A Food and drink forum. FoodBanter.com

Welcome to FoodBanter.com forums which provide access to the finest food and drink related newsgroups.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most newsgroup discussions and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics to the food related newsgroups, communicate privately with other FoodBanter.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact support.

Go Back   Home » FoodBanter.com forum » Drinking » Wine
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Wine (alt.food.wine) Devoted to the discussion of wine and wine-related topics. A place to read and comment about wines, wine and food matching, storage systems, wine paraphernalia, etc. In general, any topic related to wine is valid fodder for the group.

Schramsberg '99 champagnes



 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 18-11-2003, 04:46 PM
Ewan
Usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Schramsberg '99 champagnes

Hugh Davis visited Danbury last night, fortunately for us . nice guy,
by the way - signed all of our bottles quite happily, was clearly
enthusiastic about the whole wine-making process as well as his own
products. We had a wide discussion on e.g. 'champagne' vs. 'methode
champagnoise,' wine-shipping laws, the economics of half-bottles and
just really enjoyed his little show.

Which we

'99 Blanc de Blancs. Buy this. Do it now . Seriously, this really
whacked both Jenny and I into happy-grin blitherdom. We bought a ton;
it's meaty (yeah, that's an odd adjective for champgne), smooth,
complex, not a hint of anything rough or bitter, just *great*. max
points on any scale, drink now.

Everything else came afterward and hence had a tough time living up to
the BdB.

Rose: OK but not great; less smooth, a little more tart / showing edges.

Cremant: We were expecting this to be our favourite, as it has been from
several previous vintages, but it did not live up to the BdB: nothing at
all bad, just less assertive. Slips down so easily that one could
easily get drunk very fast (!) but doesn't make enough of an impact on
the way. Too bad.

CT tasting rules apparently limit the offerings to 4, so we did not have
the chance to taste the Blanc de Noirs but instead were offered
Mirabelle (?) which is the low-end sparkler; it didn't show well but was
in too exalted company to be fair, so I'm not going to rate really.

OK, mostly this post is an excuse to fawn over the BdB. It really is
(in our humble opinion) spectacular stuff.
 




Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NYT article on small house Champagnes Mark Lipton Wine 6 16-11-2003 12:40 AM
TN Krug 1969 or Some Champagnes Last Cwdjrx _ Wine 0 26-10-2003 11:04 PM

fitness forum |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6
Copyright ©2004-2008 FoodBanter.com, part of the NewsgroupBanter project.
The comments are property of their posters.
Mobile Phone - Apply for Credit Card - Credit - Pozycjonowanie stron - Free Web Development Code