I see that Galloni came out with a 75 point rating for the 2011 Taittinger Comtes. One bottle was vegetal, a second bottle was “unyielding and compact, with no mid-palate and finish…”
Quite a contrast with William Kelley’s 94 points. Not sure if there are any other reviews out there…
94 or 75, that’s no $200 bottle of wine.
That’s by far the outlier. There are several positive reviews out there.
Will it be enough for it to end up in the dumpster? 
Plenty of $200 Burgs out there with points of 94 or less…
Or alternatively, plenty of 94 point Burgs > $200.
Very ballsy of them to sell 2011 for more than pretty much all other previous vintages of this wine.
I’ll just keep on buying Les Chetillions at 2/3 the price.
As far as I’m concerned, even if I do trust William more than Galloni, I’m not placing a $200 bet that I don’t need to take on William’s palate. I suspect many will think the same way.
It would be one thing if Galloni had rated it 87-89, but 75(!?) no way, especially when there are reasons of bottle variability we can all speculate on for them to both be right. At a minimum William would need to retaste it from a random retail bottle for me to feel more comfortable. This isn’t $20 albariño where I can afford to make up my own mind. This is very special occasion wine for 99.99% of people.
Edit: This happened to me with a Barolo that Sanderson tanked at WS with a 79, while Falstaff and Wine Enthusiast were rating it 92 and someone at Jancis Robinson a 15.5. It sucked. Sanderson was spot on.
Sounds like my take on the 2006 bottles…the Euro “Kirkcrest” bottles all have been brilliant, while the imported Kobrand bottles have been duds of shrill.
Explanation for the uninitiated please?
Frequently wine that is imported into the US doesn’t show nearly as freshly as the same wine that never made the journey across the pond. Sometimes there are acute events on specific imports to blame. Other times nobody knows why exactly, but seems likely to be less than ideal conditions somewhere along the journey.
Ah, yes, like Parker’s Faiveley issue.
If Galloni tasted in the US and the others in France that could certainly be it. And, given the supply chain issues, who knows how long those bottles were on a ship somewhere.
Kobrand is the importer?
Thanks Brian
I had the '11 recently and did not care for it. It is not moving in Europe either and I know folks over there who have tasted it and did not care for it. It was nothing like the vegetal bottle that AG had, but just weak for a Comtes and not worth of 3 digit price tag.
it’s quite easy to pass on this wine.
Fully agree, I tasted it as well at Taittinger (no transport issues), and was not impressed. A decent champagne with the Comtes signature, but tasted more like a 50 euro-ish champagne. Lacking depth. If scoring is important to you, I rated it 93.
Interesting considering how good the “lesser” recent vintages are, ‘05, ‘06 and ‘07.
Galloni is generally not given to making definitive statements and low scores, so I suspect the US version must have been fairly poor.
Considering how they greedily raised the price by about 50% from the 2006/2007 prices to the 2008 price, I’m hoping as a consumer that this sells terribly and sends a message to the other big champagne houses not to attempt the same. This drastic price increase is a lousy trend.
I’ve tasted this in both Europe (Champagne) and in the US. Prior to yesterday, I had only had glasses/tastes of this wine and had not spent any reasonable amount of time with the wine. Last night, I opened a bottle I purchased here in the US and followed it for a few hours. I’ll follow it some more later today.
My notes are consistent across all times experiencing this wine. Is it a great Comtes, no. Is it a weaker Comtes, yes. But, even weak Comtes is very good. To me, the issue with this wine isn’t its quality, it is its quality to price ratio or overall value. In terms of quality on release, I have it placed just behind the 2005 and 2007, and even with the 1997 and 2000. I never had the chance to taste the 1994 on release, but this is a better wine than the 1994. The 1997 and 2000 have evolved quite nicely as expected and I think the 2011 will age in a similar positive manner.
My unedited note on this wine:
This is the first mainstream Comtes de Champagne release since the heralded 2008 vintage which also saw the wine make a huge jump in retail price. This jump in price point has held and even inched a bit higher with the 2011 release. Where the 2008 vintage was in full hype mode during the Comtes release, the 2011 vintage is the complete opposite. For many, it is in full avoid mode with some producers cancelling their release of 2011 vintage wines due to the press stereotyping the vintage as green, bitter, horrible, full of pyrazines, and one to avoid. With that preamble, how does this wine show?
Floral citrus and some freshly laundered linen come out on an elegant and fairly classical nose. Lime, mandarin orange, touches of cream, and a soft, doughy note start this wine off. It gains some tart and zesty citrus notes through the mid-palate before softening up on a finish that is medium in length, but still shorter than most vintages of Comtes. This is well made and quite classical in style although it lacks the fruit forward and rounder profile of most recent vintages from 1998 onwards. It is probably the most shy Comtes that I can recall tasting on release, but it is well made and a very good wine. The price point is this wine’s biggest problem. At $100-$125, you can make a case for buying a few bottles, but at $175-$200+, it is a wine that many will likely pass on. My advice is to not judge or hate on this wine due to the vintage or follow stereotypes that run rampant in the press; have your own opinion. Overall, this is a nice wine and one that will age well and improve over time - especially the next 10-15 years. You can decide on your own if the value is there for a purchase.
They will eventually unload it by requiring a bottle of the 2011 be purchased for every bottle of the next successful vintage that is bought.