I love Champagne. You love Champagne. It's difficult not to be beguiled by the stuff. However, occasionally, I feel a bit let down by the bubbles. I know bringing up this topic may make me a wine heretic. Don't get me wrong; if I only had one mixed case of wine on a desert island, 2 of the 12 wines would be Champagne - Krug and Salon Le Mesnil.
I was thrilled to discover that the theme for WineBloggingWednesday #25 was Champagne (the real deal, from France). I tracked down a new-to-me marque: Lenoble. For $55, I took home Lenoble's 1996 Grand Cru Blanc de Blancs. What could be better than sipping vintage bubbly on a rainy Wednesday night?
The wine was good. That was the problem. Technically, it was well-balanced, good flavors, yadda, yadda. However, I just spent a fifty-five bucks. Shouldn't it be really good? Shouldn't I be lying in bed searching for a cigarette? Or, at a minimum, shouldn't I have heard one or two angels singing? The bubbly was good, not great. That makes me uneasy.
When I first began learning about wine, the following caveat was drilled into my head from a number of "experts":
Spending more money doesn't necessarily equate to better wine. However, a notable exception is Champagne. The relationship between price and quality is rock-solid.
The more Champagne I taste, the more I find the above statement to be baloney. I love the bubbles, but I trust them less and less each day.
What do you think?
The price of Champagne is generally..
|Create Free Polls|