I firmly believe in reflecting on a great tasting before making a final call, so today I am posting my notes from my tasting on Friday night.  One fact, however, was obvious from very early in the dinner: the ’59 Cristal was the wine of the night.  I had three wines with top ratings: the ’59 Cristal, the ’90 Cristal, and the ’75 Bollinger out of jeroboam.  The ’59 Cristal was yards ahead of everything else, and then I think the ’90 Cristal edges ahead of the Bollinger in absolute terms since it probably has a longer future ahead of it, but the ’75 Bollinger astonished us all with its quality and youthful character.

Next I had these three wines, in this order:

Brut Blanc de Blancs Millésime 1995, Selosse

Brut Vintage Vieilles Vignes Françaises 1998, Bollinger

Brut Rosé NV, Krug

In the next category down, I also had three wines, with results that surprised me: ’59 Salon out of magnum, and the 1979 and 1983 Cuvée des Princes from de Venoge.  The Salon was a disappointing magnum (as explained below), and the de Venoge both showed well, although between these two the 1983 was definitely the better wine (another surprise).

In the next tier was the ’75 de Venoge and the ’71 Lanson.  The ’64 Dom Ruinart and the Moët Imperial out of magnum got only one star for general interest but they were pretty well past it, and the ’61 Comtes received no stars as it was clearly faulty.  Read on for full notes in the order consumed:

Brut NV Imperial, Moët & Chandon

Served out of jeroboam.  It was thought that the wine was based on the ’64 vintage, although a former colleague from Moët replied the next morning on Instagram that it looked much older than that.  The wine was rich and honeyed.  Completely lacking mousse and fairly dark in color, yet it was holding together as a wine.  The nose had a pronounced nose of honey and caramel, and on the palate the wine was sweet.  Interesting rather than compelling.  *

Brut Vintage Comtes de Champagne Blanc de Blancs 1961, Taittinger

No mousse and fairly dark in color.  This had a fresh acidity that was bolstered by a fair bit of volatility.  Beginning to maderize now, this was in decline, bordering on undrinkable.  [no stars]

Brut Vintage Dom Ruinart Blanc de Blancs 1964, Ruinart

No mousse and fairly dark in color.  Here the nose was clean, but it was very mature, with a strong note of caramel and wood smoke.  On the palate the wine was sweet and didn’t show the tension I’d hoped for this vintage.  I liked it much less than my fellow tasters I’m afraid, and I felt it was fundamentally sound, but in decline.  *

Brut Vintage Cristal 1990, Louis Roederer

A marvelous bottle of Cristal, definitely the best one from the ’90 vintage that I have had because of its bright youthful appeal.  The biscuit notes come to the fore, but there is no lack of ripe apple fruit.  The wine is still very fresh and the development is restrained but beginning to show just now, and the wine is drinking very well at present.  On the palate there is plenty of mousse and impressive density; the wine is open, but not overly so, the acid balance is beyond reproach, and the length is very satisfying.  In my view it is just moving into its peak, although it can doubtless be cellared for up to another twenty years if you really want to wait.  *****

Brut Vintage Cristal 1959, Louis Roederer

This was a spectacular bottle of Cristal.  The bottle opened with a hiss, and the wine still retained a delicate mousse.  The color was commensurate with age, and the nose was rich and sweet.  It opened with brioche and baked apple with a hint of spice and evolved to take in a slight hint of truffle and ground coffee.  The wine retained an astonishing freshness that balanced the epic density of the wine to perfection.  This is drinking supremely well now, but astonishingly will continue to hold.  This made it onto my list of the 25 best bottles of champagne I’ve ever had.  *****

Brut Vintage Le Mesnil Blanc de Blancs 1959, Salon

Served out of magnum.  The color of the wine was very good, but unfortunately there was no mousse but rather the suggestion that it once had bubbles.  On the nose there was a pointedly smoky aromatic character, and the fruit had been completely transformed.  It would be incorrect to say that it was over-the-hill aromatically in the same way as the Ruinart and the Taittinger had been, but much of the joy had gone out of the wine.  It wasn’t faulty or unpleasant, but it was hard to generate much enthusiasm beyond the fact of drinking a wine of such rarity.  Structurally it was sound, with fresh acidity (surprisingly so given the year) and good density, but a lack of charm that frankly disappointed.  ***

