STN: Cognac Pierre Ferrand Selection des Anges 30 YO

Short version here:

Selection des Anges is a 30 Year Old Grande Champagne Cognac.

It is also a Cognac in a class by itself.


We’ve progressed now to the third of Pierre Ferrand’s Cognac iterations. The Ambre was pure warm comfort. The Réserve was deep and dense. The Selection des Anges enters into an entirely different territory. Here the essential basic aromas, nuances of bouquet and flavors have transformed into different elements of age, maturation and the magic of the blender’s art.

The fresh citrus that characterized the Ambre is now crystallized fruit. The dried roses of the Réserve have compacted and intensified into jasmine and violet. The soft cinnamon has become spicy-warm ginger, laced with nutmeg. There’s floral honey, and toasted nuts, and soft vanilla. A fragrant suffusion of dried herbs has appeared, mingling with a distinct note of…curry! And at the finish there is a delicate cedar/menthol tang. The density of the Reserve has transmuted into an ethereal and beguiling brew, as if the liquid is on the verge of shifting itself into a gaseous state once again.

Enjoying the Selection des Anges is something of a balancing act for a moment, since the mélange of aromas is so compelling, so irresistible, that I fiddle and fuss with the glass, trying to find exactly the right position and angle from my nose to maximize the uninterrupted flow from glass to nostrils, and thus directly into that voracious olfactory bulb in my brain. Sounds silly, I know; but it seemed serious at the time.

But thankfully, the liquid is still there, and has not resolved totally into aromatic vapors. Only the most delicate of sips will do here---there is an instinct from the beginning not to overdo, to eke out, to make this Cognac and its pleasures last as long as possible. You do not drink the Selection des Anges so much as you slowly perceive all its elements, with all your senses, and you take all the time you need.

And unlike some things that seem too good to be true, and are, the Selection des Anges delivers on all its promises, for the liquid softly sends its aromatic enticements up to the nose and down the throat to warm you from within. And the finish just seems to linger forever and ever and ever…

And there, finally, is the triune magic of the Selection des Anges, where the alembic, the blender, and time have conspired to create the culmination of something that was not there before, and have captured something that is poised in its perfect moment.

This is a profound Cognac, more an experience than a beverage. And try as I might, I don’t think I can ever satisfactorily describe it to you. All I can do, honestly, is urge you to try it yourself, for it is something you have to experience yourself to understand and appreciate.

Much longer version here: http://tinyurl.com/yfzmngc

Hoke,

Yup, nicely said. I totally agree! As I noted previously, it is Selection des Anges that I've come to love the most from a QPR perspective. This is what I love to drink.

The only thing I'm worrying about for you is that you did not try Cigare before you tried SdA. Cigare is position slightly below and parallel (but with different purpose) than SdA. For my preference, I prefer SdA whether I was having a cigar or not, though I understand the intent.

Hoke,

Yup, nicely said. I totally agree! As I noted previously, it is Selection des Anges that I've come to love the most from a QPR perspective. This is what I love to drink.

The only thing I'm worrying about for you is that you did not try Cigare before you tried SdA. Cigare is position slightly below and parallel (but with different purpose) than SdA. For my preference, I prefer SdA whether I was having a cigar or not, though I understand the intent.

Thanks, Michael!

Cigare wasn't featured at this tasting, Michael. But since I don't smoke anymore, Cigare isn't likely to interest me all that much.

We did have the Ancestrale, however. And that special surprise I keep mentioning.

Which will be in the next installation.

But yes, you and I agree. It's the Selection des Anges that does it for me. I would even prefer it to the Ancestrale. For this reason: the Ancestrale is fascinating, but for absolute pleasure of sipping, the SdA is more total and complete. There's a sense of perfect suspension about the SdA--it is perfectly balanced in all its parts, and the age, barrel, source, and blending have all meshed with exqusite precision. It is a Cognac that simply feels right.

Thanks Hoke! I had forgotten that this was part of a tasting. Looking forward to the next installment!

BTW, I took a look at the PF site finally and noticed that they have changed the shape of their bottles for the high end wines. Looks much slicker but I'm gonna miss the humble and very pitted bottle that they use to use....

Beautifully written. It made me head for my liquor cabinet to search out the few remaining aliquots of Otard Extra I have and ponder when I should sample one.

"Ah, to think how thin the veil that lies Between the pain of hell and Paradise." I bought the bottle at Otard in company with the export director after touring their 'paradis' where they kept the oldest cognacs, and being given a taste.

Beautifully written. It made me head for my liquor cabinet to search out the few remaining aliquots of Otard Extra I have and ponder when I should sample one.

