Originally Posted by
whackyjacky
I rarely find vintage champagne to be worth the $$, since the grey market in the US dried up 25 years ago. I'm still happily given the opportunity more than occasionally, but not on my dime. You're paying 5X the price for something that's 10% better than NV, IMO.
While I get this criticism in concept, Dom is quite a bit more than 10% better than Moet NV Brut. That being said, I've only bought 3 bottles of it in my life (and I gave one away to a Charity Auction - long story). But that's two bottles more than I've ever bought of Moet NV Brut.
Personally, I find the worst jump in price relative to quality comes from stepping from the various French Houses' best wines produced in other regions around the world to their basic NV Brut genuine Champagne cuvee.
For example, Domaine Chandon Reserve costs less than Moet NV Brut - and IMHO, is a superior wine. Similarly, I find that the California Roederer Estate L'Ermitage is well superior to Roederer's Brut NV Champagne. (IMHO, even Roederer's base California Estate wine is superior to their base Champagne Cuvee, at half the price.)
In other words, the biggest tax paid relative to quality is to buy authentic Champagne compared to sparklers produced elsewhere by the same firms that know best how to make the stuff.