Tasting Champagne is hard work. Drinking Champagne is good work. Unfortunately, it is impossible to do the former well if you allow yourself to revel in the latter. I can think of no more difficult category to taste ten or fifteen wines from than sparkling wines. Most are quite high in acidity, with plenty of bubbles to briskly fatigue the palate. I have had numerous days in Burgundy cellars where I taste seventy-five wines and still feel fresher than I do after a couple flights of Champagne. That said, tasting blind a dozen or more Champagnes at one sitting offers an extraordinary opportunity to critically analyze the individual wines; relying on memory while tasting (drinking) individual bottles is far less satisfactory (for analysis, mind you!). The vast majority of these wines were tasted in this manner. A few of the older vintages were tasted (and drunk) on their own, rather than in comparative flights. Many thanks to Steve Tanzer for allowing me to sit in on a number of his recent Champagne sessions.

As you will see from the notes, Champagne is on a qualitative upswing. A similar lineup would have been significantly less satisfactory four or five years ago than it is today. As many will recall, Champagne's long-standing commercial modus operandi between small grape growers and large Champagne houses collapsed a few years back. After scrambling to secure grape sources in the aftermath of the unraveling of the agreement, (at markedly higher prices for the best vineyards), many Grandes Marques turned out wines of dramatically lower quality than normal. At the time, global demand was soaring for Champagne, and many houses were caught between the shortage of wine in the pipeline and the upward price spiral of grapes at the vineyard level. Given these two dynamics, it is understandable that the quality would slip. However, that is not to say that the Champagne houses were not culpable for the mediocre quality of many of their wines during this stretch. The proprietors, better than anyone, knew how low on the quality scale these wines had slunk. Green wines devoid of fruit, and plagued by excessive levels of volatile acidity, were the norm at many a prestigious address. Fortunately, this disappointing stretch is now firmly in the past.

This report focuses primarily on vintage and Tete de Cuvee Champagnes. I have tossed in notes on a few non-vintage wines from boutique domaines, as well as a handful on Rose Champagnes that are not vintage-dated. Of the non-vintage Bruts on the market, my favorites include Ployez-Jacquemart, Bollinger, Pol Roger, Joseph Perrier, Perrier-Jouet and Devenogue. Brut NVs that I feel are still mired in slumps include Moet & Chandon, Veuve Clicquot, Taittinger, Dom Riunart, and Piper-Heideseick.

The Champagne List:

Champagne blancs
Legras Blanc de Blancs NV
Krug Non-Vintage (Magnum)
1989 Heidsieck Monopole Diamant Blue
1989 Perrier-Jouet Fleurs de Champagne
1988 Legras Cuvee Vincent
1988 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne Blanc de Blancs
1988 Veuve Clicquot Grande Dame
1988 Gosset Cuvee Celebris
1988 Laurent Perrier Grande Ciecle
1988 Dom Perignon
1986 Pol Roger Cuvee Winston Churchill
1985 Gosset Grande Millesime
1985 Nicolas Feuillatte Palme D'Or
1985 Philipponat Clos de Gosse
1985 Krug Clos de Mesnil
1985 Krug Clos de Mesnil
1985 Krug
1985 Krug
1985 Krug (served from magnum)
1983 Charles Heidsieck Cuvee Millenaires Blanc de Blancs
1983 Salon le Mesnil
1983 Salon (Magnum)
1982 Salon
1982 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes
1979 Cristal
1975 Jacqueson R.D.
1973 Krug


Rose Champagne
Nicolas Feuillatte Rose NV
Philipponat Rose NV
Billecart Salmon Rose NV
Krug Rose
1991 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne Rose
1988 Gosset Rose
1985 Laurent Perrier Grande Ciecle Rose
1985 Dom Perignon Rose
1981 Cristal Rose

Legras Blanc de Blancs NV

This is one of the tightest, most shrill young wines out on the market today. There is plenty of material to reward patience in the cellar, but it would have been much better off to have spent a couple years of its required cellaring at the domaine. One sniff of the flute, and one would swear this is a glass of Grand Cru Chablis with bubbles! The nose offers up scents of lemon, cut hay, herbs, and minerals. On the palate, the wine is unbelievably tight and tart, with perhaps a firm dollop of fruit buried at the core. However, it is so aggressively acidic right now, that it is impossible to accurately project how much mid-palate this wine will have when the acids back off. I like the flavors of this wine very much, but I would hesitate to put any away without tasting it again in eight to ten months. 1998-2004? 85-89?

