Tasting Review | Dom Pérignon Vertical: A Richard Geoffroy Retrospective

To honour Richard Geoffroy’s magnificent achievements from 1990 to 2009, we hosted a once-in-a-lifetime champagne tasting: a comparison of all 15 Blanc vintages and 7 of the 11 Rosé vintages declared during his tenure. The 23 champagnes tasted incorporated all three levels of Plénitude, a concept initiated by Geoffory to highlight the unique evolutionary stages of Dom Pérignon’s development.

The tasting was presented by Richard Geoffroy, his successor Vincent Chaperon, and Jancis Robinson MW. The champagnes were tasted sighted, blancs first followed by the rosés, in consecutive order from youngest to oldest. We asked Simon Field MW to write-up the event; his review and tasting notes can be read below.

A selection of photographs from the evening can also be viewed at the end of the article. Photo Credit: Matt Martin Photography.


The Best of All Possible Tastings

It took place, by happy coincidence, on Voltaire’s birthday; the nod of one great philosopher to another perhaps. One should maybe be careful about over-eulogising a ‘mere’ winemaker, but in this instance, the temptation to make an exception is overwhelming, despite the conspicuous absence of Dr Pangloss throughout proceedings.

No need to add gloss of any kind to such an extraordinary tasting, the most fitting tribute possible to the gentleman who has done more than any other to build the reputation of this great wine in his 28-year tenure as Chef de Cave at Champagne Dom Pérignon. From 1990 until 2018 Richard Geoffroy has sculpted a peerless range, and now he hands over to a worthy successor, 42-year-old Vincent Chaperon, who has been shadowing the master since 2005. Richard, a polymath and a former chemist, is to go and make saké in Japan. What a fascinating prospect…

It was a great privilege to taste these 23 peerless wines (all 15 of Geoffroy’s blancs and 7 of his 11 rosés), all the more so as we were treated to such valuable insights from maestro and apprentice alike. The event was superbly hosted by another double act, Anglo-Saxon this time; Nick Baker, of course, and Jancis Robinson MW, who provided an excellent commentary on the wines themselves.

Baker, who also proved to be a most adept auctioneer, got it just right when he said that “Richard Geoffroy is as famous as Dom Pérignon himself”, the “human face” of such a large house and, pace Jancis, the “great communicator of Champagne”. No-one felt inclined to disagree, especially two and a half hours later… Geoffroy’s first communication was somewhat pithy… “this is going to be the mother of all DP tastings.” And so it proved.

The aphorisms quickly acquired a more cerebral tone, as we learnt the thinking behind the highly successful Plénitude concept, the chemistry behind the interplay of oxidation and reduction which lies behind autolytic conversion and the psychology behind the maintenance of such a powerful deluxe brand in a sector which sometimes displays careless and even crass demotic tendencies.

“To work at Dom Pérignon one has to first do a master’s degree in philosophy,” says Richard, and his philosophy is clearly enunciated in triplicate… “more, more, more” … one must, he maintains, “continue to push the envelope” in order to produce a “fuller, richer and more substantial” wine, yet one which maintains the Champenois leitmotif of consistency of style whilst at the same time, almost paradoxically, underlining vintage character. In a sense this tension, between consistency and individuality, mirrors the structural tension of the liquid itself, where acidity and sugar, fruit and texture, have to be woven together with great dexterity and artistic nous.

The additional factor to consider, of course, is the ageing of the wine, sometimes misunderstood in Champagne, whence the philosophy of the Plénitudes, brilliantly named to capture almost cosmological phases of development and to underline the self-evident fact of evolution of taste profile by allowing the same wine three different ageing regimes. The fist plenitude is the ‘normal’ release after 8 years or so; the second comes after 15 years and replaces the Oenothèque model and the final, rarest, will be between twenty and thirty years of ageing, rare and magnificent as the 1990 wine so eloquently demonstrated.

On the subject of eloquence, there can be few with such a memorable turn of phrase as Monsieur Geoffroy; the poetry and profundity evidenced in all of the wines is also finely wrought into a linguistic feast. One example of many; “DP is about memory. We are memory makers… it’s all about harmony here and harmony is more intense than power. Intensity is emotion and emotion is memory.” With an almost haiku-like beauty Geoffroy encapsulates a life-time’s work in a few words.

