WTN: NV Mumm's Cordon Rouge Brut

[Craig Camp]

At our New Year's party last night at midnight, along with the fireworks, our host produced several bottles of Mumm's Cordon Rouge NV which I had not tasted for a few years.

This wine tastes like club soda with aspirin dissolved in it and is and nothing short of a rip-off for the consumer. Thin, bitter, green fruit with bubbles. It was a mediocre wine when I last tasted it and it has gone seriously downhill. AVOID.

I truly would rather drink Korbel.

It was not so many years ago that it was hard to buy a bad bottle of Champagne, but now almost all the Brut NV wines of the big producers are very bland ordinary wines at ridiculous prices. Veuve Clicquot for instance is a washed out shell of the wine it was ten years ago.

It appears greed has truly overtaken quality in Champagne. With so many fine RM Champagnes around I don't know why anyone is drinking Grande Marque Brut NV anymore. If you want to drink Grande Marque wines that taste like they used to you have to buy their prestige Cuvees.

[budrichard]

Cordon Rouge used to be a very good non-vintage wine that could relied upon to be solid if nothing else. Bogie drank it in 'Casablana'. Champagne producers have discovered along with the rest of the world that you can take a good product, put a vintage, single cask, fancy cask aging, unfiltered, you name it, the list is endless, name to it and charge much higher prices. Cognac has steadily been declining in quality also. 40 years ago a Napolean Cognac got you a Grand Fine Champagne cognac. Today , you have to purchase at least an XO for good quality and the bottle of Remy Martin XO we just opened does not taste like an XO! I haven't had a bottle of Cordon Rouge for a few years. Had a 1/2 bottle of Oudinet($10) last night with Winterpoint oysters. OK wine, certainly not like the Cordon Rouge you described. Pol Roger Vintage today with Turbot. For $60+, it better be good!-Dick

Edited January 1, 2004 by budrichard (log)

[Phil Ward]

I was lucky enough to have three different bubbles yesterday: Krug Garnde Cuvee (still one of my favorites and a stunning wine for its richness); Veuve Reserve 1996 (very nice but not as rich as the Krug); Veuve Yellow (definetly lighter than years past and still better than most of the "name" brands out there.)

Phil

[Brad Ballinger]

Craig,

I agree. It's hard to buy any non-vintage NM Champagne anymore. I think there are a handful (in the "affordable" category -- i.e., no Krug) that still show some character and interest. Notably Taittinger, Bollinger, Lanson. But the quality has gone down with many other producers. I don't know if they're putting more effort into vintage and prestige cuvee bottlings or what. Veuve Clicquot NV yellow label has to be some of the most insipid stuff out there.

Last night, my wife and I had a NV J. Lasalle Brut Rose, Chigny-les-Roses. Gobs of mushrooms showing in this wine. Active mousse that sent the earth and fruit to every reach of the mouth. Citrus and berry notes. Not much dough/yeast. This was really a mineral-mushroom wine. Great character. $37.

[Craig Camp]

Brad,

I am not surprised to see Tattinger and Bollinger in your list of top Brut NV wines and I agree they are still good wines, but it has been awhile since I have tasted Lanson. What are their wines like these days?

As always, Krug is Krug - in its own category.

Does J.Lasalle make a bad wine? I really like their wines.

[Scott]

Craig,

I think your summary of Mumm cordon rouge is about right.

it's very disappointing for some time now.

[Andre]

Reminds me of Eddie Murphie's Raw: " Brut, by Faberge'"

[hwilson41]

I am anything but expert on wine or Champagne, but found many of the above comments very interesting in light of a recent article by Ben Giliberti in The Washington Post food section (12/21/03). Here are four on the list, two or three of which are mentioned above in this thread:

Pol Roger NV Brut Extra Cuvee de Reserve ($30-$35):

