I will be celebrating on zoom with friends from the U.K. at 6 pm my time so I won’t already be so drunk as to not taste the difference. I’m sure I just know Bollinger from James Bond films, but is it decent enough? How dry is it?
I’m not looking to break the bank, but I don’t want the hangover inducing cheap stuff either.
I’m not terribly familiar with it, but my impression is that it’s considered good. But there are many to choose from and quite a range ($50+ to $300+)
If you get a Brut, it should be dry and crisp.
As one reviewer remarked:
Triumphant complexity is a given at Bollinger, but it’s the dynamic freshness and vitality that really set it apart as one of the most affordable Champagne benchmarks.
Whatever that means (it sounds good).
I always thought of Bollinger as more of a brand than a drink because of the Bond association. Personally, I think Moet is the best sub-$50 bottle out there (but my family drinks Veuve Clicquot).
As already mentioned, Bollinger is a winery that makes a few different types of champagne. They’re a relatively high end winery, so you can expect their champagnes to be fairly dry. Are you getting the Special Cuvee Brut, at around $60? It seems to be a well respected champagne.
Bollinger is one of my favorite Non-Vintage Champagnes. Their Vintage “Grand Annee” is awesome too. They’re known for fermenting in oak barrels instead of tanks, (like Krug, FWIW) and for releasing a lot of Recently Disgorged cuvees.
Very heavy bodied Champagne, which I like, but it’s not as light as, say, Delamotte.
As noted, Brut is dry. I.e., the residual sugar is below the threshold of taste. “Extra Brut” and “Brut Zero” denote Champagnes without dosage. They’re also usually thinner and ‘shriller’ tasting than Brut. YMMV.
$60 sounds like a perfect price range. Definitely want to keep it under $100. And definitely dry, my knowledge of wine is minimal but I definitely know dry enough to see dust is my preference