![]() Dan liked its overripe, Bacchanalean fruit. The palate was actually brawnier than I expected, with a very bready finish. The palate had a great bread, nut and honey three-way happening, which led me to think how a sexy nose should always lead to a three-way on the palate. Given the small age difference between the 19, the 1988 seemed a lot more mature than the 1990. There was a peanutty side to its musk, Thai style. The 88 had a sexier, muskier nose with forward bread components and a glazed sweetness in a honeyed, toffee style. In fifty years, it will indubitably be great (93+).īernard started to lick his lips over the fact that we were entering the junction between Champagne and wine, where Champagne starts to morph into more of its wine-like characteristics, and the 1988 Dom Perignon backed up exactly about what he was talking. A drop of honey squeezed its way onto the palate, but again it was big, forceful and so dry not my style yet, but I respected it. Justin stood up for Roses in general and how much he loved them, although he did concede that they can be a bit treacherous. It had the Rose, dry cherry and floral edge to the nose but was still bone-chillingly dry. The wine was a lot drier on the nose and the palate. ![]() I have never been a big Rose fan, except when they are very old, and the 1990 showed me once again why. We followed the 1990 with the 1990 Rose Dom Perignon for comparison. and also mentioned that he thought Champagne was the hardest beverage for which to do tasting notes (95). Those aromas carried over to the palate, which was also bready, (white) meaty and earthy with some straw and tobacco behind it. The 1990 Dom Perignon had a nose full of white chocolate initially, so much so that finding another descriptor was difficult. There was some structure but it was a one-dimensional wine, and it got disturbingly celeric on the palate (83). There was no front palate, and the backside was ok but had a touch of musty flavors. We concurred that it was funky, but not a good funky, more like a white guy funky. Justin called it really light with a clover bordering on stale bread crumbs. There was a little more mature honey as well, but that aroma was secondary. It lacked the purity of fruit of the 95 and 96, with more earthy, weedy and bready aromas that seemed stale by comparison. (94) The 1993 Dom Perignon followed and was a bit funky. It doesn’t have the stuffing of the 1996, but it’s more my style. Justin remarked that the 1995 was better balanced. The 1995 was very smooth, more ready, approachable and rounder than the 1996. The 1995 was more medium-bodied but solid, and it went very well with the smoked trout, which balanced it out on the palate tremendously. ![]() The palate was very stony and a bit more unbalanced by comparison to the 1996 in regard to the bread flavors upfront and alcohol on the finish. There was a delicate freshness on the bready side with mild citrus and a quiet calm and balance to the nose. The 1995 Dom Perignon had a milder nose by comparison but was still very nice. The 1996 had an unmatched verve for the evening (96). Dan picked up on its “straw” flavors, and it got stonier with time. There were additional flavors of limestone and seltzer on the finish. ![]() The 1996 had great acidity, and flavors of citrus, anise, bread, stones, minerals and raindrops. Bernard agreed with that opinion, calling the balance and acidity a notch above. Man, do I love the 1996s – the zip, zest and zoom of the vintage are tremendous and better than 1990 in my opinion. There was an intense, taut center flirting with pungency but not really pungent, more like intensity. The 1996 Dom Perignon had a very fresh nose (of course) full of stones, taut citrus, dust and pinches of anise and minerals.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |