- Location
- London
Quite several people asked about the notes from this offline; I guess everyone was waiting someone else to post first.... then I realised I have the final voting sheet, so I guess I shall summarise this very enjoyable evening:
Aperitif 1:
Served blind:
Lanson vintage 2008
It was a lovely day and sitting outside of Noize was a good start of the evening. Ray again kindly brought a kick-start wine for us to sip outdoor, served blind.
It has green apple flavour and nose, a bit of lemon but also some sign of evolve in the nose. It's not very complex but I personally think it's a nice summer drink.
I have only tasted this wine in Paris tasting event three years ago, and the raw non-malo acidity made it basically undrinkable then. Recently I heard good thing about this wine but apparently this bottle was not up to the level people expected it to be.
Aperitif 2:
Dom Ruinart rose 1982
Moving into the restaurant, we had our first "proper" wine.
To start with an aged rose is interesting. This wine is not off, not badly oxidised, though not too much energy nor bubbles left. Hard to judge the colour as the basement of Noize has yellowish lighting. There was an obvious sweetness in the wine which could be the Ruinart finger print style, or/and from the dosage.
Blind tasting wine 1:
Hector Riviere brut BdB 1966 en magnum
We were given the wine to guess the age; it's golden in colour, still quite some bubbles left. Acidity is very soften and there is a dosage in it. For that it can be 1990. While there is also a smell on the top nose, some used to decribe it as 'wet hair', indicating a much older age. I was thinking 1976. Ended up that it's 1966!
Surprising fresh for this age, especially when it survived the BY fire.
(Got 1 point)
Blind tasting wine 2:
Cedric Bouchard Roses de Jeanne La Boloree BdB (de facto 2008)
Very light in colour and a slight CO2 attack on the nose at first sniff, hence it should be a new vintage. Zero dosage but it doesn't taste like it, there is enough sweet feeling on the palate despite it's lean and chalky. Different from usual BdB palate though, could be that it's 100% pinot blanc.
Blind tasting wine 3:
Krug Clos du Mesnil 2004
Slightly deeper colour than Cedric Bouchard; nose expressive/powerful yet not a grower-kind of. People in the event (including me) felt that they have had this wine but couldn't remember when and what. Actually I have never had 2004 CdB, but I had several times of 1998, and they do share some similar qualities. In the begining it's a bit tight (not at all shy), while it stayed in the glass very long. Very good length and structure.
(Got 5 points, shared 3rd place. )
Charles Heidsieck Champagne Charlie 1985
It's just a very good wine as we have seen time after time. Especially considering that they are older label coming from Waitrose shops storage, the long life of this wine is just remarkable. I am not saying that there is no variation, but for this age of wine, this cuvee Charlie 1985 is probably the most outperforming 80s champagne I have seen. This bottle again delivered, one of the better bottles, got enough freshess at the same time very generous and giving in both nose and palate.
(Got 19 points, top wine of the night.)
Charles Heidsieck Blanc des Millenaires 1995
Newer disgorged (apparence), but no issues of what we experienced previously in some new disgorgement. I personally feel it's a complete wine: great mousse, great freshness, great structure, balanced and rich. Like many people here I have had this wine many times, they are mostly good or excellent. Here we had an excellent bottle. My wine of the night and the second wine of group vote.
(14 points, 2nd place)
Charles Heidsieck Brut 1996
It's fresher and lighter in colour than expected, slightly weak in mousse maybe therefore a little bit empty on the palate. It is surely an enjoyable wine but a bit unfair for it to stand aside of the no.1 and no.2 of the evening.
Dom Perignon 1996
We had quite several very good bottles from this case but unfortunately this bottle is not. Which is not uncommon for this age of champagne. From the colour it shouldn't be super advanced, while the nose has some herby element which I haven't experienced for this wine before. On the palate it was a bit restrained also don't know why. It could be that it's at an uneasy phase or simply a less good bottle.
