Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Pol Roger 1999 - The disappointment

Pol Roger Vintage 1999 (Champagne, France)
$85, Cork, 12.5%
Source: Retail

What a dissapointment.

I was (very) lucky to drink quite a bit of the 1998 vintage of this very wine, including emptying a bottle or three on a night out during the AWRI Advanced Wine Assessment course a year or so back. It was rich, complex and every bit as satisfying as you expect good vintage Champagne to be. I loved it.

This vintage however just doesn't hit the same heights. It looks fine, with a yellow straw colour and fine bead befitting it's age and stature, but on the nose and palate it is quite developed and broad, the bottle age giving a mushroomy edge that just seems quite dull and lacking in freshness. Structure wise, this a serious Champagne, with lots of acidity and plenty of length, yet that broadness again makes itself felt on the finish, just leaving the whole experience feeling a bit flat.

What your left with is a Champagne that tastes more like a bottle aged NV (than a supposedly superior vintage offering ) yet still leaves a vintage sized hole in your wallet. However, I am stepping cautiously here and adding the caveat that this could well have been a dud bottle, and Champane consistency is plainly appaling.

Whatever the case, I wanted more than I got. 16.9/89
Share |
Posted by Andrew Graham at 9:12 PM
Labels: , ,

4 comments:

  1. Had a somewhat relative experience on the weekend Andrew with 2 bottles of NV Cattier. The first one was pale-straw, fresh, brisk, creamy and effervescent. The second bottle fizzed over on opening, at which point we realised it had a different cork to the first bottle, and then it was flat and yellow in the glass, which transferred over to the developed palate :(

    Both bottles were purchased from the same retailer some 15 minutes earlier :(

    Your 2nd last line here makes good sense Andrew....
    ReplyDelete
  2. Cattier NV can be a mixed bag (and I often buy a bottle, still labouring as I am under the undoubtedly foolish idea that a cheap bottle of Champagne is more interesting than a good-quality Australian sparkling wine). They must produce a fair bit of it. At its best, it can be a very refreshing aperitif, with a pronounced lemony cut, at its worst, it can be just plain boring, though rarely bad. And just because you buy two together hardly means that you're getting the same product (though you have more hope of consistency than buying from two different places). It's a lottery really. The same with a vintage wine. With multiple disgorgements, you never know!

    All part of the fun of drinkling Champagne.

    Had a bottle of Pierre Gimmonnet Gastronome 2004 a few days back. $60 from "shudder" VC. Excellent blanc de blancs. My style of Champagne for not too much. Will be even better with a few years.

    MichaelC
    ReplyDelete
  3. I should have said, "similar" to a vintage wine. The year might be the same, but the big houses obviously release in batches, and may not be able to achieve absolute consistency owing to volume. Then throw cork into the mix ... I recall Lanson '96 being for sale for years and years, and it was quite obvious that there were multiple disgorgements. I guess you could call the last ones Lanson RD!!

    In any cases, these thoughts apply to many wine produced in volume. Need I say Seppelt Chalambar? Almost every bottle tastes different. A bit cheaper than vintage Champagne admittedly ...

    MichaelC
    ReplyDelete
  4. I have reviewed this before! Enjoyed it much more last time, which was almost a year ago to the day.... http://www.ozwinereview.com/2009/01/pol-roger-1999.html
    ReplyDelete

Love to hear your comments and thoughts in the box below. To receive followup emails to your comment click on the 'Subscribe by email' link.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)