Diplomatico “Nortenos” Canada Regional Release 2018 – Dom Perignon 2008 - Domaine de Marcoux Chateauneuf du Pape 2009 - Rockford Black Shiraz Sparkling Red
New Year’s Eve. Has there ever been a more overhyped, trumped-up, pretend holiday on the planet? Except for Valentine’s Day and the Queen’s Birthday and Halloween (outside the States, at least) and a whole heap more.
Caught up with some of my oldest friends and crashed up at their place – just off the beach just north of the Qld/NSW border. It was pretty much a perfect way to spend New Year. A summer evening with a cool sea breeze. A fireworks display (can take or leave that). Some cracking wines. A brilliant barbecue. A cigar (okay, not everything was perfect). Many hours telling old stories, all of which get better every year. And then sound asleep by about 11pm.
The cigar was the only let-down. And is there a more disappointing cigar than one you know is normally a star, but utterly fails you. The culprit - the Diplomatico “Nortenos” Canada Regional Release 2018.
Our good friend from Sealbasher Land (before I have Molotov cocktails lobbed at me, that is, of course, a term of endearment), Chris, had spent some time with us earlier in the year. We smoked a few of these and they were stellar. In fact, it was Chris who introduced me to these and some top Canadian whiskey and I am most grateful. That one let the side down is, of course, no reflection on my very kind donor and nor, I would suggest, on the cigar itself, as all others were terrific. He’d kindly left me a couple and this was the last – not one had ever disappointed at all, so I was pretty confident (actually, it never occurred to me that it wouldn’t be a joy).
No such luck.
It needed relighting about three dozen times, it was a bit harsh, the burn was lopsided, it was hot and not very pleasant. Such a shame. No real point scoring it, other than to say every other one has been getting very high scores. This did not.
The first drink out of the starting gates was the opposite – fully lived up to its brilliant reputation. 2008 Dom Perignon.
Now, before I get into the Dom, so to speak, we also cracked a fine Chateauneuf du Pape, the Domaine du Marcoux 2009, which was not bad – not the standard I remember from a previous tasting a while back, but certainly more than acceptable. It, however, contributed to my conviction that red wine and cigars struggle to play nicely. They are about as compatible as Poland and Germany, circa late 30’s.
To finish, a superb Spurgles – the Aussie term for the sparkling Shiraz we make – the Rockford Black Shiraz NV. Suffice to say that I think this is generally the very best we make, hence the best in the world, and this was a fine example. Had the cigar been what it should have been, then I have no doubt that it would have been a superb match. And as I am looking at doing more stuff on sparkling reds in the near future, I’ll hold off on anything more.
But the Dom! The very name is one of the most recognisable on the planet. Teetotallers, prohibitionists and even those living in that mythical cave in the mountains of Pakistan all know it is somehow connected to Champagne.
Their most recent release, the Dom Perignon 2008 (around A$300, give or take), is a thrilling champagne (my scores have all ranged from 98 to 99 whenever I have seen it – it is that good), and has been dubbed as the greatest that they have ever made. That is a huge claim, as there have been some superb bottles over the years.
Forgive me for taking this down the wine rabbit-hole, as opposed to cigars, but it is worth it.
First, may we dispel some myths surrounding Dom Perignon. He did not invent champagne. No doubt its owners, LVMH, are not unhappy to have that particular claim out there, but it is most demonstrably untrue. No one ‘invented’ champagne – rather, it is a cumulative achievement reached by incremental advances with a great many impacting in many ways. The famous monk was, however, an extraordinary man who certainly made an enormous contribution – although more to winemaking than specifically the creation of sparkling wine.
Nor did Dom P claim, when he first found bubbles in his wines, ‘come quickly, I am drinking stars’. The evidence suggests that this was the work of the marketing department (or its equivalent) earlier last century. Indeed, it seems more likely that he tried very hard to keep the bubbles out of his wines. His extensive notes never, not once, speak of creating bubbles in his wines or any form of sparkle.