Dom Perignon Oenotheque 1996
I am fortunate enough to taste this wine several times, and except once it showed really superb, the other ones were all slightly underwhelming. I guess it's less consistent than Oenotheque 1995. Not at all saying it's faulty; the colour is bright and both the nose and palate showed that it's very fresh. It's just not very generous. I start to think this is how this wine should be, and the one super expressive bottle was an exception.
Krug vintage 2002
When I first tried this wine in Krug tasting hold by our beloved admin Tom C (many people were there in LVMH headquarter), this wine was way to young. Then we tried again in 2019, it's still a bit tight and awkward. I think now the palate start to be quite enjoyable, the fruit stands out enough to balance the acidity and for me it is a more pleasant wine, opposite to a big wine below.
(Got 2 points)
Krug vintage 1996
This is a big gun. And again among my limited but multiple times having this wine, this bottle was the best. Still, it was Krug 1996: the acidity was yelling like no tomorrow. I made a joke that this wine is like the big muscle man you see in the gym, super impressive but pretty or not up to everyone's taste. (I think I made a similar comment to Bollinger LGA 1996, which was also highly regarded in 2017 Bolly tasting in Capitol. Simon G wrote complete notes on that which can be found in forum)
On this wine (also some other wine), we have a very interesting opinion gap between two sides of the table. People on my side think 2002 is more enjoyable but the other side prefer 1996. I agree on the other side of the table that, after about 20 mins, 2002 started to show a little bit emptiness in the mid-palate, which was not the case for 1996. Whether 2002 would generate enough substance to fill that space with some ageing, hard to tell. But still, at the moment I personally would happily drink 2002 for leisure, without being demanded my full serious attention.
(Got 5 points, shared 3rd place. )
Many thanks to Gareth for organising this; I guess it was a bit of a rocky ride to get the wine list done! But the outcome was really good; ended up that we had many great wine and a truely fun evening. Also thank to Mathieu @ Noize who's always extremely helpful for this kind of events. And of course to everyone who kindly offer their wine. (I guess I should especially mentioned Dan's cellar, which three of the wine are from there despite they were all offered by different people!)
Aperitif 1:
Served blind:
Lanson vintage 2008
It was a lovely day and sitting outside of Noize was a good start of the evening. Ray again kindly brought a kick-start wine for us to sip outdoor, served blind.
It has green apple flavour and nose, a bit of lemon but also some sign of evolve in the nose. It's not very complex but I personally think it's a nice summer drink.
I have only tasted this wine in Paris tasting event three years ago, and the raw non-malo acidity made it basically undrinkable then. Recently I heard good thing about this wine but apparently this bottle was not up to the level people expected it to be.
Aperitif 2:
Dom Ruinart rose 1982
Moving into the restaurant, we had our first "proper" wine.
To start with an aged rose is interesting. This wine is not off, not badly oxidised, though not too much energy nor bubbles left. Hard to judge the colour as the basement of Noize has yellowish lighting. There was an obvious sweetness in the wine which could be the Ruinart finger print style, or/and from the dosage.
Blind tasting wine 1:
Hector Riviere brut BdB 1966 en magnum
We were given the wine to guess the age; it's golden in colour, still quite some bubbles left. Acidity is very soften and there is a dosage in it. For that it can be 1990. While there is also a smell on the top nose, some used to decribe it as 'wet hair', indicating a much older age. I was thinking 1976. Ended up that it's 1966!
Surprising fresh for this age, especially when it survived the BY fire.
(Got 1 point)
Blind tasting wine 2:
Cedric Bouchard Roses de Jeanne La Boloree BdB (de facto 2008)
Very light in colour and a slight CO2 attack on the nose at first sniff, hence it should be a new vintage. Zero dosage but it doesn't taste like it, there is enough sweet feeling on the palate despite it's lean and chalky. Different from usual BdB palate though, could be that it's 100% pinot blanc.
