For those of you who like the glamour’s side of Champagne I made the picture in a silky and flashy style – hope you like it. It took me a awful long time to get the end result ;-).
I guess I am the type of person who likes to dwell a bit over the evolvement of ones personal palate. I also know, by having conversations and discussions with other wines lovers - that the discussion can sometimes go in the direction of the ones who has “seen the light” and gained more palate wisdom, towards those who still drink “the same shit”. My good friend Anders said a right not so long ago – “wine is a journey, not a destination”.
However (You probably knew that it was time for the “however line”), drinking 1996 Dom Perignon makes me wonder what the hell I have been doing with my taste buds.
This Champagne is seriously problematic. In a recent wine debate I saw a taster slaughter 1996 Dom Perignon for it’s high dosage. For me this is not the real problem. Let’s investigate. I served it rather cold – and the opening was it’s best phase. Showed flowers, toast, vanilla, citrus and sour dough and having had my share of Dom Perignon in the past I would say that (I am a seriously not good at blind guessing) it’s typical Dom Perignon. With warmth in the glass it falls apart. It’s incredible how impure this Champagne is. The clarity is not existent and with air and warmth the next problem occurs – the staggering level of sulphur. Not only is sulphur an error, but also kills the wine ability to show life and energy. It’s really pronounced when it’s hits the tongue where fireworks in normal circumstances emerges, when we have a big wine in the glass. What I seriously don’t like is the way you end up chewing on the flavours, almost like a chewing gum is stuck on the back palate. Some would argue that it possess a long finish – yes….long and irritating with absolutely no freshness. The acidity is however high – which could prevail with time. But seriously, how can it ever be a great Champagne when the raw material is not there?