Summary

BREAKING: A titanic showdown between top champagnes and the best of the rest has been settled. The victors? Headline writers…

This is an impromptu pod reflecting the momentous nature of this Battle of the Bubbles tasting, which took place at the London Wine Fair 2025.

Sixteen top judges (including both of us); 26 top wines, including some of Champagne’s most reputable (and highly priced) bottles – and some quite astonishing results.

In this episode we give the lowdown on the results and reflect on what it all means.

Including the intriguing undercurrents and subtexts, as well as our personal insights and conclusions. (And yes, we do disagree.)

There are some great value recommendations in there too…

Videos

Because this episode is a different kind of Wine Blast episode, we decided to video it for fun! If you prefer visuals to just audio…here you go!

Or, if you prefer a something a bit shorter, here’s a bit of a teaser for the show…

Wines

This is the full list of wines tasted blind at the Battle of the Bubbles tasting at the London Wine Fair 2025, chosen by Ronan Sayburn MS and Sarah Abbott MW:

• Gramona ‘Enoteca’ Corpinnat Brut Nature 2011, Penedes, Spain
• Champagne Eric Rodez ‘Cuvée de Crayères’ NV
• Champagne Bollinger ‘R.D.’ Extra Brut 2008
• House of Arras ‘EJ Carr Late Disgorged’ 2009, Tasmania, Australia
• Champagne Laurent-Perrier Rosé NV
• Cloudy Bay Pelorus Rosé NV, New Zealand
• Ca’ del Bosco ‘Cuvée Annamaria Clementi’ 2016, Franciacorta, Italy
• Champagne Taittinger ‘Comtes de Champagne’ Blanc de Blancs 2013
• Champagne Billecart-Salmon ‘Cuvée Elisabeth Salmon’ Rosé 2012
• Cruse Wine Co LC18 Tradition Rosé NV, Sonoma Coast, USA
• Graham Beck ‘Cuvée Clive’ 2019, South Africa
• Champagne Ruinart ‘Dom Ruinart’ Blanc de Blancs Extra Brut 2010
• Roederer Estate ‘Quartet’ Anderson Valley Brut NV, USA
• Champagne Krug Grande Cuvée, 172ème Édition
• Pascal Agrapart ‘Minéral’ Blanc de Blancs 2018, Champagne
• Quartz Reef Blanc de Blancs 2017, Central Otago, New Zealand
• Champagne Pol Roger ‘Cuvée Winston Churchill’ 2015
• Gusbourne ’51 Degrees North’ 2016, UK
• Nino Franco Grave di Stecca Prosecco Valdobbiadene 2015, Veneto, Italy
• Champagne Egly-Ouriet ‘V.P. Vieillissement Prolongé’ 2016
• Weingut Karthäuserhofberg Sekt NV, Ruwer, Germany
• Champagne Drappier ‘Quattuor’ NV
• Recaredo ‘Turó d’en Mota’ Cava 2011, Penedes, Spain
• Champagne Roederer ‘Phillipe Starck’ Brut Nature 2015
• Dom Pérignon 2013, Champagne
• 2010 Nyetimber 1086, UK

Judges

The following judges took part in the Battle of the Bubbles at the London Wine Fair 2025, overseen by Ronan Sayburn MS (pictured above) and Sarah Abbott MW:

• Elliot Awin
• Susie Barrie MW
• Sam Caporn MW
• Oz Clarke
• Giles Fallowfield
• Tina Gellie
• Charlotte Gordon
• Tom Hewson
• Henry Jeffreys
• Alice Lascelles
• Matthieu Longuere MS
• Jane Rakison
• Peter Richards MW
• Anthony Rose
• Joanna Simon
• Siobhan Turner MW

Links

• Here’s Decanter’s take on this Battle of the Bubbles tasting
• You can find our podcast on all major audio players: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google, Amazon and beyond. If you’re on a mobile, the button below will redirect you automatically to this episode on an audio platform on your device. (If you’re on a PC or desktop, it will just return you to this page – in which case, get your phone out! Or find one of the above platforms on your browser.)

Launch podcast on your device

Photos

The professional-looking shots on this page were taken by Anthony Upton and are his copyright. The rest were taken by us…

Get in Touch!

We love to hear from you. 

You can send us an email. Or find us on social media (links below).

Or, better still, leave us a voice message via the magic of SpeakPipe:

Transcript

This transcript was AI generated. It’s not perfect.

Susie: Hello and welcome to a different kind of Wine Blast episode! Where we’ve hit the BREAKING NEWS button to bring you an exciting bulletin that’s a bit more impromptu than our normal episodes. But there’s a very good reason for all of this.

Peter: Yes, hello. Maybe we should sort of call, it a Pop the Cork Klaxon, something like that. Especially in this context, because we are interrupting your normal programme schedule to bring you important news, aren’t we? And this is all about the Battle of the Bubbles tasting that happened earlier this week, May 2025, at the London Wine Fair.

Susie: And it’s quite a story, with lots of undercurrents and subtexts but also, frankly, some pretty amazing headlines too. So to give you the basic context, the Battle of the Bubbles was a tasting in which top champagnes, from Dom Perignon to Krug to Bollinger RD, costing up to nearly 300 pounds a pop, went head to head with sparkling wines from around the world. So we’re talking England, Spain, Australia, South Africa, Italy, New Zealand, Germany and the US. It was judged by an expert panel, including both of us, under blind exam conditions. So pretty much the gold standard. And it’s possibly, I would say, probably the most rigorous, large scale tasting of its kind ever done in terms of sparkling wines.

Peter: I think so. I, mean, I struggle to think of others…

Susie: that we’re aware of anyway.

Peter: That could match this. Would be interested to see if anyone has any different views. But, you know, with this calibre of Judges, 16 in all, equal split women, men, all highly qualified, including Masters of Wine, master sommeliers, sparkling wine experts. With 26 wines expertly selected by Master sommelier Ronan Sayburn and Master of Wine Sarah Abbott, judged properly blind, scored out of 100, with no details on the wines given ahead of the tasting, and with scores processed using rigorous data analysis. So, you know, the results matter.

Susie: Yeah. Now we’re going to get into the overall results as well as our personal verdicts very shortly. But there are two headlines which really do stand out from the Battle of the Bubbles, you know, firstly, in terms of the overall results, it was a slam dunk for England. It really was. The two top scoring wines from the entire tasting were from England, the only two English wines in the competition. They took first and second spot and that was ahead of some pretty stellar names from Champagne. So that’s a headline if ever there was one.

