champagne

[suzilightning]

my husband and i were at a local wine shop yesterday and he wanted to know which champagne i wanted as a present. i said that before i give him my answer i wanted to check to see if anyone has tasted the vintages so....

please let me know if you have any tasting notes for

1990 cristal

1993 cristal

1990 pol roger sir winston churchill

thanks for helping me select my christmas present

[Echezeaux]

I'd opt for the 1990 Cristal...great vintage...famous wine...very fine at this stage...a superior vintage to the 1993, as well.

Pol Roger is quite good, too, but a half a notch below the Cristal (which is probably significantly more costly).

Hope that helps.

[tofino]

I agree with the last person, the 1990 vintage was amazing everywhere. The only difference I would be interested in is your preferences with respect to type of Champagne you prefer. The Cristal, as spectacular as it is, tends to be a more finesse champagne, lighter in body and more subtle in flavor, while the Pol Roger is a little more full bodied and nicer for someone looking for a little more 'pow' for their tastebuds. It seems that nowadays Cristal can be found almost everywhere (hopefully not as common as Dom Perignon - which is good champagne with a huge marketing budget), while the Pol Roger Winston Churchill is not as commonly found. Hope this helps! I would probably grab a 90 Krug if I had a chance - haha!

Until next time.....

[suzilightning]

I'd opt for the 1990 Cristal...great vintage...famous wine...very fine at this stage...a superior vintage to the 1993, as well.

Pol Roger is quite good, too, but a half a notch below the Cristal (which is probably significantly more costly). 

Hope that helps.

oh, yeah

1990 cristal - 239

1993 cristal - 129

1990 sir winston - 90

[suzilightning]

I agree with the last person, the 1990 vintage was amazing everywhere.  The only difference I would be interested in is your preferences with respect to type of Champagne you prefer.  The Cristal, as spectacular as it is, tends to be a more finesse champagne, lighter in body and more subtle in flavor, while the Pol Roger is a little more full bodied and nicer for someone looking for a little more 'pow' for their tastebuds.  It seems that nowadays Cristal can be found almost everywhere (hopefully not as common as Dom Perignon - which is good champagne with a huge marketing budget), while the Pol Roger Winston Churchill is not as commonly found.  Hope this helps!  I would probably grab a 90 Krug if I had a chance - haha!

Until next time.....

i tend to like crisp, drier and toasty flavors in my bubbles

they don't have any vintage krug at this store otherwise i might or a salon....

i do appreciate the input. keep it coming please

[Phil Ward]

Personally, for the pure quality, no marketing hype and value, the Pol Roger Cuvee Sir Winston Churchill '90 is to me the ONLY choice. Heck two btls of it, the '90, vs. 1 btl of the Cristal '90. Hmmmm......

[suzilightning]

Personally, for the pure quality, no marketing hype and value, the Pol Roger Cuvee Sir Winston Churchill '90 is to me the ONLY choice. Heck two btls of it, the '90, vs. 1 btl of the Cristal '90. Hmmmm......

sounds good to me

last year we had a tast off of a 90 louise and a 90 la grande dame for our 20th wedding anniversary. that was very interesting

[futronic]

I had an '88 Pol Roger Cuvee Winston Churchill in July and it was phenomenal. From what I'm told, the '90 is even better. Go with the Pol Roger.

[Exotic Mushroom]

That's a choice that really depends on your particular taste in champagne. I've never been a big Cristal fan - I find it a little too one-note sweet for my personal tastes. I won't go as far as to call it cloying, but you get the idea.

Pol Roger Sir Winston Churchill is hands down my favorite champagne. I'll pick it any day of the week if I can afford it at the moment. It also has a fairly sweet flavor, but dry at the same time. I'm not a professional wine critic (obviously), so I don't think I'm doing a good job describing this. Let's try this: I find it has a very strong crisp apple flavor - a sort of dry sweetness with a really refreshing feel.

Of course, sometimes the Cristal is worth it just for the experience of having something so indulgently expensive. I've only had it on its own a few times - every other time has been in compartive blind tastings and it usually doesn't fare too well. But then, on those occasions when we just wanted to be incredibly decadent, I make no apologies for having choosen it. Basically, it all comes down to what you value for this particular occasion. I've had the '90s for both, and I think the general descriptions above hold pretty true for that vintage.

