Vintage Champagne

[smackababy]

Since New Years is nearly upon us and I know ATOT is full of millionaires, I figured I'd ask here.

Is vintage stock champagne actually worth it? I mean is a $200 bottle of Veuve that much better than a $40? Or, are all the "designer" brands just that: designer name and all hype. I am not an F1 driver, so I won't be spraying my Moet all over the place, I actually want to enjoy it.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Since New Years is nearly upon us and I know ATOT is full of millionaires, I figured I'd ask here.

Is vintage stock champagne actually worth it? I mean is a $200 bottle of Veuve that much better than a $40? Or, are all the "designer" brands just that: designer name and all hype. I am not an F1 driver, so I won't be spraying my Moet all over the place, I actually want to enjoy it.

Champagne is like any other wine. There is a huge difference between the cheap stuff and the expensive stuff. Since you're new to champagne, you should stay in the $40 range. You need to learn what to taste, smell and, see before splurging on the expensive stuff. Talk to your local supplier.

 

[OCGuy]

Since New Years is nearly upon us and I know ATOT is full of millionaires, I figured I'd ask here.

Thank you, Bitcoin!

But the answer is no, not worth it unless you are trying to blow money. $30-40 can land you some perfectly acceptable stuff. I personally like Korbel as far as domestic.

 

[smackababy]

Champagne is like any other wine. There is a huge difference between the cheap stuff and the expensive stuff. Since you're new to champagne, you should stay in the $40 range. You need to learn what to taste, smell and, see before splurging on the expensive stuff. Talk to your local supplier.

I wouldn't say I am terribly new to champagne, just my price range is usually around $40-$50.

 

[blackdogdeek]

If you're still sober enough at midnight that you can tell difference, there are bigger problems at your party

 

[Fritzo]

I was at a New Year's dance last year and they tried to serve me mine from 1999. I threw the bottle down and yelled "Do you realize how much I paid to be here? GO GET ME SOME FRESH STUFF!"

 

[smackababy]

If you're still sober enough at midnight that you can tell difference, there are bigger problems at your party

People who get drunk just for the sake of getting drunk are the ones doing it wrong. If I happen to become extremely intoxicated because I've been enjoying my beverages far too much, well that is another story.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I wouldn't say I am terribly new to champagne, just my price range is usually around $40-$50.

Well, there are a number of exceptions to this but, in general, champagne in the $200 a bottle range tend to be investments rather than drinking stock. Champagne needs careful handling and the older it is the more likely it was mishandled at some point and the quality affected.

 

[smackababy]

Well, there are a number of exceptions to this but, in general, champagne in the $200 a bottle range tend to be investments rather than drinking stock. Champagne needs careful handling and the older it is the more likely it was mishandled at some point and the quality affected.

I actually didn't think of that. Would something like that be known? Say like X year from Y brand is bad, or is mostly after shipping?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Always check wine reviews and talk to your supplier. He should be able to tell you how he acquired a particular vintage. Also, if he's got it displayed on the shelf or case, walk away because he doesn't know how to handle it.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Champagne is like any other wine.

You got that much right at least.

Champagne is like any other wine, the perception of quality has a lot to do with the label and the pretension of the drinker. The truly clueless will automatically assume that a $200 bottle is ideal for the sophisticated drinker and that anyone "new to champagne" should stick to the cheap stuff. The fact is that in blind taste tests the people who think they're experts do no better at picking out expensive wines than neophytes do and often prefer cheaper stuff that they'd never be caught dead drinking if they got a chance to see the label.

There's no reason to spend more than $20 on a bottle of champagne unless you're 100% sure that you can TRULY prefer something more expensive and can unerringly pick it out in a blind test. And unless you've got a one in million palate, you can't.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

You got that much right at least.

Champagne is like any other wine, the perception of quality has a lot to do with the label and the pretension of the drinker. The truly clueless will automatically assume that a $200 bottle is ideal for the sophisticated drinker and that anyone "new to champagne" should stick to the cheap stuff. The fact is that in blind taste tests the people who think they're experts do no better at picking out expensive wines than neophytes do and often prefer cheaper stuff that they'd never be caught dead drinking if they got a chance to see the label.

There's no reason to spend more than $20 on a bottle of champagne unless you're 100% sure that you can TRULY prefer something more expensive and can unerringly pick it out in a blind test. And unless you've got a one in million palate, you can't.

You go right ahead and enjoy your Cold Duck. Some of us know and appreciate the finer things in life.

 

[smackababy]

You got that much right at least.

Champagne is like any other wine, the perception of quality has a lot to do with the label and the pretension of the drinker. The truly clueless will automatically assume that a $200 bottle is ideal for the sophisticated drinker and that anyone "new to champagne" should stick to the cheap stuff. The fact is that in blind taste tests the people who think they're experts do no better at picking out expensive wines than neophytes do and often prefer cheaper stuff that they'd never be caught dead drinking if they got a chance to see the label.

There's no reason to spend more than $20 on a bottle of champagne unless you're 100% sure that you can TRULY prefer something more expensive and can unerringly pick it out in a blind test. And unless you've got a one in million palate, you can't.

I suppose we should all also be drinking Natty Lite and the Beast then as well? Go ahead and buy a few bottles of Cook's.

I'd say the perception of quality is distorted more from the use of vintage / non-vintage terminology.

 

[OCGuy]

You got that much right at least.

Champagne is like any other wine, the perception of quality has a lot to do with the label and the pretension of the drinker. The truly clueless will automatically assume that a $200 bottle is ideal for the sophisticated drinker and that anyone "new to champagne" should stick to the cheap stuff. The fact is that in blind taste tests the people who think they're experts do no better at picking out expensive wines than neophytes do and often prefer cheaper stuff that they'd never be caught dead drinking if they got a chance to see the label.

There's no reason to spend more than $20 on a bottle of champagne unless you're 100% sure that you can TRULY prefer something more expensive and can unerringly pick it out in a blind test. And unless you've got a one in million palate, you can't.

You are saying only 1/1,000,000 can tell the difference between a $20 bottle of wine and a $100+ bottle of wine?

LOL.

 

[NutBucket]

Trouble is wine is terribly subjective and there are always exceptions to the rule so price is no guarantee of quality especially given the variances between different vintages.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I suppose we should all also be drinking Natty Lite and the Beast then as well? Go ahead and buy a few bottles of Cook's.

How dare you besmirch the good name of Cook's by comparing it to Natty Lite. Natty Lite is piss. Cook's is angel piss. There's a difference.