay because this is a youngster. Tart and dry citrus forms a backbone for aging and meshes with raw half-toast/half-biscuit dough (I wonder if the toast or biscuit notes will win out over time), hints of freshly harvested and ground baking spices, yellow apples just starting to ripen, not-quite-yet dried out apricots, and picked-too-soon peaches.

Overall, this wine is very young in the fruit compartment. The spice and dough notes are coming along a touch ahead of schedule and I wish it was dosed a bit more to help balance out the precocious and lagging aspects of this wine, but that is being picky. This is a powerful wine that finishes with a drying citrus and slightly yeasty note that leaves a few mouth wetting morsels of flavor as it leaves and forces you to open the door back up and drink another glass. I enjoyed it, but I think most would probably find this too young right now. That is okay as this will be even better in a decade. Wait, scratch that and make it two decades. Just you wait. You shall be rewarded. This will be a “Wow” wine. Grade of A- (90-92 pts) for today with High A or A+ potential in 10-25 years (94-98 pts). Find this wine

1995 Charles Heidsieck Millesime Brut
(70% Pinot Noir, 30% Chardonnay; Disgorged 2003; 12 % alc; $60-80 US )
Charles Heidsieck makes great wines. I mean really great wines, especially for the price. Daniel Thibault was a genius, a legend, and when they bring up best winemakers ever (from Champagne or elsewhere), his name belongs in the discussion.

The 1995 and past vintage releases have been darlings of the critics and gotten extremely high scores… scores like 96, 97, 98 points. I like the wines, but are they really that good? I tried the 1995 Millesime twice 1-2 years ago and didn’t quite find it to be worthy of 90 points let alone the 97 that one very popular speculative wine magazine dropped on it. I couldn’t quite tell where this was going at that time and gave it a B (83-86 pts) with the possibility that this would get a good deal better with a some time. Low 90s scores for Heidsieck vintage wines and some releases of their NV Mis en Cave Brut Reserve are not out of the ordinary so it was time to check in and see if I could get a better read on this wine. I had to once more look and find out if the wine is worthy of the hype. There is only one way to do that, so I chilled a bottle and let the cork fly.

The nose is still a bit closed in the fruit department, as it was 1-2 years ago, but shows nice notes of fresh dough, chalk, light citrus, and honey-kissed vanilla cream. The aromas are nice, but they are a bit too subdued for what I would really like to see. I need more fruit or biscuit/toast with my cream, please. Given time to open up, the palate fills with a bright floral citrus acidity. It really gives the wine a nice backbone and ensures that it will age well.

Joining this citrus backbone are flavors of juicy peach and toasty dough laced with vanilla cream and hints of tropical fruit and lightly toasted nuts. With time, more and more toasty notes come out, but they don’t seem to mesh with the other flavors yet. This wine really has a lot going for it, but the finish loses me with its slightly drying and bitter citrus kick. It isn’t horrible, but it just takes the wine in a different direction and that is what I don’t like. The nose is in one place, the palate is in another, and the finish is someplace completely different. It makes me long for what could have been or what could be, because if this wine pulls it together over time it will be very good. For today, however, it is just a very good and above average wine. I really do like this wine, but it lacks the factor that makes me say, “Oh this good, more please.”  It also lacks the characteristics that make me say with certainty that everything will come together with time. I have a feeling that the promise and parts of this wine will always be greater than the final sum. I also can’t help but compare it to the NV Mis en Cave Brut Reserve as the difference between them is not very large for current drinking. The 1995 Millesime will age better, is brighter, and is more citrus led than the NV Mis en Cave, which will age a bit quicker and is more vanilla nut & cream led (more mature notes). The NV Mis en Cave is also ½ the price.

Overall, the 1995 Millesime Brut is a bit better than the bottles I tried in 2005 and a touch better than the current NV Mis en Cave release, but nothing special yet and it will never earn 93, let alone 97 points (I would love to understand how others score their wines. Is it only on an 85-100 pt scale?). Grade of B+ (87-89) with the potential to be a Lower A- (90-92 pts) as it rolls through the next decade.  Find this wine

1996 Jacquesson Extra Brut
(57% Pinot Noir - 31% from the Montagne de Reims and 26% from Ay and Dizy, 43% Chardonnay from the Cote des Blancs; Oak fermented; 3.5 g/L dosage; 12% alc; Disgorged Jan-Mar 2006; $70-85 US)
The light sunshine color of this wine perfectly matches a sunny blue sky in this so far, so good warm 2006-7 Michigan winter. A very active mousse leads into a clean nose of penetrating floral citrus kissed by cream and dough. The palate follows the nose’s lead and kicks off with a good citrus streak, but where the nose was penetrating, the palate’s citrus character starts strong, then quickly lightens up. As the citrus lightens, steely notes weave their way into the citrus flavor and invite some yellow apples and pears to join in. Eventually some dough, yeast, and dry bread notes show up too.