It takes a formidable performance by a great Champagne house to unseat my usual favorite nonvintage brut, Bollinger (see next entry), but Pol Roger has done it this season. I can’t say I’m totally surprised. The parallels between Bollinger and Pol Roger are striking. Like Bollinger, the house of Pol Roger is small, family owned and operated and extremely quality conscious. The quintessential Englishman’s Champagnes, the sparkling wines of both houses were favorites of Winston Churchill, and, indeed, Pol Roger’s top Cuvee is named after the great man himself. Ironically, Bollinger’s nonvintage brut, made in a fairly powerful, yeasty style, has always reminded me more of the Cuvee Winston Churchill than has Pol Roger’s own nonvintage brut, which tends toward greater delicacy with a distinctive, almost Chablis-like lemony/minerally quality. This season, Pol Roger nonvintage brut maintains all of its usual virtues but seems to have taken on an extra richness, apparently benefitting from the extraordinary quality of its 1995 and 1996 Chardonnay. (Chardonnay makes up about one-third of the blend. The balance is one-third each Pinot Meunier and Pinot Noir.) Another great thing about Pol Roger is that, perhaps more than any other nonvintage brut, it improves with a year or two of cellaring. Given the quality, you may want to double up on your quotient of Pol Roger this season to have enough to drink next New Year or to enjoy throughout 2004.

Bollinger Brut Champagne Special Cuvee NV ($35–$40):

This is yet another bravura performance for Bollinger’s remarkable nonvintage brut, called Special Cuvee. Rich biscuit and baked-apple aromas are followed on the palate by full-bodied, mature flavors set off by nuances of grilled nuts, ginger/apple and marzipan. While Bollinger Special Cuvee is delicious served by itself as an aperitif, it is the dinner Champagne par excellence. Barrel fermented and made from a high percentage of the full-flavored Pinot Noir grape, it is the kind of powerful Champagne one could easily design a grand meal around. The classic French dinner accompaniment would be duck confit or duck l’orange, but the light ginger and spice notes suggest a highly amicable partnership with Asian cuisine.

Duval-Leroy Brut Champagne “Paris” NV ($30):

Although this less familiar Champagne is not as widely promoted as the major brands, it is well worth trying owing to its excellent price/quality ratio. Delicate, yeasty aromas of fresh strawberry are followed by effusive pinpoint bubbles and the harmonious interplay of fruit, tartness and dosage (sugar) that marks the finer Champagnes.

Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin NV Brut (Yellow Label) ($35):

Given the exceptional quality displayed by Veuve Clicquot’s 1996 Brut Reserve ($75), it is not altogether surprising that the immensely popular Yellow Label nonvintage brut has soared above its usual excellent quality this season, apparently benefiting[sic] from the addition of reserve stocks from the extraordinary 1996 vintage. Although I am still a greater fan of the Veuve Clicquot vintage product, even at the higher price, the Yellow Label is impressive this season, offering the classic Veuve Clicquot balance of power and finesse.

I gather the board experts disagree with some of these opinions . Any further comments would be appreciated by this novice.

THW

[Brad Ballinger]

Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin NV Brut (Yellow Label) ($35):

Given the exceptional quality displayed by Veuve Clicquot’s 1996 Brut Reserve ($75), it is not altogether surprising that the immensely popular Yellow Label nonvintage brut has soared above its usual excellent quality this season, apparently benefiting[sic] from the addition of reserve stocks from the extraordinary 1996 vintage. Although I am still a greater fan of the Veuve Clicquot vintage product, even at the higher price, the Yellow Label is impressive this season, offering the classic Veuve Clicquot balance of power and finesse.

I gather the board experts disagree with some of these opinions . Any further comments would be appreciated by this novice.

Not really a board expert here, but if VC has indeed added some 1996 reserve wine into the NV blend, than bravo indeed. The conventional wisdom is that 1996 may historically be viewed as one of the best ever vintages in Champagne. I must disclose not having had VC for a couple years (the last time finding it too sweet and completely devoid of any character). Maybe they're responding to similar criticism from people they think matter. Now, if they will make the effort to keep that style going.

