u/0xMatt8302

Had a bit of a Champagne-heavy week 😅

Bollinger Special Cuvée
Perrier-Jouët Blanc de Blancs
Charles Heidsieck Blanc de Blancs
Perrier-Jouët Blason Rosé
Billecart-Salmon Blanc de Blancs Grand Cru
Billecart-Salmon Brut Rosé (Magnum)
Pommery Cuvée Louise 2005
Quite a fun mix because most of them are in a somewhat similar category, with Louise obviously being the odd one out.

My ranking:

1. Pommery Cuvée Louise 2005 — 95
Clearly the most complete wine. Mature but still fresh, more depth and complexity than the others and a long finish.

2. Billecart-Salmon Blanc de Blancs — 94
Probably my favorite of the non-prestige wines. Lots of yeast, citrus and chalk, with great tension and a lovely saline finish.

3. Charles Heidsieck Blanc de Blancs — 93+
Richer and creamier than the Billecart, with good depth and texture. Very complete, just a little less precise.

4. Billecart-Salmon Brut Rosé Magnum — 93
Elegant and polished, with fresh red fruit and really nice balance. I still prefer their BdB quite clearly, but this was excellent.

5. Perrier-Jouët Blanc de Blancs — 93
Fresh, floral and bright. Not quite as complex as the wines above, but incredibly easy to drink.

6. Perrier-Jouët Blason Rosé — 92
Fruitier and more expressive, but doesn’t quite have the depth of the wines above.

7. Bollinger Special Cuvée — 92
Rich, vinous and unmistakably Bollinger. Good, but in this lineup it didn’t excite me quite as much.

No bad wines here at all. The gaps between some of them were pretty small.

Which one would you pick if all seven were sitting in front of you?

Had a fun little Blanc de Blancs comparison this week. Not side by side, but close enough together to get a pretty good feeling for the differences.

Perrier-Jouët Blanc de Blancs – 93/100
Probably the most immediately charming of the three. Very fresh and floral, with bright citrus fruit and a light, elegant feel. Super easy to drink and really enjoyable, but compared to the other two it felt slightly less deep and complex.

Charles Heidsieck Blanc de Blancs – 93+/100
A noticeable step up in depth and richness. More texture and body than the PJ, while still keeping plenty of freshness. Creamier and more vinous, but with enough acidity to stay balanced. Very complete Champagne and probably the most generous of the three.

Billecart-Salmon Blanc de Blancs Grand Cru – 94/100
My favorite, but only just. More linear and precise than the Charles, with citrus, chalk/minerality and quite a lot of yeasty character. There’s a lovely saline finish as well. Despite the pronounced yeastiness, it still feels focused and structured rather than broad or overly creamy. It has a bit more tension, which is generally what I look for in Blanc de Blancs. Less immediately generous than the Charles, but I found it slightly more refined and complete.

For me:
Billecart > Charles > Perrier-Jouët

But the gap is really small, especially between Billecart and Charles. I’d happily drink all three again. PJ might actually be the easiest bottle to just open and enjoy, Charles gives you the most richness, while Billecart hits the sweet spot for my palate with its precision and minerality.

Has anyone compared these three? Which one would you pick?

Had the Fèlsina Rancia 2017 tonight with raclette and some beef from the tabletop grill.

This is my second proper go at this wine and I liked it quite a bit more this time.

Dark fruit, medium+ body and a pretty serious tannic structure. The tannins are massive actually, but there’s enough acidity to keep everything together. Good concentration and a medium+ finish.

What I’m still missing a little is that Sangiovese elegance. I usually love the combination of red fruit, freshness and that slightly lifted character Sangiovese can have. This feels darker, more muscular and structured. Not heavy or overly ripe, just less elegant than I ideally want from the grape.

Still, a very good wine and definitely better than I remembered it.

92/100

Curious how people feel about Rancia in general. Do you find it shows more elegance with age, or is the more powerful/structured style simply part of its character?

Had another bottle of Louise 2005 yesterday. I’ve had this about half a dozen times now and it continues to be one of my favorite value buys in Champagne.

Quite rich and developed at this point. Lots of brioche and yeast, ripe/baked apple, some hazelnut and citrus. Creamy mousse and plenty of depth, but still enough acidity and precision to keep it from feeling heavy. The finish is long and probably one of the strongest parts of the wine.

I’ve also had the 2004 a few times and find the 2005 a little rounder, creamier and more generous, while the 2004 was more linear, mineral and acid-driven. I probably preferred the 2004 by a tiny margin, but they’re different expressions.

At CHF 80 (~$96) this is pretty hard to beat for me. I’ve bought quite a few bottles whenever it goes on sale here in Switzerland and it has been remarkably consistent.

95/100

I was really looking forward to this one. Cannubi, 2007, almost 20 years of age and a producer with a very good reputation. Unfortunately, it just didn’t work for me at all.
The nose was dominated by alcohol and very dark fruit, with virtually none of the floral, lifted character I associate with Nebbiolo.