The finish is a touch drying and full of slightly racy citrus and mineral notes. This wine is good, but leaves me wanting more. It is just too light and non-expressive for me. Age will solve some of these problems, but I think the dosage (3.5 g/L of sugar) is too low for it to ever get to where it needs to be. With such a low dosage as this wine has, I think it will dry out before it ever has a chance to fully blossom. I wish this was given a few more g/L of dosage; it really would have benefited the wine in my opinion.

As much as I admire Jacquesson for its flexibility with its cuvee blending, I wish they were flexible on how they dosed. Each vintage and blend deserves to be given a dosage specific to it and not just according to a “house rule book.” Don’t get me wrong, this is a good wine, but the 1996 Jacquesson Avize Blanc de Blancs is much better and less expensive (by $10-20 US). Grade of B+ (87-89 pts). Find this wine

1996 Jacquesson Avize Grand Cru Extra Brut
(100% Chardonnay; Some oak aging; dosage 3.5 g/L; disgorged 2/05; $40-65 US)
And, hey, since I mentioned this wine in the 1996 Jacquesson review above , why not a tasting note on the 1996 Jacquesson Avize Grand Cru. In the glass, this wine shows pale hay in color, with tiny bubbles and a wonderful nose of just blooming flowers, crispy toast, and some hard citrus. The palate is quite dry and shows very profound toast and citrus notes. They work together and separately to give this wine one backbone with two legs that really pulls you in and allows flavor branches to bloom.

One branch shows spicy flowers meshing with deep notes of well-done, but not-too-dark toast. Another branch shows pear and creamy walnuts filling out a big dose of citrus. A long finish is highlighted by creamy pears fading into “just-put-into-the-toaster” toast and a dry yet still mouthwatering vanilla goodbye kiss.

I have said it before and I will say it again, this is a first class wine, let alone Champagne. My only concern (as with the 1996 Jacquesson Extra Brut) is that I do not know how time will treat the low dosage in this release. My guess is that in 10 years this will begin a decline and will no longer be holding well. I think it will eventually show too much dry toast and acidity and not enough fruit and other flavors.

I'm usually not a big fan of Extra Brut wines for long term aging because of these reasons, but it is hard not to love this wine. It is a classic Blanc de Blancs that should continue to develop over the next 5 years and probably drink well up to its 20th birthday. After that, I don’t know what will happen. Grade of A- (90-92 pts), but this has the potential to be a Low A (92-93 pts) over the next 5 years or even today for lovers of low dosage Champagnes. Find this wine

1998 Henri Billiot Millesime Brut
(At least 80% Pinot Noir with the remainder Chardonnay; Ambonnay; 12% alc; Disgorged 2005; $60-70 US)
An amber apricot color that is darker than most 1998 Champagnes greets me and invites me in. I enter and the nose is throwing one heck of a party, with aromas of peaches, flowers, hot buttered biscuits, and brown sugar melting on baked ruby red grapefruit are dancing up a storm.

I make my way deeper into the party and find a big, rich palate that is full of chewy biscuits and racy, yeasty dough. This is just huge in the flavor department. It shows a zippy, spritzer like citrus character, but has tons of juicy pear and peach fruit to balance out not only the citrus notes, but also the big chewy flavors. After hanging out and partying a little, it is time to leave and what a sendoff I am given as the finish lingers on and on with a zesty, spicy, yeasty, citrus zip and pear notes fading into bright yellow apples. Yowza, we have a winner! If you like Pinot dominated or flavor packed Champagne, you will love this. Somehow this wine manages to balance big and racy with fruit forward. Everything is in your face, yet it is so well balanced. This is oh soooo good. I’m sure it will age well, but why not drink it now. It is that good today and ranks as one of the top 1998 Champagnes I have had to date. Grade of Strong A- (91-93 pts). Find this wine

1975 Piper Heidsieck Cuvee Florens-Louis
(80% Chardonnay, 20% Pinot Noir; % alc; Disgorged early 1980s; $110-220 US)
This is the old tete de cuvee of Piper-Heidsieck prior to their Rare cuvee that was launched with the 1976 vintage. I’ve always been a fan of older Piper Heidsieck bottlings and found that they have aged nicely across the board from the basic vintage all the way up to the top of the line bottlings.

