Posts Tagged ‘Wine’

2002… Part 3

27 of Oct 2010, filed under Reaching Out

A couple of months ago I discussed the opinions of US critics and journalists regarding 2002 Dom Pérignon, mentioning that their colleagues from the UK were sure to follow with their own commentaries.

Jancis Robinson MW had great words about this champagne, starting with the “extraordinarily firm, confident, intense nose”, and comparing it to one of the greatest wines in the world: “Definitely the savoury side of Dom. Nothing remotely sweet or fat – though it’s as intense as a Montrachet [...] More like a Montrachet with a bit of carbon dioxide laced into it than a typical Champagne.” She gave it a perfect score of 20/20, only the fourth Champagne to get this honor.

Serena Sutcliffe MW was equally praiseful: “A great bouquet of almost apple freshness as you open it. It totally tingles on the tongue. Utterly luscious and yet with ultimate finesse. Next day, on ullage, under a pressure cork: amazing, alluring Champagne, all minerality and toast – instantly recognisable Dom Pérignon.”

I would like to conclude this short overview with a nice blog article written by Anthony Rose about the Dom Pérignon releases in 2010, and in particular 2002 Dom Pérignon.

1 Comment »

Plénitudes

06 of Oct 2010, filed under Reaching Out

Following my invitation as a guest on the Wine Berserkers forum, here is the second question I selected, asked by Alan Weinberg:

How much age do you like to see on a bottle of Dom Pérignon before you drink it–peak or ideal is what I’m looking for. And what are your favorite vintages–any century? What are the next vintages planned–after 02?

Regarding the first question, it of course depends on whether we are considering the bottle before or after disgorgement.

After disgorgement, we do the utmost so that Dom Pérignon can be enjoyed right after release, not only defining carefully the timing of disgorgement but also waiting for at least another 6 months before releasing the bottles. From that point onward the wine will keep developing gracefully for at least 20 years, if not more. As for myself, I particularly enjoy Dom Pérignon 3 to 5 years after disgorgement.

If we now consider the wine on its lees (therefore while still undergoing yeast maturation, also called autolysis), I can see 3 windows of opportunity, or plénitudes: the first one 8 years after the vintage (which is when Dom Pérignon Vintage is released); followed by a second plénitude between 12 and 15 years after the vintage (which is the first Œnothèque release); and finally a third plénitude 30-40 years after the vintage (which leads to a second Œnothèque release, for example 1969 or 1971 right now). After this point I would say that the wines evolve only extremely slowly, with a steadier development curve.

Regarding the second question, I could answer it in two different ways. Either by mentioning the most recognized vintages, based on pedigree (e.g. 1921, 34, 47, 55, 59, all our vintages in the 60s, 73, 75, 76, 82, 85, 90, 96, 02). Or by considering the attachment I have for certain vintages, which is of a more intimate nature, typically due to the challenge they created: some of the time in the vineyard like 1969 (strict sorting of the grapes to a satisfactory quality) or 1980 (with very late borderline harvest); or in the cellar such as 1988 (as sharp as a razor blade, with the risk of being hollow on the midpalate—fortunately we managed to avoid that…) or 1996 (we had to master the impetuous and provocative character of the vintage, including the necessity to resist the temptation to incorporate some oxidative, forward developing Pinot Noir elements despite their charming nature).

Coming to the last question, all I can say is that the 2000s were an exciting decade, very generous with all the regions of France. On a purely technical basis we could have declared all the vintages except 2001. However we chose not to, but you will have to be patient to discover our decisions!

(You can find all the questions and answers on the special archive forum on Wine Berserkers.)

1 Comment »

’90, ’96 and ’02

23 of Sep 2010, filed under Looking Back

My invitation as a guest on the Wine Berserkers forum has now come to an end. I am really pleased with the level of participation and the quality of the questions. I have actually selected two of them that I would like to reproduce here: the first today, the second in the next couple of weeks. You can find all the questions and answers on the special archive forum on Wine Berserkers.

Jeff Munro asked the following question:

Could you explain how the wines from these recent past three great vintages (’90, ’96, ’02) are similar and different from your perspective? Each has their merits, and it would be interesting to see what your thoughts are on them as a group and individually.

I also consider these three vintages as the greatest ones of the past 20 years at Dom Pérignon, and I am pleased that we made them available right as we speak: 2002 Dom Pérignon Vintage, 1996 Dom Pérignon Œnothèque and 1990 Dom Pérignon Rosé Œnothèque.

These three vintages all display a very strong character, making a statement about intensity, volume and stature. Two of them (1990 and 2002) showed a personality fusional with the style of Dom Pérignon, highlighting the typical aspects of ampleness, roundness and texture. To the contrary, the nature of the 1996 vintage was in tension with the character of Dom Pérignon: concentration and power to the point of being somewhat provocative and haughty. This confrontation with Dom Pérignon’s style helped create a great Champagne.

In a way it reminds me of wine & food pairings: one can either play on the complementarity (fusion), or the opposition (tension). In both cases outstanding results can be achieved, but the greatest challenge lies with finding harmony in conflict.

1 Comment »

A Tale of Two 76s

28 of Aug 2010, filed under Behind The Scenes

Dom Pérignon cellar at Abbaye d'Hautvillers

This is the tale of two bottles of Dom Pérignon, from the exceptionally warm and dry vintage of 1976; born on the same day in the spring of 1977; and having spent the first seven years of their existence together in our cellars.

The first bottle was part of the original release of Vintage 1976 Dom Pérignon, disgorged in 1984. This bottle traveled from France to Sarajevo (Yugoslavia at the time) to start a new life, resting in the cellars of a famous restaurant. It managed to survive through the Bosnian war that tore the country apart… until a winemaker friend (who happens to be the only flying winemaker in Champagne!) recently acquired it on the premises–Sarajevo now being in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He brought it back home to Hautvillers, making it a really well-traveled bottle of wine!

The second bottle never left its birthplace, for a more peaceful life: instead of being disgorged after seven years, the wine kept maturing slowly and actively on the lees (of the yeast which made it sparkling in this very bottle), in the deep and cool wine library of Dom Pérignon. This extended period of undergoing a subtle and mysterious process of yeast maturation–we call it autolysis–gradually refined the aroma profile and the mouthfeel of the wine, all the while minimizing the action of oxidation (and thereby improving ageworthiness). I selected this bottle from our library for a one-off Œnothèque re-release five years ago: 1976 Dom Pérignon Œnothèque was hand disgorged (à la volée) in 2004. Dosage was really minimalist, actually the lowest ever in the history of Dom Pérignon.

Both bottles were eventually reunited (after so many years!) in the Abbaye of Hautvillers and we were fortunate enough to taste them next to each other. The original release Vintage had aged beautifully, showcasing powerful and opulent tertiary aromas, as could be expected from a 34-year-old wine. The more recently disgorged bottle stood out by its baffling freshness, intensity and complexity, putting the vintage under a new light. Both wines–the exact same blend from the same vintage–were outstanding in their own right. We could literally taste two different expressions of Dom Pérignon side by side; in my personal view the 1976 Œnothèque being truer to the spirit of Dom Pérignon with its magnified and incomparable precision, vibrancy and mouthfeel.

Two great wines, so close and so different, unmistakably Dom Pérignon.

1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »