I've been interested in champagnes for 30 years and spent some time in the region and had some induction by larger and home producers. I don't know the date of the Advocates' 96pt review, but I had this in 2010, 8 years in, so to speak. Like that review, this bottle did change after opening. Very briefly, after opening, it was floral with hint of citrus and yeast. But that dissipated within minutes and the fruity overtones bloomed. So far so good, just like the Advocate review... until about 20mins after opening, being kept even chilled and capped, it had become unremarkably broad and fruity, Asti like. The head wasn't fine or dramatic at first and the fizz dissipated very fast. Overall I was disappointed. The brut nature always makes for a potent drink, that champagne inducing giddiness. This bottle made both of us drinking feel headachey and poisoned after half a glass. This was not a clean ethanol, or maybe there were residual volatiles. I suspect something odd happened in the second fermentation, and that can be bottle specific. Such (suspected) impurity and rapid volatility should be far from the 96pt rating, or this price range. While it is great champagne from an illustrious maker, this vintage is not the best example of what M&T/DomP can produce. I could recommend this vintage for occasions befitting champagne toast rather than as a bottle with dinner. If I had to put numbers to this, 90pts when opened and then 88pts after 10mins. Open it and drink it immediately to enjoy it at it's best.