"Ah, to think how thin the veil that lies Between the pain of hell and Paradise." I bought the bottle at Otard in company with the export director after touring their 'paradis' where they kept the oldest cognacs, and being given a taste.

Yeah, that 'paradis' is a dangerous place for the wallet, Bill.

Back in my early days, when I was in retail and just penetrating the veil on all this stuff, I visited with Hennessey. Saw the vineyards, their cooperage (fascinating), the distillery....and then was taken to paradise. Got to sample raw, uncut, freshly distilled cognac eau-de-vie (not reccoed---one drop will scald your palate if you're not careful), then cognac one year in barrel, then VS, VSOP, and Le Paradis.

Then they pulled out two thiefed samples. One of a 1917 barrel. One of a 1985 barrel. After tasting, I hesitantly said I was impressed by both, of course, but the 1917 was superb, the 1895 not so impressive.

Our host shrugged and said, "Just so. Each vintage is different. Each barrel is different. Each has its own particular attributes. But you must have the older barrels to make the older cognacs!"

I have found the same thing. If you keep the cognacs in wood, after, say, 30 - 40- years, they can become "boisé" (and I'm not talking Idaho!) - woody. Problem is that you need at least a couple of decades to develop the rancio you look for in an old cognac, so you have a 10 -20 year window where you need to monitor development before you whack it into glass carboys where no further development takes place.

I've always thought that a nice retirement occupation would be offering to be the taste tester in a paradis cellar to make sure the spirits never became woody! I'd even do it for free, and be most assiduous in my job!

Yup.

Same with whiskies, Bill. Talk to any Master Distiller and he'll happily explain that most people have no true understanding of the maturation process and barrel aging. And their biggest gripe is that the uninformed mistakenly believe that extended barrel age confers quality.

One distiller I know---who is very, very good at what he does---says that for most whiskies four years in barrel is more than enough to develop the essential character of the whiskey; extended aging beyond that will develop other attributes up to a certain point; but when you go beyond a certain point, that woody effect kicks in and the whiskey actually declines in overall quality. Yet people still clamor for older and older age statements.

The learning point for me was early on when I developed a taste for Macallen. Thought the 12 yo was excellent. Tasted the 18 yo, and was blown away by how much better it was to me. Then, with great anticipation, I tasted the 25 yo----and was astonished at how mediocre it was!!!

And that quality control job in le paradis? I think you'd be at the end of a very long line of applicants.

The conundrum faced by producers is that with every year in wood they lose a percentage to the 'angel's share' in evaporation (if my memory was as good as it used to be, I'd be able to rattle off the specific percentage per annum, which of course varies with the humidity of the cellar).

After a certain point, they, and the single malt producers, only continue ageing because they know that the rubes...er, customers, treat age on a label like the lowing sheep treat Parker scores, and will pay more for older product even though there is no detectable difference other than the numbers on the labels.

I've even seen idiots clamouring to buy spirits with vintage dates, usually the year they went into glass, because of the old numbers, and when I've spoken with them and asked them if they were aware of the fact that a 10 year old spirit bottled in 1920 was exactly the same in terms of development as a 10 year old spirit bottled 10 years ago, they refused to believe me. Must be some association with wine, where old numbers on labels = more development = higher prices.

As you say, the rates vary, anywhere from as low as 2% in the cold and wet areas, to up to 5% in cognac, maybe as high as 10% in hotter areas like Kentucky, and 20% (!!!!) in the rum zones of the Caribbean. All depending on how the barrels are kept, natch.

Some of the SdA from Ferrand are talking up to 60% barrel evaporation. Thirsty angels, eh? Drunken ones, too, I suppose.

The one exception to the age expression on the label that I'd quibble on is in the Armagnac. It's interesting, and fun, to be able to taste through several different vintages of armagnac from the same producer/same cellar/same vineyards and gauge the differences primarily by the vintage year. The Laubade firm did that for me (oh, well, there were about a hundred others there too) some years ago....it was a mind blowing experience.

And no, snarky ones, not because of the large amount of alcohol ingested. Although that wasn't bad either.

And no, snarky ones, not because of the large amount of alcohol ingested. Although that wasn't bad either.

I do periodic single malt tastings and we all go home sober.

You can properly assess a sample that is only about 1/2 oz., so maybe 6 oz. of spirits over an evening with food is no problem at all.

And there, finally, is the triune magic of the Selection des Anges, where the alembic, the blender, and time have conspired to create the culmination of something that was not there before, and have captured something that is poised in its perfect moment.

A triumph of interventionism?

Thanks for the note, sounds fantastic.