Maison Park 7 Year Grand Champagne and 1973 Pellehaut Armagnac

I’m on the road for work, so no screaming babies, no angry spouse, nothing to do but review...So here are two reviews (samples from good friends):

Cognac Park 7 Year Grande Champagne Cognac - 44% - Vine and Table Store Pick

Nose: floral, fruity, and sweet…orange peel, pears, flower petals, green apples

Palate: floral, fruity, and sweet…just like the nose…green apples, pears, flower petals. It’s definitely on the sweeter side

Finish: medium length, the sweetness cakes the tongue

Grade: B

Thoughts
My buddy didn’t put region on the sample bottle label and I speculated that it was Grand Champagne. I just so happened to be right. It was dumb luck and I lean more towards an idiot than savant. With that said, this cognac is not overly complex but it is completely crushable, and given the young age, that’s pretty remarkable. There is literally no harshness to it…but it’s also nowhere close to awe inspiring. The sweetness got me wondering whether sugar was added? And the color got me wondering whether it was colored - it’s got a real nice copper hue for a 7-year-old…hmm... More importantly, does any of that matter here? I honestly don’t know – maybe to some people? If this was an older bottle, I’d definitely care a lot more (with them tainting something they probably shouldn't have). But this is a young ~$60sh bottle and its decent (I could see myself drinking this on a warm summer evening), so I don’t think I’ll descend into an additive-laced diatribe right now. If this was a pricier bottle and presented the same level of sweetness and lack of complexity, I assume I’d likely go off. At some point I may get a hydrometer out of sheer curiosity. Until then, I’ve got to speculate. Regardless of what I just rambled about, this isn’t bad. I’m grading it…

Grade: B 

For what it's worth, the other Maison Park's I've tried haven't been this sweet, so I wonder if they add sugar to some but not others?


Chateau Pellehaut 1973 (44 year) Armagnac – Ungi Blanc – 43.8% - K&L Pick

Nose: sandalwood, cotton candy, very oaky, vanilla, some baking spices…it’s a little bourbony but still retains some semblance of an Armagnac character

Palate: the oak dominates but its not over-oaked if that makes sense; however, there is some tannic bitterness. Brown sugar, molasses, rich dates, caramel, leather…all those rich flavors you usually chalk up to good bourbon but again it still retains an Armagnac-likeness

Finish: for rocking a lower proof this hangs around for a while - I'd classify it as a medium to long finish, with the brown sugar and dates prevailing.

Thoughts
Damn, this is really tasty. I purposely didn’t check out K&L’s page until I completed my review. K&L's notes are real fair and spot on. This is definitely a bourbon drinkers brandy - it could be mistaken for some dusty ND old Taylor. I know Driscoll catches some flak for some of the things he says from time-to-time, but at the end of the day, there aren’t many retailers doing what K&L is doing, and there are even less bringing in brandy like this stateside.  I waffled on how I wanted to grade this. Like the L'Encantada Pibous stuff, it's bourbony. But it's really good, so I'll grade it on its merits alone. It would be a solid A if the oak was dialed back a tad. So, it gets…

Grade: A minus

If you're a bourbon drinking woodchuck, I imagine you'd really enjoy the Pellehaut.

Laberdolive 1995 Armagnac 46%

Ryan's Review

This is a 1995 vintage Laberdolive. The grapes used in this vintage were grown in Domaine de Jaurrey, which the Laberdolive family aquired back in 1893. They do manage two other properties, Domaine de Pillon and Labrune. My research shows that the family manages 40 hectares of vineyard where they grow Bacco, Ugni-Blanc, and Folle Blanch varieties of grapes, but that their modern vintages are mainly being produced from Ugni-Blanc.

They distill their armagnac in a wood-fired continuous still, which is not a very common practice. In fact, during the two week period of distillation they have to spend every night tending the fire in the still to make sure it's still going strong.  Apparently, only 25% of stills used are wood-fired.  Whether there is advantage to this method, or if it's just a continuation of tradition, I"m not sure. Does anybody know? Furthermore, they age all of their spirit in barrels made with wood from the black oak trees that grow in the forests on their property.  This particular vintage was bottled at 46%.

Nose: A dryish nose. Almond oil, rubber cement, saw dust and wood varnish.

