Differences in describing winemercredi, 16 août 2017

By a true hazard I went on the blog of Michiel Demarey who describes himself so: « I’m a epicurean fine wine lover, pianist, philosopher and champagne freak. In 2010 I started with Champagnifique, a blog where I shared my tasting notes free of charge. The Champagnist is my new project where I write (together with my team) about producers, champagnebars, gastronomy, lodging and luxury. In 2017 I got recognition for my work and I became Chevalier dans l’Ordre des Coteaux de Champagne« , and I saw the notes about Champagne Selosse Millésime 2005. (http://reviews.champagnist.com/?p=7361 ) :

« Tasted November 2016 at Grand Tasting Paris. Tasted out of Riedel Riesling Grand Cru and Zalto Burgunder. Made of 100% Chardonnay. Very aromatic and smooth aroma of english orange marmelade, lemon peel, ripe jackfruit and pomelo, overripe mirabel plum, glue, fermented fruits, ginseng, candied ginger, typical Selossian oxidative notes, green tea, sweet scented bedstraw and bison grass. Very peculiar indeed. The mouthfeel is soft and mouth caressing. On the palate you get candied orange, Charentais melon, a hint of pourriture noble and a touch of Manuka honey together with complex fermented tones and mild herbs. The finish is long with orange, white pepper and soft woody spices. Yet another ethereal wine of Selosse and a lovely expression of the vintage. / Rating: 93/100 »

Here is the note that I wrote on this champagne drunk together with another Selosse: « The Champagne Selosse Grand Cru Initial Blanc de Blancs Brut disgorged on 21 September 2011, an equinox day, is served at the same time as the Champagne Selosse Grand Cru Extra Brut vintage 2005 disgorged on November 25, 2015. Both champagnes have very similar colors, of fine gold. According to the associated flavors and depending on the gradual warming of the champagnes in the glasses, the preferences will vary, sometimes for one and sometimes for the other. The Initial is made of wines of three successive years unlike the vintage. I find it more ample and the final more bouncing than the vintage champagne which is finer, more delicate. Very clever the one who would divide these two champagnes excellent, very different but having a common DNA of this great maison de champagne. The small sardines are ideal on these two very lively champagnes ».

It is clear that the two presentations are very different. Michiel is extremely analytic and makes a much more complete description, in which I feel lost.

My notes are more synthetic, focused on the pleasure created by what I drink.

There is no better or no worse and probably the two are necessary but I must confess that for me two much analysis puts me not at ease and refers to tastes that I will never try to find in a wine.

« tous les goûts sont dans la nature ».

Note: I became Chevalier dans l’Ordre des Coteaux de Champagne without any relation with any work.