My tastes have evolved over the past 7 years or so, from Cali centric to Old World, largely due to my wine tasting group. My wife’s preference is still New World, but we both love Champagne. So rather than hoping her preferences will change, I’ve decided to just buy a bunch of good Champagne, maybe 8 cases worth. I can’t afford to go much over $50 a bottle.
I’m looking for something that can improve over 5 - 10 years and not too taut, want some flesh on there, but not flabby. Rose’s are aok with us.
Most of these recommendations were NV which are not generally meant for aging. Would be great to hear about more sub $50 vintage champagnes that can stick around for 5-10 years or more. NVs suitable for aging would also be of interest.
I guess a case could be made that NV is already “aged” with the addition of reserve wines. But I routinely hang on to NV 3-5 years with no negative effects.
Many of the vintage champagnes being released are from base vintages 10 or more years old. Most of the NV, for example, Vilmart grand cellier, Peters cuvée de reserve, and ct saint anne are from base vintages (and likely the majority of the champagne) from more recent vintages like 15-16; which do you think would age better?
Helpful, thank you. One that pops out to me is the Goutorbe Rose. I’ve really enjoyed some of the vintage champagne from this producer, anyone tried the Rose? Less than $40 at Envoyer.
Obviously speaking in generalizations here, but I find that vintage champagnes typically have bettter structure from aging - not sure if this has to do with the prolonged time on lees compared to most NV or if it is simply down to selection of fruit or some other winemaking variable. There are a few other folks here that can comment in more detail. I do find that plenty of well made NV champagnes are improve for 5 years or so post-disgorgement, but I haven’t had much experience with hanging onto them much longer than that.
The key thing here is to check the disgorgement date prior to purchase. I’ve found NV champagnes from the same producer with disgorgement dates multiple years apart sitting next to each other on the same retail shelf. The plus side to this, is that if your goal is to have something with 5-10 years of age on it, if you look around you might find some at retail with close to 5 years of age already! I picked up some NV Bedel that had an early 2016 disgorgement last week, for example.
This is obviously true (I should have explicitly put this example in my previous post, I almost did but then I was hoping that this would be obvious and not needed to be nit picked). I think the OP is referring to the NV champagnes in the less than $50 price bracket rather than in the over $150 price bracket.
To add a recommendation for a vintage champagne that is closer to $50 - I enjoy the Larmandier Bernier Terre de Vertus, particularly the 2012 and I think that is still out there for around $50-$60.
I think all NV champagnes improve with age. I’ve had 10-20 year old Peters cuvée de reserve that was spectacular. I think you’re going to find better value with NV champagne than vintage in this (or any) price point.
Not sure about this! When you talk to chefs des caves in Champagne, they tend to talk up the aging potential of their NV blends, arguing that they’ve devoted all their know-how to making them and that it shows. NVs that age very nicely would include, from the houses, Pol Roger’s NV, Roedere’s Brut Première and Heidseick’s Brut Reserve. Among the growers, Egly’s Brut Grand Cru and Larmandier’s Longitude stand out, mainly because I have lots of them myself. There are plenty of candidates!
Which is ridiculous, really, when you compare how their vineyards are farmed and their wines made with what some of the less interesting big houses and growers churn out…