2010 Dom Perignon { compared to 08` Taittinger Comtes de Champagne}

Some recent kudos for this release have suggested it is as being much preferred over the 08 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne and a taste off should happen. Well, IMHO, there’s really no resemblance as the 08 Comtes is really a huge bubbly with lots of power and right now, very short on finesse.

The 10 Dom is the antithesis to the 08 Comtes in that it exudes grace and charm with a really subtle and very mild profile compared to what I usually find in vintage DP. Here’s my notes regarding the first bottle I’ve sampled:

2010 DOM PERIGNON- 54% Chardonnay, 46% Pinot Noir and the announced but not verified disgorgement date of 2/19 with a dosage of 5gpl; the nose had distinct honeysuckle, lemongrass, minerals and lime which continued on to be joined by ginger, spice and honeydew melon on the palate; the mousse is light and just a bit frothy and its medium bodied at best with medium weight as well; in time and a few degrees warmer, it became just a bit bigger with more complexity, body and balance, but it never really got to that stately Dom Perignon status that I’ve enjoyed over all of the years and anticipated with this one; for me, it didnt have the amount of acidity, spiciness, creaminess and richness I expect and since it’s so young, the toasty notes have yet to evolve from the browning effect/ Maillard reaction. This latter point is true of the 08 Comtes as well. Another difference between the two is the lesser amount of citrus notes, especially the lemon and lime that I so often find so pronounced. At this stage, at least for this bottle, it’s a weak sister to other vintage Dom and perhaps just needing time to mature and express, but I question if it will ever approach say the 06 or 02 or ……

I keep referring to this being just my humble opinion as some others who I greatly respect and considers mentors have suggested the 10 DP to be far preferred. From the 1 bottle sampling of each Ive had, I go with the Comtes and it’s not even close. Yes, both need lots of time, but the Comtes has so much more going for it to reach the higher plateau.

Cheers,
Blake

I too like Brad, respect his knowledge, and enjoy his contributions. He has recently taken some contrarian positions to the popular concensus. I haven’t had either of these wines but would have no trouble believing that the Dom is currently drinking better than the Comtes. I didn’t have a problem believing that the 09 Cristal is showing better than the 2008. But I do have a problem believing that this will be true in either case in the long term. Perhaps he is right and if so, he will have realized something most of us had missed.

I had the 2008 Comtes on Sunday, and I think it’s very promising but not quite resolved on the palate, where the acidity and dosage aren’t quite integrated yet. The rest of the wine is powerful and seamless; I’m very glad I have a 6 pack. Given that I’m pretty underwhelmed by the 2008 Dom, I don’t imagine I’ll have the 2010 any time soon.

I made the analogy of these 2 champagnes in reference to the discussion in the 08 Comtes thread of a few days ago where the 10 DP was suggested for a taste off. It probably makes more sense to do an 08 DP vs. 08 Comtes and once again, I’m much more enthusiastic about the Comtes.

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I’m aware of Brad’s hot take. I’m just not invested enough in the science of it to test the 08 Comtes against the 10 Dom myself!

I’ve had both the 08 comtes and 10 dom twice recently and I’ve found the 08 comtes to have superb potential but a bit tight atm and the 10 dom underwhelming and pedestrian. Whoever compared it to 04 was pretty spot on, but I’d even probably prefer that mediocre offering. 02, 06, 08, and 09 are light years better.

Blake,

Great report. We will have to see over time how these wines evolve. The 2010 DP and 08 Comtes are very, very different in profile so everyone is going to have a different take on these. While I am not a fanboy of the 08 Comtes, it is still a very good wine and worthy of a $100+ price tag. It just doesn’t push all the buttons for me and is worrisome in that it doesn’t have its act together yet. I’m not convinced it ever will. For me, the 2010 DP is the most expressive young DP I have ever had. Until the 2000 era vintages, young DP normally went down like water. Since then it has become more expressive in its youth and I have never had such an array of character out of a young DP as I get with 2010. So much so, that the normal DP spine is pushed into the background, but it is there and it will help this wine age beautifully.

In a blind tasting of similar styled wines, I do think that both of these wines are seen differently. As mentioned above, comparing these two is apples and oranges. But in a lineup of other DPs and Comtes, I think you can get a feel for where these two are. Unblind, I feel the hype of the 08 Comtes and the unhype of the 10 DP play a role.

We’ll see what time has to say. Both are wonderful Champagnes and I don’t mean to downplay the 08 Comtes as much as it may seem I am. It is a very good wine, I just don’t understand the universal high praise that this wine is receiving.

I think both 08 and 09 cristal are great but in my recent experiences with both I think the 08 is drinking better.

This made me pause, because, honestly, I thought the opposite:

Essi Avellan 95-97/100
James Suckling 98/100
Jancis Robinson 18.5/20

I haven’t seen other reviews, but these are already quite lavish. My sense was that my 92/100 was an outlier; though I am very happy to stand or fall by it.

Very, very interesting thread . Enjoying seeing where everyone is on the map.

