|
|
|
For
Next Saturday’s Vintages Release
Having a sparkling summer?
So
there I am. Standing in the LCBO lab, eyeball to eyeball, with a pair of
bubblies. What is a taster to do? The first is from France; the least
expensive Champagne on the LCBO general list. It has all the trappings
of being a winner, except one thing - its flavours do not captivate my
heart. Not that it is bad – I am just not keen on its faintly off-dry,
honeyed, apple flavours, too reminiscent of apple cider. “I
know, I know,” a
little voice tells me, “if you serve it well chilled, the effervescence and cold will subdue
the taste
meaning that it might even be hailed as a winner.”
Nevertheless, it is hard to shell out $39.85 for Nicolas
Feuillatte Brut Champagne Reserve Particulaire;
especially when one is not overly keen on what’s in the glass. This
fussiness is the occupational hazard of being a professional taster –
the result of evaluating a never-ending stream of products. Fortunately,
salvation comes in the next glass, and it costs a lot less. Domaine
Chandon NV Brut Classic
has been available since 1991. Surprisingly, this one doesn’t even
come from Champagne but from California and sells for only $26.95. “Is
it better than the real thing?” you ask. For my palate, yes! It is
crisper and drier with more refined, well defined, slightly leesy, ripe
lemon flavours. But
hold on, before you run off to stock up on this brand, let me provide
you with the scoop from a hot-off-the-tongue comparative bubbly blind
tasting. Fellow wine writer David Lawrason in the throws of his tasting
rituals invites me to sample. The subject? Some 35 sparkling wines. And
so I sacrifice a lovely Saturday afternoon and trundle off to his house
with some two-dozen tasting glasses in tow. It is tough, as they say,
but someone has to do it. We
taste through the least expensive wines first, grouped by country of
origin. While some are quite pleasant and offer fair drinking value,
they have little in common with Champagne - with one exception. No
it’s not the Domaine It
is not a fluke; this $29.95 gem fools many professionals.
On the basis of the nose alone, I would have sworn that it was
the real thing. “Classy, very leesy, dried ripe lemon with a dash fresh ground white
pepper,” read my tasting notes. On the palate, it is lovely with
refined, harmonious, gently toasty, lemony flavours and a lingering
finish. This
estate grown blend of 70% Pinot Noir and 30% Chardonnay has been aged
for two years on its lees (the yeast deposits that precipitate out of
the aging wine) and sees some15% of oak-aged reserve wine added to the
final blend. It is the kind of effort that does California proud. Ironically,
it was banished from the LCBO general list and now resides as an
“essential” in Vintages. While many
overpriced California reds attract collectors like moths to a flame,
when it comes to sparklers, the money still stays with Champagne - even
if they are distinctly inferior. I know that labels sell, but surely the
time has come to remove those tiresome blinkers. Wouldn’t it be nice
if the bulk of California table wines that dominate LCBO shelve space
offered equivalent quality?
Of
course, not everyone has big bucks to spend and some don’t even like
the taste of Champagne. What to do? Of the two-dozen “other”
sparklers, inexpensive “cava” from Spain offered excellent value. The
winner was Freixenet NV Cordon Negro Brut, which
recently jumped from $10.75 to $11.75. The nose is very clean with fine,
slightly spicy, ripe, lemon-melon fruit. On the palate, it is very dry
and light bodied with lively, lingering, grapefruit flavours.
In the “what if” category, suppose the Pope unexpectedly appeared at you door; what would you serve? Well I would make a beeline and fetch a great Champagne because a red would be too repetitive given all the masses his holiness attends. My first choice: 1989 Veuve Clicquot Trilennium Reserved Cuvée Brut, the sommelier taste-off winner which was previously recommended in this column. To see this special feature Click Here
timeouttoronto.ca |
||
Copyright Food & Beverage Testing Institute of Canada
2004 |