On the palate it was heavy and dense, with very ripe dark fruit and a slight impression of sweetness. There was still plenty of tannin, but surprisingly little freshness to balance the weight. What bothered me most was the lack of complexity, elegance and length. It felt concentrated simply for the sake of concentration.

Blind, I honestly think I would have guessed a mediocre Rosso di Montalcino before Barolo.

The bottle itself seemed perfectly sound: good fill, excellent cork and no obvious signs of poor storage. So I don’t think this was clearly a flawed bottle, although with a 19-year-old wine you can obviously never rule out bottle variation.

I know 2007 was a warm vintage, and I’m curious how much of this was the vintage versus the Scavino style. I also have the Cannubi 2010, so that should make for an interesting comparison at some point.

88/100

Not writing off Scavino based on one bottle, but this was easily one of the most disappointing Barolos I’ve had.

Charles Heidsieck Brut Réserve continues to be one of my favorite non-vintage Champagnes. Lots of brioche and yeast, but still really fresh, with good depth and more complexity than I usually expect at this level.

There’s a richness and slightly vinous character to it that sometimes makes me think of it as a “mini Krug” – obviously not the same level of complexity or length, but it scratches a similar itch for a fraction of the price.

Not the most delicate or mineral Champagne, but incredibly satisfying and very easy to drink. One of those bottles I’m always happy to have around.

Had these two side by side a while ago and thought it was a really interesting comparison, especially considering how different they are stylistically.

The Belle Epoque 2014 was fresher and more energetic, with plenty of brioche and yeasty notes. It had quite a lot of weight and pressure on the palate, great balance and a really long finish. Interestingly, I’ve served the 2014 blind a few times and it has been guessed as Bollinger La Grande Année twice, which probably says quite a bit about how powerful this vintage of Belle Epoque can be. Still felt relatively youthful and like it had plenty of time ahead of it.

The Pommery Cuvée Louise 2004 was quite different. Much more vinous and developed, with lots of toast on the nose and plenty of complexity. Blind, it almost comes across like an aged Blanc de Blancs, and I’ve seen Louise guessed as grower Champagne more than once.

Hard to pick a winner. The Belle Epoque had more tension, pressure and length, while the Louise was more vinous, mature and perhaps a little more interesting aromatically.
Both feel somewhat underrated compared with the usual prestige names IMO, especially Cuvée Louise.

Would be interested to hear which one people would pick, or if anyone has had either of these vintages recently.

Had this a while ago and really enjoyed it.

To me it drinks like Billecart’s regular Blanc de Blancs turned up a few notches. You still get that fresh, sharp Chardonnay character, but there’s a lot more weight and this big bready, yeasty side to it.

Almost feels like Billecart and Bollinger met somewhere in the middle. Still fresh and precise, but much richer than I expected.

Definitely one of the more interesting Billecart releases I’ve had. I would rate it slightly above der regular NV Blanc de Blancs Grand Cru.

Anyone tried No.6 or any of the other Rendez-Vous releases?

Two of my all-time favorite Champagnes side by side.

Taittinger Comtes de Champagne 2011
Despite 2011 being a difficult vintage, this is showing incredibly well. Laser-like acidity, very complex and extremely long. Still remarkably fresh, but with enough development to make it really interesting. One of those Champagnes that makes you question how much vintage reputation actually matters when the producer gets it right.

Bollinger La Grande Année 2014
Almost a perfect Champagne for me. Mouth-filling and broad, with great acidity, depth and a very long finish. It has that combination of power and freshness I really love. Compared with the Comtes, it’s missing just a little complexity at this stage, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that comes with more bottle age.

Very different expressions of Champagne, but both are right in my sweet spot.

Which one would you pick?

Veuve Clicquot Rosé might be one of the more underrated NV Rosé Champagnes out there.

I’ve had this quite a few times over the years and it consistently surprises me. It has more depth and breadth than I expect, while still retaining enough freshness to keep it balanced.

It’s not particularly complex, but honestly, I don’t find many NV Rosé Champagnes in this price range particularly complex either.

I’ve had it alongside quite a few of the usual suspects and I don’t think it gives up much to some of the more highly regarded NV Rosés. It also tends to be considerably cheaper.

Maybe the Veuve label works against it among wine enthusiasts, but for me this is a very solid NV Rosé.

What are your favorite NV Rosé Champagnes?

Bollinger Special Cuvée has been one of my favorite base cuvée Champagnes for quite a while.

What I particularly like about it is how much depth and yeasty character it offers for a base cuvée Champagne. There’s plenty of yeast, brioche and ripe fruit, giving it real richness and complexity, while it still retains enough freshness and elegance to never feel heavy.

For me, that combination of richness, complexity and freshness makes it one of the most complete base cuvées out there – and a Champagne I keep coming back to.

There are plenty of other great options in this category, but Bollinger is definitely among my favorites.

What do you think – is Bollinger Special Cuvée the best base cuvée Champagne, or what would you pick instead?

A friend poured me two red wines completely blind. The only thing I knew was that one bottle cost roughly 7x as much as the other.

I thought both were Bordeaux, but couldn't narrow them down much further. I correctly thought one was considerably older – but interestingly, I initially guessed that the older wine was also the more expensive one.