Dom Perignon was a Benedictine monk, working at the Abbey of Hautvillers, who was born in the 1630s (no one is sure exactly when but he was christened early in January, 1639) and passed away in 1715. At 14, he enrolled in the Jesuit College at Châlons-sur-Marne for five years, under his Latin name of Pétrus Pérignon – seriously, if anyone was destined for a career in wine, it was this man. Next stop was joining the order of the Benedictine monks at the Abbey of Saint-Vanne at Verdun. This was a strict order dedicated to learning. Perignon’s standard day involved nine hours of prayer, seven hours of manual labour, two hours of reading and one meal a day.
After just ten years (apparently a shorter time than usual), he was made a ‘Dom’ and sent to the Abbey of Hautvillers, as procureur and cellar master. This placed him as second-in-charge to the abbot. He remained at the Abbey for the next 47 years. As it happens, and as surprising as it might be for anyone who has visited the Abbey, it was little more than a charred wreck at the time, from a series of sackings, and needed serious renovation. That sort of work is not cheap and Dom P proved the man for the job, setting to work to raise the funds.
The wine presses were repaired and the region’s first purpose-built, underground cellars were constructed. As others have asked, although such cellars, cool and with a non-fluctuating temperature, are standard today, what led Dom P to make the decision to construct them? He was a man well ahead of his time.
Dom P’s successor wrote extensively about the work of the monk, especially in relation to the vineyards. The writings covers the work they did in respect of vine planting, fertilisation, pruning, crop levels, harvesting and winemaking. It stresses the extra attention to detail that Dom P brought to every task. He also more than doubled the vineyard holdings of the Abbey during his tenure, to more than 16 hectares.
So, just what wine did Dom P produce? We do have considerable information about the famous Benedictine monk, thanks in part to patronage of the region by Louis XIV. Dom P himself kept extensive notes about his work and as Tom Stevenson (world authority) says, he was ‘not shy in beating his own drum, claiming in 1694 to have made “the best wine in the world”’. And yet, in all his writings and other reports of the day, there is not a single mention of a sparkling wine and at no stage did he ever claim to make any. Indeed, again as Stevenson mentions, “all the evidence suggests that he spent his life trying to avoid the unwelcome fault that destroyed so many bottles of his wine.” Remember Dom P’s successor who wrote so extensively about his work? Again, not a single mention of sparkling wine.
The first time there is any written suggestion of Dom P making sparkling wine is to be found in a letter from 1821, more than a century after his death. A letter now considered to be utterly mistaken, at best.
Stevenson has listed many of the contributions which Dom P did make. Whilst these were in respect of still wine at the time, they have also helped enormously in subsequent years to ensuring that Champagne is and remains the greatest of all sparkling wines. Stevenson notes the advances in pruning adopted by Dom P; moving harvesting to the coolest hours of early morning; harvesting in several tries over a period of time to ensure that those grapes picked are harvested at optimum; grape selection whilst harvesting to ensure any unsuitable grapes do not make the winery; the use of small baskets when picking, which prevents the crushing of grapes until the appropriate time; constructing press houses throughout the vineyards to reduce the time and distance between harvesting the grapes and the arrival of juice at the winery; making white wine from black grapes (there is no recorded evidence that this occurred before Dom P was doing it); assemblage, that is blending the different varieties and growths – this would, in time, be a massive contribution; and tasting the grapes, not the wines, to decide the assemblage.
Dom Perignon (the wine) was, however, very nearly nothing to do with Moet.
Arguments abound over just which was the very first prestige champagne. Louis Roederer’s Cristal certainly was the first to appear but at that stage, it was a one-off, whereas Dom Perignon is probably the first to be regularly released. I say ‘regularly’, as where does this leave Salon? In the end, it is a question of academic interest or one for the various publicity teams.
