Classifying farmer fizz

This is really a learning exercise for me. I have seen proposed classifications of Loire reds and other things on this board that have been useful to me. As I try to learn more about grower Champagne and people’s view of them, I thought I would see what people viewed as a kind of hierarchy of the moment. I am going to propose something based on my limited knowledge as kind of a stalking horse to get things started. Please take potshots as I consider this more of a learning exercise than anything else.

1st Growth

Seloisse

2nd Growth

Prevost
Bouchard
Vilmart
Colin
Lanson (should this be here - is it a grower or a house?)

3rd Growth

Bereche
Egly Ouriet
Chartogne-Taillet
Jacquesson

4th Growth

Suenen
Marguet
Lassaigne

5th Growth

Vergnon

I know I am leaving out a bunch of excellent producers - largely because I don’t know their wines well enough or because I forgot about them.

If you’re talking about quality across the line rather than price, I don’t think Selosse is in a class by himself. Sure, demand and pricing would say so, but the wines are quite inconsistent. Blind tastings can often yield very different opinions than tasting when looking at the label with those. I do agree that when they’re on, they are amazing.

I think Vilmart is top tier and probably Pierre Peters too. Peters is based more on the vintage bottlings than the NV, so I could totally understand an argument for demotion there, but Chetillons is one of the great wines of Champagne in my opinion. Vilmart’s Coeur de Cuvee is comparable in quality to the big house Tete de Cuvees, at least for the first 15 years or so, and in weaker vintages I think it surpasses those wines. Even some vintages where those wines are generally not made, like '01, and in vintages where those big name wines can tend to underperform, like '07, Coeur de Cuvee is of unbelievably high quality.

I would elevate Egly to 2nd, easily, and even call it a super second.

I’m not totally sold on Prevost the way some people are. I think the wines are nice, but that there are quite a few better grower Champagnes out there. So, not a 2nd or even 3rd for me, but many people will disagree.

This is interesting to think about.

4 Likes

Thanks. I did not include Peters because of lack of experience with the wines. Your response is exactly what I was hoping for.

Lanson a farmer fizz? They’re a multi-million bottle grande marque.

And definitely not among 2. Cru, be it a grande marque or farmer fizz.

I think both Lanson and Jacquesson buy grapes even if the latter mostly farms theirs so strictly speaking they are not supposed to be here (Lanson especially so). Selosse is completely singular and many are fanatic about his/their wines but in a class of its own based on quality? Not sure. I would place Egly, Bereche and Chartogne quite high as all three produce wines that for me represent the pinnacle of grower Champagne.

1 Like

Personally, I would rank Suenen higher in the hierarchy. Personal preference, but I dig the wines. Relative values, too. And I realize there’s no way to have an exhaustive and complete list, but I’d stick Margaine in there somewhere as well.

1 Like

I’d put Laherte Freres in the hierarchy somewhere as well, tons of great cuvees coming out, and Grand Crayeres was up there with most of the best bubbly I had this year.

2 Likes

Selosse is good, but in no way singularly great over the other top tier producers.

Bouchard, Peters (I treasure their NV, not just the vintage wines), Vilmart, Chartogne, Colin (I have not had much, but it’s very good) and Egly can all take top prize any given Sunday.

Beyond that it’s a bit of an embarrassment of riches, and more about specific wines. To do this properly we would need to determine the specific bar being used since they all make a number of wines.

With largely grand cru Ambonnay fruit, a fine and varied lineup and stellar reputation among growers and drinkers alike, Egly-Ouriet belongs at or near the top of any such list.

Selosse does not deserve singular top billing, in my opinion. They can be great, but are also odd, inconsistent and very culty.

Diebolt-Vallois belongs on any such list, with quality at every level and a stellar top cuvee.

There are so many small and fine producers. Without some kind of objective criteria to at least weed out a few, how does it not become just everyone declaring which are their favorites? Also there are some great producers that don’t get much exposure in the US.

2 Likes

Exactly.

But I’ll declare my favourites simply by ranking in the cellar (% of total Champagne) - Cut off is 12 bottles.

Pierre Péters 20.0%
Lilbert-Fils 17.7%
Vilmart & Cie 15.3%
Diebolt-Vallois 8.6%
Jacques Selosse 4.9%
Champagne Raymond Boulard 1.7%

There are lots of newer guys too, I would mention Charles Dufour and Timothee Stroebel simply because no one else did yet.

But can we really take in any producers that have been founded after 1855? [snort.gif]

1 Like

Where does J Lassalle rank? I recall their bottle stating they’re Premier Cru.

Is Tarlant worth adding in? I’ve only had one of their bottles and it was wonderful.

Second diebolt vallois

The Premier Cru is the ranking of the village(s) where the grapes come from. Champagne has a truly odd ranking for Grand and Premier cru. It’s not a vineyard, it’s the village.

1 Like

I don’t know enough to put these in any order, and agree with many already listed, but would add Agrapart in there somewhere relatively high.

Tastes in Champagne vary so widely that I don’t think you’re going to get consensus. For example I’m not a fan of Egly Ouriet or Ledru (or Krug for that matter) but many people whose palates I respect adore them.

So here are mine:

1st (price allowing I buy these producers)
Benoit Lahaye
Bereche
Calsac
Marie Courtin
Selosse
Vilmart


2nd (I sometimes buy these producers and have had amazing wines from all of them)
Pierre Peters
Marguet
Prevost
Collin

3rd (all of these have some wines I love but enough others that I’m less fond of to put the in the middle tier)
Bouchard
Drappier
Agrapart
Vouette et Sorbee

4th

Chartogne Taillet
Diebolt Vallois


5th
Egly Ouriet
Ledru
Jacquesson
Rodez
Paillard


I still haven’t tried Suenen :frowning:

2 Likes

Is the Cru classification qt all important? Or it similar to subregions where its giving you an idea of the wine and and quality, but not much more?

That’s exactly my point. Classification should not be about what any one taster likes. There’s no universe in which someone who is trying to judge quality puts Egly near the bottom, only someone who doesn’t happen to like it. Of course we won’t get a consensus, but I think when trying to do a classification, we should be at least trying to put personal taste secondary to the extent possible.

I think classifying in this way is pointless but if you’re going to do it, it should be done like the 1855 classification was which was based on price. It’s especially pointless when there are many different cuvées.