Peter: It is quite something, isn’t It.

Susie: It really is. Yeah.

Peter: A sparkling performance, you might say, if you had a really bad taste in puns. you know, it’s a delicious double whammy, if you like, whatever. There was also another standout headline in the mix, though. at least as far as we’re concerned. and that’s the kind of sort of David versus Goliath story in terms of value. because there were two wines in the mix that sell for around 30 pounds. So not far off, sort of 10 times less than some of these vaunted prestige cuvees from Champagne. And they were rated as good as, or sometimes better than the big names.

Susie: Yep. So some bargain bubbles. Well worth snapping up and we’ll be spilling the beans in due course. Right, so how are we going to go about doing this episode without just rambling?

Peter: Okay. Okay. I thought what we could do is maybe give a bit more detail about the tasting, and the overall results, and then we could go through the wines to give more context and sort of personal. Our personal insights.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: but we’re probably going to argue.

Susie: definitely going to.

Peter: Because we did disagree about some of the results. You’d expect nothing less. Not, mentioning any names. Dom Perignon. And then. And then, maybe some final sort of conclusions at the end to wrap it up.

Susie: Yeah. Okay, so. So let’s. Let’s talk about the tasting. we were. We were told beforehand that we would be judging the 13 pairs of wines, and each pair would feature one Champagne and one wine from outside Champagne, in fact, outside of France, which Ronan and Sarah had chosen to be comparable in terms of style or price on both.

Peter: Yes. we were encouraged by Ronan not to second guess origin. I think that’s quite important to prevent sort of unconscious bias creeping in.

Susie: or even, you know, wasting time, really.

Peter: Yeah. This wasn’t about guessing the origin. This was about quality. We were just there to evaluate things, focusing on quality in the glass. Were these wines any good or not? How. How did we rate them? and Ronan added that, you know, these were quality wines, but he did. The one thing that we knew was there was nothing older than the 2008 vintage.

Susie: Yeah. So no further details were given about any of the wines. You know, all the wines were served from an anonymous decanters.

00:05:00

Susie: Judges had no ideas what wines were involved and were simply asked, as you say, to score out of 100 and to submit those scores from. For analysis.

Peter: Yeah, I think these wines were slightly, you know, I don’t think we could have dreamt of the kind of quality of this line, could you. I mean, we might have thought one or two amazing, but to have the quality we did was pretty.

Susie: Yeah, there was some. There were some very good wines.

Peter: Someone’s credit card has maxed out on this.

Susie: Anyway, broke the budget.

Peter: One thing that’s really important to say is with this tasting, we did take our time. Sometimes these tastings can be a bit rushed and they’re a bit kind of. We had lots of time. As much time as we needed. We had over two hours for the 26 wines, with breaks all in silence. So no conferring. Proper sort of Riedel glassware. It was, you know, it was tip top.

Susie: Yeah. And the judges, just very briefly, were Elliot Awin, who is from ABS. Me. Sam Caporn MW Oz Clarke. Giles Fallowfield, big champagne expert. Ah. Tina Gellie. Charlotte Gordon. Tom Hewson, Henry Jeffreys, Alice Lascelles, Matthieu Longuere MS. Jane Rakison. Peter Richards MW. Anthony Rose, Joanna Simon and Siobhan Turner MW.

Peter: Now the. The BOrda count. B O R D A count system, scoring system was used. M. This is a non dictatorial position. I’m just going to read this out. I don’t understand what it means. It’s a non dictatorial position voting method which ranks the wines in order and uses a preferential voting scheme to aggregate the rankings. The, result has less bias than plurality voting. I can’t even say it. Plurality voting, which can give greater weight to judges who put plenty of scatter into their scores and who put scatter in their scores. I do like a bit of scatter in my score.

Susie: Oh, my goodness.

Peter: But I was, you know, they, they’d also invited us to say, go with it. If you think a wine is magnificent, go with it.

Susie: Anyway, so those, these result. These are the results which we’re about to give you here. The overall results. Yeah. So from the aggregated scores of all the judges using the Borda count system. So this gave the following headline results. Top scoring wine, 2010, Nyetimber 1086 from England. Hm. You gonna do the champagne?

Peter: No, M. I think you’re gonna do them all.

Susie: Oh, okay. I’ll do them all. Okay. Top scoring champagne. controversial between us. 2013, Dom Perignon, or DP as it tends to be known. Ah, the top scoring side. So was it champagne or the rest of the world champagne? They, the champagne, wines got 2782 points versus 2418 for global sparkling. So a 15% difference there. Though I think it’s fair to say this should be taken with a pinch of salt. And we’re going to come on to that in a moment. the best value, and this really was great value. Cloudy Bay Pelorus rose from New Zealand.

Peter: Interesting.

Susie: And I’m just gonna. Oh, sorry, go.

Peter: I was gonna do the top ten wines. Yeah, top ten wines in order of preference were as follows. 2010, Nyetimber 1086. The UK have already had that one second Gusbourne 51 degrees north, 2016 also from the UK. third place was Dom Perignon 2013 from champagne. Fourth was Dom Ruinart 2010 also from champagne. Fifth was Taittinger Comtes de Champagne 2013 also from champagne. Then we’re on to Krug Grand Cuvee 172nd edition champagne. then Bollinger RD 2008 from champagne. Then champagne Egly Ouriet VP. then the Roederer Estate in 9th Quartet from Anderson Valley in the USA. Then finally number 10, Graham Beck Cuvee Clive from South Africa, 2019.

Susie: Yeah. So what are our immediate reactions to these results? I mean the fact the two, the top two overall scoring wines were English. It is, it’s a stunning result.

Peter: It really is. It can’t be overstated.

Susie: No one could have predicted that. okay, these, these aren’t cheap wines. You know, The Nyetimber’s about £150, I think Gusbourne’s about 200. But still, you know, this is proof that England can compete at ah, the very highest level and beat the very best. I mean, I suppose. Imagine if there’d been more English wines. Having said that, that I can only think of probably half a dozen that really could compete at that level of the Nyetimber and the Gusbourne. But you know, it’s proof of concept. If there had been more. Exactly. And you know, these were the too and they came to something we kind.

Peter: Of, kind of suspected maybe. But to have it proved in this manner, in this way with this rigorous kind of setup.

