DaleW wrote:
> On Jan 5, 4:37 pm, Mark Lipton > wrote:
>> Both were fine wines, but the Diebolt-Vallois I found closer to my taste
>> than the more leesy Larmandier-Bernier. Jean preferred the latter,
>> though. Both were excellent with the selection of food at the party.
>>
>
> I think preferences in Champagne are interesting, kind of hard to
> correlate to any other type of wine. You can't really say the people
> who like modern Bordeaux more than old style or high acid Chablis over
> ripe vintage Meursault are more likely to go for one style of bubbles
> than the other. At least in my experience.

I couldn't agree with you more. I've been trying to establish my own
preferences with difficulty, let alone those of others. FWIW, I've
found myself growing increasingly sensitive to the toasty aromas of
Champagne. Perhaps it's the side-effect of drinking more sparkling
Vouvray these days -- I dunno. Whatever the reason, I find quite a few
Champagnes so overtly toasty that I can't enjoy them. A recent example
was a Gimmonet. Lately, Roederer, Taittinger and now this
Diebolt-Vallois come closest to what I look for in NV Champagne.

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net