Veuve Clicquot, Grande Dame 2004

Veuve Clicquot Grande Dame 2004 was a present from a friend returning from Moscow, and what a present it was! Firstly, the presentation is very slick - although perhaps a touch gimmicky. The box has a tag which, when pulled, turns the inside case around to reveal the bottle. Very faux James Bond, but great fun!

Grande Dame is a "super cuvee" and is a premium expression of Veuve Clicquot's house style. As such, I was expecting richness and opulence with full fruit and a biscuitty mousse. I had recently tried Bollinger Grande Annee 2004 which I expected to contrast heavily (given the differing house styles) and so I noted some of those impressions while I tasted.

I felt that by drinking it in late 2013 we were perhaps risking a touch of infanticide, as this champagne will last for a good decade more at least. Still, good company and good wine go together, so we popped the cork.

Colour: Pale gold

Nose: Crisp, zesty lemon. There's grape with an almost grappa-like intensity. Lemon is very clear.

Palate: Sweet lemon, apricot and peach. As expected, it is on the richer side of the champagne chart and extremely strong and powerful - but not overly flamboyant. There's a slight sense of power being held in check by finesse. There's a really round and fruity style - a sharp contrast to the citrus (esp mandarin) I found in Bollinger Grande Annee 2004 but not far from the richer Bollinger Grande Annee 1997, which had had more time to develop. Peach and nectarine come to the fore in time and the Grande Dame evolves into a sweet, rich toasted brioche. Almost like a Sauternes...

Lovely mousse with no harshness or bitterness. Very fine bubbles.

Finish: Extremely long. It develops in clear stages with red apple coming through and becoming almost caramelised. Lemon brings up the rear to clear the palate and prepare for more. This goes on and on!

Conclusion: I couldn't think of many better ways to spend an evening that to have a bottle of this with good company. This grand Lady demands attention and is lavish in her rewards. Immense power and focused intensity with great poise and elegance. Worth the money? Yes!

Points: 94-95. Exceptional.

Te Mata Cape Crest Sauvignon Black 2010

Whilst I was going through a bit of a Kiwi Sauv Blanc phase, notably covering Saint Clair Pioneer Block 3, I stumbled across the highly original concept of an oaked Sauvingnon Blanc. Being a fan of both oaked whites and Sauvignon Blanc, I thought this might be worth a go.

Te Mata's SB is barrel fermented with an addition of a touch of Sauvignon Gris and Semillon in order to give a bit of balance and introduce some more complementary flavours. The result, I am assured, is that this wine is not far off a mix of Bordeaux Blanc and Kiwi SB. Having rarely tried top Bordeaux Blanc I'm not qualified to comment on that, but it certainly was nice.

Colour: Funnily enough, despite the oaking, this was almost clear but with a slight tinge of green. So far, so Sauvignon Blanc.

Nose: Ah, well the similarity ended there. With aromas of peach, apricot, honey, vanilla and citrus, one might be forgiven for thinking that this smelled like a typical Chardonnay. The raciness of the citrus made a nice balance, effectively replacing the 'minerality' one might expect from a Chardonnay.

Palate: Stone fruit - peach and apricot again - backed by vanilla with a twinge of green apple and citrussy zestiness, reminding us that this is an oaked SB, not a Chardonnay. A nice dollop of honey to round things off. There's a smooth and creamy texture to this with a sweet but light hint of Spring to it (sorry for the utterly obtuse note there. Perhaps blossom might serve better?)

Body: This is as full-bodied a SB as anyone is likely to try with a smooth texture which ends a touch abruptly with a zing of sharp citrus and acidity.

Finish: Medium length, and finishes a little sour with an almost coffee-like sourness (the taste following a big swig of black filter coffee). Not entirely pleasant, but not wholly unpleasant either.

Conclusion: An interesting experiment that was put up against the more illustrious (or at the very least the more famous) Cloudy Bay Te Koko and which stood up well. In time it developed stronger flavours but was perhaps a little less balanced that one would have hoped and the finish let it down a little. That being said, an interesting wine and certainly one to try next to an unoaked SB (Saint Clair Pioneer Block 3 would give an almost comical contrast) and an oaked Chardonnay (you can't go wrong with Ataraxia).

Points: Hard to rate a wine like this. Tasty and interesting, but a touch unbalanced with a slightly disappointing finish, meaning I can't really give it more than 87. I'm tempted to go down to 86.