And it’s hard to resist just one more Geoffroyism, on the evening when the great man revealed the magnificent 2008 Legacy Edition… “Beyond vision there is legacy, and it is only with a sound technical platform that one can support such a legacy.” With Chaperon the legacy seems assured and with this line-up its potency is unparalleled. Geoffroy, with characteristic wit summed up by wishing his successor well… “you are very lucky,” he said to Chaperon; “you have 2012 DP to come,” adding with a smile… “don’t mess it up!” We are sure that he will not, but good luck all the same, Chaperon… maybe, on the basis of this tasting, Voltaire was, after all, wrong to be anxious about achieving “the best of all possible worlds.”

Richard Geoffroy is retiring after 28 years as Chef de Cave at Dom Pérignon


His successor, Vincent Chaperon, will take over in January 2019


Ultra-rare 6L Methuselah of Dom Pérignon 2002



Dom Pérignon P1 2009 | Group Avg. Score: 17.6/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 17.5+/20 | Rank: =20
60% PN, 40% CH | Lees Ageing: 7 Years | Disgorged: October 2016 | Dosage: 7 g/l | Post-Disgorgement Ageing: 2 Years
08 and 09 are chalk and cheese, as it were, their personalities informing an inversion in release date, the latter vintage riper and fuller, ‘solaire’ by temperament and generous of figure. Some 09s, according to Geoffroy, are “too fat” but here he achieves “creamy opulence” because the essentially reductive winemaking compromises the extra ripeness. Does this make sense… ? Only tasting will tell. Yes it does; full-bodied and a touch exotic, certainly, but the taut acidity runs through it, a shard of excellence and finely tempered indulgence… Jancis is quite right to describe this as an extrovert.
Dom Pérignon Legacy Edition 2008 | Group Avg. Score: 18.4/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 18.5/20 | Rank: =8
50% PN, 50% CH | Lees Ageing: ~9 Years | Dosage: 4 g/l
The first of what may be described as an embarrassment of exclusivities throughout the tasting, such was their frequency, a great wine from a great year, its name fittingly rendered on bottle and the memory alike. 2008 is described as a “miracle year” by Chaperon; everything looked set to go wrong and yet it all ended flirting with perfection. It’s that tension thing again. He maintains that 2008 actually has more flesh than 1996 but does not dismiss the comparison completely. The 2008 is more athletic, he thinks, without revealing in which discipline. A suspicion of reduction blows off quickly; flowers, citric fruit, a fine filigree of self-belief, long chalky and linear. A magnificently confident introvert, if such a thing is possible.
Dom Pérignon P1 2006 | Group Avg. Score: 17.8/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 17/20 | Rank: 16
60% CH, 40% PN | Lees Ageing: ~8 Years | Dosage: 5 g/l
Contrary to received wisdom, 2006 is presented as a “more difficult vintage than 2005”, with low acidity and a high Ph provoking doubts as to the harmony and integrity of the wine’s finish. The lengthy yeast maturation proved redemptive and I have to admit being rather taken with this one; a touch milky, with butterscotch then mango and a gentle hint of brioche. The acidity seemed very bright to me, linear and poised, the autolytic legacy informing the finish and leaving an enigmatic savoury note, itself underwriting inherent complexity. Jancis found this one “flirtatious”; and it was indeed hard to resist its charms. The spittoons had a night off.
Dom Pérignon P1 2005 Magnum | Group Avg. Score: 17.7/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 18.5/20 | Rank: =17 NB
60% CH, 40% PN | Lees Ageing: ~8 Years | Dosage: 5 g/l
2005 was a tricky vintage with rain and botrytis punctuating the sleep patterns of the vigneron. It was harvested at great speed, quite the opposite of 2008, and turned out to be a very fine vintage for Pinot Noir. Geoffroy notes that this one merits the “iron fist in velvet glove” descriptor; it is rich and almost heady at the front of the mouth (Jancis is spot on with “mandarin peel”) but then more austere the nearer one gets to resolution. At the moment the piece is searching for a home key, its melodies lingering with no lack of ethereal charm however, orchard fruit, honeysuckle and a chalky resonance. The larger format has no doubt contributed to its reticence.
Dom Pérignon P1 2004 Jeroboam | Group Avg. Score: 18.1/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 17.5/20 | Rank: =13
53% PN, 47% CH | Lees Ageing: ~8 Years | Dosage: 5 g/l
A jeroboam seems fitting to celebrate such an abundant harvest. For once quality and quantity were happy bed-fellows, especially in the vineyards of the Côte des Blancs. Geoffroy said that in 2004 he had the confidence and experience to stand back a little and to allow nature to do its worst, or, in this instance, its best… he describes 04’s appeal in terms of a “substantial embrace” and there is certainly a generous and almost sensual character to this wine, finely manicured and yet still a little timid in such company. I agree with Chaperon, however, when he praises a “glorious nose”; that faint touch of reduction and woodsmoke held in perfect counterpoint with the nascent fruit character. Jancis admires the “tension on the finish and the overall edge and excitement of the wine” … my notes spill out ono the page, but the adjectives that I can decipher celebrate vibrancy and complexity, an overall radiance, which is, as Geoffroy concludes, with pleasing understatement “very quaffable indeed”. Quite so.