I don't know what has caused a drop in NV quality of some houses. One might theorize that production increased in advance of Y2K. That could've resulted in using more fruit, some of it being of a lesser quality. Also, if there are stores of unsold wine (from producing too much in anticipation of Y2K), it may be stuff that should've been emptied a while ago. There is a camp of critics who will tell you that NV wine doesn't and should not be aged.

A house's NV wine is (in theory, at any rate) supposed to be fairly consistent from year to year. One should pretty much always know what one is getting. Some do a better job at remaining consistent than others. And Krug prides itself in touting that all of it's MV (they call is multi-vintage, not non-vintage) wines are incredibly consistent from release to release. Vintage dated wines will reflect both the house style and the quality elements of the vintage (in the case of 1996, tremendous fruit and acid).

Hope this helps a bit. Others will be able to add more.

[hwilson41]

A house's NV wine is (in theory, at any rate) supposed to be fairly consistent from year to year.  One should pretty much always know what one is getting.  Some do a better job at remaining consistent than others.  And Krug prides itself in touting that all of it's MV (they call is multi-vintage, not non-vintage) wines are incredibly consistent from release to release.  Vintage dated wines will reflect both the house style and the quality elements of the vintage (in the case of 1996, tremendous fruit and acid).

Hope this helps a bit.  Others will be able to add more.

Brad;

Thanks for the reply. What I was asking, I think, was if we are being fed bullshit by some of the wine critics that write for the media. We all know that they have to say something, and if they're feeding us drivel (or worse), I'd like to know. If I find a wine I like (often from recommendations in the Post), I usually buy a case or maybe even two. I rarely pay more than about $25 per bottle for wine, although I have on rare occasions broken $100. But frankly, in one tasting years ago in NYC, we ordered two bottles of wine, one around $35 if memory serves, and another around $125 (these are ~1975 New York restaurant prices), both recommended by the restaurant staff (not sure whether they had an official sommelier or not, but they should have from the prices we paid ). There were six of us at the table, all fairly serious amatuer foodies with some degree of knowledge, and we all came to the same conclusion - the $90 spread just wasn't there, i.e., none of us could taste anywhere nearly enough difference to justify the difference in price. I've tasted $25 Cab from Chile or Argentina (can't remember which) that put the $135 bottle in the shade.

I tasted the VC Yellow Label New Year's Eve and actually thought it was quite good (I tasted it while I was still more-or-less sober ). Perhaps my palate just isn't sensitive enough or sophisticated enough to detect the difference, but any advice from the pros would be most welcome, particularly on what one should be looking for in a "good" Champagne.

THW

[KatieLoeb]

Pol Roger NV Brut Extra Cuvee de Reserve ($30-$35):

It takes a formidable performance by a great Champagne house to unseat my usual favorite nonvintage brut, Bollinger (see next entry), but Pol Roger has done it this season. I can’t say I’m totally surprised. The parallels between Bollinger and Pol Roger are striking. Like Bollinger, the house of Pol Roger is small, family owned and operated and extremely quality conscious. The quintessential Englishman’s Champagnes, the sparkling wines of both houses were favorites of Winston Churchill, and, indeed, Pol Roger’s top Cuvee is named after the great man himself. Ironically, Bollinger’s nonvintage brut, made in a fairly powerful, yeasty style, has always reminded me more of the Cuvee Winston Churchill than has Pol Roger’s own nonvintage brut, which tends toward greater delicacy with a distinctive, almost Chablis-like lemony/minerally quality. This season, Pol Roger nonvintage brut maintains all of its usual virtues but seems to have taken on an extra richness, apparently benefitting from the extraordinary quality of its 1995 and 1996 Chardonnay. (Chardonnay makes up about one-third of the blend. The balance is one-third each Pinot Meunier and Pinot Noir.) Another great thing about Pol Roger is that, perhaps more than any other nonvintage brut, it improves with a year or two of cellaring. Given the quality, you may want to double up on your quotient of Pol Roger this season to have enough to drink next New Year or to enjoy throughout 2004.

