TN: Moet & Chandon and Veuve Clicquot vertical 4/3/13

[n4sir]

With the weather still hot and muggy a few weeks ago, it was perhaps good timing that I attended a Vintage Champagne vertical tasting featuring the houses of Moet & Chandon and Veuve Clicquot. As usual, all of the following wines were served blind, and all were bottled under natural cork.


FIRST FLIGHT:

2004 Moet & Chandon Grand Vintage Champagne: Very pale straw/green colour with a very vigorous mousse and fine bead. Bready and slightly cheesy, a hint of grass there too; the palate's fresh and very primary with piercing acidity, crisp apple juice, some more complex yeast/brioche characters mid-palate, finishing with green apples and a bready rebound. A very smart start to the tasting.

2004 Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Champagne Brut Vintage Reserve: Pale straw with a hint of green, a good mousse and fine bead. Looked good, but smelled and tasted of cork taint.

2002 Moet & Chandon Grand Vintage Champagne: Pale straw with a good mousse and fine bead. Much more complex than the 2004 vintage right from the outset, opening with crushed gravel, baked apples, stonefruit and crunchy acidity mid-palate, finishing very long with prominent baked bread/brioche characters. The classiest wine of the first flight by a large margin.

2002 Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Champagne Brut Vintage Reserve: Pale to medium straw, with a good mousse and fine bead. Seems much older than the 2002 Moet, with more obvious aldehydic characters, very yeasty with some hazelnut, although there is some fresher grapefruit characters with breathing; likewise the palate's fresher, baked apples with a very bready/apple cider mid-palate, finishing crisp and minerally but also a bit short. It's a real pity the 2004 Veuve wasn't up to par to compare this to.


SECOND FLIGHT:

2000 Moet & Chandon Grand Vintage Champagne: Pale straw/green with a very vigorous mousse and fine bead. Very closed nose that's surprisingly still showing some sulphur and stink, some grassy and citrus characters buried deep underneath; a soft entry leads to a palate with green apples and piercing, harsh acidity that softens a touch mid-palate, finishing minerally with excellent length and some green apple. I'm stunned at the apparent immaturity of this wine, and am beginning to wonder if it will ever come around; it's always had some stink, and with its lack of weight and odd acidity (and surprisingly high dosage for that matter) compared to the 2002 vintage I'm beginning to have some doubts.

1998 Moet & Chandon Grand Vintage Champagne: Pale straw with a vigorous mousse and fine bead. Much more complex than the 2000 vintage, cheesy, bready and yeasty/aldehydic; a powerful and very creamy entry leads to a mid-palate full of brioche and French vanilla, finishing clean and crisp with crunchy acidity. Very enjoyable to drink right now, the standout vintage of this flight.

1995 Moet & Chandon Grand Vintage Champagne: Medium straw/yellow with a good mousse, but little bead, very flat very quickly. Heavily developed with a slight mousy character on the nose at times suggesting it is oxidised/past its best, although there are also pleasant toasted cashew, honey and bees wax characters; the palate's a little fresher, surprisingly creamy but also very yeasty/aldehydic, with a long but very skinny finish.

1993 Moet & Chandon Grand Vintage Champagne: Pale straw/yellow with a good mousse, and very fine bead. Notably sweeter than the previous vintages, quite biscuity with gingersnap and candy characters matching baked apple fruit; the palate has good creaminess and length, but the acidity is sticking out and the sweetness borders on being too much.


THIRD FLIGHT:

1986 Moet & Chandon Grand Vintage Champagne: Pale straw with a vigorous mousse and fine bead. Weird and revolting, vegetal, earthy and dirty with asparagus/charred capsicum, pickles, even a touch of shoe polish; the palate's medicinal, grassy, and flat as a tack, with bare acid on the finish. Undrinkable.

1980 Moet & Chandon Grand Vintage Champagne: Medium straw/yellow with a good mousse, but little bead, very flat very quickly. Very smoky with French vanilla and a touch of oyster shell, some lovely spice/grated ginger characters; it still has very good sweetness, but ultimately lacks real body and any creaminess. Way past its best, but at least it's drinkable.

1978 Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Champagne Brut Vintage Reserve: Pale straw/yellow with a good mousse, and very fine bead. The nose was sherried and honeyed with just the faintest hint of dampness at first, enough to keep me guessing; good creaminess on entry leads to a very dry mid-palate with harsh, teeth-hurting acid, finishing very toasty and grippy. Something like a heavily aged, very bad sparkling riesling on steroids, a wine with zero enjoyment.


FINAL FLIGHT:

2003 Moet & Chandon Champagne Cuvee Dom Perignon: Pale straw/green with a very vigorous mousse and fine bead. Very tight and flinty, cheesy and grassy, full of green apple and zippy acid, cashew with breathing, powerful but not particularly enjoyable, finishing very clean with crisp, crunchy acidity. It's a classy wine, but to be very critical lacks a bit on the back palate for my liking - maybe it would have been better served with the youngest wines in the first flight?

1998 Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Champagne Brut La Grande Dame: Pale straw with a hint of green, good mousse and very fine bead. Gorgeous bouquet, full of brioche and strawberries, candied citrus peel, spice and baked apples; the palate's drier in style but just as appealing, minerally and elegant with excellent length, just a tad more creaminess would have elevated it into the top level. A bit of time should see it get there.

1985 Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Champagne Brut La Grande Dame: Light to medium gold with a good mousse and very fine bead. This has all of the glorious brioche, spice and strawberry characters of the 1998 vintage but in greater volume, with additional attractive touches of grass and lemon/citrus. The palate has another dimension, lovely, crunchy yet soft acidity, rich creaminess on the fat mid-palate that's not there in the 1998 right now, and a crisp, minerally finish. Outstanding stuff.

1985 Moet & Chandon Champagne Cuvee Dom Perignon: Medium to dark gold with a good mousse and very fine bead. A completely different style to the Veuve Clicquot La Grande Dame, yet just as outstanding, the bouquet full of citrus, French vanilla, and smoky oyster. A very creamy entry leads to an elegant, minerally and precise mid-palate, lemony and slightly buttery/custardy, bready/apple characters with breathing, finishing with French vanilla. Just about everything I imagined a great Dom Perignon could be, a magnificent way to finish the tasting.


Cheers,
Ian

[RedVelvet]

Great notes as always, thanks Ian. I enjoyed this read and the wine comparison here.

[dlo]

Shame so many of the wine's were DOA or not particularly good from Ian's usual very well written notes.

I can vouch for the quality of the 2002 Moet Grand Vintage. A friend put me onto it after going through duty free and paying AUS$100 a bottle. Some year or two later I bought several for $70 retail! I've had the 2002 Veuve a while back and it improved dramatically in the glass after a reasonably shaky start but didn't like it enough to buy any.

I'm glad the 1985 LGD and DP were singing for you, Ian. 1985 was a freaky vintage dominated by a tiny crop the result of very bad frosts, IIRC, but the wine's were generally first class acroos the board. Krug vintage was an absolute belter.

[Mike Hawkins]

Thanks Ian,

Its surprising the 86 Moet was so poor as they didnt make a regular DP, so theoretically there should have been some decent grapes in it. That said, its not a wine i recall having drunk before.

The 2000 Moet is a weak wine, and reflects the warmer vintage. I recall in NYC it wouldnt move from the shelves until they started selling it for $28.

The 1985 DP is fantastic - just behind the 82 and 88 for best of the decade IMO. Trouble with the older Doms is that they have often been cellared poorly, which is a shame. At > 20 years of age the good bottles are generally fantastic.

Thanks for the notes. Sounds like a fun tasting.

Mike