These last few years as I’ve been fortunate to really fully explore high end Champagnes, more Dom’s have under-impressed me than any other of the same tier. This '10 debate is intriguing. As William notes above… it’s not like the ‘average’ Dom vintages get underscored.

My palate seems more often aligned with Michael’s than not the more I’ve compared notes this year, so I’m… suspicious of this '10 Vintage Dom .

William,

I don’t know anyone who is going out and buying a decent amount of 2010 DP or even talking about the wine. My unhype comment is more due to the response of the public than critics and the overall lack of talk about the wine. I think it suffers from being a ‘2010’ wine just as many wines suffer from being a ‘2011’ wine. People are ignoring it and many times writing it off because it is a 2010 and comes after the 2008 and 2009. Stores don’t seem to be pushing it much or highlighting it like the better vintages.

2008 Comtes BdB is the opposite. Demand has been building for this release for a long time. Even with the price increase, it is moving along okay and has lots of people talking about it and has very high critical scores with many in the 98-99 range. The fact that it is a 2008 vintaged wine is helping this out immensely IMO. As soon as stores get it in stock, they let you know.

Not that either are hard to find or low volume, but production may also come into play as DP is around an 8-10X increase in quantity with the 2010 DP vs. the 2008 Comtes BdB.

As for scores, I like your 92 for the 2010 DP.

I scored it 92-94 for drinking today and for future drinking. 08 Comtes BdB got a 90-92 from me with the possibility to move up to the 91-94 range if it comes together better as it ages. I had it consistently scored as a 92/93+ as a pre-release wine starting back in 2013.

And to all of you, my notes only reflect one bottle sampling of each and bottle variation factors have yet to be experienced, so I remain open to either one coming in with different traits from a larger sampling, for better or worse. It’s fun to explore and to anticipate what time will tell in any wines.

Cheers,
Blake

Galloni came in at 93, although, interestingly, the note is rather the opposite of what both Brad and Blake indicated; Galloni thought it was “disjointed” and “hard to get a read on,” which would be very different than expressive or open-knit.

I think a wine can be both open-knit, in the sense of not having much structure, and disjointed! And my leading criticism of the 2010 Dom Pérignon would be that it doesn’t have much of a spine; it’s a bit soft and consensual.

I think the issue some may have with the 2010 DP is that is not like any other young DP (at least that I have had). If you are expecting the typical young DP, that is not what you are going to get. 2010 DP is full of flavor out of the gate with an extremely expressive nose. For me, the flavors gear more towards cream, vanilla, honeysuckle, and graham cracker. Others find them to be tropical and slightly spicy. This is a very expressive wine on the nose and palate, but not in a big or harsh way. It is balanced, but full of character with an outgoing, yet easy going personality. The structure/spine of the wine is hidden underneath this and takes a while to come out, but I think it is quite strong and will show itself more over time and help take control of the wine as it ages. Following a few bottles over two days has seen the structure and citrus elements of the wine gain in strength with time. This isn’t an all knowing sign of anything, but I think it bodes well for its aging potential. DP did a glorious job with Chardonnay in this vintage and managed to balance out the heavier notes of 2010 especially from the Pinot Noirs. Even with strict selection, the Pinots were challenging in 2010.

While 2010 and 2003 DP are very different wines, many didn’t think the 2003 DP was going to ever become anything other than a blowsy wine that should be consumed young or skipped. Folks said they couldn’t find the structure, but it was always there and I feel the wine has aged extremely slowly since release. Too many people look for tartness and acidity as a sign of structure, ageability, improvement potential, etc… The reality is that acidity isn’t a tell tale sign of structure or future potential.

*** Edited for misspelling of young in the first sentence.

Thanks again for your input and info Brad.

I’ve evidently been under the mistaken impression that high acidity {and therefore lower pH} does ensure or at least contribute to longevity by providing a chemistry that provides a more stable environment preventing bacteria and other microbes from growing as well as slowing down oxidative reactions and at the same time, adding a softer mouthfeel. Please clarify. Many thanks.

This is exactly what I haven’t found: I’ve found the 2010 to be comparatively ephemeral, lacking in concentration. But, as we agreed in the other thread, we will see how the chips fall in a decade.

Personally, my tastes are quite simple: whether in Champagne or white Burgundy, I like concentrated but chiseled wines, with lots of substance, dry extract, and acidity. My experience is that it is wines like this that develop with extended bottle age the most complexity, texture, and overall interest. I’m also convinced that true concentration and extract only come from mature grapes; and while such grapes may (ideally) have high acid levels if site and farming align, that acidity will not be “tart”—tartness being something I strongly associate with fundamentally unripe grapes (a description that, despite climate change, still applies quite frequently in Champagne).

I would agree that ripe/mature grapes are key and in that case, the malolactic essentially happens naturally in the vineyard so you don’t have nearly as high malic acid levels in the wine. Malolactic, if done, will change things, but in general, acidity levels in more mature grapes come across as more balanced; as you said, not always lower, but different in profile. To me, the most important factors in a wine aging are appropriate phenolic maturity and appropriate dosage to balance the wine’s acidity and give it the potential for improvement over time.