Krug Non-Vintage (Magnum)

This is the most recent release in the new York market, and it is excellent. It makes the Grande Dame look a bit light and ephemeral in comparison. The nose is classic Krug: apple, rye toast, lemon, minerals, and yeasty tones. Huge and packed on the palate, with a huge core of fruit, fine balance, and a long, powerful, excellently balanced finish. While this is extremely impressive, it is also very, very young. I would forget this one in the cellar for three or four years to really let it open up. Excellent stuff. 93.

1989 Heidsieck Monopole Diamant Blue

Here is a 1989 that manages to take the exotic overripeness of the vintage and turn it into a positive. The nose here is a dramatic melange of papaya, apple, spring flowers, minerals, and delicate yeasty tones. Medium-bodied, fresh, and beautifully delineated on the palate, with just enough bright acidity to give the wine cut and bounce, and a long, complex finish. This wine is quite delicately structured, so I would not forget it in a corner of the cellar for five years, but rather have at it while it maintains its youthful brightness and charm. Lovely stuff. 1996-1999. 91.

1989 Perrier-Jouet Fleurs de Champagne

1989 is a difficult vintage for Champagne, with many wines a bit over the top. I had heard that the Perrier-Jouet Flower bottle would be excellent in 1989 (the last couple of releases have been quite disappointing for a Tete de Cuvee), but I was left quite unconvinced. The nose is a bit dull, with scents of honey, earth, apple, and toast. Plenty of bass notes, but where are the middle and upper registers? Fullish on the palate, but the palate shows the same lack of freshness that the bouquet demonstrated. Ultimately a bit pedestrian. 1996-2000. 87.

1988 Legras Cuvee Vincent

This wine offers more development and opportunity for investigation on the nose than the straight Blanc de Blancs, but for whatever reason, is not as aromatically interesting. Where's the fruit? The nose offers up scents of bread dough, soil notes, and yeast. It could do with quite a bit more fruit tones! Full-bodied, well-balanced and crisp on the palate, but again, without the fresh fruit that Champagne needs to provide a foil to its leesy flavors. I had expected a bit more from this cuvee. If this bottle is an accurate example of the wine, I would keep my money in my pocket! 1996-2000. 85.

1988 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne Blanc de Blancs

This is one of the best Comtes de Champagnes that I have swished across my gums since the stellar 1982! I may even like this wine better! The nose is an aristocratic melange of apple, pear, yeasty tones, minerals, lemon, and a topnote of spring flowers. NO shortage of fruit here! Wonderful complexity and total class. Full-bodied, bright and racy on the palate, with great cut, terrific intensity, and a long, multi-dimensional finish. A great finishing note of almond paste leaves the senses reeling from pleasure! A young thoroughbred that is so flawlessly-focused that it is a terrific drink right now, but will age as gracefully as any Champagne on the market. A brilliant effort! 1996-2008. 95+.

1988 Veuve Clicquot Grande Dame

I had this bottle twice over the last few months, and the two examples could not have been more different! The first bottle displayed a pretty, stylish nose of apple, lemon, bread dough, and minerals. I t was medium-bodied, round and stylish, with fine, pinpoint bubbles, good length, and a fine finish. The second bottle was much more advanced, with appley, biscuit, minerals, and a caramel, creme brulee sort of note on the nose. On the finish, the wine tailed off quite a bit, with flavors of a wine in threat of imminent decline. Has the wine moved forward this much in three months? In any event, the quality of the two bottles was about the same, though the younger bottle should be able to improve with more cellaring. Call it an 89, and don't bury this puppy in the cellar. 1996-1997.

1988 Gosset Cuvee Celebris

Gosset showed stunning quality in every wine I tasted, with the exception of the basic non-vintage Brut. The Cuvee Celebris is their ultimate cuvee, and in 1988 it is magnificent. The nose explodes from the glass with aromas of ripe apples, sourdough, clover honey, spring flowers, and loads of complex soil tones. Utterly fresh and focused on the palate, with great depth and bright acids that give the wine great cut. Ultimately, this wine will be very creamy on the palate, with an old vine concentration and truly stunning length. Of the less-known Tete de Cuvees I have tasted, this is the finest. 1996-2005. 95+

1988 Laurent Perrier Grande Ciecle

Always one of the sleeper Tete de Cuvees, Laurent-Perrier's 1988 Grande Ciecle is once again excellent. In fact, of all the Tete de Cuvees currently on the market, this may well be the most enjoyable to drink tonight! The nose is lovely: scents of pear, lemon, white chocolate, minerals, delicate yeasty tones, and a hint of vanilla beans jump from the glass. Medium-bodied, round, and creamy on the palate, with great focus and balance, excellent complexity, and a crisp, fresh, but already very harmonious palate impression on the finish. This wine has enough acidity to give it great bounce, but it has already sneaked into its plateau of maturity. Really charming stuff! 1996-2001. 92.