Taste: More lively on the palate. Sweet vanilla. Mint. Some honey. A bit of citrus. The sweetness is replaced with some dry oak. Aromatic cinnamon and nutmeg. A good spice kick.

Finish: Finishes on more baking spices and gentle oak.

Overall: Upon first taste this is a slightly oak dominant armagnac, but there is sweetness wrapped up in the cooking spices and vanilla. It is a nice armagnac, but not as dynamic as I may like, and there are maybe some more attractive options at the asking price.  I am intrigued, though, and don't think this will be the last Laberdolive we see on the blog.

B

Remi Landier LMDW Lot 2005 45.9%

Remi Landier LMDW Lot 2005 45.9%

This Remi is offered by La Maison Du Whisky in the “Through the Grapevine” line. The Lot 2005 hails from the Fins Bois region and this sample is from a generous friend.

Nose: Martinelli’s apple juice mixed with lemon Lysol, a little fall hay and white grapes

Palate: similar profile to the LMDW Lot 87 but fades a lot quicker. Tropical fruits and caramel hop on and then right back off, with a lingering alcoholic astringency – it’s not overpowering but you notice it. There is definitely a nice mouthfeel on this, showing Remi makes a quality distillate. I also get a little anise and licorice.

Finish: Like I said above, the flavor jumps onto the palate fast but then jumps right back off. Some caramel hangs on for a little while.

Thoughts
This is not bad by any measure. It’s a young and the youth shows, but still definitely drinkable. That said, the Lot 87 kind of crushes it. This is something I’d describe as an everyday pour but for the alcohol astringency and the price. So, I’m giving this an…

Grade: B minus

Camus Pionneau 1969 56.4% Fins Bois

Some bottles get a little extra finesse from marketing departments – the diva treatment so to speak. I’ve seen boxes constructed from fine hobby wood, labels printed on bonded paper, emblematic scripting, leather-bound companion books, and so on...The stories for these bottlings tend to be a little over-the-top as well; the writers pull out all the stops with their magniloquent descriptions – and even use words like magniloquent – what the fuck does that word even mean? A lot of these bottles are destined to be advertised in elite travel magazines anyways, so might as well go all in with the sales gimmicks. 

I get the feeling that the Camus Pionneau 1969 is one of those bottles that got special attention from the marketing gurus. The box is very eloquent and is equipped with a cage on the front, which gives the buyer the sense that they are not merely opening a box containing cognac but rather unleashing a cognac upon the world – the packaging is awash with symbolism! The bottle also comes with a beautiful little book that details the origins of the Pionneau family as well as their history and expertise in distilling cognac. 

Camus released the following marketing blurb for the Pionneau 1969:

“Pionneau 1969 has been introduced by the Camus family. It is the prime vintage cognac and will be available across the globe. It is totally unblended made from grapes form a vineyard, which is one of its kind, located in Fins Bois vine growing areas. It was produced as well as distilled only by the Pionneau Company. It takes 35 years to age. Camus took charge of the company in 1969 on the understanding that no alterations would be made in producing the finest exceptional cognacs and in the name of the original company. It heady spicy aroma is blended with tangs from candy, plum and blackcurrant.”

Once you hack away at all of the marketing overgrowth, the question that we all want answered is whether it’s good? And more importantly, is it worth the price of admission (when first released, it was around $600 USD and it sells for a hell of a lot more now, apparently).

Here are my notes (please ignore the plasticware)…

Nose: like walking into a Cold Stone Creamery – ice cream and fixins’ – caramel, vanilla, candy…black plums, too…this has a little bit of a William Larue Weller nose to it (I was drinking the 2017 the other night and they smell similar).

Palate: sugared raisins, dates, black plums, honey, roasted almonds…rich in character. Some cocoa and maple syrup too. This is a savory cognac, not as fruity as a lot of other high-end cognacs I’ve tried, and there is definitely some alcohol heat in the glass.

Finish: the rich and oily character hangs on for a while, with a little alcohol burn that slowly tapers off.


Since I’ve gotten to know this bottle well, I know that it needs a drop or two of water to really shine. So, with water…

Nose: like above, but more aroma jumps out of the glass. The sweet cream really pops, and there are new notes of freshly churned butter as well.

