Last night here in Charlotte I removed three bottles from my cellar that I
acquired in the past year in a wooden box. They were as mentioned in the
subject line. 3 years of recently disgorged Dom Perignon.
We were at an upscale Italian Restaurant in Charlotte called LUCE and I was
with some close friends. Having drank aged Champagne for the first time I
realized that this was truly a unique experience.
1964 Dom(RD)-Upon opening you can tell there was very little effervescence
remaining. It almost sounded flat. Little to no bubbles in glass. Wine
was exceptionally complex. Pear, Apple, Carmel...mild, sophisticated blends
on the tongue. No yeast detected
1975-was totally different. More effevesance, but after 20 minutes the
complexity arose of pear/apple and caramel. Yeast flavor dissipated in
1978 similar to 75 but more bubbles.
All three were great wines.
We had these wines with our appetizers of the first 2 hours of dinner. They
had some incredible dishes they prepared for us. We had a duck risotto,
Seafood Hot appetizer as well as a lobster tail.
All I can say is I never knew Dom Perignon did a RD...but it was incredible.
I still have a bottle of the 64 and two of the 75. Both are the normal
releases, and have been stored properly by me. Your descriptions of your
RD style versions do correspond to roughly my impressions of the regular
release. I found the 75 more to my taste than the 64 even when the wines
were much younger. I am not a big fan of old Champagne, but it is
interesting at times. I must confess that I prefer Krug to Dom Perignon,
especially for long aging, but this is just a matter of personal taste.
There are some interesting Champagnes from 1973 that have held fairly
well. I still have single bottles of Bollinger Tradition RD, Bollinger
Vieilles Vignes Francaises Blanc de Noirs, Dom Perignon, and Krug from
1973. These were still holding at last tasting, but most are nearing the
end of their best, at least for me. The 73 Krug, to my surprise, seem
to have aged more rapidly than the others. In most other years I have
had, the Krug often is the slowest to age. Anyway, some of the 73s can
still be worth tasting if you can find bottles that have been stored
under nearly perfect conditions. There was not as much publicity about
the 73s on their release as some other years of that era, but it turns
out that some 73s have lasted better than some Champagnes from years
with much more hype.
This was my first time with old aged champagne. It was fabulous.
Krug NV is my favorite champagne as well. However this RD Dom was
spectacular and much different that I had imagined it would be like.
Rarely have I tasted champagne with as much complexity as this.