This is a RD version (2nd disgorgement) of the 90 vintage Dom.

OK. Expensive lesson.

This Champagne was great for the first pour, then it faded. In fact it got bitter on the mid-palate and lost it's mojo (fizz).

The first pour was very good though, not worth the price IMHO, but good. The color was a honeyed-straw and the nose offered up lots of citrus (orange and lemon peel) with fresh baked bread aromas. The Champagne glided across the palate and was well balanced with lots of biscuit and citrus flavors. The acidity was high, but in balance with the fruit. Nice lingering finish of citrus. I would say this was a good drink and worth trying if it were priced similar to a NV Champagne.

Live and learn

I've had '90 Dom Perignon approximately 7 or 8 times (mostly around the Y2K frenzy) and have honestly never gotten why people whose palates I respect rave about this wine. It's way too acidic to be pleasurable.

I'm told that it bodes well for the future of this wine. I just can't understand where that excessive amount of acidity is supposed to go, because it's sure not going to disappear entirely.

I think there's quite a few better Champagnes in that price range.

This was the standard release of the 1990 vintage. Same light straw coloring noted above. Quite bubbly on the glass, but the effervesence was far more modest than expected given how the glass looked. Pleasant citrus aromas, and watered apricots on the palate along with crenshaw melon. Really quite nice. Did not pick up the acidity mentioned above. Not typically big champagne drinkers; no sense of the longevity. We last had a bottle of this about two years ago and found this bottle (purchased at the same time and stored identically) much more enjoyable.