Palate: the bite completely dissipates and the nuttiness shines. There are walnuts (is that you, rancio???) and pecans now. This tastes like a killer madeira I’m working my way through (thanks Greg Bird for the madeira recs).

Finish: without the alcohol bite the fantastic nuttiness just lingers. Man, this is a killer finish.


Thoughts

This cognac needs water. Without it, there is a mirage of quality, but when just a drop or two are added, it blossoms into something magical. Don’t expect a fruit forward cognac, either; while there are plenty of fruit notes, it’s the savory kind that show up to the party…the sweet ones decided to stay home and Netflix-and-chill.

With that in mind, I love this cognac and I’d say it’s really good. So that begs the question – is it worth the price of admission? That’s subjective and always hard to say for other people. Honestly, I think no bottle of booze is worth $600+. I also drive a 5 year old Subaru and check my bank balance several times a day. But, I had luck in the past hunting old bourbon. By massaging the spirits secondary, I was able to cobble together enough funds to snag two bottles of this (my goal in life is to have this hobby pay for itself). What I will say is that this is really good and unique, and I'm glad I have a backup bottle in the bunker. I’ll leave it at that.

Grades

Without water: B+ / A -

With a splash water: A   

Cadenhead’s Distillerie Charpentier Petite Champagne Cognac 30 year 55.3%

When it comes to independent bottlers, it feels like most bottle whatever casks they can get their hands on. Back in the day, more bad casks were blended away (I imagine some killer ones were, too). These days, there is no shame in bottling a crappy single cask.

I'm a spirits nerd that longs for whisky's yesteryear, and my kindred folk all agree: there's a lot of crappy single casks getting bottled these days. There are some exceptions, though, and Cadenhead’s is one of them. They are located in Cambeltown, Scotland, and owned by the J. & A. Mitchell and Company (which also owns Springbank). Their selections tend to be more than just bottled whisky – often their bottlings feel like a sophisticated curation of Scotland’s national spirit. Ok, that last sentence is somewhat embellished and a tad campy, but truly, they are one of the best indie Scotch bottlers out there. On top of that, they are amazing people. If you have a chance to visit them in Campbeltown, please do. In 2015, I took the Springbank tour and chased it with the Cadenhead’s warehouse tasting; it was one of the highlights of my trip – the moldy dunnage warehouses are like Whisky Narnia.

One of the cool things about Cadenhead’s is that they bottle other spirits, too, like rum, gin, and cognac! This is the review of the Cadenhead’s Distillerie Charpentier Petite Champagne Cognac 30 year 55.3%. A generous friend and Francophile sent it to me. There is not a ton of information floating around the web on Charpentier, but I did find this:

“Charpentier vineyard is 54 hectares in the heart of Petite Champagne cru. Since 1895 , Charpentier family has been producing wine dedicated to Cognac making and delivering the biggest cognac houses. Today we offer cognac in bulk as well as bottled and branded cognacs.”

So they are a producer that sells to large houses and bulk, presumably indie bottlers such as Cadenhead’s.

On to the review

Nose: spicy (like a smelling a spice cabinet) and floral up front, and then the fruits come out with some lemon and raspberries, caramel apple, too

Palate: fat, rich, oily…whatever you call it, its thick. Walnuts and pralines, fuji apples, and then the citrus I love kicks in on the back end, tangerine and orange zest…I also got a tiny note of Swedish fish (I know I’m weird)

Finish: nice length that just hangs onto the palate, with the citrus note dominating

Thoughts

This is good brandy, in fact I'd call it really good. Given the price point (I think it was around $100), it’s hard to find a better QPR. Why anyone would want to blend this is beyond me, perhaps to elevate other, less-talented cognac. But if that is the case, it really breaks my heart.

Charpentier would collect a fervent nerd fan base if they were personally bottling this, releasing single casks and such, as opposed to selling to large houses where its fate is only to be drowned out though blending. I searched around to see if there were any other reviews, and Serge gave this a 92, which I think is deserving for this bottle. I can’t get myself to rate the Charpentier higher than the LMDW Voyer, but it's getting close, so I’m giving this bottle…

Grade: A- 

Cognac Park – K&L Selections

K&L recently brought in 3 different Cognac Park barrel picks:

Park 15 Year Old "Lot 15" K&L Exclusive Single Barrel #289 Cask Strength Fins Bois Cognac 42.5%