Brut Blanc de Blancs Millésime 1995, Selosse

A vigorous and youthful champagne that rather like the Bollinger VVF was overmatched by some of the other bottles simply because of its youth.  One of the first impressions here was a rather dominant note from the oak casks used for fermentation.  Behind this, certainly was plenty of fruit (more pear and apple than citrus), and lots of toast.  On the palate there was a very vigorous mousse, plenty of freshness and lots of extract.  The wine carried itself superbly well, made a powerful statement, and lingered seductively on the finish.  However, even at the very end there was still a bit of wood present and it makes one wonder how long it will take to integrate.  Definitely possible that in other company, however, this wine would really shine.  ****

Brut Vintage Vieilles Vignes Françaises 1998, Bollinger

Intriguing wine, if somewhat the odd man out in this tasting.  The wine was too youthful, really, to drink, yet interesting all the same.  The nose had a pronounced savory / soy sauce character.  Not in the way of evolution, but in an almost meaty way.  Aggressive, powerful.  The wine was bursting with mousse, and on the palate it was so palpably dense that one almost wanted a fork.  Balanced acidity, a ton of extract; the wine went on forever in a very vinous way.  A monument of a wine, but perhaps more to be admired than loved.  I was a fan on the night although it was too much for several other tasters.  With time it should be superb.  ****

Brut Rosé NV, Krug

This is an older bottle of Krug Rosé; we were told that the base year is 1982.  I have always felt that Krug made rosé with hesitancy; the wine showed an amber color rather pink or even salmon – it had started out very lightly colored and turned tawny with time.  Plenty of mousse.  The wine was showing some definite maturity on the nose yet it was holding together well.  There was still a suggestion of red fruit and biscuits, a bit of dried rose petals and a faint suggestion of soy sauce.  Very elegant, lots of finesse, but somehow lacking the Krug identity for me.  ****

Brut Vintage 1975, Bollinger

Served out of jeroboam.  This was excellent wine, and if one took value into account this would look even better, as it was not a prestige cuvée, “just” a vintage, although the quality shows that with Bollinger it’s never “just” a vintage wine.  There was so much mousse here that the wine started off by literally shooting out of the bottle.  The color was extraordinary.  The aromas were very fresh given its age and the vintage.  Certainly, there was a predictable maturity and a pronounced yeasty-toasty character that gave the impression of a bit of truffle around the edges, but really strong emphasis on classic mature champagne flavors and nothing exaggerated.  On the palate the wine was rich, with a creamy texture, but there was certainly enough acidity to balance the wine, which combined with an impressive depth of flavor to carry it to a lingering finish.  Very good indeed.   *****

Brut Vintage Cuvée des Princes 1983, de Venoge

The best of the trio from de Venoge, this showed very well, particularly given the vintage, which was A very large crop.  The color was holding well, and the bouquet was still fresh, with notes of flowers and a hint of spice overlayed on the ripe apple and toast essence.  On the palate the wine was surprising fresh and very well balanced.  This definitely outperformed expectations.  ****

Brut Vintage Cuvée des Princes 1979, de Venoge

A nose dominated by caramel, honey and smoke.  On the palate the was holding together but it seemed all the tension had gone.  For me the apparent sweetness added to the somewhat muddled aromas on the nose.  Not unpleasant, but certainly not up to the level of top wines from the ’79 vintage, although that bar is high.  ***

Brut Vintage Cuvée des Princes 1975, de Venoge

An uneasy earthy note intruded on the otherwise appropriate nose.  This was definitely mature—no surprise there—but that evolution, coupled with the musty/earthy aromas was a less-than-compelling combination.  On the palate, however, the wine was still holding well: plenty of mousse for a ’75, plenty of freshness; as they say “it drinks better than it smells” but overall a bit disappointing.  **

Brut Vintage Red Label 1971, Lanson

The color here was surprisingly bright, but unfortunately no mousse at all.  Aromatically the wine was beyond reproach: fresh for its age with a ripe apple and pear fruit, brioche, honey and a suggestion of ground coffee.  On the palate the wine was surprisingly crisp and holding well except for the unfortunate lack of mousse.  **