Susie: Yeah, it’s pretty stunning. Yeah, I was, I was blown away.

Peter: Blown away, yeah. That said, let’s not get, let our excitement run away with ourselves here. You know, there were some absolutely beautiful champagnes here in this tasting and in that top 10, you know, champagne remains the global standard for top quality fizz. There’s no question about that. I think you’d agree.

Susie: Oh yes.

Peter: You know, I would say,

00:10:00

Peter: you know, of that top 10, six of champagnes and I think that speaks volume.

Susie: Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, absolutely. And that’s a, you know, you know, having a top scoring side, you know, it Was champagne, but was it really fair? That’s the question. And so we’re going to get into this now because, these were top quality champagnes, pretty much all of them. And in the non champagne camp you had a Prosecco. still don’t quite know what that was doing there really. You know, it was a good Prosecco but it didn’t quite fit anyway, Sekt from Germany, a slightly unfortunately out of condition rosé from California. You know, all of which slightly skewed things. And when you compare also the average prices, you know, the non vintage, no, sorry, the non champagnes were significantly less expensive than the champagnes because the average price of the champagne was £144. When you added them all together, average them £144 and the average price of the non champagnes was £91. So quite a difference.

Peter: Quite a big difference. We’re still not talking bargain bin prices here though, are we? These are expensive wines.

Susie: Well, you say that.

Peter: No, but they are. Come on. You know, 91 50. But still, you know. Yes, moving on. But even so, talking relative value.

Susie: No, no, no, no, no.

Peter: If it’s an absolute value, we’re talking relative. Okay. It’s great to see the Roederer estate quartet in that top 10. Amazing result for them. also to have the Pelorus rose from New Zealand named best value. You know, these are wines that cost about 30 quid.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: Okay. Not cheap but relative value. Yeah, yeah, for this because we’re talking versus, you know, 280 for the Bollinger ish. 200 odd for the DP, you know, and it’s great to see a South African in that top 10 too, you know, Graham, Becky Cuvee Clive. I mean all of this is proof that, you know, great quality sparkling wine can and does come from all, all over the world these days and that you can get great value fees if you know where to look.

Susie: Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, that’s so true. Anyway, I think we should, should we whizz through the wines?

Peter: Yeah.

Susie: Actually time is more detail and colour to all of this.

Peter: So let’s start with the first one. We’ve got our list here. So we have. So we’re not going to forget things. So just the first pair was the Gramona Enoteca Corpinnat Brut Nature sort of Cava from Penades 2011. That sort of start. Yeah, it’s £180 one that was paired with the Eric Rodez Champagne Cuvee de Crayeres non vintage. That’s about £100.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: And I thought quite an interesting comparison. Both quite natural in feel, quite low dosage. But the Gramona had long leaves ageing. Yes, really quite significant.

Susie: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, I, I thought the. What this catalyst kind of showed slightly was that zero dosage or very low dosage can be a bit too dry. And I thought the Grimona was, was a bit too dry, but both of them were pretty dry. The Eric Rodez was 2.5 grammes and I think both would have.

Peter: We’re talking about dosage. Just remind us quick, explain it.

Susie: Yes. Dosage is what gets added at the. It’s pretty much the last process and it’s a little bit of sweetener to balance the wine. So when you get rid of the yeast leaves out of the, out of the bottle, you lose a bit of the, the wine. And, so you add it. That space, that headspace is filled with a little bit of dosage which is a sugar syrup or it’s got sugar in it.

Peter: It’s a sort of sweetness.

Susie: Sweetness.

Peter: Importantly, because zero dose, a lot of these wines have very high acidity. The wines made in the champ Champagne style often have quite high acidity. Naturally they’re grown in cool climates, so you need just to balance and offset that with a bit of sweetness and lots of sweetness.

Susie: And when we say zero dosage, wine is added back in, but there’s.

Peter: No, there’s no sweetness, which is controversial. We’re going to touch back on this. You know, I, I’d have to say I did like that Grimona sort of leathery, dry fruit maturity. It had a wonderful. Again, talking Lees ageing here. That is when traditional method you make the wine first fermentation, then you stick it in a bottle with a bit more, yeast and sugar, in a closed container, it referments which gives it the sparkle. But crucially it’s then the ageing process where the yeast leaves, the dead yeast leaves in part infuse their flavour and texture into the wines that gives these wines often their complexity and beauty. and when you leave it longer, it can give the wines a very specific character, a bit more richness and it’s very, very interesting. Anyway, these, these were long Lise aged when they came.

Susie: They were, they were.

Peter: I thought that was really lovely in the Corona. but yes, it fell away a bit, possibly because of that low dose. I completely agree. Rodez was quite full on, sort of Matt Max expression for me, but again, didn’t really sing again, perhaps because of that.

Susie: I mean, I think it was great, but I Think, yeah, I think it was just that low dosage that you slightly let it down.

Peter: Yeah.

Susie: Okay, pair number two. So this was when we got into the. The RD territory. So we had Bollinger RD 2008 and we had 2009. House of Arras, EJ Carr, late disgorged from Tasmania in Australia.

Peter: Yeah.

Susie: So intriguing pair. Yes, as we said, both late disgorged. Bolly had, 14 years on the lees, House of Arras 13 years. So there was a real comparison here. Yeah, both fairly low dosage.

00:15:00

Susie: Again, you know, Bollinger 3 Arras I think 1.6. big difference in price.

Peter: Yeah.

Susie: Ah, big difference. So we had. I think the Bollinger is about. Well, it depends where you buy it from. Anything from 270 to 350, whereas the arris is less than 100, about 90

Peter: I’m just going to come out and say this because I can’t contain myself anymore. The Bollinger RD Recemment Degorgé 2008 was my wine of the tasting. Oh, my Lord.

Susie: What did you score it?

Peter: 100 points. 100 points. I did not hold back, basically because I was tasting it and I thought, this is just golden, sensuous, seamless, classy, cultured, evolved.

Susie: It was the third wine of the tasting and you were already throwing out 100 points.

Peter: No, no, no. I honestly, objectively evaluated, I thought, what more could this fizz be or do? And I thought for me, it couldn’t do any more. Therefore, 100 points. Glorious. Absolutely glorious wine. Great vintage. You know, hard to compete with that, unfortunately, for. For the heiress.