This bottle was no different although it made me nervous at first. As we tried to open the bottle, the cork broke off and a corkscrew was called in to service. Once the cork was fully removed, the wine came into the glass showing a wonderful effervescence and an amber gold color (along with a few pieces of cork). Initially, it gave off some sherried aromas and not much else. Along with the nose, the palate was also closed. This left me a bit worried, but given 20-30 minutes, this wine started to open up and give me some peeks into what it had to offer. With an hour, this really started singing with aromas of baked bread laced with walnuts and almonds, candied pears and peaches, hints of apricot, and mature and concentrated orange led citrus. Some sherried aromas remained, but they added to rather than subtracted from the experience.

The palate was kicking into high gear as well. If this wine was a dish, it would be toast topped with a spread made of butterscotch, sweet cream, and caramelized nuts served alongside a bowl of sliced peaches, pears, & oranges. The citrus was still bright and bursting in my mouth all the way through the sweet, creamy, caramel filled orange and peach finish.

Overall, this is very young for its age and quite complex. I enjoyed this old timer and would gladly drink it over and over again. It is a bit lighter in flavor than the current Piper Heidsieck tete de cuvee “Rare”, but it has handled aging like a superstar and shines with its elegant complexity. While this is wonderful to drink now, I wouldn’t be afraid to let this cellar for a while longer; it won’t get better, but I don’t think it is fading anytime soon. Grade of A- (90-92 pts). Find this wine

NV E. Barnaut Cuvee Edmond
(40% Pinot Noir, 40%. Chardonnay, 20% Pinot Meunier; Bouzy; 13% alc; Disgorged 2005; $35-50 US)
Initially, this wine attacked my nostrils with an army of floral citrus and peach warriors, but they must have won the war rather quickly because over time the warriors relaxed and mellowed out with a group of orange creamsicle gypsies that invited me in for a taste. So I tasted and found an excellent orange-led acidity mixing with vanilla and creamy peaches to form the core flavors. Some freshly rolled biscuit dough and a bit of fluffy earthiness join in to complement the core flavors. They help add some weight to the wine and lead into a wonderful juicy orange and cream finish that dances around in my mouth.

As a side note, I would advise you to drink this while it's chilled, unless you are a Pinot Meunier fan, as the earthy Meunier develops a bit of a bitter bite as it warms up. This is very attractive and very easy to drink. I have always enjoyed this wine and found it to consistently be my favorite from Barnaut. His other wines sometimes hit higher peaks, but they sometimes fail to deliver as well, as I occasionally find unclean notes in every Barnaut except this one. That isn’t to say I don’t like them, I do; when they are on they are on! I don’t know if the different bottle shape on the Cuvee Edmond means it is handled differently or what, but this is always a solid extra base hit in my book. It is always consistently good. Grade of B+ (87-89 pts). Find this wine

1999 Louis Roederer Brut
(2/3 Pinot Noir, 1/3 Chardonnay; Dosage of 11-12 g/L; Disgorged early 2005; $50-65 US)
A nose of young and zesty citrus flowers greets me as I smile at the glass. The nose smiles back and lets me know that this is going to be a very nice wine. As I take a sip, citrus and creamy biscuit dough roll around and mesh with some tart apple and pear fruit. A bit of pie crust seems to sneak in the back door at the last second. As it disappears back out the door, a zesty orange-led citrus and biscuit dough finish makes a final statement of, "I am 1999 Roederer Vintage Brut; I may not be Cristal, but I am darned good." I really like this wine. The only thing holding me back from loving it is that I can pay a few dollars more and get a slightly better bottle of wine with the 1999 Roederer Rose. And, I can pay a few dollars more than that and get a killer bottle of the 1999 Roederer Blanc de Blancs. Still, this is a very good bottle and I would recommend it.

As the 2000 vintage is starting to roll out, you should pick up a few of the 1999 Roederer wines if you get a chance (see other 1999 Roederer reviews below). They will soon be disappearing from the shelves and are great to drink now and cellar. Your taste buds will thank you.  Grade of B+ (87-88 pts). Find this wine

1999 Louis Roederer Rose
(70% Pinot Noir, 30% Chardonnay; Maceration method; Dosage of 11-12 g/L; Disgorged early 2005; $50-65 US)
This wine starts off right with a beautiful pale salmon color and a huge fizz. The bubbles leap out of the glass! As the wine is leaping, it gives off a huge, floral ruby red grapefruit and juicy strawberry nose. A touch of biscuit dough joins in to fill out a wine that is very young and active. The palate continues this trend, as it is very zesty, with lots of orange blossoms and strawberry in front of dough and slightly bitter raw nuts. A medium-long finish is highlighted by nuts turning into a slightly spicy & wonderful mouth wetting raspberry lemonade. What can I say? This is a very nice young wine and tad better than the basic 1999 Roederer Brut reviewed above, but not at the same level as the 1999 Roederer Blanc de Blancs and Cristal cuvees  reviews below. Roederer did a top notch job in 99 and is an early candidate for producer of the year, but I would personally pass over this and pick up the Blanc de Blancs for only $5-10 more a bottle. Grade of Solid B+ (88-89 pts). Find this wine
 