In summary...both are yummy.

Edited September 1, 2003 by Exotic Mushroom (log)

[ctgm]

I know that it all comes down to personal taste but I personally feel that the Winston C is the most under-rated of the luxury cuvees (with DP being the most over- rated) and I would say that this is my favourite champagne.

[futronic]

At the price Cristal commands, I'd rather have a 1990 Salon Blanc de Blancs. In April I attended a Salon vertical tasting in which we had (in order) the '95, '90, '88, and '82. They were all delicious. Here are my notes on the '90:

A little darker than the '95, more golden in colour. More subtle nose as well. Fine, fine bubbles in the glass, like a bead of pearls. Apple, yeast and lemon peel on the nose leading to flavours of granny smith apple, lemon, biscuit, cream, toast, liquid caramel, and figs. An unbeliveably long finish that went on for minutes with honey and walnuts and toast. The most amazing Champagne I've ever had. The freshness and solid acidity surprised me. This one still has plenty of stuffing to age many more years.- 96 points

[Jason Perlow]

The Pol Roger 1990 without question. The others are just overpriced Negociant Manipulant overmarketed and overhyped commercial swill, in my opinion.

Personally, if I was going to spend that kind of dough on a champagne I'd try to find myself some vintage Bollinger.

We've had some really good threads about Champagne on the site, some lesser known champagnes will probably really surprise you.

Best Champagne under $50

[ctgm]

The Pol Roger 1990 without question. The others are just overpriced Negociant Manipulant overmarketed and overhyped commercial swill, in my opinion.

Personally, if I was going to spend that kind of dough on a champagne I'd try to find myself some vintage Bollinger.

Jason, Nicely put I am not sure that many "label drinkers" would quite go as far as commercial swill.

Also agree that you are probably better putting the money into Bollinger vintage. My personal favourite along these lines is Billecart Salmon 1989.

Also I would seriously consider getting a good NV and keeping it for 7-10 years (and remember to keep buying to replace the stock you drink).

[Marlene]

I like Cristal, but the Pol Roger is definately a better choice here.

[suzilightning]

The Pol Roger 1990 without question. The others are just overpriced Negociant Manipulant overmarketed and overhyped commercial swill, in my opinion.

Personally, if I was going to spend that kind of dough on a champagne I'd try to find myself some vintage Bollinger.

We've had some really good threads about Champagne on the site, some lesser known champagnes will probably really surprise you.

Best Champagne under $50

jason- i already read this thread. price is not the object here and this wine shop has no bollinger.

Edited September 10, 2003 by suzilightning (log)

[suzilightning]

At the price Cristal commands, I'd rather have a 1990 Salon Blanc de Blancs.  In April I attended a Salon vertical tasting in which we had (in order) the '95, '90, '88, and '82.  They were all delicious.  Here are my notes on the '90:

A little darker than the '95, more golden in colour.  More subtle nose as well.  Fine, fine bubbles in the glass, like a bead of pearls.  Apple, yeast and lemon peel on the nose leading to flavours of granny smith apple, lemon, biscuit, cream, toast, liquid caramel, and figs.  An unbeliveably long finish that went on for minutes with honey and walnuts and toast.  The most amazing Champagne I've ever had.  The freshness and solid acidity surprised me.  This one still has plenty of stuffing to age many more years.- 96 points

salon is what i would ultimately love to have but this wine merchant doesn't have any so i am asking based on his inventory. you might note that in my original post that this was my really, really want to have wine

[suzilightning]

QUOTE=Jason Perlow,Sep 4 2003, 07:35 PM] The Pol Roger 1990 without question. The others are just overpriced Negociant Manipulant overmarketed and overhyped commercial swill, in my opinion.

Personally, if I was going to spend that kind of dough on a champagne I'd try to find myself some vintage Bollinger.

Jason, Nicely put I am not sure that many "label drinkers" would quite go as far as commercial swill.

Also agree that you are probably better putting the money into Bollinger vintage. My personal favourite along these lines is Billecart Salmon 1989.

Also I would seriously consider getting a good NV and keeping it for 7-10 years (and remember to keep buying to replace the stock you drink).