Now that it has had a chance to rest for a few weeks, tonight was the perfect time to sample 2013 Dom Perignon for the first time.
2013 Dom Perignon
bright light yellow color, spectacular nose of creamy pear and white stone that leaps from the glass, on the palate vibrant and full bodied, lime zest dominates the front, then toast and crisp apples across the middle, long linear razor sharp finish where roasted walnut notes emerge, intense, electric, 2 hours later- pure, lean, white stones and crystalline acidity, barest hints of cream, all citrus in yellows and greens, as tense and lively a Dom as I have ever seen, and yet it remains elegant and seamless- losing none of its usual steady bearing, a very fine vintage for Dom Perignon- most akin to the 1996 of recent vintages but even more obviously acidic at present and it is not yet certain this will have the full depth the 1996 possesses, to put it another way- this is the complete opposite of the 2002 stylistically though both are of similar scale, where the 2012 is a great vintage that can be enjoyed now and probably its whole life- the 2013 is one to lock away for at least a decade, it is certainly worth a peek right now- and perhaps for regular enjoyment if you share my love of racy and digitally defined champagnes- but this is going to take a long time to reach its full potential and even more than the 2008 this has a certain reluctance that can only be resolved with time.
(****)+, 2035+
To address the inevitable debate about price- while I wish Dom Perignon were still $150 a bottle, when you look at where the rest of the market has gone as compared to where Dom has typically- and rightly- been positioned near the top, $250+ makes sense, even if one wishes it did not. And having spoken with many in the business about the wine, I think it is safe to say $250 is about as good as it is going to get in the United States, and even that is via the direct importers. Here in Dallas the price is $300- and the wine is selling quite briskly in this market.
The real question is whether it is a vintage worth having, and to that I give a resounding yes if you like the style of the vintage. This is especially true if you like leaner and more lively champagnes. If you really love 2006 and 2009 Dom- then the 2013 may not be to your liking. If you love the 2008 and 1996, then this belongs in your cellar provided you have a long term timeline in mind. As was the case with the 2013 Suenens at release, 2013 Dom is begging to be locked away and forgotten for a decade.
200 plus for any grand marque champagne is hard to justify for myself at this point. Havent seen the huge quality difference. Glad the la grand anne is under 200 still. The 14 is fantastic. 180 for the 12s at costco in the beginning wasnt bad either.
Great note. I really like the 2013 and in a lineup of DPs going back to the 90s, it stands out to me as the most classically structured since the 1995/1996 releases - even more traditionally styled (if that makes sense to say) than the 2008. It reminds me quite a bit of the 1988 though I didn’t have the chance to taste the 1988 until it was a few years older than the 2013 DP is today.
Speaking of new DP releases, have you had a chance to taste the 2009 Rose? Just plain summer sunshine in the bottle and delicious right now. Bright, beautiful, full of berries, citrus, and hints of cinnamon. It captures the vintage perfectly. Quite different from the 2008 Rose which is more seductive, smooth, and built to peak further down the line.
*Edited to correct for a strange carriage return in the middle of the first sentence
15 from harvest but they’ve only been released 3-4 years. 02s are just starting to drink well. 96s much better. If you want champagne to drink immediately buy Bouchard.
Thank you for your kind words. I had not considered the 1988 comparison, and on reflection that does make good sense. I started in wine in the mid-90s, so the 1990 Dom was the first one I had at release. I also loved the 1985 and developed an almost irrational obsession with the 1982 and 1982 Rose. I only had the 1988 once and while it was certainly good- me being new to wine and the 1982, 1985 and 1990 being so showy in youth, it is a wine I soon forgot. At that time there were many wise collectors who stored champagne for the long term, but it was not a concept yet in my mind nor in the mind of the general wine-buying public. And certainly in recent years the 1988 is proving to be quite a formidable vintage.
I have not seen the 2009 Rose in this market yet. Texas does a good trade in Dom Perignon, but as in most local markets the trade runs through existing vintage stocks before a new vintage is released. There is still a good bit of 2008 Rose in the market- so it might be a while. The regular Dom continues to sell at a brisk pace, but the 2008 Rose at $500 hit a bit of a wall. I think the wine is incredible, but the few merchants left here who carry Dom still have 06 and 08 on the shelf.
I did not make note of it. FWIW- I have seen the various threads on Dom lot numbers (some of them, maybe not all), and while I understand the temptation for concern I would also note that I have found Dom can really change dramatically in its first 2 years after release. Even with the delayed release time, the wine can go in many directions- and this is why I tend to try a new vintage 2-3 times over a 2 year period.
It is perhaps possible there is some variation with lot numbers, but I am not so sure. Or at least I am not sure there are inherent variances that most wine tasters could readily and consistently identify. Testing that theory would be fun, but crushingly expensive- not only for the number of wines required, but for the need to replicate very precisely the same setting and personal feeling/mindset for each tasting. It would require I imagine the same sort of discipline required of a perfume-maker.
Difficult as it is to believe given the production- there is a remarkable consistency with Dom and the other tete de cuvees. There is a reason Chef de Caves is one of the most respected and prestigious positions in the world of wine.
I don’t think there is an issue with regard to some lots being better than others - in the long run, but I do think there may be a taste differential in the short-term based on time since disgorgement. The best bottles of '13 I have had were from what alphanumerically would be a later Lot. I noted it as did the folks at Moet that I was drinking it with. Maybe it was a later disgorgement and we were just enjoying the sweetness of the dosage in its youth?
Btw, I do agree with your assessment of the '13 as a bottle that should be kept in the cellar for a long time. It strikes me as a higher acid vintage like '88 and '96 that will benefit from time in the cellar. '12 is drinking very well right now, may shut down, probably will be better down the road, but nothing wrong with popping the cork on a bottle now to check-in. The Jersey boys will be doing that next week and drinking it alongside '08 DP and '12 Comtes. Should be interesting.
I thought the plan was to release it early in 2023 or at least start showing it publicly. It is an official release. Maybe they are holding on to it a little longer than I thought before bringing it out or I wrote down incorrect information on a release date.
This was not really my same experience, but did you happen to catch the batch code on the back of the bottle? @Jon_Lawrence@ToddFrench and @Robert.A.Jr have had some exchanges about batch variation. LANID v LANIF and all that jazz.
Edit: Meh, ignore this post. I see now that Jon raised the question and you answered.