Susie: M. Well, I mean, I, I’m. I’m gonna be slightly controversial here because I think with RD Bollinger RD I always find it quite a cerebral wine. It is pretty dry. It takes some work to really enjoy it. I, mean, this is a great vintage, but I just, I think I’ve always. Grande Annee, which is their. Yeah, their prestige vintage. Yes, it’s sort of different. M. Kind of prestige. and I just like that more on the whole. And. But, you know, as you say, I think Arras really just couldn’t. Couldn’t quite. Arras is one of the top, you know, Australian fizzes made by Ed Carr, who is a fantastic winemaker and such a lovely man. but it just wasn’t quite in the same league when you put it slap bang up against a great comparable champagne. And I wonder how often that gets done.

Peter: Yeah, it’s interesting. I mean, for me, Arras was just a different register. It was kind of pithy, lemony, quite vigorous in the mousse, plenty of character, but just didn’t quite match up in the pairing. Yeah, but then it’s not nearly as expensive as you said. 90 versus 3.

Susie: You know, you can get three bottles of Arras for your. For your Bolly.

Peter: Anyway, a very, very interesting comparison.

Susie: Very interesting.

Peter: The Arras did not disgrace itself at all.

Susie: No, no, no.

Peter: Tough old match for that one. So, moving on to the third pairing, which taste Bit of rose. We love a bit of rose. It was the Laurent, Perrier rose, non vintage, about 80 pounds, versus the cloudy bay Pelorus rose from New Zealand, non vintage, which is about £30. There we go.

Susie: So there is a big difference price.

Peter: Really intriguing one, partly because Laurent Perrier rose, everyone knows it, it’s so popular and you’ve got that price disparity.

Susie: I was really interested by this because I always poo poo Lauren Perrier rose, because I think it’s just way too much about marketing and far too expensive for what it is. But that meant it was great to taste it blind, because I’m not going to say I’m going to take it all back, what I’ve just said, but it was decent. It was definitely not amazing, but decent. Just expensive. Too expensive.

Peter: So I’m going to disagree with you. of course you are, because I. Well, not disagree and agree. because, you know, I’ve always thought Lauren Pereira rose is overpriced for what it is. I don’t think it’s a bad wine. I just think it’s overpriced. It’s got name recognition.

Susie: Well, we’re slightly agreeing then, aren’t we? Well, it’s a little bit, yeah.

Peter: But in terms of my rating, though, is where I disagree with you, because I just found it really quite confected and because you did. You. You thought it was okay.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: You rated it.

Susie: No, I did, I did.

Peter: I thought it was quite confected. And I’m not. I’m going to use this word. Not going to use this word lightly, but buxom and sort of woolly and just a bit airy.

Susie: Fairy. Woolly.

Peter: Airy. Fairy and a bit confected and. And control it a bit cloying.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: And so I really didn’t rate it very highly, but I did for the Pelorus.

Susie: Yeah, Pelosi. I agree. I mean, we both agree on. I think we agree on quite a bit of this. You know, it was better. It was just. It was more elegant, more layered, more filigree and so much better value, you know, £30.

Peter: Oh, my word. The value there, you know, I thought it was a top rose champagne. I thought it was absolutely beautiful. Seamless, creamy, fruity. You. It was. Didn’t put a step out of line. Yeah, it was absolutely beautiful.

Susie: So you’ll be buying that, will you?

Peter: Buy. Buy. Buy. That is my recommendation from this pod, Pelorus Rose.

Susie: Three bottles of that for your.

Peter: It’s outstanding. I rated it so high for your. So next up, next pairing was the, Ca del Bosco Franciacorta Cuve Anna Maria Clemente 2016 from Italy. Very serious, sort of about £170 Franciacorta from Italy. and then that was up against the, Taittinger Comtes de Champagne Blanc de Blanc 2013, which is about same sort of price, £170 lb. 80.

Susie: Now this for me was fascinating for a different reason. I found the Frangiacorta, which we taste the first, very peachy and sunny and ripe. And I would say that it’s pretty hard for even a good franciacorta to compete with a really good champagne. And I think that’s why this was a tiny bit of an odd match, you know, Tatin Jacon de Champagne 2013 in particular is a great show, I.

Peter: Think, going up against that and slightly different sizes, as you said. For me, the French Quarter is quite fruity and rich.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: And Conte is completely opposite. It’s nervy, intense and sort of all saline and. And very chiselled.

00:20:00

Peter: so I think it was a.

Susie: Bit hard for the French and I’ love the. The. I mean, funnily enough, I read my note and I thought, why didn’t I mark the Tattinger higher? I’ve got no idea. But, it was, it was, you know, I. I think also, I think, you know, you have to bear this in mind when you’re tasting who. Doesn’t matter who you are, you are definitely your palate is slightly influenced by the wine you’ve just tasted a little bit. And I think that sunny, ripe Franciacorta, just the, the subtlety of the Conte, just. Just meant I didn’t quite get it in the way that I would normally do. But my note was brilliant and it’s an amazing, amazing wine if you want a great bottle of champagne.

Peter: Yeah, we love Comtes.

Susie: It’s fabulous.

Peter: 2013, a good vintage as well. So moving on, the. Yeah, nice vintage, the Billecart Salmon. so another rose pair, Elizabeth Salmon 2012. Yeah, good vintage. That’s about 220 pounds as far as I’m aware. That was paired with the NV Cruse LC18 tradition Sonoma coast from the US which is about £50 as far as I can work out. You. Interesting. Unfortunately, maybe not the most successful pairing.

Susie: No, I don’t think, I don’t think we should waste too much time on this one Frankly. Because although 2012 was a great vintage, sort of after 2008, you know, the bill cart is. That’s just outrageous pricing. I’m sorry. you know, I thought this was good but there was no thrill and it was a bit dry on the finish. Rosé should be joyful and I think a little bit thrilling and it wasn’t, it was okay. And then the Cruse was like funky.

Peter: Funky, funky, funky out of so, so.

Susie: Not sort of oxidised in a bad way.

Peter: So let’s just move on to the last, pairing in this, in this flight which is what the, the Graham Beck Cuvee Clive 2019 South Africa, which is about 47 pounds at Tesco I was interested to find.

Susie: Excellent.

Peter: Get it elsewhere.

Susie: And what was the other one?

Peter: The other one was the Champagne Ruinart Dom Ruinart 2010 Blanc de Blanc Extra Brief. It’s about 200, 250.

Susie: Well, I think, I mean this was a really interesting pair to finish the first flight. Two Chardonnay dominant wines and both had a similar dosage, you know, four to five grammes per litre. But you know, look at the difference in price. You can get four bottles Graham Beck for the, for the Ruinar and that’s a tough call. Yet the Graham Beck did really well. It still held its own. It wasn’t in my world of, in the league of, of the Dom Ruina, but it was really good.

Peter: Yeah, but I think it was a, it was again a tough pairing because the Dom Runat was such a specific style. It was very, what you might call sort of reductive, that curry leaf, pressed herbs, lemon smoky. It’s very precise and stylish but a very specific character. I thought it was quite, really quite classy. I actually thought it was Dom Perignon because it’s that sort of style.

Susie: I think we both did, didn’t we? And so I thought it was really quite compelling, really very specific style, very intense and it had character.

Peter: It did. And the Graham Beck I think was maybe was lovely, lovely primary chalky green apple fruit, decent concentration but again maybe a bit young and self contained. So, you know, an interesting one. Maybe not the most, most exciting anyway. I think at this point we should take a quick breath, reset, then we’re straight back. Can we have a drink with more to recap? So far, England has bested champagne in the battle of the bubbles, with some bargain bottles also triumphing against big names with big price tags. but there’s more to this tasting and result than the headlines, which is what we’re exploring now.

Susie: Indeed. Yep. Go on.

Peter: We’re on to Flight two.

Susie: Flight two. So we had a little break before this, didn’t we? And then we moved on to Flight 2.

Peter: What an interesting start. Of course, none of us knew any of these wines anything of what was happening while we were doing it. It’s only with hindsight that we come back, but we started this off with a bang.

Susie: Yeah. what was this? I mean, really.

Peter: So it’s the Roederer Estate Quartet from Anderson valley in the USA, priced around just over 30 pounds, that, was up against Champagne Krug Grand Cuvee 172 edition, which is about 200. It’s about 240 in Waitrose at the moment, but 200-240 what an interesting pairing. Perhaps one of the most fascinating dramatic showdowns of the tasting. You know, on the one hand, you have Krug. We all know Krug Famous Champagne House blended. This wine, grand cuvee blend of 146 different wines from 11 different vintages. on the other hand, you have a 30 pound fizz from California made by Roederer. Yeah, you’re quite so. It’s made by Roederer Champagne House. Louis Roederer has a operation in California, so it’s made by them, but it is from California and it’s 35 pounds.

Susie: So I want to say this is probably the result of the entire tasting this, this particular pair that I was most thrilled about because I have always, always, always loved quartet. It’s been around for quite a long time and usually when you love a wine like that’s a little bit left of field, like quartet. Over time, the wine making or the quality of the grapes or whatever deteriorate, deteriorates, and it just ends up being. Being not as good as it was. However, this is not the case for quartet. And I personally would have given the value award to this wine. Never mind anything else. It’s just so good.

00:25:00

Susie: It’s such good value and it got one of my top marks. And the fact it was up against Krug and held its own is even more impressive.

Peter: I agree. I mean, this was a fascinating comparison. Well done to Ronan and Sarah for putting this together. What a tasting to do. Blind. So rare. You can do this. I have to say the quartet wasn’t quite so impressive for me as it was for you. I thought it was really good. A little bit primary. Just lacked a little bit intensity compared to the Krug, you know, compared to the Kruger. As you say, to go up against Krug and hold your own. Wow. That’s pretty amazing.

Susie: Yeah. I mean, the Krug was what I describe as hedonistic, an incredible wine. and, I think hedonism here is a big theme for me because I want my fizz to be a little bit hedonistic. I want some flair. It doesn’t matter what that, what sort of style that flair is, but I want it to be.

Peter: We want hedonism in our sparkling wine. We want to feel great. We want to feel transported and entertained.

Susie: I want to fall in love with that glass of wine.

Peter: Are you not entertained? Says Krug and Quartet. Anyway.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: Ah, I agree. I love the Krug. I thought it was packed full of brioche, buttered toast, Red apple saline series. I actually wrote. I said. I called it a thinking person’s fizz. I think you’re coming from a slightly different. You’re coming from, you know, a hedonist’s face. It works for both.

Susie: Yeah. I think The RD Bolly RD’s Thinking person’s fizz. I think this is. This is a bit of both, but it’s classy.

Peter: And also we have got a little bit of a soft spot for Krug.

Susie: We do.

Peter: Because we always used to buy it when we published a book.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: Whenever it came out, we would go straight around the corner and buy.

Susie: I think if we had anything to celebrate in our younger days, we would splash out and, spend money we didn’t have on a bottle of Krug. There we go. Anyway, so let’s move on to the next pair. So less exciting, this pair. And partly, I mean, it was interesting to see, but the, the champagne was corked and they didn’t have another bottle.

Peter: It was sort of lightly. It wasn’t crazy, but it wasn’t good.

Susie: Yeah. And this was. So it was The Pascal Agrapart 2018 Mineral Blanc de Blanc. And it was up against Quartz Reef, which is the 2017 from Central Otago in New Zealand. Quartz Reef. Again, Blanc de Blanc.

Peter: So, you know, on paper, quite an interesting, face off. You know, two Blonde de Blanche are similar prices.

Susie: They were similar prices, actually. 180. Yeah. So one the. The Agapart was about 100 and the, the quartz refresh.

Peter: Both low dosage. Yeah. Similar age.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: But yeah, I mean it just didn’t. It wasn’t a pair that sang.

Susie: No, no. And because, because, well, one was corked, as we’ve said. I think that could have been a really lovely champagne. I imagine it is a really lovely champagne. but you know, there’s only so far you can go with guessing how good it is when a wine is corked. and then the quartz reef was interesting. You know, I think, think it was all right.

Peter: But yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean the course I found it, there were just some, the odd disconcerting note. There was a sort of pineapple chunks and.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: Slightly exotic, slightly varnishy. It wasn’t bad, but it was kind of just particularly maybe in this context where we were. So. Yes, you know, scrutinising, comparing. So.

Susie: Yeah, yeah.

Peter: Neither of them sat beautifully. Beautifully. Right.

Susie: So if we move on, this was another amazing, face off. Two, really big hitters here. We had the Pol Roger Cuvee Winston Churchill 2015 against Gusbourne, England Gusbourne 51 degrees north. So their absolute prestige cuvee 2016. So we’re a year apart here. Two big names and two big price tags. You know, the Gosborne’s almost 200 pounds and the Churchill it varies but it’s, it’s around the same. You know, I think Majestic have it at the moment for £226. But but you know, they’re similar. They really are similar.

Peter: Now we had quite different results here, so I’m going to get my tuppence in first, if you don’t mind. I found the Churchill to be quite sort of self contained and reserved. It was definitely serious. You know, it was quite chalky with lots of density but just not very harmonious right now. it needed to soften, so maybe a bit young. I gave it a good mark but not a stellar mark. And then the Gasbourne, you know, I found that actually a little angular as well. Neither of these for me sat really easily. They were wines I would want to see in five, ten years, you know. But the Gasborne had really wonderful intensity. Tea, woolly and lemony. So, you know, two really interesting wines, but I found them quite inscrutable. Quite hard to get to come to terms with. You were. This is.

Susie: We did disagree on this one. So I, I just think what the heck was going on with the Churchill. I just wonder if it’s the vintage, you know, because it’s 2015 and 2015 was, I think, you know, there was. There was a drought, which, Some people are then attributing this slightly vegetal. Almost all. Almost sort of Botrytis in a bad way. I. I got on this wine, but just this weirdly vegetal kind of character. And it just seemed a bit dull as well. I mean, that didn’t overwhelm the wine, but it just. It was decent, not exciting. And that’s not what I expect from Winston Churchill.

Peter: Exactly.

Susie: By comparison, for me, the Gsborne was anything but dull. you know, one criticism I might have, because it was definitely in my note, the acidity was. Was a tiny bit high for the balance of the wine. But, you know, we are talking

00:30:00

Susie: England. Acidity tends to be high and it really is a great example of England at its best. I got that. Reductive, nutty, creamy, lemon, mineral, loads of flavour. And, yeah, I. I like this wine a lot.

Peter: You often can’t criticise. Topping list, sparkly wine for being. For lacking character or intensity. It’s often full. It’s often a bit too full on.

Susie: It can be.

Peter: And actually, 2016, you know, as we know, it was quite an intense vintage, wasn’t it? It gave some pretty intense flavours.

Susie: 2016 was interesting in the sense that it’s quite a small harvest and it was a harvest of two halves because you had a cool, wet start and then a warm, dry finish. Equally, the east of the country fared better than the west, and that’s where Gusbourne is, because it was drier. So I think, maybe just wine.

Peter: To leave and come back to you.

Susie: Yeah, no, absolutely. They’re definitely long lived, really.

Peter: Did.

Susie: Yeah. There’s some other 2016s. Gorgeous at the moment.

Peter: Right, so, moving on, we’ve got the. The, the pairing of the nino Franco Grave Di Stecca Prosecco Valdobiane 2015. And that was up against the, Egly Ouriet VP, which means Vieillissement Prolongee. 2016 Grand Cru. the Egly is about 120. Of course, we’ve had the Eglys, the lovely Eglys on the pod. Wonderful people, wonderful wines. and that was up against Prosecco. The Prosecco, to be fair, is about 20, 28 to 30 pounds. So it’s not, I know you’re gonna go hard. Don’t go too hard. Because I think it was interesting to have different things in this tasting. I thought it was a slightly oddball pairing. Maybe. Maybe it didn’t really work. But, you know, you can’t fit everything into a tasting either.

Susie: No. And what would you put Prosecco up against?

Peter: And of course the Prosecco because. Partly because what you’re driving at the Prosecco is, is made from the Glera grape variety and it’s made in the tank method Charmat, which is different from all the other wines here. albeit, you know, the Prosecco is a single vineyard. It’s a very fine example to my mind. Mind. But then it’s up against an incredibly rich, powerful, possibly one of the most characterful wines in the entire tasting. The Egly Ouriet.

Susie: Yeah, I mean, I think it’s where things went a little bit pear shaped for me. I mean, it was. And talking about it was as if you’d been tasting and sort of assessing a range of different apples, I think. And then. And they’re all different because they’re different types of apple. And then suddenly someone throws in a pair and you think, what’s that doing literally pear shaped. but yeah, it was, it was definitely decent, but it didn’t fit in the lineup. it was. I, I think it would have been very difficult to find the right champagne to pair with this, but maybe one that was less expensive and a bit more, you know, a standard champagne. But the Eglis was fantastic. Gorgeous, gorgeous, gorgeous.

Peter: As I say, for me, possibly one of the most complex wines on show. Sort of baked apple, leathery dry white fruit, chocolate, almost sherried sort of complexity.

Susie: I mean, if you haven’t tried grow a Champagne by, you know, any chance. I’m sure a lot of our listeners have, but if you haven’t, Egli Orier is a name to really try.

Peter: They’re not cheap, but, you know, the best grower champagnes, we had a few in here, but this was the one that shined the most. You know, I wrote about this wine. Life’s too short for boring fizz. And this is completely.

Susie: It was a difficult vintage. 2016.

Peter: I know.

Susie: What a wine.

Peter: The precision, the attention to detail, that small spicker scale, focus can give you what a wine. What a wine. So really interesting pairing, but maybe not, not the.

Susie: No, no. And, and, and actually the next one was. Was not my favourite either, really. And we. So we had a Sekt from Germany and I’m going to Z. Sorry, Zed. Z. My pronunciation always gets criticised. So we had the NV Weingut, Karthauserhofberg Hofberg Sekt from Ruwer in Germany. That was about 40 to 50 pounds. And then we had Champagne Drappier Quattor we think we say, quator non vintage. how much is that? That’s about £95. So what’s interesting about this is it’s made from heritage varieties, isn’t it? The, the champagne. Yeah.

Peter: Yeah.

Susie: So what did, I mean, what did you think? I, I, I didn’t think either really sang for me.

Peter: Neither really sang and neither are cheap. So it was a bit, I’m not sure, maybe one not to spend too much time on. Obviously the Drappier is made from the lesser known grape varieties, as you said. So Arbane, Petit Melier Blanc Vray and Chardonnay

Susie: Vray is Pinot Blanc, isn’t it?

Peter: And, and the Sekt was made from Riesling and Pinot Blanc. So different grapes, a bit of a kind of, you can sort of see.

Susie: Why they put those two together. Slightly interesting comparison.

Peter: But neither really sang, unfortunately.

Susie: No, no, actually, there we go. Yeah. So let’s move on from that.

Peter: A couple of really interesting ones too.

Susie: So. Yes. So then we moved on to a pair that included a Cava and then a Brut Nature Champagne. So we had the 2011 Recaredo Turo Den Mota Cava from Penedes in Spain, which is between 130 and 160 pounds. So one of the really euros. Okay. But you know, it’s not far. It’s pretty much the same these days. and then 2015 champagne roederer, Philip Stark. Brute nature.

Peter: Yeah, it’s a quite interesting pairing. Yeah, it’s brute natures.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: They’re both using a bit of oak fermentation. but the recarredo, a single vintage vineyard, single walled vineyard. It’s quite an amazing story. And 12 and a half years on the lees.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: Again, that sort of

00:35:00

Peter: maturation period in the cellar. so, yeah, I thought it was quite an interesting comparison.

Susie: Yeah, I do. And I thought the Recaredo, to be fair, in terms of, what was most successful in the Cava Sekt Prosecco gang. In this tasting, I think this was the most, most successful for me. It was initially a little bit nutty, reductive, elegant. It did go a little bit oily in the mid palate, but I thought it was pretty good. And I actually loved the Philip Stark. I’m going to get this in straight away. To me, this one showed that zero dosage can work when the wine is good enough and there’s balance there. So I like this. I don’t think you quite agree.

Peter: I’m going to disagree with you, about the Roederer. You know, I just found it a little bit lean and dusty on the finish particularly. And actually she wrote a bit lean and pinched for what should be a fun, joyous drink. So, picking up on your rose comment, this one for me didn’t really work.

Susie: Okay.

Peter: But, you know, respect. That’s fine. You know, it worked for you. Didn’t work so well for me. but I do agree with you about the reccaredo. Really impressive, characterful, edgy, but in a good way. Very fine mousse. Again, maybe just fell away a little bit on the finish. And how often do we say that when these wines are really low dosage?

Susie: Just a bit of dosage. Just a bit of dosage. Anyway, shall we move on to the final pair?

Peter: Do you want to announce the final pair? Because this was. This was something.

Susie: This was what a way to finish.

Peter: Which, again, we didn’t have no idea why we were tasting these.

Susie: Sarah and Ronan knew what they were.

Peter: Doing because there’s an argument to put some of the really good wines at the beginning because, you know, you’re fresh.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: But didn’t they save the best for last?

Susie: It didn’t matter. They were the best. Well, they were some of the absolute best. And so we had dom Perignon in 2013 and we had the 2010 Nyetimber 1086. It’s called from the UK.

Peter: Yeah. It’s a bit confusing, that name. It’s not 1086 vintage, obviously.

Susie: So let’s explain. The 1086 is from the Domesday Book and it’s the first mention of the Valley of Nitimbrea in 1086. So.

Peter: And that’s where it comes from. You’re saying your pronunciation isn’t brilliant. There’s that lovely Middle English, mediaeval history.

Susie: Now you’re all over mediaeval English. I can do mediaeval English. Oh, easy. It’s so useful.

Peter: I’m all mediaeval anyway, so, yeah, so I thought, you know, they saved the big drama to the end, as we’ve said. this was a sensational showdown. So interesting. Such a privilege to be able to do. On the one hand, obviously, champagne icon Dom perignon from the 2013 vintage. About 190, 200. Yeah. Ish pounds. On the other hand, the sort of in the English Corner, Nyetimber 1086 from the 2010 vintage. So tiny bit older. 150 pounds. And guess which one.

Susie: Well, we all know which one won. You know, I love the fact that Nyetimber was up against, Dom Perignon. I actually went to the launch of this wine which. This was the first they made the, the, the Night Timber. They ah, launched, launched it in 2019 and at the time I said it’s quite young and I think what’s happened is, you know, it’s had another six years now and it’s tasting fantastic. It was a very successful vintage for them.

Peter: Yeah, but you rated that quite highly.

Susie: Highly then. Well, because I said it’s fantastic. It just needs more time. and it was a very successful vintage for them. They then didn’t make 2011 and 2012, they’ve made 2013 and they make a. As well, which I think 2013 is a current. I think it is, yeah. Yeah. And and the rose is also fantastic. So, you know, the, the Dom Perignon showed really well. It was very champagne. It was really, it was characterful, which is what we’re all looking for. But there was just something so bold and beautiful and savoury and elegant. So mouth watering hedonistic, but in the best possible way again. Yeah.

Peter: So I think your scores, if I’m not wrong, were sort of one point apart.

Susie: They were very close plays for you. But I, I scored, I was less scatter scoring generally. I. There were, there was a lot of times when scattered. You said it first.

Peter: If I go for it, I love it. If I don’t, I don’t.

Susie: But no, I just kept my scores much closer.

Peter: Yeah. But for you, Night Timber just edged it.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: So Night Timber beat Dom Perennial in this.

Susie: How many times are you going to say that?

Peter: But we are going to disagree again.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: I agree with you on the Nightember. I think we scored the Nightmbre exactly the same.

Susie: Actually.

Peter: It was one of my wines of the tasting. Seriously complex, rich, characterful, as you said, hedonistic, beautiful wine. Don’t use that word very often. but where we do differ is on the Dom Perennial dp. I’ve never been a massive fan of dp. I find it a very specific style which I just happen not to like. but more than that, it’s not just the style, that smoky, lemony, pithy, reductive style, it’s what’s beyond that. I don’t find there’s enough there for this to carry to demand the price it does. And I was really interested. Again, totally blind. I didn’t know anything. I gave this one of my lowest scores of the tasting. I have to be honest. So there we are.

Susie: You’re wrong. No.

Peter: Happy being wrong.

Susie: I was really interested.

00:40:00

Susie: Well, I would. I. The only Last thing I would add is, you know, I’m not usually a big fan of dp, but I genuinely loved the fact it was in there and that we could taste it totally blind, you know, up against a great wine. So it had to perform well to be next to Nyetimber and. And for me, it. It did.

Peter: So.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: Okay.

Susie: Come on.

Peter: So personal.

Susie: Personal preferences.

Peter: Personal, conclusions.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: In terms of our individual preferences, I get first. So my top wines were Bollinger RD 2008, Egly Ouriet VP 2016 and Cloudy Bay Pelorus Rose NV. Those were my top three. So M. Followed by. Sorry, I just throw a few mine. 2013, Nyetimber 1086, Krug and Dom Ruinart.

