Here is my nomination for an overrated and overpriced champagne, Salon. In a comparative tasting I held against Vintage Krug, Roederer Cristal and Bollinger R.D., the Salon finished dead last by a wide margin. I would also add that it was the most expensive of the four champagnes. At that tasting the Cristal came out on top with the Vintage Krug and Bollinger R.D. tied for second.

One champagne that I have always been unlucky with is Krug Grande Cuvee. It never wins comparative tastings when pitted against other luxury cuvees. I am not however suggesting that it is overrated. At a tasting in 1991, it came fourth out of six. Mind you, it was an honorable fourth as the order of placement was as follows:

1. Bollinger Vielles Vignes Francaises 1981 (Head and shoulders above every other champagne.) It was like drinking a sparkling Grand Cru white Burgundy.
2. Roederer Cristal Rose. Nose of fresh strawberry.
3. Bollinger R.D. 1979
4. Krug Grande Cuvee
5. Roederer Cristal
6. Pol Roger P.R. Reserve Speciale 1979. This champagne was the former top of line from Pol Roger. It was a 50/50 blend of Pinot Noir and Chardonnay from 100% rated vineyards.

I have also come to realize that I prefer Bollinger Grande Annee with bottle age to Bollinger R.D. I find the R.D.s don't age in the bottle while the Grande Annees do. The only vintage where a found the R.D. Bollinger preferable to the Grande Annee was the 1979 vintage.

I'll put this suggestion out and would like to hear other's comments. Too much emphasis is placed on luxury cuvees of champagnes and their relative merits. One category that tends to get overlooked is straight Vintage champagnes. In twenty years or so of wine collecting and tasting, I have never seen a comparative tasting of vintage champagnes rather than luxury cuvees. Another tasting which would be fascinating would be one that considered the whole question of whether there is such a thing as a house style, let's say Pol Roger's house style compared to Roederer's or Bollinger's. Any thoughts?