1999 Louis Roederer Blanc de Blancs
(100% Chardonnay from the Cote des Blancs, 4 atm pressure like a Cremant; Some used oak aging; No malolactic fermentation; Dosage 11-12 g/L; Disgorged early in 2005; $50-70 US)
Tiny, tiny bubbles lead into a aromatic onslaught of cream & flowers, with a nutty, slightly spicy dough kick. The 4 atmospheres of pressure (most Champagnes have greater pressure in the bottle; they are normally closer to 6 atmospheres) matches this wine quite nicely as the mouth feel is heightened. On the palate, even more flavors join in the parade, with lots of orange, a hint of spice, nuts, cream, light bread, and a wonderful cinnamon apple note. Rich and creamy for a Roederer Blanc de Blancs (BdB), but still with excellent acidity and elegance.

Just as with the 1999 Cristal reviewed below, this is a glorious wine with the only noticeable fault being a slightly jagged finish. I am very impressed with what Roederer did in 1999. The wines are big and flavorful. For those of you who don't want to drop the dough on the Cristal, pick up some of this and have the next best thing. It isn't that different in quality or flavor. Add some acidity and brightness to the 1999 Cristal and you have this wine. Grade of A- (90-92 pts). Find this wine

1999 Louis Roederer Cristal
(Approximately 55% Pinot Noir, 45% Chardonnay; Some oak aging; 11-12 g/L dosage; Disgorged mid-2005; $170-220 US)
In the glass, this shows bright hay in color and, man, those bubbles are small. For those who question storing opened Champagne, the fizz was just as fizzy on day two.

As for the nose, it is huge. I mean this has a huge nose that imprints itself in your nostrils. This is a baked apple pie right out of the oven and set down next to some fresh cut limes. It is quite overwhelming and in a different (bigger) style from what I have come to expect from Cristal.

Over time, this just gets better as the air brings in big, doughy biscuits mixed with honeysuckle, cream, and light citrus flavors. I could still smell the wine in the mist as I washed my glass out in hot water after finishing the final sips. A wonderfully fresh palate is highlighted by lemon-lime notes that mesh with dough, biscuit, vanilla, chocolate, nuts, and cream. If you don't like lots of flavor, power, and complexity then you won't like this.

As with the nose, this gets better and better as it breathes. It turns into a fruit pie wine that is loaded with baked apples and a hint of a few baked peaches too. This is big and chewy for Cristal and, dare I say hedonistic, for a Champagne. You really need to sit with this wine to understand it, but even a glass should be enough to make you say, “Wow, this is damn good!”  I'm normally not the biggest Cristal fan, but this is unbelievable stuff. A long, creamy finish full of citrus & nuts is thrown off course a bit by some notes of wood that stand out as unbalanced when compared to the rest of the wine and add a distracting bitterness. Still, this is brilliant.

1999 was Jean-Baptiste Lecaillon's first vintage in full charge of the winemaking and I don’t know if this has had an effect, but someone turned my Cristal up to 11. 1999 wasn’t the best vintage; it was good, but not great. Yet, somehow Cristal raised its game. The usage of wood seems greater than normal here too, so that could be the cause of some of it. This is already a great wine, but I think if you give this 3-5 years, it will really “wow” you. It is amazing how a 6+ year old Champagne can already taste so integrated and mature, but that is Cristal and that is why I don't age it like I do other high end Champagnes.

Following the Cristal history, this is ready young & I think will peak at 10-15 years. The dosage is on the high end of Brut, but it is not disruptive. If you don't mind your head spinning from everything going on in this wine, you will love it. A wonderful wine that calls out for a good meal to go with it. The only negative I can find is the bitterness on the finish and some notes that are a bit overly heavy. Otherwise, this Champagne is brilliant. Grade of A (93-95 pts) with A+ (97-99 pts) potential over the next 3-7 years. Find this wine

Well, after complaining about high scores, I go ahead and grade the entire set of wines above very highly. I had an unbelievable week of drinking great wines, but they aren’t all like that. There are some 80-85 pointers out there that are fun to drink and are great values. There are also some expensive atrocities. I’ll be sure to let you know of each as I taste them.

Cheers!

Brad Baker

BACK TO THE TOP

Link to Gang of Pour Home Page

Link to Gang of Pour Site Index (Table of Contents)