Do you know what is that one thing I had never done regarding what can easily be seen as the world?s largest and most popular champagne house? Taste it. In all this time?and all the wine that flowed freely and frequently?I never really sat myself down with a glass of the stuff and sipped it with the Spartan seriousness that sommeliers reserve for situations when we give winemakers a heart attack with gentle nods of disapproval while we dismally gaze towards the floor.

Well, we had Elise Losfelt, the winemaker (one of 10 to be precise) from Moet & Chandon (that?s pronounced mo-et with a distinct ?t? sound in the end, never mo-ey), visiting (a first from the house in almost a decade) and I was privy to a very small tete-a-tete followed by a very lavish dinner, featuring vintages of the stuff even older than me.

The thing is, I have never associated Moet with taste. So strong is the brand?s self-propagated connection with style (all things fashion and glam) that it was never given a serious test of taste. Most occasions where I was served, Moet was always in settings not closely conducive to analytical thought. There were lots of shiny lights and, under it, shiny people bedecked in their week?s finest, clinking coupes and air kissing till their lips were all puckered up and dry. That?s when the bubblies from Moet served well to moisturise.

So this time around when I was given the opportunity to truly taste, analyse and record my findings, it was a definite first. For one, this is not half as bad a champagne as ?connoisseurs? make it out to be. All that scoffing is just to try and up their social prestige. They talk about how they would never serve it and then continue to rally off a string of names of prestigious houses with extremely French-sounding names. Moet is much better than what certain people make it out to be.

For one, it is consistent. As Losfelt shared, making the Brut Imperial is the toughest of their tasks at the maison. To make a wine that delivers the same taste year on year, can age for two years and yet show freshness as if it was made yesterday is certainly commendable. Having to taste over 800 samples of wines over three months to decide just which goes into what blend is no small feat and Moet has done it consistently since its inception. The house style is to make a bubbly that shows freshness and fruitiness as you first sip it. And then as it lingers, it transforms into something meatier with a generous hint of toast and nuts. The elegance and weight are dexterously balanced. It may not have depth or an extremely wide range of flavours, but that?s what vintage champagnes are for.

The vintages that we were served (2004, 1992 and 1975) merit special mention. My problem with my glasses, if any, was that the wines tasted too fresh and never once gave away their age. They showed complexity, but were still shy and showed years worth of ageing ahead of them.

Losfelt was in her element, describing the wines, talking about the pairings, even letting us in on her favourite vintages and, by the end, we were all happily soaked in the spirit of over three decades.

I especially enjoyed the experience and am glad to see a brand like Moet create traction of the gastronomic kind. Parties can go on, but this was the real test. Happy to say they passed with flying colours. Next time I order champagne, I have an old brand to revisit with a renewed sense of respect.

The writer is a sommelier