@Blake - To comment on your post, all Chamapgne is going to be high acid and it is part of the chemistry prevents bad things from happening, but bad things can still happen in a high acid/low pH wine. You can probably say that regardless of the acidity level a Champagne vintage, it is going to be high enough. While acidity certainly can help Champagne or a wine to age, it is a small piece of the overall puzzle and not one of the most important pieces for long aging IMO. Some of the best aging Champagne vintages and slowest aging vintages have been low acid years. Fully ripe grapes picked at phenolic maturity (especially for the dark skinned varietals) is more important.

It is also important to remember that Champagne needs to complete its first fermentation at a minimum of 11 percent alcohol. Most vintages have an average potential alcohol below this number and some growers/producers like to pick below 10 percent. That means a lot of chapitalization. It is not uncommon, in the same vintage, to have some folks pick below 10 percent potential and others pick in the high 11’s or low 12 percent alcohol level. There is often much higher acidity in the less ripe grapes, yet the riper, lower acid level grapes have more aging potential. This assumes the grapes weren’t pushed too far and ended up over-ripe. Over-ripe grapes are an example of a lower acid wine that doesn’t age well, but, again, that is not due to the acid level, but rather the phenolics and overall chemistry of the ‘too mature’ fruit.

Acidity can certainly live forever in a wine, but the rest of the wine may not live forever. If the fruit matures, the wine oxidizes, or if the wine is not in balance, you get a shrill, acidic, yucky wine. Acidity doesn’t guarantee that a wine will be balanced, age, or improve. Some 1996 Champagnes are an example of this. If you look at the lowest pH wines in Champagne, the best examples are wines that also utilize some oak and a higher dosage (Vilmart is the classic example). Historically, for many of these higher acid (low pH) wines, a higher dosage was used. The wines aged wonderfully, but I don’t put that on the acidity, I put it on the dosage. I have also found that very high acid (low pH) wines do quite well with oak and handle new oak quite well. The gentle oxidation from barrel aging also helps this style of wine out and I believe helps to give it longevity.

For me, Brad, the element missing from this discussion is farming. Just as it was missing from our discussion in another recent thread about which vintages favored which grape varieties. Those sort of generalizations play out quite well if we limit ourselves to the big houses, but the best farmers among the small producers don’t follow the rules: if Chardonnay in the southern CdB was the most favored in 2011, for example, that didn’t stop Francis Egly growing great Pinot Noir. In Burgundy, the best producers transcend vintage, and that is increasingly the case in Champagne. I do not believe ripeness and acidity is necessarily an either-or proposition, because better farming shows itself in the form of physiologically mature fruit that is also lower in pH. Until recently I would have agreed with you that Champagne will always have enough acidity; but I am lately tasting more and more wines—and this became especially noticeable with the 2015-base NVs from some of the less fastidious big houses and minor growers—that are a soft and flabby. And I do not think they were over-dosed. My tentative conclusion is that the same badly farmed vineyards that made shrill, meager wines twenty years ago (because the yields were too big to actually ripen) are now performing just as badly in warmer, riper vintages, delivering vins clairs that lack the cut that I look for in Champagne. And there is a measurable basis for this: vineyards treated with herbicides produce wines with a higher pH and lower TA than vineyards where the soils are cultivated.

William,

Farming does matter and does make a difference. I don’t think there is any disagreement there, but you are always going to find exceptions to any vintage/varietal/regional/village generalization. Often the best farmers and winemaking combinations in the best villages/terroir showcase these exceptions. Look at what Laurent Champs, Rodolphe Peters, Jean-Baptiste Geoffroy, Pascal Agrapart, Jean-Paul Hebrart, Francois & Pierre Hure, etc… do in the ‘poorer’ vintages. 2011 was a prime example of this. Top growers/winemakers in Premier and especially Grand Cru land did better than most. The classical Champagne Cru classification is not good for all that much, but it works very well in the poorer vintages in pointing out where you might go to find wines that have a chance to ‘rise above’.

As far as acidity and soft, flabby, etc with regards to 2015, I don’t see this so much as an acidity problem, but the effects of the vines shutting down to handle the heat and lack of water that they faced in the late spring and summer. The end result was good grapes, but something missing; If the vines shut down and the sap stops flowing, there is only so much you can expect. On paper, the acidity numbers are below average, but nothing to worry about. Still, some wines definitely lack in length; I point to the growing season weather conditions causing that more than anything else. Even with the best farming, there was only so much that could be done, but I agree with you that doing things right in the vineyards gives you the best chance to do things right in the winery.

2017 is the most recent vintage where I think you can really see that good farming and hard work can make a difference… and then we have a year like 2019 where mother nature takes control and even the worst growers wind up producing top notch fruit.

One final comment (and I know I have said this before) - The biggest problem with poor farming and poor harvesting decisions is still with growers who sell their grapes to negociants or send it local co-ops. Most of the big houses have finally started taking top notch care of their land. The problem is that most have to buy in a lot, lot, lot of fruit and there is only so much top grade fruit to go around. I know Champagne is working on fixing this, but until it is fixed, there are always going to be issues because at the end of the day, the larger producers are big business and they need to make X number bottles of wine.