The first Dom Perignon was the 1921, but at that stage, Moet did not even have rights to the name. They lay with Champagne Mercier. Mercier, however, was not using the name and it was given to the House of Moet as a wedding present for a member of the family. That was in 1927. At that stage, the 1921 had not been released and it was held over till 1936 before it was released, under that name, in New York. There were only a few bottles. Suffice to say that your chances of finding a bottle of the 1921, which is not a fake, is slim. Also, until the 1943 vintage, it is understood that Dom Perignon was simply vintage Moet transferred to the special, and still widely recognisable bottle. The first Dom made and bottled in the famous container was the 1947. The first Dom P Rose was the 1959, released in 1971. It is believed that the entire production of this wine went to the Shah of Iran for the celebrations of the 2,500th anniversary of Persia.
So far, there have been 42 vintages released, though the frequency of these releases is increasing – whether that is thanks to improvements in vineyard techniques and winemaking, the result of climate change or a push from the beancounters is often debated but between 1995 and 2009 (the ’09 was actually released before the 2008, as it was more forward), the only vintages not declared have been 1997, 2001 and 2007. Most of the wines released have been superb, making the question moot, though some, like 2003, struggle to garner unanimous support (personally, it is hardly the worst champagne released in recent years, but then surely Dom should be something seriously special – ‘hardly the worst’ is faint praise indeed, and not something one normally associates with what are usually brilliant champagnes).
Thanks to their brilliant, but sadly recently retired chef de cave, Richard Geoffroy (who originally trained as a doctor), they adopted a program of holding back part of certain vintages for extended lees ageing – the Oenothèque program, now known as Plenitude. Hence, we have P2s (more intensity and greater maturity and which have usually seen an extra 12 to 16 years on lees) and P3s (which will see an amazing 20 to 30 years on lees).
It is worth stating that Dom has never hit such consistently stellar heights as it has under Richard. His successor, Vincent Chaperon, has worked very closely with him for a long period so the transition should be relatively painless, but the flair and brilliance of Richard will be a very tough act to follow. In many ways, he is as much a pioneer and innovator as the Monk was all those years ago. To produce such extraordinary champagnes, time after time, is almost beyond comprehension, given that production is supposedly around five million bottles, up from an alleged three million when Richard arrived in 1990. One of the reasons often given for this increase without any loss of quality is the company’s purchase of Pommery around that time, which they quickly on-sold, while keeping the legendary vineyards.
No matter, how nice to bookend your career with two such great vintages – 1990 and the release of the 2008.
Richard has taken Dom from a product considered almost as vinous bling in the early days to one of the world’s most respected champagnes. Anyone who still dismisses it because of the huge production or the celebrity image is missing out. There are very few better and 2008 is undoubtedly a truly brilliant champagne vintage. It should be in every cellar – yes, they will age for many years.
The Dom P is one of the very best of all the 2008s, if not the star, and it is also perhaps the greatest young Dom we have seen.
As for the greatest Doms, a bottle of 1964 opened during a meeting with Richard at the Abbey some years ago will always stay in my mind as the finest I have ever seen (given that the bottle, in over four decades, had never moved more than a few yards, the entire experience was very exciting). Closest challenger was a magnum of P3 Rose from 1988, opened last year at the Helsinki Fine Wine tasting. Sublime, a champagne for the bended knee.
The wine itself is pretty much an equal split of Chardonnay and Pinot Noir, wonderfully complex with precision, finesse, piercing length and knife-edge balance. Notes of honey, florals, grapefruit, gunflint, stonefruit and more. Slight hints of nuts and even sesame seeds with an oystershell-like salinity. This is a wine which will age for a very long time, though is glorious now. There is an entrancing, graceful power behind it. Its subsequent incarnations, P2 and P3, should be even more deserving of reverential awe, whenever they come to the market (don’t hold your breath – it will be many years). Even the wine in its current form, should be cellared for as long as you can. For me, 98, with potential to go even higher.
The perfect champagne to bring Richard’s glittering career to a deserved conclusion is also a glorious match for a cigar (well, not this one).
I once asked Richard exactly what he would serve with the 1964 Dom (I should mention that there had been no mention in any form of anything pertaining to cigars or Cuba). Without hesitation, to my amazement, he replied, ‘Partagas D4’.
Who am I to argue?
KBG