1988 Dom Perignon

My introductions to Dom Perignon were the less than thrilling 1978 and 1980 vintages. At the time, I was very vocal in criticizing this wine as the ultimate example of label drinking, with the wine showing the bare minimum necessary to fool the general public. Then along came the 1982, 1985 and now the 1988 DPs. I have to thank the folks at Moet and Chandon for so convincingly (and pleasurably) changing my point of view. Today, I am hard pressed to rank any other prestige Champagne cuvee in the top rank with Dom Perignon and Krug. Over the last several years, these two powerhouses have towered above the field. Interestingly (since the vast majority of this wine will be quaffed within 24 hours of its purchase) the 1988 Dom Perignon is a wine that is emphatically built for the cellar. The nose is very youthful, but wonderful, with scents of sourdough, lemon, apple, earth, rye, a plenty of complex yeasty tones. Full-bodied and very, very snappy on the palate, with a great core of fruit, stunning structure, and a long, long, complex finish. I would drink this wine in a second (I am getting lustful just typing my tasting notes), but would much prefer to visit it after it had spent a quiet decade in one of the cold corners of my cellar! Another great Dom Perignon, which is cut more along the lines of the nervous, thoroughbred 1985 than the more obviously opulent, swashbuckling 1982. I'll take them all! 2002-2015. 95.

1986 Pol Roger Cuvee Winston Churchill

I have had some really wonderful Winston Churchills, as well as some less serious bottles. I am often left wondering about Pol Roger's treatment during shipping. Many bottles show dull, somewhat advanced aromas and relatively flaccid palates, which always leaving me thinking they have spent some serious beach time. I tasted the 1985 Winny twice in the last six months, and it was adequate, but not particularly special. The 1986, on the other hand, showed very, very well. The bouquet offered up a more deeply-pitched nose than the DP, with scents of apple, yeast, rye toast, and vanilla. Medium-full, complex, and very poised on the palate, with beautiful focus and length, and plenty of acidity to give the wine freshness and cut. This is much more forward than the 1988 Dom Perignon, but almost in the same league. Gorgeous stuff for the next five to eight years. 1996- 2005. 92.

1985 Gosset Grande Millesime

This is one of the finest Champagne values on the luxury end of the Champagne market! It combines the beautiful elegance and ageworthiness of the 1985 vintage with a rich, fruit-driven house style that makes the wine a stunning drink right now. The nose is quite lovely, with a secondary layer of mature aromas beginning to poke through the lovely, appley fruit. Hints of honey, wheat toast, almonds, and minerals supply a beautiful base from which the pure fruit sets flight. Full-bodied, round and quite complex on the palate, with fine bubbles, great focus, and a long, complete finish. All this wine lacks vis a vis the big boys at Krug and Dom Perignon is that intense core of mid-palate fruit in reserve for ten years down the road. But that is just quibbling. For the next eight to ten years, the 1985 Gosset Grande Millesime will deliver about as much enjoyment from a glass of Champagne as anyone could ask for. Great stuff! 1996-2004. 94.

1985 Nicolas Feuillatte Palme D'Or

I am told that this cuvee traditionally displays an odd personality, with very singular flavors and aromas. I had hoped the receding years had not left me this conservative, but I could not get past the very grassy funk this wine was throwing out. This is a love it or hate it style of wine: quite herbal and earthy on the nose, with a musky quality to the appley fruit, grassy tones, and yeast. Full-bodied and quite ready on the palate, with fine complexity, good balance, and a surprisingly long finish. There is still plenty of crisp acidity to give the wine freshness, but it is completely ready to go and should be drunk up over the next couple of years. While the wine was quite well made, I could not warm up to its idiosyncratic bouquet and flavor profile. Add four points if you like them this far off the beaten track. 1996-1998. 86+.

