The rule of 3, that is that I declare/form, my opinion on a Champagne has been applied to this tipple.
This cuvee is a special blend for Oddbins which was released relatively recently. I have drunk more than just 3 bottles of it, but I have only drunk 3 bottles during which I was determined to form my opinion.
As attempt 1 was not reliably conclusive, attempt 2 hadn't helped my thoughts on it either. I left it for a few months, so that my taste balances out and I build up an interest and appetite for this wine. So, committed to my own rules, bottle 3, or attempt 3 has to decide what I think of it.
So what is it like?
Anyone that drinks champagne often enough will probably like it. I think the cuvee is designed to be tasted not drunk because drinking makes the wine grow in your mouth; by that I mean that the flavours do expand on the palette, but sadly don't entice you to drink more. That in itself is mark of a bad champagne. But, bad champagne this is not!
Although very low on sugar, this wine is naturally very ripe and very meaty. Sadly it lacks elegance and flirt which would entice anyone to either rave about it or at least drink more. Its acids are quite tired and the ripeness dominates more making a reasonably pertinent point to wonder what may become of champagne once the summers there get too hot and berries too ripe. (maybe a bit more Chardonnay from Chouilly would give it the desired life)
It is a good non-vintage fizz, with ripe, almost over-ripe plum and mirabelle textures which may be confused with Bollinger Special Cuvee, but unlike Bolly, this has a lot less life in it. It reminds me of an old, and tired vintage of Veuve that had its prime in its youth and not the best for aging. As I have implied the likeness to Bolly, I will not be too far from boldly stating that this wine is a Bollinger wannabe!
I am only presuming, that St. George, is supposed to denote an English dedication, and as much as, historically the English contributed to the creation of champagne as we know it now, I regret to state that the honey tones of ripe to over ripe Pinot Noir in a non-vintage blend just don't work.
When I look at the tech spec, the cepage shows the desire for a bold and muscular wine, but as I am assuming that the chief buyer of Oddbins was involved in the making this tipple, a warning sign to us all needs to be a notion that not every nose or palette that is capable of drinking and tasting wine is capable of blending base wine for our noble tipple.
So to sum up, this Bollinger wannabe, is a nice try that comes at a relatively affordable price, is a good drink, and a reasonably good champagne but the blending skills in the cepage indicates, lack of experience, lack of understanding what champagne is expected to be and with reticence, a wine that is more tired in youth than I would expect it to be. The lack of youth and vibrancy isn't all that bad, but when it dominates in your glass for the 2 hours of drinking it, it becomes oppressive and dull; adjectives one would not want to associate with Champagne.
It is not bad, I admit, but that, sadly, is not good enough.
Having said what I have said, I am willing to accept that this is the wine's identity, but I must admit that this identity isn't a champagne identity; it is way too old for a new entry onto the market. Nice try by Oddbins, but a far cry from making a sensational champagne. Let's see how successful it will be, just as let's see how much longer will Oddbins remain on our streets.
For alternatives, look at NV Bollinger, Philipponnat and Louis Roederer.
I wasn't charmed!