Dom Pérignon P1 2003 | Group Avg. Score: 18.2/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 17.5+/20 | Rank: 12
53% PN, 47% CH | Lees Ageing: ~8 Years | Dosage: 5 g/l
I struggled a little with the 2003, so had better be careful with what I write, especially as I know that Geoffroy cites it amongst his favourites. A famously hot year, with partial shutdown of the photosynthetic process and correspondingly low yields at DP of 20 hl/ha, 2003 was far from typical and far from universally declared. Geffroy notes the paradox that this, the warmest vintage, has been amongst the slowest to mature; his only regret is maybe releasing it a touch too soon, which may have over-emphasised the phenolic grip at the back of the palate. He teases us gently by advising that 03 will be back soon, the P2 manifestation being disgorged at the moment. A fascinating prospect. The P1 recalls a Viennese bakery, with someone also warming up an apple charlotte somewhere in the background. A hint of caramel and toffee apple too, warm and generous, just maybe a little tight or even dry on the finish.
Dom Pérignon P1 2002 Methuselah | Group Avg. Score: 18.9/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 19/20 | Rank: =3
51% CH, 49% PN | Lees Ageing: 11 Years | Disgorged: 2014 | Dosage: 6 g/l | Post-Disgorgement Ageing: 4 Years
Yes that’s right, 6 litres, thus a Methuselah. And 2002 to boot. And then the 75cl format of the P2 to follow; it really is a case of treat jostling with treat as someone once said. This one is Methuselah No 40 out of 200 made and it certainly looks the part. Lots and lots of photographs were taken. 2002 certainly ranks alongside 2008 when it comes to selecting the vintages of the decade. In this format it is still closed, a little reserved; this vintage above all juxtaposes restraint and latent generosity; a wonderful enigma in every way. Dorian Gray behind a different type of glass. Ironically it was well-timed rainfall at the end of August and a little thereafter, which sealed the deal with this vintage. Geoffroy describes it as “a Montrachet with a little added CO2”.
Dom Pérignon P2 2002 | Group Avg. Score: 18.9/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 19.5/20 | Rank: =3
51% CH, 49% PN
Yet another exclusive preview, this P2 has not yet been released, with 2019 looking likely. And it still got my (joint) highest mark. So here is the first P2 of the evening and a fitting moment for Richard to wax lyrical again; P2, he says, “goes beyond Champagne”. The wine must be “inviting” and therefore marry gravitas and profundity on the wine side, with a playful almost ludic spirit on the other, thereby underscoring that inherent tension, conceptual and gustatory, which underpins the whole evening. P2, he says, must be “deeper, richer, longer… better than P1” … otherwise why release it? Jancis praises the “drive”, the vinosity and the length. The sweet and savoury indulge us in a seductive embrace: Gustav Klimt in a glass maybe. Outstanding.
Dom Pérignon P2 2000 Magnum | Group Avg. Score: 18.6/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 19.5/20 | Rank: 6
51% CH, 49% PN
2000 is described as a year of transition in the DP story, child of a slightly temperamental year, which did not want for admirers given its pivotal millennial identity. Since 192, DP has seldom been “austere” according to Geoffroy, but since 2000 he feels that the overall balance of the blend and identity of the vintage have been captured with more fidelity and more confidence. It is not always easy to respect the minutiae of the interplay between structure and texture, between freshness and maturity but that has been Geoffroy’s goal, now bequeathed to Chaperon. Don’t ask how many bottles are made; just ask if the wine is any good. Yes it is. The 2000 today is one of the tightest wines on display, surprisingly, a little leafy in places and maybe a touch stretched on the finish. My mark seems parsimonious, I know, but today I am really marking in context and with the bar set unusually high…
Dom Pérignon P1 1999 Magnum | Group Avg. Score: 18.3/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 17/20 | Rank: 11
51% CH, 49% PN | Lees Ageing: ~8 Years | Dosage: 6 g/l
1999 was a warmer vintage in the mould of 2009; a large crop after a slightly rainy end of season. Picking time, as always, was essential, its timing dictated by the long view and the need to adopt a prescient approach. This wine, for all the reputation of the vintage, is surprisingly steely at first then the vista broadens with figs, quince and the orange groves all prospected, the flinty almost saline character recaptured at the back, affording symmetrical harmony and no shortage of satisfaction.
Dom Pérignon P2 1998 | Group Avg. Score: 18.4/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 18/20 | Rank: =8
55% CH, 45% PN | Lees Ageing: 16 Years | Disgorged: 2015 | Dosage: 6.5 g/l | Post-Disgorgement Ageing: 3 Years