1985 Philipponat Clos de Gosse

This is another very atypically flavored Champagne. The nose showed quite ripe, mature fruit tones of pear, coupled with wheat toast and a very meaty, almost sausage-like note. Great stuff to start off a Rhone dinner! On the palate the wine is quite full, and again, very well-balanced, with plenty of resolution to its flavors, but enough acidity for cut and lift. Not everyone will mind this style, but again, I am getting quite classic in my tastes these days. It is a very well-made bubbly, but with flavors that I find tiring after the first half glass. 1996-1999. 88.

1985 Krug Clos de Mesnil

For the lucky owners of this wine, the great debate will not hinge on the question of just how good this wine will be, but rather when this towering masterpiece will be at peak drinkability. The iron handed structure so typical of vintage Krug is not to be found anywhere in this wine. The `85 Clos de Mesnil is a large-scaled, impeccably-balanced wine of magnificent complexity and delicacy of touch. It is most impressive by the way it leaves the impression that virtually every Champagne in this lineup is coarse and clumsy! Simply the finest young Champagne I have ever tasted! A profound nose of golden delicious apples, lemon, vanilla custard, minerals, floral tones, and delicate yeasty tones. Full-bodied and impeccably-balanced on the palate, with great finesse and nascent complexity; stunning length and concentration on the finish. Profound stuff, but the structure of the acidity seems a touch fragile and more evolved the 85 Krug. I would not forget this in the cellar for five or six years. For me this is the perfect glass of Champagne! 1996-2002 100.

1985 Krug

What can one say about vintage Krug? This tasting definitively demonstrated that Champagne is once again turning out a wide array of outstanding wines. At the head of the class is Krug. 1985 Krug is clearly destined to be one of the legendary Krugs, possessing the felicitous combination of profound depth perfect balance. While this wine is a tour de force to drink right now, its best days are still a decade away. The nose is magnificent, with scents of honeyed apples, hazelnuts, minerals, wheat toast, caraway seed, and a floral topnote. A perfect combination of leesy tones, fresh fruit, and terroir. On the palate, this is a huge, powerful sparkler with very youthful acidity and laser-like focus. The finish is very long, very complex, and very impressive. This is a wine that will clearly cellar for two or three decades, and provide phenomenal drinking every step of the way! Great stuff. 1996-2025. 97.

1985 Krug (served from magnum)

Surprisingly forthcoming, this wine showed extremely well out of magnum. It is by no means ready to drink, but it has such perfect balance that, even in its infancy, it is already delicious. The nose is tight but accessible, with scents of green apples, lemon, rye, minerals, wheat toast, and a floral topnote. A very racy, tightly-knit Krug, with layers of perfectly ripe fruit, precision focus and balance, and a long, potentially very powerful finish. This is one of the great Krugs of the 1980s, which may ultimately pass even the stellar 1982! 2002-2020. 95.

1983 Charles Heidsieck Cuvee Millenaires Blanc de Blancs

This was one of the real surprises of the tasting: a rich full-bodied, quite complex wine that held its own with wines from finer vintages such as 1985 and 1988. The nose is quite developed, with scents of apple, yeasty tones, minerals, herbs, lemon, and hints of nuts. Long, full, and quite packed with fruit on the palate, with real persistence to the flavors, fine bubbles, and along, complex finish. This is quite frankly the finest wine I have ever tasted from the hose of Charles Heidseick. I would opt for drinking it over the next couple fo years, but it shows no signs of imminent decline. 1996-2000. 91+.

1983 Salon le Mesnil

Salon is one of my favorite Tete de Cuvees. It possesses a track record for longevity that places it in the same league with Krug and Dom Perignon. However, for whatever reason, it seems much more plagued by bottle variation than any of the top Tete de Cuvees. The pristine bottles are profound, but there are more than a handful of slightly off wines around that lack freshness and delineation. Is handling the problem? In any event, this bottle of 1983 was a good, but not perfect bottle. I have been fortunate to taste the wine a half dozen times in the last few years, so I have been lucky enough to have perfect bottles as well. The nose is gorgeous, with scents of rye toast, white chocolate, lemon, bread dough, and toffee wafting from the glass. Full-bodied and very minerally on the palate, with fine attack, a big core, and a long, complex finish. Where this wine falls short is in its lack of finesse and complexity on the palate! Certainly not a characteristic one ascribes to Salon! The flavors are surprisingly advanced for a wine which is constructed for cellaring. I had a much fresher bottle a few moths back. Yet, this bottle was shipped to Steve Tanzer direct from the importer for a comparative tasting, not languishing on the back shelf of some low turnover retailer. In any event, it is still a good bottle of bubbly, but beware of its chameleon-like personality. 1996-2010. 91. (93 for perfect bottles).

