Wine last night--Dom Perignon 1964, 1975 and 1978 Recently Discorged.

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 10-15 minutes.
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.
Reply to
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.
Reply to
Cwdjrx _
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.
Reply to

DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.