Park 18 Year Old "Lot 18 - K&L Exclusive" Single Barrel #332 Cask Strength Borderies Cognac 43.5%

Park 28 Year Old "Lot 28" K&L Exclusive Single Barrel #401 Cask Strength Grand Champagne Cognac 44.5%

The Binny’s Maison Park / Cognac Park Borderies 10 year was a solid pour, especially for the price, so I was pretty excited when I saw these pop up on the K&L website. Unfortunately, K&L doesn’t ship anymore. Fortunately, I have a few friends, and even more fortunately, they wanted to try these as well and we all went in on a bottle split. As a control, I started with the Binny’s Maison Park Borderies. Here’s what I think of the K&L bottles:

Lot 15 – Fins Bois – 42.5%

Nose: Caramel, honeysuckle, old leather, eucalyptus, a tiny bit of acetone (not bad though)

Palate: the palate on this one is light, apple, a touch of cinnamon, cedar, rock candy, jasmine, Christmas spices.

Finish: short to medium length, the palate just fades with nothing new

Grade: B-

Lot 18 – Borderies Cognac – 43.5%

Nose: richer than the Lot 15, cocoa powder, nutty, coffee beans, clay

Palate: richer than the Lot 15, too, brown sugar and molasses, sweet tobacco, fried banana, a bit of an earthy character in line with the clay note, I’d say slate

Finish: nice length with cocoa and molasses hitting fading off slowly

Grade: B+

Lot 28 – Grand Champagne – 44.5%

Nose: fruity and sweeter than the other two, citrus, grapefruit, rose petals,

Palate: plenty of fruit, citrus, clementine’s, and red grapes, orange rind, fall hay, some demerara sugar, too

Finish: nice medium length

Grade: B+


Thoughts

I dig the Lot 18 and the Lot 28 – they are tasty bottles. But at the same time, these aren't going to wow anyone (in my opinion, anyways). The K&L notes makes it sound like they tried these at true cask strength. If these were higher proof, they would really shine. If I had to pick a favorite, it’d be a Lot 18, but if you’re more partial to fruity flavors, you might want to grab the Lot 28. Given the price, why not both? If it helps to know where I stand, I might buy an entire bottle of the Lot 18 and Lot 28, but don't plan on buying multiples.

Is This Vintage?

I’m a sucker for vintage things. In high school, I surfed the Goodwill circuit looking for vintage metal t-shirts. I wasn’t very successful, but I do remember pulling a pretty sweet Megadeath tour-concession shirt that I wore until the stitching struggled to hold the thing together and my mom tossed it in the trash. In college, I started collecting records, which turns out, wasn’t very good for my health or wallet. A good chunk of my student aid was spent chasing down vintage, Detroit-centric northern soul 45s, like Popcorn Wiley, while scavenging food scraps at my cafeteria job. We all have priorities – mine have always skewed towards vintage stuff for whatever unexplainable reason – it’s just visceral for me.

So now that I’m in the deep end of the spirits pool, it’s only natural that I have become obsessed with vintage booze. I’ve spent more time than anyone should turning over bottles of bourbon at sketchy liquor stores and looking at the numbers molded into the bottom of the glass. Odds are if you’re reading this blog, you have, too. Unlike bourbon, scotch made it easy and spared us the ridiculousness of checking the bottom of every bottle - a lot of bottlers put the vintage year right on the fucking label. Brilliant!

When I started getting into cognac and shopping for bottles, I noticed something interesting; some bottles have vintage dates and others just have numbers which are identified as “lots.” What is the deal with that? It seemed very strange, so I wanted to find out more. As it turns out, there’s a checkered history with “vintage-dated” cognac.

Currently, the BNIC regulates vintage-dated cognac and how a cognac can be classified as a vintage cognac. Per the BNIC website: a vintage Year is the “date that indicates the vintage year of the grape that was used for Cognac production. In the Cognac Region, the eaux-de-vie that have aged in vintage year cellars or in sealed casks are counted in vintage years.” A vintage cellar is a “cellar where the vintage eaux-de-vie are stored for their ageing process. This cellar is closed with two keys; and one of them is given to the BNIC.”

So, in the modern era, to be labeled as a vintage cognac, the grapes used in production must all be from the same production year and the barrel must be stored in a vintage cellar where the producer and the BNIC possess a key.

