THE VERDICT

Our results varied widely depending on the wines, but looking back at the data after the tasting, there were more wines that scored higher in magnum (32) than in bottle (25), which corresponded to our general impressions during the blind tasting.

The most significant difference for me was the texture in magnum, which was consistently finer in tone, with a silkier mousse. While I had anticipated this to be the case, it was nevertheless striking to see it displayed across so many examples, and in some instances the differences were pronounced, as with our samples of both Drappier’s Grande Sendrée and Palmer & Co’s Blanc de Blancs.

Overall, the magnums definitely showed more reductive notes, such as rubber tones or struck match, that indicate a lesser exposure to oxygen. This often made the wines feel more restrained and youthful, sometimes even unready, and they certainly took some time to open up in the glass. ‘The commonly held preconceptions are that magnums are longer-lasting and tighter in their youth, and this tasting seems to validate that,’ said Simon Field MW.

In comparison, the wines in bottle often showed more flavours that we described as being oxidative, but they were also generally more forward and ready to drink. At times, there were wines in magnum that were inhibited by their reduction, appearing inexpressive and difficult to access, and when looking back at our notes afterwards, the same wine in bottle was much more forthcoming. Delamotte’s Blanc de Blancs was a prime example of this: in bottle it was deliciously expressive, while in magnum it felt backwards and difficult to read, and after the tasting I was surprised to discover that these were the same wine. Even in some cases where I preferred the wine in magnum – as with Nicolas Maillart’s Platine or Paul Goerg’s Blanc de Blancs – the version in bottle was more pleasurable to drink now, with the magnum withholding more for the future.

‘Often the wines in magnum seemed capable of achieving greater highs’