1983 Salon (Magnum)

This beautiful wine was showing more maturity vis a vis the 1985 Krug Clos du Mesnil than the two years that separates them on the labels. The nose was much more developed, with a scents of sweet pears, lemon, papaya, a touch of honey, white chocolate, minerals, toastiness, and spring flowers. This wine is open and quite cuddly, with layers of ripe fruit, good focusing acids, and a long, complex, quite powerful finish. A fine wine that is just hitting its apogee. 1996-2005. 94.

1982 Salon

The showing of this wine, one of my all-time favorite bubblies, following the `85 Clos de Mesnil, further underscores how stunning the Clos de Mesnil really is. The nose is wonderful, with fresh scents of rye, lemon, apple, wheat toast, white chocolate, limestone-like minerals, cream, and nutty tones. Initially, the first blast was all chardonnay, but then the wine really opened up and delivered layers of complexity that called out for a blend. While still quite crisp and racy on the palate, the wine was showing some serious signs of flavor development, which made me think this was an older wine. Really a super drink. 1996-2006. 94+.

1982 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes

Bollinger Vieilles Vignes is one of the top Tete de Cuvees, but unlike wines such as vintage Krug, Salon, and Dom Perignon, it is not built for the long haul. It is an extraordinary wine that requires watchful care and a willingness to pop the bottle early on in its evolution. The 1982 is totally a point at the present time, but should be enjoyed over the next two years. I had tasted the wine a couple of years ago, and this was even a finer showing than the last time I had the pleasure to run this across the palate. The wine has opened up beautifully. . A lovely mature nose of apple, vanilla cream, rye bread, minerals, and honey wafts from the glass. Quite large-scaled on the palate, with still bright acidity and fine bubbles, but showing a veritable maturity in both structure and flavor. This wine is very, very ready, and very, very good. I would not wait. 1996-1998. 93.

1979 Cristal

I have always wanted to age Cristal to see where it goes, but have never had the combination of requisite patience and available slush fund to follow the wine through a decade or so in the cellar. So it was with great expectations that I approached a glass of 1979 Cristal. The nose was wonderful, with scents of fresh baked bread, apple, grilled almonds, minerals, and toast. Medium-full, round, elegant, and very stylish on the palate, with fine bubbles and fresh acidity still framing the wine nicely. However, as fine as the flavors were in the mid-palate, the wine still tailed off a bit on the finish. Don't get me wrong, this was still a superb bottle of Champagne, but wines such as Krug, Dom Perignon, and Salon all age considerably better. Drink up. 1996-2000. 89.

1975 Jacqueson R.D.

Disgorged in April of 1995. A fine, resolved, stylish sparkler: apple, wheat toast, minerals, grilled nuts and lemon on the nose. A fine combination of resolved fruit flavors and fresh acidity, this is a wine that is wearing its heart on its sleeve, and is delicious now, but should be drunk up over the next year to eighteen months. 88.

1973 Krug

I am embarrassed to say that I had this wine on three occasions in the last year. It is clearly one of my favorite vintages (1985, of recent years, hopefully will age along similar lines), with the wines showing really superb structure and elegance. On each occasion this wine showed marvelously well: a crisp, very fresh, and surprisingly youthful nose of lemon, apple, wheat toast, minerals, vanilla, floral tones, and moderate toastiness jumps from the glass. Full-bodied and a point on the palate, with lovely, lively acidity, a long, creamy palate impression, and beautiful purity and delineation on the finish. A beautiful, shapely Krug that is at its peak, but with years of life ahead of it. 1996-2003. 95.

Nicolas Feuillatte Rose NV

This is a Champagne house whose Brut NV is frequently seen discounted around the New York area, and though the price is always right, I cannot understand how people can drink the stuff! With a number of unpleasant experiences under my belt with the Brut NV, I was pleasantly surprised to taste this rose. The nose was clean and fresh, with scents of strawberry, red cherry, and toast. Medium-bodied, clean and surprisingly stylish on the palate. This is by no means a complex wine, but it does quite well for its modest aspirations. 1996-2000. 87

Philipponat Rose NV

This rose lacked the freshness and charm vis a vis the Feuillatte: earthier aromas mixed with orange and cranberry on the nose. Showing much more resolution than the Fuellette, and fine flavors on the attack. However, the wine falls off on the mid-palate, and wanders aimlessly through the finish. This is a solid, though hardly inspired performance. 1996-1998. 85.