The reveal:

Château Le Boscq 2003 – Saint-Estèphe

Château Péby Faugères 2014 – Saint-Émilion

My initial impression actually made the price difference seem rather questionable. The Le Boscq showed its age, but had plenty of character and initially felt like the more serious wine.

Over the next hour, though, things changed quite dramatically.

The Le Boscq became increasingly short on the finish and started to lose some of its presence. The Péby went in exactly the opposite direction: it kept opening up, becoming rounder, deeper and increasingly complete, with a much stronger mid-palate and a considerably longer finish.

By the end of the hour, the Péby was clearly the better wine for me. What I liked about the tasting, though, was how difficult that price difference was to see at first.

How often have you tasted a cheap and expensive wine blind and initially preferred the cheaper bottle?

I recently had the chance to taste two mature Italian heavyweights side by side:

Siro Pacenti Brunello di Montalcino Vecchie Vigne "Museo" 2010 & La Spinetta Barolo Campè Vürsù 2006.

Both come from excellent vintages, but quite different ones. 2010 is widely regarded as one of the great modern vintages in Montalcino, combining concentration and ripe tannins with freshness, balance and elegance. Giancarlo Pacenti himself called it one of the greatest harvests ever for the region.

2006 in Barolo was more classical and structured – a vintage known for firm tannins, good acidity and wines built for long ageing rather than immediate charm.

La Spinetta Campè Vürsù 2006
The La Spinetta Campè 2006 was extremely aromatic from the start and immediately felt very complete. Dense, broad and almost mouth-coating on the palate, with plenty of depth and a long finish. It had that combination of power and polish that makes mature Nebbiolo so compelling.

Siro Pacenti Vecchie Vigne "Museo" 2010
The Siro Pacenti Vecchie Vigne 2010 was a different proposition. Also highly aromatic, with excellent length and a really strong mid-palate, but it still felt noticeably more structured. The tannins were quite present and it didn't have quite the same sense of roundness and harmony as the Campè yet.

Two very different expressions of Italy, and both excellent. But drinking them side by side, the Barolo came out ahead for me – although not by a huge margin.

Curious which one you would pick today: 2010 Brunello or 2006 Barolo?

Pommery Cuvée Louise 2005

Elegant, deep and very long. Fine mousse, with plenty of autolytic/yeasty character but never too much. There’s real depth and maturity here, while it still feels remarkably composed and fresh. Nothing really sticks out on its own – it’s more about balance and completeness.

Paired it with our slightly unconventional lobster mac & cheese: lobster in a garlic, cream and parsley sauce, mixed with pasta and cheese and finished in the oven. The pairing worked surprisingly well. The Champagne had enough depth for the richness of the dish, while the acidity and bubbles kept everything from becoming too heavy.

Had this a few months ago and thought it was a good example of why I don't necessarily shy away from so-called "off vintages", especially when it comes to great producers.

Roberto Voerzio Cerequio 2014 – 95/100

Despite 2014 being a difficult vintage, Roberto Voerzio managed to make a stunning wine here. It's initially still pretty tight and high in acidity, but with some air it opens up to reveal a surprisingly chewy and concentrated core, supported by an immensely long finish. 95/100 for me, with potential for another 1–2 points with more age.

I've actually had pretty good experiences with lesser vintages from top producers. In many cases they seem to become approachable earlier than the highly rated years while still delivering most of what I'm looking for.

With Barolo in particular, I've found this quite useful. I'd often rather drink a great producer from a supposedly weaker vintage that's entering its window than open one of the great vintages while it's still completely shut down.

Curious what everyone else thinks. Do you actively look for off-vintage wines from great producers, or would you rather spend more and wait longer for the great vintages?

Had these two recently and came away with pretty different impressions.

Bibi Graetz Testamatta 2018 – 93/100
This needed some air but really came together after a while. Lots of acidity and tension, great aromatics and enough depth to keep it interesting. Definitely more on the elegant than powerful side. The only thing holding it back for me was the finish, which was good but not quite long enough to push it into the 94–95 range.

Poggio di Sotto Rosso di Montalcino 2020 – 90/100
This one disappointed me a little. The nose was beautiful and made me expect much more, but the palate never really followed through. Pretty light through the mid-palate and a short finish. As it warmed up I also started noticing the alcohol more.
Nothing wrong with it and still an elegant wine, but at the price I expected considerably more. Maybe an off bottle, but based on this one I wouldn’t buy again.

Testamatta was the clear winner for me.

Found this on a restaurant wine list on vacation in Austria for "only" 238 Euros. Usually retails for around 200 chf here in Switzerland (roughly 280$ for the US readers). So had to give it a whirl.

Now this is a Pinot that I can get behind. Tons of the usual red fruit but enough depth and power to keep things interesting. There's tension, there's complexity, silkiness and even some hints of smoke, truly an exceptional bottle of wine. 95/100

Pinot will probably never become my favorite style but this is definitely something I'll add to the cellar at the right price point.

DP 15
Belle Epoque 14
Billecart BdB Magnum
Pommery Cuvee Louise 04