I have always loved 98 in Champagne, and felt it was a bit under-valued after the endless debates on 96 and before the glories of 2002 et al. I note, however, that I changed my mark over the course of the tasting from 19 to 18 and wonder therefore if the wine was just too open and expressive and perhaps after a few minutes lost a little of that immediate joie de vivre. 18 is an exceptional score, for all that. Richard advises that too many growers picked early after a very hot August, worried by the rain that had been forecast. The rain came, Richard waited, and the gamble paid off; balance rather than dilution, complexity rather than compromise. Excellence in all things. For all that the personality of the wine majors on fruit rather than ‘minerality’; we have pineapple, almond, frangipani and even a little mango; Arcimboldo would make a very complete painting with all this fruit. A lick of toffee on the finish, maybe, mocha perhaps; a soupçon of sweetness at the end of the meal.
Dom Pérignon P2 1996 | Group Avg. Score: 18.8/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 19.5/20 | Rank: 5
50% PN, 50% CH | Lees Ageing: ~15 Years | Dosage: 6 g/l
A great deal of ink and maybe even wine has been spilled in Champagne and Burgundy in discussing 1996, with dreaded phrases such as ‘premox’ to the fore and well-bred anxiety about investment potential and all the rest of it. Geoffroy is punchy at first; he describes 1996 as “insolent”, its profile informed above all by the north-east wind which provoked dehydration in the berries, somehow engendering the famously high acidity but also very impressive sugar levels. I got a little lost in the chemistry at this point… He admits that he may well have picked later if he had his time again. Be that as it may, this P2 is stunning; an exquisite perfume, violets and jasmine, painfully small bubbles and such commanding energy and power on the palate that the room, full as it was of international aficionados, was left for a while in silent awe, as when a conductor slowly lowers his baton at the need of a particularly moving piece of music. Then came the appreciation, the chat, the description and the debate were resumed… a special moment… can well understand why Baker set up his company on the basis of this wine alone!
Dom Pérignon P2 1995 | Group Avg. Score: 18.1/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 19/20 | Rank: =13
55% CH, 45% PN | Lees Ageing: 19 Years | Disgorged: 2015 | Dosage: 6 g/l | Post-Disgorgement Ageing: 3 Years
The most impressive, albeit not without competition, of the ‘head-to-head’ pairings was that between the 95 and 96, the yin and yang of recent vintages, the former maybe riper, warmer, more of a cavalier, the latter therefore more cerebral and more of a round-head. There is no civil war here, merely partnership and constructive comparison and the 95 stuns with its ripe and forward personality. Jancis, as usual, is spot on when she describes it as “good to go” praising the power and energy and not least, gastronomic potential. Here a symphony of ripe fruit, a creamy texture and a savoury end-game. Perfectly àpoint and perfectly delicious… bravo!
Dom Pérignon P2 1993 | Group Avg. Score: 17.7/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 18/20 | Rank: =17
55% CH, 45% PN | Lees Ageing: 21 Years | Disgorged: 2015 | Dosage: 5.5 g/l | Post-Disgorgement Ageing: 3 Years
The early 90s, with the more than honourable (as we shall see) exception of 1990 proved somewhat challenging, more a function of the vintages in question than because Geoffroy was a relative novice, although he freely admits that, at the time he still had a lot to learn. He did not make 1991 or 1994 and states that he was not proud of his 1992 and found 1993 a struggle. The 1992 was, alas, tainted, but the 1993 inspired discussion and divided the room a little. Jancis detected an old Meursault character behind the deeper colour and developed nose, others were worried by oxidation and a lack of harmony on the palate. I was intrigued by the unexpected flavours of iodine and preserved salted lemon which lurked deep within the ensemble. Hard to judge, and I wonder if there may be a little bottle variation… I expect I shall never find out…
Dom Pérignon P2 1992 | Group Avg. Score: 16.5/20 | Simon Field’s Score: N/A | Rank: 23
55% CH, 45% PN
No score, TCA taint.
Dom Pérignon P3 1990 | Group Avg. Score: 19.1/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 19+/20 | Rank: 2
60% PN, 40% CH
All is not lost; what a way to finish before we attack the rosé flight. The P3 Brut from 1990 was celebrated by the entire room, a most worthy declamation of the man and his philosophy. If P1 is harmony, and P2 rehearses the fruit/freshness interplay over time, then P3 is all about texture and complexity. Geoffroy uses the French word épureto to sum up what he hopes to achieve; all elements seamlessly and profoundly integrated, a streamlined very classic structure, a Michelangelo bronze, Rodin maybe. A Dürer sketch, its genius worn lightly and, for that all the more impressive. Complex above all but wearing it with quiet dignity; such is classicism I suppose. The wine is terrific, its Riesling/terpene character a beautiful surprise, its palate endlessly rich, creamy and long, tertiary notes held in check by a personality which Geoffroy praises as “pristine, pure and vibrant”, still with time to go. A great statement from a great vintage.




Chaperon joined Dom Pérignon in 2005 and his first project was to make the red wine for the rosé – after all Chaperon is from Bordeaux (“we can’t be perfect”, jokes Geoffroy). As we have already seen, the year favoured Pinot Noir, so a good one to start with. Both winemakers underline the difference between the blanc and the rosé… in each year they have not one but two opportunities to express the house philosophy, and sometimes they only apply the one; 1986 being the unusual year when there was only rosé made.

Red grapes are sourced from 10ha, all specific sites, located from Hautvillers down to Cumières and then in Aÿ and Verzenay from the great Grand Cru sites. Chaperon says that between 10 and 30% of these red wines are “invited” to join the blend, the challenge being to integrate their very particular aromatics and phenolics into the ensemble. Indeed, if one adds the necessity to manage the colour there are three very different dimensions which need to be considered… different decisions have to be made and more time is required before release.


Dom Pérignon Rosé P1 2005 | Group Avg. Score: 17.4/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 17/20 | Rank: 22
70% PN, 30% CH | 27% Red Wine | Lees Ageing: ~10 Years | Dosage: 5.5 g/l
In 2005 there was a relatively high percentage of rosé made overall, and tasting this example, it’s easy to see why. In the case of 2005 Chaperon wonders if he actually included too much Pinot Noir; I respectfully beg to differ; everything about the wine I find attractive from its nacreous almost luminous hue through to its wonderfully complete mid-palate precision. A Volnay with bubbles, I say, borrowing unashamedly from the master.
Dom Pérignon Rosé P1 2004 | Group Avg. Score: 17.7/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 17.5/20 | Rank: =17
70% PN, 30% CH | 28% Red Wine | Lees Ageing: ~10 Years | Dosage: 5.5 g/l
Chaperon decides that this is both more mellow and more balanced than the 2005, its charm echoing that of its blanc sibling, tasted earlier. Jancis detects rose petals and elegance; I am impressed by the colour and the unabashed cherry-fruit aromatic. The attack is direct and emphatic with a pleasing interplay of soft spice and herbs (laurel and even rosemary) in tandem with the red berried fruit.
Dom Pérignon Rosé P1 2003 | Group Avg. Score: 17.6/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 17/20 | Rank: =20
70% PN, 30% CH | 20% Red Wine | Lees Ageing: ~10 Years | Dosage: 6 g/l
This one is also fascinating after the blanc from the same year; it was vital to get the reds right, therefore the vineyards in question are planted at high densities and the husbandry isolates expectation; paradoxically there are higher yields in the Grand Cru sites, and, less surprisingly the precision required of the sugar levels are vital. The 2003 is appropriately rich; a nose of black forest gateau, morello cherry and even a whiff of eau-de-vie; all power, life-assuring and decadent. The finish is somewhat foursquare, adamantine; proud and forthright.
Dom Pérignon Rosé P1 2002 Magnum | Group Avg. Score: 18.1/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 19/20 | Rank: =13
60% PN, 40% CH | 23% Red Wine | Lees Ageing: ~10 Years | Dosage: 6 g/l
Extraordinarily popular and astonishingly beautifully constructed, the 2002’s completed a notable hat-trick, with a rosé subtly different to it siblings, yet still seamless of architecture and impressive of length. Jancis, along with many of the audience, was struck by the salinity at the back of the mouth, perhaps a little unexpected with a rosé but undeniably adding yet further layers to an already multi-faceted persona. Youthful yet wise beyond its years, this makes a wonderful pairing with the final wine, a P2 from 1990.
