Thread: Underwater champagne find

Joseph Coulter wrote:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100717/...champagne_find
>
> And to thik they didn't ask any of us for our opinion!

Fascinating! The BBC say it is believed to be Veuve Clicquot from
1782 to 1788:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10673322

--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
--
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.

Patok <[email protected]> wrote in news:i1smsp$sld$1@news.eternal-
september.org:

> Joseph Coulter wrote:
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100717/...champagne_find
>>
>> And to thik they didn't ask any of us for our opinion!
>
> Fascinating! The BBC say it is believed to be Veuve Clicquot from
> 1782 to 1788:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10673322
>

I do not know if it would taste good or not. I know that I have tasted
several bottles of a white wine from Galice (land of Albariño and D.O. Rias
Baixas) which is put underwater by the winemaker Raul Pérez (an spanish
winemaker very highly regarded by TWA).

I attended a wine-dinner featuring his wines, him being present. He
explained how he put the wine (called Sketch) underwater in the Fiords of
Galice, for around one year.

He had selected six bottles for the dinner. Opened all of them and directly
discarded three out of the six. From the three remaining, one drank great,
one drank so-so, the third one was plain awful with a nose that actually
forbid me to drank the wine (a biologist could say something about that
nose telling my brain something about severe danger to my life).

I really hope these Champagne bottles are different, or it would be like
betting with a 50.000 eur entry fee.

s.

So it's 18th cenury Champagne, with an estimated value of 50,000EUR per
bottle, and the divers drank a bottle of it before getting ashore! I am
not sure whether to aplaud their panache or condemn them for cultural
vanadalism.

--
www.winenous.co.uk

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 22:46:29 +0100, Steve Slatcher
<[email protected]> wrote:

>So it's 18th cenury Champagne, with an estimated value of 50,000EUR per
>bottle, and the divers drank a bottle of it before getting ashore! I am
>not sure whether to aplaud their panache or condemn them for cultural
>vanadalism.

Bravo to them! Of course it should be drunk. It was made to be drunk.
There is nothing sadder than a bottle of wine or whisky mouldering in
some cellar because it was bought as an investment. That way no one
gets any enjoyment out of it

James

On 18/07/2010 9:46, James Dempster wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 22:46:29 +0100, Steve Slatcher
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So it's 18th cenury Champagne, with an estimated value of 50,000EUR per
>> bottle, and the divers drank a bottle of it before getting ashore! I am
>> not sure whether to aplaud their panache or condemn them for cultural
>> vanadalism.
>
> Bravo to them! Of course it should be drunk. It was made to be drunk.
> There is nothing sadder than a bottle of wine or whisky mouldering in
> some cellar because it was bought as an investment. That way no one
> gets any enjoyment out of it

Exactly. When I hear people discussing wine as investment, it makes me
want to... not hear that discussion.


--
Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

On Jul 17, 5:46*pm, Steve Slatcher <steve.slatc...@pobox.com> wrote:
> So it's 18th cenury Champagne, with an estimated value of 50,000EUR per
> bottle, and the divers drank a bottle of it before getting ashore! *I am
> not sure whether to aplaud their panache or condemn them for cultural
> vanadalism.
>
> --www.winenous.co.uk

Article needs an editor. I'm sure Juhlin got it right, but something
was lost in article. There was no such thing as "Veuve Cliquot" in
18th century. Mme. Ponsardin married M. Cliquot in 1798, was widowed
in 1805, and produced first vintage "Veuve" Champagne in 1810.

I agree wine is to be drunk. Article is unclear how much wine there
is, and I'm not sure how Finnish finders laws are. But a cynical part
of me thinks if a group of divers found an ancient stash, decided to
drink a bottle, and it was terrible, they might well say it was very
drinkable, increasing interest/auction value and their share of
potential profits. That said, underwater in a cold sea should give
wine the best chance of survival, so it's quite possible it was good.
(sorry Steve for same reply in 2 places)

On 18/07/2010 14:39, DaleW wrote:
> On Jul 17, 5:46 pm, Steve Slatcher<steve.slatc...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> So it's 18th cenury Champagne, with an estimated value of 50,000EUR per
>> bottle, and the divers drank a bottle of it before getting ashore! I am
>> not sure whether to aplaud their panache or condemn them for cultural
>> vanadalism.
>>
>> --www.winenous.co.uk
>
> Article needs an editor. I'm sure Juhlin got it right, but something
> was lost in article. There was no such thing as "Veuve Cliquot" in
> 18th century. Mme. Ponsardin married M. Cliquot in 1798, was widowed
> in 1805, and produced first vintage "Veuve" Champagne in 1810.
>
> I agree wine is to be drunk. Article is unclear how much wine there
> is, and I'm not sure how Finnish finders laws are. But a cynical part
> of me thinks if a group of divers found an ancient stash, decided to
> drink a bottle, and it was terrible, they might well say it was very
> drinkable, increasing interest/auction value and their share of
> potential profits. That said, underwater in a cold sea should give
> wine the best chance of survival, so it's quite possible it was good.
> (sorry Steve for same reply in 2 places)

It's the price of posting the same thing in 2 places

I've no problem with it being drunk. What does surprise me is that the
finders drank it before they got ashore!

But to carry on this posting in 2 places idea... I am now cynically
wondering if they actually found any Champagne at all. It coudl just be
a publicity stunt.

--
www.winenous.co.uk

On 18/07/2010 15:39, DaleW wrote:
> On Jul 17, 5:46 pm, Steve Slatcher<steve.slatc...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> So it's 18th cenury Champagne, with an estimated value of 50,000EUR per
>> bottle, and the divers drank a bottle of it before getting ashore! I am
>> not sure whether to aplaud their panache or condemn them for cultural
>> vanadalism.
>>
>> --www.winenous.co.uk
>
> Article needs an editor. I'm sure Juhlin got it right, but something
> was lost in article. There was no such thing as "Veuve Cliquot" in
> 18th century. Mme. Ponsardin married M. Cliquot in 1798, was widowed
> in 1805, and produced first vintage "Veuve" Champagne in 1810.

That was my thought: rumours of her husbands death were probably
exagerated in the 18th century... I finally managed to connect here in
Monument Valley, and sure enough Dale did his homework!

cheers

Mike

--
Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail