As far as celebrated vintages go, 1996 is recognized as one of the finest. But is the 1995 actually the connoisseur’s choice? At a memorable tasting, Elite Traveler’s drinks columnist compares the two.
“It’s a legendary year in champagne – the first vintage consumers really got behind and started collecting,’ says Katherine Fisher, champagne buyer for Bordeaux Index. ‘‘It’s often talked about in the same breath as ’02, ’08, 2012.’”
But how are these wines faring 30 years on? That was the question that lured me to a fascinating tasting at Bordeaux Index’s HQ in London the other day, which compared a series of top prestige cuvées from 1996 and the lesser-known 1995.
“1995 is also a great vintage in its own right but it has always been a bit in the shadow of ’96,” says Fisher. “But then we found ourselves having a few conversations with private clients and tasted the odd thing here and there that suggested the 1995s were tasting surprisingly good. So we thought it would be interesting to re-visit the two.”
Bordeaux Index has made something of a name for itself hosting esoteric ‘decades on’ tastings like this, which offer private clients the chance to assess famous Champagne and Bordeaux vintages 10, 20 or even 30 years on. I have been to a couple – a ‘10 years on’ tasting of 60 Bordeaux clarets, including all the first growths, was particularly memorable. And there are few better ways to get under the skin of a wine, or a vintage, than to taste comparatively like this. What’s more there are always surprises – unexpected winners or wines / vintages that simply don’t live up to the hype.
One unforeseen but delightful gatecrasher on the day was Charles Philipponnat of Champagne Philipponnat (which was in the tasting). He told me, slightly mischievous, he was putting his money on the 1995s.
“It’s a derby of two beautiful vintages,” he said. “Both were sunny and ripe. The biggest difference was ’95 was an extremely small harvest – so you get this concentration, but balanced with this bright acidity that has helped it resist the passing of time. The 1996s were even more acid, but the fruit in them was more fragile, so some didn’t keep their promise and collapsed and became too oxidised.»
«Generally speaking ’95 is the superior vintage even though the one that was hyped at the time was ’96 – because critics tend to enjoy the fresh acidity that makes wines very brilliant, very exciting when they are young. But anything can taste good when it’s young. It’s the champagnes that can last 20, 30 years or more that are the great wines.”
Cuvées in the line-up included Taittinger Comtes de Champagne (ex-château), Louis Roederer Cristal (secondary market); Krug Vintage (and a ‘95 Krug Collection); Ayala La Perle (ex-château); Charles Heidsieck La Collection Crayères (ex-château); Philipponnat Clos des Goisses LV (ex-château) and Bollinger RD (ex-château).
There were also some solo entries: 1995 Duval-Leroy Femme de Champagne and 1996 Salon de Mesnil, 1996 Veuve Cliquot La Grande Dame and 1996 Dom Perignon Rose in Magnum, all from Bordeaux Index’s own stash.
Fisher said she was looking for wines that “still had lot of freshness,” says Fisher, “but combined with that added richness, toastiness and sumptuousness that you get with age.”
Both Taittingers were gorgeous, but the more generous 1995 edged it for me, combining golden stone fruit and hints of lemon and lime with a buttery silkiness. Tasting it, you got the sense of a noble champagne, fully realized.
The 1995 Bollinger RD was another stand-out – rich and multi-layered, it had a kind of Drink Me sweet-and-savoriness that married tobacco, panettone and dried tropical fruits with an appetising toastiness.
The Krugs still had great power and presence, coupled with assertive acidity. The late-disgorged 1995 Krug Collection – which had more flesh on the bones, more texture – was definitely my favourite here.
Long-aged Cristal can be magnificent – but the general consensus was that this was not Cristal’s day. Both vintages (created before Jean Baptiste Lécaillon was appointed chef de cave) seemed a little on the tired side.
The 1996 Charles Heidseick was still wonderfully vivacious, with zesty notes of orange, lemon and lime and a luxuriant creaminess. Of the two Philipponnats the 1995 was the more giving, with expansive vanilla tobacco and dried fruit notes, fine bubbles and a subtle smokiness.
Salon only had one horse in the race – the 1996. But it was fabulous, with ethereal notes of citrus, almond, white peach and flowers, and an airy texture, that defied its age.
In general I found the ’95s more supple and expressive – as Charles Philipponnat had prophesied. But the ‘better’ vintage varied from maison to maison and depended on factors including bottle format, disgorgement date, the wine’s provenance and, of course, the maison’s house style.
And finding a ‘winner’, after all, was never really the point of this tasting, because wine is a moving target – and that is what makes it so fascinating, and part of why we love it.
Bordeaux Index Decades-on tastings planned for next year include 2016 Bordeaux and Champagne 2006. For more information contact bordeauxindex.com