Dom Pérignon Rosé P2 1996 | Group Avg. Score: 18.5/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 17.5/20 | Rank: 7
70% PN, 30% CH | 20% Red Wine | Lees Ageing: ~16 Years | Dosage: 5 g/l
The 1996 rose is a touch unresolved, its tension hitherto dominated by the acidity, its shape less at ease with itself than with the magnificent white from the same year. A faint whiff of goat’s cheese, a tad unsettling in itself, is countered on the palate by more traditional descriptors with redcurrant, cranberry and cherry all inscribed in the notebook. The acidity, as mentioned, is persuasive and the length is good; patience is sure to be rewarded here; maybe one to look at again in three years and thereafter.
Dom Pérignon Rosé P2 1995 | Group Avg. Score: 18.4/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 17/20 | Rank: =8
70% PN, 30% CH | 20% Red Wine | Lees Ageing: ~16 Years | Dosage: 6.5 g/l
The familial trait handed down by 1995 finds its focus in generous and extrovert fruit. The wine is pleasingly different to the 96, raspberry compote, redcurrants and a hint of buttered toast; then voices from the kitchen garden, herbs and a little sousbois and a long, magisterial finish. Silky and seductive; one would probably be disinclined to be patient with this one, such is its instant appeal.
Dom Pérignon Rosé P2 1990 | Group Avg. Score: 19.3/20 | Simon Field’s Score: 19/20 | Rank: 1
70% PN, 30% CH | 20% Red Wine
The rosés at Dom Perignon mature more slowly than the whites; often it is the other way round. Therefore, the P3 Rosé is some way off release, and we have had to make do with the P2. What suffering we have endured in the name of art! Another 19 out of 20, a mark which I usually only award once or twice a year, being of a naturally mean disposition. Today was different; today was special… anyway back to the wine; Jancis reflects that it is indeed entering its “troisième âge”, and therefore we talk about red Burgundy. Great red Burgundy that is to say, although in this instance the autumnal notes more closely resemble forest whispers than more earthy or farmyard recollections. If Geoffroy is making memories, as he seems to be, and they are taking on Proustian significance, then they are mainly happy and bright memories, ethereal and inspiring. Crystalline fruit, soft spice, hints of kerosene once again, balmy red fruit and then a gentle lift on the finish. Great Champagne always looks upwards.


Group Average Scores | Overall Average: 18.2/20
Rank Champagne Group Avg. Score / 20
1 Dom Pérignon Rosé P2 1990 19.3
2 Dom Pérignon P3 1990 19.1
=3 Dom Pérignon P1 2002 Methuselah 18.9
=3 Dom Pérignon P2 2002 18.9
5 Dom Pérignon P2 1996 18.8
6 Dom Pérignon P2 2000 Magnum 18.6
7 Dom Pérignon Rosé P2 1996 18.5
=8 Dom Pérignon Rosé P2 1995 18.4
=8 Dom Pérignon P2 1998 18.4
=8 Dom Pérignon Legacy Edition 2008 18.4
11 Dom Pérignon P1 1999 Magnum 18.3
12 Dom Pérignon P1 2003 18.2
=13 Dom Pérignon Rosé P1 2002 Magnum 18.1
=13 Dom Pérignon P2 1995 18.1
=13 Dom Pérignon P1 2004 Jeroboam 18.1
16 Dom Pérignon P1 2006 17.8
=17 Dom Pérignon Rosé P1 2004 17.7
=17 Dom Pérignon P2 1993 17.7
=17 Dom Pérignon P1 2005 Magnum 17.7
=20 Dom Pérignon P1 2009 17.6
=20 Dom Pérignon Rosé P1 2003 17.6
22 Dom Pérignon Rosé P1 2005 17.4
23 Dom Pérignon P2 1992 16.5

Although a challenging year, 2003 is one of Geoffroy’s all-time favourite vintages



The new 2008 Legacy Edition is already proving itself as one of the greatest ever





Please feel free to upload the following pictures for your own social media and reviews.

Credit: The Finest Bubble.