Billecart Salmon Rose NV

Pricey for non-vintage rose, butbut certainly a fine bottle. The nose is more earthy and less pure than the Taittinger Comtes Rose, but still a significant step up from the first two roses. Scents of strawberry, earth, pinot noir herbs and a touch of toast waft from the glass. Fairly full and quite stylish on the palate, with fine balance, well-integrated acidity, and a long, complex finish. A good bottle for drinking over the next four or five years. 1996-2000. 89.

Krug Rose

Krug makes a very unique style of rose. In a star-studded lineup such a s Krug, it is often easy to overlook their rose. Part of the problem with Krug's rose is that its high pricetag (even by Krug standards, this is a bit loftily priced) has kept the wine sitting around too long in poor storage conditions somewhere in the pipeline. I can unequivocally state that the fresh sample I tasted of this wine was a good ten points higher than the bottle I had last Christmas Eve. I know that last year's bottle was stored perfectly once it reached its retail destination, but Lord knows what storage indignities it was submitted to prior to its arrival at the store! At least in New York, poor handling should be a thing of the past, as Krug's new wholesaler treats all of its wines impeccably. This example of Krug Rose was stunning: scents of orange rind, earth, apricot, tangerine, and herbs soar from the glass. On the palate the wine is very young and snappy, but with great underlying fruit, plenty of body, and a very long, penetrating finish. A Krug Rose revelation! 1998-2010. 93.

1991 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne Rose

The current releases of Comtes de Champagne are the finest duo in years. The rose is quintessential beautiful rose, with an explosive nose of strawberry, minerals, clove, earth, bread dough, and a floral topnote of roses. Full-bodied and perfectly focused on the palate, with brilliant flavor delineation, fine little bubbles, and a long, complex finish. This is a beautiful rose that delivers a lovely core of fruit, fine minerals tones, and crisp, finely-integrated acidity. This wine is delicious already, but will evolve magically for the next ten to twelve years. 1996-2008. 94.

1988 Gosset Rose

Gosset is a house that is quite strongly based on the chardonnay grape, and even their Rose shows a the fruitier, creamier style of this grape, The nose offers up scents of cranberry, apples, plenty of minerals, and a touch fo fresh spring flowers. Long, complex, and quite fine on the palate, with lovely balance, delicate structure, and a long, stylish finish. This is one of the least soil-inflected Roses I have tasted, and even sandwiched in a killer flight between the DP Rose and the Krug Rose, this wine showed very well. It does not possess the sheer power and depth of those two roses, but it is a real charmer. 1996-2000. 92.

1985 Laurent Perrier Grande Ciecle Rose

This is one of the most schizophrenic wines I have ever tasted! The nose is as fine a nose as I have ever come across in a rose Champagne, with profound depth and Burgundian nuance and complexity. It truly smells of a fine Burgundy at its apogee: scents of cherry, strawberry, sous bois, woodsmoke, minerals, herbs, and a floral topnote. However, on the palate, the wine is okay on the attack, but completely tails off from the mid-palate back. The finish is nonexistent. Upon smelling this wine, I thought it was going to score in the 96 point range, but the palate knocks this wine down to 85 points. How they could cram so much nuance and complexity into the nose, and then totally miss on the palate is beyond me! This could have been great, instead of merely a bizarre memory. 1996-1998. 86.

1985 Dom Perignon Rose

I have been a big fan of the 1982 DP Rose for a number of years, and had always felt that that was the ultimate glass of rose I would run across my lips. It has now slid to number two! This wine is mind-blowing stuff! The profound nose explodes from the glass with scents of sous bois, cranberry, coriander, minerals, bonfires and blood orange. On the palate this aristocrat is incredibly full, packed with tightly-knit fruit, perfectly-balanced and buttoned up tight behind a wall of zesty acidity. Tasting the 1985 DP Rose right now is a forty percent sliver of what will come with time, and it still blows away every rose I have ever tasted! The only thing that will consistently outperform 1985 DP Rose at age eleven is 1985 DP Rose at age twenty! If this wine does not garner a perfect score at its apogee, I will be very surprised! For now, let's be conservative. 2002-2020. 98.

1981 Cristal Rose

Not a great showing for this wine: cranberry, melon, minerals, earth, and grilled nuts. Medium-bodied, balanced, but a bit light and sour on the finish. Is this representative?