Blind tasting wine 3:
Krug Clos du Mesnil 2004
Slightly deeper colour than Cedric Bouchard; nose expressive/powerful yet not a grower-kind of. People in the event (including me) felt that they have had this wine but couldn't remember when and what. Actually I have never had 2004 CdB, but I had several times of 1998, and they do share some similar qualities. In the begining it's a bit tight (not at all shy), while it stayed in the glass very long. Very good length and structure.
(Got 5 points, shared 3rd place. )
Charles Heidsieck Champagne Charlie 1985
It's just a very good wine as we have seen time after time. Especially considering that they are older label coming from Waitrose shops storage, the long life of this wine is just remarkable. I am not saying that there is no variation, but for this age of wine, this cuvee Charlie 1985 is probably the most outperforming 80s champagne I have seen. This bottle again delivered, one of the better bottles, got enough freshess at the same time very generous and giving in both nose and palate.
(Got 19 points, top wine of the night.)
Charles Heidsieck Blanc des Millenaires 1995
Newer disgorged (apparence), but no issues of what we experienced previously in some new disgorgement. I personally feel it's a complete wine: great mousse, great freshness, great structure, balanced and rich. Like many people here I have had this wine many times, they are mostly good or excellent. Here we had an excellent bottle. My wine of the night and the second wine of group vote.
(14 points, 2nd place)
Charles Heidsieck Brut 1996
It's fresher and lighter in colour than expected, slightly weak in mousse maybe therefore a little bit empty on the palate. It is surely an enjoyable wine but a bit unfair for it to stand aside of the no.1 and no.2 of the evening.
Dom Perignon 1996
We had quite several very good bottles from this case but unfortunately this bottle is not. Which is not uncommon for this age of champagne. From the colour it shouldn't be super advanced, while the nose has some herby element which I haven't experienced for this wine before. On the palate it was a bit restrained also don't know why. It could be that it's at an uneasy phase or simply a less good bottle.
Dom Perignon Oenotheque 1996
I am fortunate enough to taste this wine several times, and except once it showed really superb, the other ones were all slightly underwhelming. I guess it's less consistent than Oenotheque 1995. Not at all saying it's faulty; the colour is bright and both the nose and palate showed that it's very fresh. It's just not very generous. I start to think this is how this wine should be, and the one super expressive bottle was an exception.
Krug vintage 2002
When I first tried this wine in Krug tasting hold by our beloved admin Tom C (many people were there in LVMH headquarter), this wine was way to young. Then we tried again in 2019, it's still a bit tight and awkward. I think now the palate start to be quite enjoyable, the fruit stands out enough to balance the acidity and for me it is a more pleasant wine, opposite to a big wine below.
(Got 2 points)
Krug vintage 1996
This is a big gun. And again among my limited but multiple times having this wine, this bottle was the best. Still, it was Krug 1996: the acidity was yelling like no tomorrow. I made a joke that this wine is like the big muscle man you see in the gym, super impressive but pretty or not up to everyone's taste. (I think I made a similar comment to Bollinger LGA 1996, which was also highly regarded in 2017 Bolly tasting in Capitol. Simon G wrote complete notes on that which can be found in forum)
On this wine (also some other wine), we have a very interesting opinion gap between two sides of the table. People on my side think 2002 is more enjoyable but the other side prefer 1996. I agree on the other side of the table that, after about 20 mins, 2002 started to show a little bit emptiness in the mid-palate, which was not the case for 1996. Whether 2002 would generate enough substance to fill that space with some ageing, hard to tell. But still, at the moment I personally would happily drink 2002 for leisure, without being demanded my full serious attention.
(Got 5 points, shared 3rd place. )
Many thanks to Gareth for organising this; I guess it was a bit of a rocky ride to get the wine list done! But the outcome was really good; ended up that we had many great wine and a truely fun evening. Also thank to Mathieu @ Noize who's always extremely helpful for this kind of events. And of course to everyone who kindly offer their wine. (I guess I should especially mentioned Dan's cellar, which three of the wine are from there despite they were all offered by different people!)
Last edited: