Dom Pérignon in Three Acts

BY ANTONIO GALLONI | NOVEMBER 16, 2017

One of the most fascinating aspects of Champagne is its ability to transform over time. This remarkable tasting provided a truly once in a lifetime opportunity to compare the three principal releases of Dom Pérignon across a number of iconic vintages of the 1960s and 1970s. 

I have had many unforgettable tastings during my annual visits to Dom Pérignon, but I don’t think I have ever had an opportunity to taste so many of the house’s Champagnes in a single sitting. This retrospective was organized and hosted by a collector from the Midwest for the simple pleasure of sharing the wines with a group of close friends. We tasted the Champagnes over dinner at Michael White’s Marea. Wine Director Francesco Grosso did a fabulous job looking after the wines. Every aspect of service was spot on.

Dom Pérignon is Moët & Chandon’s tête de cuvée, although today, it is marketed as a separate brand. One of Champagne’s first luxury cuvées, Dom Pérignon was introduced in 1936 with the 1921 vintage. Today, Dom Pérignon is released at three separate moments in time that correspond to what Chef de Caves Richard Geoffroy calls ‘plenitudes,’ that roughly equate to the three distinct phases of a wine’s evolution. (In decades past, Dom Pérignon was released in many smaller batches.) The original release is aged on crown seal while wines in the P2 and P3 (formerly Oenothèque) program are aged on cork. Extended time on the cork tends to bring out the signature reductive character that is Dom Pérignon the single most distinctive attribute.

Four wines in Dom Pérignon’s Oenothèque (P2) series

A few years ago, Dom Pérignon changed the name of their late-release program from Oenothèque to P2 and P3. On a positive note, the distinctions between the P2 and P3 release are clearer than in the past. Unfortunately, Dom Pérignon also decided to remove the year of disgorgement from the back labels for these wines, which makes it impossible for consumers to differentiate from the different disgorgement years for P2 and P3 wines. At a time when Champagne has largely embraced a much more open, consumer-friendly approach, Dom Pérignon has intentionally gone in the opposite direction. Given the eye-popping sums these bottles fetch, I do not think a little information is too much to ask for. As a consumer, I personally do not find much allure in the black box approach.

Multiple threads were woven throughout this tasting. Of course, it was fascinating to compare the three main releases across a number of iconic vintages. In the past, I have often preferred the original release, but in this tasting, the most consistent wines where those from the Oenothèque or P2 series. The 1960s and 1970s were also a period of tremendous change in Champagne. Yields were generally lower during this time than they became during the 1980s, when newer clones planted with the express goal of increasing yields came online. At Dom Pérignon fermentations gradually moved from oak to stainless steel from 1959 to 1966. Similarly, crown seal replaced cork for the main release from 1973 to 1976.

The Abbey at Hauvillers, where Benedictine monk Dom Pérignon is widely credited with a number of innovations in the early history of Champagne during the 17th century