The Delamain website describes the BNIC’s involvement with their vintage cellar in this way: “with each vintage bottling, Delamain selects young, single-estate, single barrel Cognacs to be aged for 30-50 years in a special cellar in Jarnac. The barrels are locked into the vintage cellar under the strict control of the BNIC, the Cognac Trade Association, which holds one of the two keys necessary to enter the cellar. Every year from this cellar, Delamain selects small lots of Cognacs after no less than thirty years, and bottles them without blending. Vintage-dated Cognac is relatively rare, as its production has only recently been allowed under French law.”

The last sentence on the Delamain website caught my eye. Is vintage cognac a recent development under French law? That seemed very strange because I have seen very old bottles of cognac sporting vintage labels loud-and-proud right on the front of the bottle. As I dug around the web, I found a fantastic “vintage” LA Times article from 1994 that really broke down the usage of “vintage” and its patchwork application and meaning in cognac.

Per the LA Times article, prior to 1961, vintage dating was allowed. In 1961, the BNIC prohibited the use of vintage-dating of cognacs. The reason for the prohibition was two-fold: there were irregularities with vintages, i.e., producers were lying about vintage years, and also the focus of cognac turned more towards blending. Despite the prohibition on vintage-dating bottles, there was one interesting workaround for some cognac bottlers; dated cognac barrels that were sent to British wine merchants (think Berry Brothers) could be labeled as vintage-dated cognac. Apparently, the Brits didn’t care what the French rules prescribed, and the history of those two countries is littered with similar examples of their contempt and disregard of each other.

In 1988, the BNIC ended the prohibition on vintage-dated cognac, but even so, the issue of vintage-dating fraud didn’t go away. In 1994, the thought was the advent of carbon dating would keep producers honest; now that we’re in the future, we can point and laugh at history's ideas. Maybe I’m wrong here, but I can only thing of a handful of instances when carbon dating was used to verify potentially fraudulent booze (a few stupidly priced Macallans, at least from what I’ve read) - I don't think its a common thing in the 21st century.

With the reinstatement of vintage-dated cognac, the BNIC established a process of parsing out and maintaining cognac destined for vintage-dating: “all vintage Cognacs being held in cask must be placed in a special cellar under the eye of the authorities. It has two locks; one key is held by the producer, the other key by the government. Neither party can enter the aging cellar without the other.” Casks in vintage cellars are wax sealed by a representative of the BNIC to stop unauthorized tampering, and a member of the BNIC needs to be present every time the wax is broken…for every… single… nosing… tasting… looksie… etc.

The last interesting quote in the LA Times article comes from Darrel Corti (from Corti Brothers), who said that “people didn’t take vintage age statements seriously…pressure to issue vintaged cognac came from armagnac, cognac's great rival among French premium brandy regions…armagnac producers…had less stringent regulations about the use of vintages…provided you stated that the product was aged at least seven years (in barrel)." Corti stated that vintage-dated armagnacs appealed to people who wanted a beverage from their birth year but were born in bad vintages for red wine.

So, there’s the history and rules involving vintage-dated cognac. Which leaves us with the question of what “lot” means? Well, I can’t find any BNIC regulations or information on the use of the term “lot.” It seems that “lot” is a fallback term used by producers that don’t want to jump through the cumbersome and tedious BNIC vintage-dating hoops but still want to market some kind of date to their consumers. So, in reality, when you see “lot” and two digits afterwards, those two digits could mean that the oldest cognac in a blend is from that year, or it could be a specific vintage-year cognac and the producer didn't want to give the BNIC a key to their house. Those numbers could also be completely nonsensical bullshit. Lucky us!