I bought a bottle of this for New Year's Eve and was delighted with how rich and delicious it was, particularly for the price. A very sourdough toasty nose and a flavor of yellow Delicious apples and minerals. Mmmmmm... I'm going to pick up a few more to hold onto. It's currently on sale in PA for about $27. One of the very few advantages to the PLCB is their bulk buying power. Around New Year's every year the higher end Champagnes can be had for even less than they're usually priced in NJ or DE, where almost everyone close enough bolts over the border to purchase wine & spirits.

[hwilson41]

I bought a bottle of this for New Year's Eve and was delighted with how rich and delicious it was, particularly for the price.  A very sourdough toasty nose and a flavor of yellow Delicious apples and minerals.  Mmmmmm...  I'm going to pick up a few more to hold onto.  It's currently on sale in PA for about $27.  One of the very few advantages to the PLCB is their bulk buying power.  Around New Year's every year the higher end Champagnes can be had for even less than they're usually priced in NJ or DE, where almost everyone close enough bolts over the border to purchase wine & spirits.

Hi Katie;

Thanks for the reply. We're having friends over tomorrow night to taste the Pol Roger and the Bollinger Special Cuvee, along with the VC and another (supplied by the company) whose name escapes me at the moment. I'll report back after that, but it's comforting to have an educated opinion to go on. If the Pol Roger is as good as I expect, I'll probably lay in a case, although Champagne has a distressingly short life expectancy in my house .

THW

[KatieLoeb]

although Champagne has a distressingly short life expectancy in my house

Most wine has a distressingly short life expectancy in my house! Other than a precious few "Big Gun" bottles in the rack I could undoubtedly count on one hand, everything is purchased for almost immediate consumption.

Enjoy and please post your opinions about the Pol Roger and the contrast with the other bottles. I'm sure all of us would be very interested in your thoughts.

[Scott]

are we being fed a load of rubbish by so called media experts - absolutely. It is true now, and has always been. There are always exceptions of course, but in the main...

as an example, this bit about veuve adding some 96 reserve wine, being something to applaud??? This just suggests the writer is struggling with his mastery of ass to elbow theorum.

Of course, some releases will have 96 reserve wine in it, that's what a f****** Nv champagne is all about. The batches are not marked per se, some of the veuve on the shelf will be [b[ based on the 96 vintage, some 95 and almost certainly 97. There is no way of knowing which you have, and big deal if you did, is this fact supposed to make the wine taste better.

A couple of years while we imported Egly Ouriet into the UK, the NV came in based on the 96 vintage, it was very good, but so much that it ecliposed other tranches. The NV is ALWAYS good, the respect of a house is earnt through their NV blends. IF there was a significant variation in quality of the veuve blends then they should be abandoned as a brand with haste, because they have failed themselves and their customers.

Now, the real point is that this is likely untrue. if the predominant base wine is not up to the standard of say a 95 or 96, then they will add greater quantities of reserve wine to compensate to create a house style of consistent quality.

I think this tells us more about the writer of the article than anything else, either he is peddling effluent and prone to sensationalism, or he had nothing to write about - which does his readers a disservice.

actually upon rereading, he strikes me as a sales rep's tool.

My 2 cents.

[Brad Ballinger]

The batches are not marked per se, some of the veuve on the shelf will be [b[ based on the 96 vintage, some 95 and almost certainly 97. There is no way of knowing which you have, and big deal if you did, is this fact supposed to make the wine taste better.

I wish Champagne houses would do a better job with label information. Some will provide information as to assemblage (vintage and variety) as well as the disgorged date. Others don't bother. I don't know why -- unless they feel with NV wines it shouldn't matter. Who knows?

Perhaps my palate just isn't sensitive enough or sophisticated enough to detect the difference, but any advice from the pros would be most welcome, particularly on what one should be looking for in a "good" Champagne.

The same things you look for in a good wine. Champagne is no different in that regard. You want balance in the flavor profile, acid, and texture. But individual difference comes into play as far as fruit profile, minerality, oak, etc.