Susie: Yeah. So I went for Night Timber as my top wine. and Krug. And in fact, I. I think. I think they scored the same. The Night Timber, the Krug and the Roederer Quartet. I scored those three. I remember, exactly the same. Roger Quartet.

Peter: Can you believe it?

Susie: Also then really liked Dom Ruinart Eric Rodez Champagne, Dom Perignon, as we’ve said, Bollinger RD and Egly Ouriet.

Peter: So when you combine our scores, which I don’t think mine were a bit more scatter, but, given you gave a hundred top three, Bollinger RD Nyetimber 1086, Egly Ouriet VP. What a. What a trio.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: Quickly followed by Cloudy Bay, Pelorus, Krug. So, yeah, some really interesting results there.

Susie: Yeah. But actually going back to that, you know, I had gusborne in one of those. My top, top slots as well. So, yeah, anyway, I think. Yeah, just talk a couple of points. And one of them, I think we’re going to come back wind back to the dosage issue, and I don’t want to go on and on about it. You know, my Master of wine dissertation was about zero dosage wines. So, you know, I probably talk about it too much. But there is a trend to go very low on the dosage front. And when you looked at these wines where we. Where we knew the dosage, where we’ve been able to find the dosage, and a lot of them are low, except when you look at Nyetimber and Gasborne, they’re not low. They’re at the slightly higher end. And I just think it’s sommelier saying to producers, oh, you need to go low. That’s the current trend, you know, and it might make sense on paper, but it doesn’t make sense. What rarely makes sense when you taste the wines that often too dry. And what happens when they’re Too dry. They just kind of fall away on the finish or even in the middle of the palate It. Because the balance just isn’t.

Peter: They don’t age so well. Dosage enables the wine to age and I think this trend to low dosage is damaging. I think it’s a shame. I think people have gone too far. I think the pendulum needs to swing back a bit now. You know, there are some low dosage wines in this tasting that are absolutely glorious. I love the Bollinger RD. That’s very low. It’s about three and a half grammes per litre of sugar. That’s pretty low dosage, but it’s very specific cases. Low dosage can work when the wine has been aged very specifically. And it’s just not for everyone specifically.

Susie: Specific style, you know, that you just go, yeah, no, that really, really works.

Peter: Exactly.

Susie: But it’s rare and. And I think you’ve got to have the right wine.

Peter: So we would say. We would question that trend for low dosage. and say we, you know, people need to think about that a little bit.

Susie: Yeah. I think, I think such appropriate dosage is more important.

Peter: Much better to be balanced and delicious and joyful than it is to be trendy.

Susie: Doesn’t matter what level it is. Zero or not.

Peter: You know, whatever.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: Anyway. Okay. And I’m gonna follow that up by my. What I took away from this tasting, which was that life is too short for dull fizz. it’s, you know, for too long we’ve been brainwashed and I’m afraid to say the champenois are partly to blame for this, with their non vintage cuvets, which sell what, 80, 90% of their production non vintage cuvets. And I’ve been with the cellar master who said, I’m blending this literally to be as inoffensive to as many people as possible. That’s wrong. That is. That’s wines made for blandness. You know, we want. We demand character in our wines. Personality, joy, entertainment. We want to be entertained by our wines, by our sparkly wines more than anything else. Absolutely. There is a place for elegance, of course, there’s a place for restraint. But the best wines, you know, are bursting with joy and personality. In this tasting, you want a wine to transfix you. That can be done in a quieter register, but that’s harder to do. We want delicious, delicious, fun, entertaining fizz.

Susie: Yeah.

Peter: Did I get done? That’s very cathartic for me. I feel like I’ve got a massive weight off.

Susie: Anything else? Any other conclusions?

Peter: Probably a few Other things to throw.

Susie: In, do you think? I mean. Well, I would say sparkling is a really hot category at the moment. You know, it’s popular and. And this is proof that the. The quality is just getting better and better from all around the world, including champagne.

Peter: Yeah, I thought it was really interesting that. What, for me. Well, for me, it really wasn’t very easy to spot origin. It wasn’t as if the champagne stuck out. You know, that was definitely champagne.

Susie: That wasn’t really.

Peter: Wasn’t easy, was it?

Susie: Sometimes, but. But not usually.

Peter: I think that’s a really positive thing. You know, it proves that quality in class is improving all around the world. And I think that’s great for us, sparkling wine lovers.

Susie: I mean, I think it was more about the difference in style. You, know, some were richer, some were finer, and some were aged

00:45:00

Susie: in oak barrels, and some were very low dosage, as we said. But there is room for all styles, as long as there’s. They’re well judged, well made, and there are lots out there, lots of different styles that are fantastic. So this is a great time to be drinking fizz.

Peter: It is just that. and of course, you know, this was mainly the Prosecco aside. I guess it was mainly a tasting of one kind of sparkling wine, wasn’t it? The traditional method, the champagne method of sparkling wine, the Champagne style. You know, there’s so much stuff going on outside of that now, isn’t there? you know, in a kind of fizz revolution, you know, tank styles, the Charmat, the Prosecco revolution, like the Col Fondo, you know, there’s so much innovation, ancestral methods, old methods being revived now. This is such an exciting time.

Susie: It is. And, you know, I mean, not to sound too dismal, but Champagne, the Champagne region has been having a tough time, you know, lately. Sales have been falling, there’s been some strikes recently, but. But the quality is there, and we just keep. Need to keep drinking things.

Peter: Champagne will carry on. We want it to thrive. It’s a beautiful region making some absolutely superlative wines. it’s having a few troubles right now, isn’t everyone? but, you know, it will come out stronger, so cheers to Champagne. So, yeah, a stunning tasting with a stunning result. I hope you’ve enjoyed this impromptu podcast. please do give us a nice rating and review or comment if you have enjoyed it. We’d love to hear your. Your views on this one as well, because I’m aware this could be slightly contentious.

Susie: Indeed it will, I hope, but thanks. We need to give some thanks to you to Hannah Tovey, Director of the London Wine Fair, for making the tasting happen and for inviting us along to judge it. Thanks also to Ronan Sayburn and Sarah Abbott for selecting such brilliant wines and leading the tasting so professionally. Ah, on which note, we should have a little shout out to, I think, to Dion and Iona for impeccable service during the tasting, and also to Sally Bishop for her help researching the episode.

Peter: It was. This was a big team effort. Thank you to everyone. And of course, thanks to you for listening and for watching. Until next time. Cheers.

00:47:07