Looking into this has left me with a few thoughts about vintage-dating. First, the complete abolishment of vintage-dating and later reinstatement, but with onerous rules, tells me that there must be some shady actors in cognac; the BNIC does not trust people to toe the line – they want a fucking key to the garage to see what’s going on if you’re going to vintage-date. Second, I wonder if vintage-dated cognac barrels that are sealed with wax and resting in vintage cellars can be topped off with cognac from the same vintage that is being stored in the same vintage cellar? I imagine so, but it’s something I’ll ask around about. And finally, I wonder how much marketing deception is going on with the use of the term “lot.” Is its use a way to keep the meat inspectors away from the jungle so that cognac producers can slap whatever label they want on the bottle? Or are the BNIC regulations such a pain that its just easier for producers to use “lot” and the term isn’t a common deception, but rather it is used out of convenience? Just some late-night wonders…

Links
http://www.bnic.fr/cognac/_en/modules/cognac_glossaire/cognac_glossaire.aspx

http://www.kobrandwineandspirits.com/portfolio/product/delamain_cognac_single_cask_single_estate_vintage_cognac

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-07-28/food/fo-20644_1_cognac-producers

P.S. I've tried to find an official BNIC rule book online but my Google skills are apparently lacking. If/when I find one, I'll post it in the links section.

Jacques Denis - Vieille Réserve 44%

Ryan's Review

Jacques Denis - Vieille Réserve 44%

I don't know a ton about this house, beyond that the Jacques Denis estate is located in the town of Saint Preuil, which is in the Grand Champagne region. This is another family owned and run cognac house. Usually that's a promising sign. The eaux-de-vie in this bottle is a blend of vintages dating back to the 50's and 60's and it was bottled at its "natural strength" out of the cask at 44%.

Nose: Oaky, caramels, walnuts, but also some very sweet candy sugars

Taste: Caramel. Apricot and peaches. Oak, and more caramel. Or is it caramely oak.

Finish: Candied citrus peel, some drying oak spices. Nice lengthy finish with that oaky caramel.

Overall: This one is very good. Where it stands out is in the richness of its flavor profile. It's quite in your face with the sweetness but the oak notes balance it out, rather than the other way around, which is interesting. A thick-ish mouthfeel for its 44%. My parting thoughts is that this is a great alternative for the bourbon drinker. Available, and can be found for around $150.

B+

Tiffon Très Vieille Réserve Grande Champagne 40%

Ryan's Review 

Tiffon Très Vieille Réserve Grande Champagne

Tiffon is another family owned and run cognac house. They got their start in the late 1800’s and grow their grapes on 40 hectares between the Grande Champagne and Fins Bois regions. Tiffon is a well-regarded house, but unfortunately there is little opportunity to taste their spirit above the common 40% ABV. They do color their spirit. The eaux-de-vies used in this blend comes exclusively from the Grande Champagne region and is supposedly aged upwards of 70-80 years old. 

Nose: Buttery, summer fruits, walnuts, some dusty books 

Taste: An immediate entry of sweet and creamy peaches and citrus, follow by cocoa, another wave of fruit, more jam-like 

Finish: Some baking spice and a pleasant light herbal astringency While not the most complex, it is a very flavorful fruit forward cognac. 

It scores high on the gulpable scale. I suppose that’s the 40% speaking, but bring this to a dinner party and you might be leaving with an empty bottle at the end of the night. It’s one of the more approachable cognacs I’ve tasted, and it both loses and scores points for that. Unfortunately, as is often the theme with these lower proof cognacs, you have to wonder what more this one would have to give at a slightly higher proof. We’re pretty much in B+ territory, but it loses a couple points in its simplicity. Give this as a gift to your average spirit drinking buddy and it will be a hit. 

B

Vallein-Tercinier Rue 34 42%

Ryan's Review

Vallein-Tercinier Rue 34 42%

This is Pre-World War II eaux-de-vie from the Grand Champagne, as this is a 1934 vintage. It was bottled in 2015 and, according to Vallein-Tercinier, spent its entire 80 years in the cask. 42%. A rare treat.

Nose: Leather, nuts. Big spread of fruits. Guava, passion fruit, mango, berries, fragrant oak

Taste: Guava, tangy citrus. Slightly creamy. Followed by leather, cedar, black tea. You taste the oak throughout, but it's not brash, nor is it fighting with the fruits.

Finish: A light menthol-like finish, walnuts, more of that tangy citrus, oranges and sweet lemons.

Overall: It’s very delicate and put together. Plenty of familiar fruits, with a slightly different presence than usual. Perhaps it's that tangy quality. Lots of complexity and old elegance. I suppose that's a kind of lame thing to say when tasting an 80 year old cognac, but I can't help it. It tastes old. The good kind of old. It's just excellent. Not a budget bottle at $600 before shipping, but maybe also not the kind of bottle you spend that money on, open, and have immediate regrets.

A