Thw wine is Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaise Blanc de Noir
Champagne 1973, bottle 00039. I bought 2 bottles at auction in the
late 70s, and it has been properly stored since. It is rather
difficult to find this low production wine, and it always has been
rather expensive. However more recent vintages have sold for extremely
high prices. According to the back label, it comes from 2 small
vineyards never attacked by phylloxera. The vines are ungrafted Pinot
Noir. It was cultivated according to the old layering method.

When first opened, I thought that it might be nearly flat, but the
very tiny bubbles were released slowly to the end of the glass.
Although it had less carbonation than a young Champagne, it was very
much still a sparkling wine. The next surprise was that the color was
very light yellow. From the color alone, I would have guessed that it
was 1/2 the actual age, or less. If you close your eyes, you can
nearly think you are drinking a very light, but very complex, red
Burgundy. It has many layers of complexity, but nothing is heavy.
There is ample acidity, but it is not harsh. There is some toast and
yeast quality. If you take a sip and then take in some air, the mouth
is filled with a very complex fruity mix. The finish is long for a
Champagne.

Since this is the only bottle of this Champagne that I have ever
tasted, I will not try to compare the 73 with other vintages. From
what I have read, some claim this special Champagne demands some age
to peak and that it holds up very well with several foods. This is one
Champagne that I think I could identify blind, because it is so
special. I would be happy with it as my only Champagne. Unfortunately
it is very difficult to find in any vintage and the present extreme
cost precludes this for nearly anyone, even if they have money to burn.

What a great experience!!! thanks for sharing.

BTW, I have heard the opposite: VVF is not supposed to age. Your tasting
note proves the contrary.

s

On Jan 1, 4:50*am, santiago > wrote:
> What a great experience!!! thanks for sharing.
>
> BTW, I have heard the opposite: VVF is not supposed to age. Your tasting
> note proves the contrary.

Since I have tasted VVF only once, my tasting notes prove nothing
other than the bottle I had was very good to my taste.Based only on my
one experience, it could be the exception that proves the rule, and
many other vintages of VVF are trash when long-aged :-)

I think Clive Coates made a statement that VVF often benefits from
age, but I am not sure. If so, it likely was in Decanter or the
newsletter he once published.

Old Champagne is supposed to be liked in the UK, especially by the
older generations, while the French have been said to think it is
crazy to age Champagne.Of course there are likely many exceptions to
this.Some like the fresh fruit and high carbonation of Champagne when
released. Others are willing to trade these for complexity that
sometimes develops with age. Of course few likely like old Champagne
that has oxidized or otherwise has a rather nasty taste and/or smell.

I did find tasting notes for 2 vintages of VVF in Broadbent's Vintage
wine published in 2002. Broadbent seems to often like aged Champagne
when it ages well. Broadbent tasted the 1970 VVF in June 1991 and
rated it 5 star out of 5 star.He guessed that it now (2002) might be
past the best, but still a deliciously mature drink. On the other
hand, Broadbent tasted the 1985 in 1998 and rated it 2 star. He called
it disappointingly tired on the nose and palate.

Since you usually do not find multiple tasting notes for the same
vintage of VVF, bottle variation caused by poor storage often is an
unknown factor.

In summary, some people do not like old Champagne at all. For those
that do like it, the 2 tasting notes by Broadbent indicate that VVF
can age very well or not well at all, depending on the vintage(unless
the poor tasting, aged, 1985 was the result of improper storage, a
cork issue, etc).