Cloudy Bay Riesling 2007

Riesling. I'm not really a fan if I'm honest. I tend to find the petrol/oil smells overpowering and the fruit a touch too sickly, but I'm never one to write off a grape just because I don't tend to like it. Everything has its time and place, it's just that I can't seem to find the time to place Riesling...

I tasted Cloudy Bay's 2007 Riesling out of an enomatic machine at Majestic and thought that it was rather good, so on a whim I bought a few different bottles and decided to give them a go. Whilst 2 of the bottles confirmed my opinions by ticking the 'over sweet' box a touch too often, Cloudy Bay (and another Kiwi wine, Main Divide) was remarkably tasty, although at a price of £20-25 a bottle, one might expect it to beat the socks of the £9 standard Rieslings...

Nose: Rubber tyres, with an almost peaty undertone that really assaults the nostrils. Oily and nose-coating with a somewhat unappealing hint of what I could only describe as 'sweat'. A touch of dried apricot underneath. Not exactly appealing, but I suppose that's Riesling for you.

Palate: Light, sweet and peachy. Very nice indeed. Honey, canteloupe melon, lemon and something that tasted a bit like lavender. Certainly sugary, but not overpoweringly so. It's rather nicely balanced, too. It began to lose the over-sweetness in time and evolved into a more rounded taste, with a good balance of savoury and sweet. Hints of citrus come through with more tropical fruit.

Body: Smooth and pleasantly mouth-filling.

Finish: Short, dissipating quickly and leaving little or not aftertaste. No development noted.

Conclusion: Perhaps I do have time for Riesling after all? This was quite a pleasant experience, especially after tasting 2 other cloying sugar bombs. The fact that it lost its oversweet edge over time was a huge bonus and meant that I was able to drink more than 1 glass of it. It improved greatly over time in the glass, but the nose remained a negative for me, although it is by no means any different from most Riesling noses, so don't let that put you off it you're a Riesling fan.

Points: Hm. As it got me over my intrinsic dislike for Riesling I'm encouraged to give it extra points, but then that will inflate it above wines that I regard as better. As a result, 86-88 seems to be a fair range. Not bad at all.

Eikendal Chardonnay 2010/11

I have recently decided that Chardonnay is a much-maligned grape and so have attempted to taste a broad range of Chardonnays from both the Old and New World. The latest in this set of tasting (the others will be posted at some point), was the South African Eikendal 2010/11, which cost around £12.

Eikendal Chardonnay is Eikendal's flagship white wine, according to their website, and is oaked for 7 months before bottling, so I was expecting a certain amount of intensity, although not so much as one might expect from an Aussie oak-monster of a Chardonnay. My thoughts at the time of tasting are as follows:

Nose: Surprisingly, given the oak, this was a light-smelling Chardonnay than many others I have tried. It was grassy and perhaps a little minerally with distinct notes of green apple and lemon coming through. After some time a hint of toasty oak began to emerge. The citrus was, however, the clearest of the identifiable aromas.

Palate: My first impression was 'smoky sweet'. It was pleasantly tasty with a decent level of stone fruit (peach, perhaps some apricot) with a little dollop of honey coming in at the back. After a few sips, however, it began to taste a little light and overly sugary. Perhaps even insipid. My standard tasting measure is around 50-75mls, so for a wine to become cloying after such a short period (admittedly without food) is not an entirely positive sign.

Body: The body remained remarkably light for an oaked Chardonnay throughout and altogether not what I was expecting. Perhaps there was too much focus on attempting to achieve a Burgundian minerality when making this wine and less was thought about how this would affect the wine's structure.

Finish: Longer that I would have thought given the lack of body and pleasant. More citrus, especially lemon, with a slightly grassy tang.

Conclusion: Clearly an ambitious attempt to make a Burgundian-style wine in South Africa, but did it really work? Well, it was a perfectly nice wine to begin with and showed some potential for development, but the slightly sugary taste meant that I was unable to say with certainty whether or not I liked it. I feel that with some well-chosen food matched with it (grilled fish or any white meat) or perhaps another year or so in the cellar this could have been a thoroughly decent wine.

Points: 84. Pleasant enough but there wasn't quite enough depth to make me want to drink this again. The citrus made me feel that this was in fact a Sauvignon Blanc in disguise.