Champagne Styles

Something that William Kelly wrote in another topic spurred a a line of questioning: what do we mean/what are the different styles of Champagne?

A natural follow-up would be: what are architypes of those styles?

Here is the quote:

A weakness I am conscious of is that I may not do justice to leaner, more minimalist styles of Champagne (thinking of the likes of e.g. Barrat Masson, Péhu Simonet, etc) because I find it hard to transcend my personal preference for a more vinous, muscular, gastronomic aesthetic (think the likes of old Bollinger R.D., old Krug, Ulysse Collin, Egly-Ouriet etc).

I would describe Bollinger RD, Krug and Egly-Ouriet as autolytic in style. Collin is totally different to me and I would describe those wines as very vinous and fruity. I have always thought of gastronomic styled wines as being fresh and racy without an overload of structure or élévage induced flavors. For example, I’d call Agrapart a gastronomic Champagne so it occurs to me that we may be using that term differently or it may apply differently to Champagne than other wines. For me, the venn diagram for what the French would call “digestible” wines and gastronomic has a decent bit of overlap although not entirely.

2 Likes

I think I understand what he is saying, but I also struggle with the “gastronomic” term.

Also perhaps autolytic is a much more analytical term than any of the other descriptors. It feels out of place.

1 Like

I concur with the fresh and racy part, but for me, gastronomic wines really require very strong structure - in order to be gastronomic, they need to have lots of structure to stand up to different kinds of food. In my books, the term often implies that the wine also is on the leaner, less flashy end of the spectrum, so that it really calls for food in order to shine and be appreciated fully. It might even come across as too austere when drunk on its own.

The other end is wines that are hedonistic, which really are giving their best on their own, because they are flashy, but often not that structured; they can be super-impressive in blind tastings, but they can perform badly or can be outright impossible to pair with food.

While I often contrast “vinous” and “gastronomic”, they really aren’t polar opposites in the same way as “hedonistic” (or any other similar term) and “gastronomic”: vinous Champagnes are often heftier than these “gastronomic” ones, emphasizing more autolytic notes and/or characteristics from élévage and/or more concentrated fruit high in dry extract. However, some (many) vinous wines can be outright excellent with food. “Gastronomic” Champagne is just a certain style of wine, not meant to imply that it is the only style of Shampoo that goes well with food.

I’m very interested to hear more from William on the subject and if my use of terms is anywhere near how he uses them. At least I thought I understood what he meant in the other thread and nodded to myself, since we seem to share same stylistic preferences when it comes to fizz.

1 Like

In the passage quoted above, I’m using “gastronomic” to denote concentrated, vinous, structured wines, without too much dosage, that can be paired with food—in contradistinction to more, without intending to be pejorative, frivolous, aperitif styled wines—or, for that matter, and in another register that is more commonly encountered among growers than big houses, very fine-boned, minimalist, lean, acid-driven Champagnes. This definition clashes with some of the polarities proposed here, which I suppose is a salutary reminder that commonplace French wine terminology (in this case, gastronomic vs aperitif) doesn’t always translate very intuitively into English, something that’s easy to forget when you spend half the year speaking French. What all the wines in my list have in common is that they are quite ripe, concentrated, muscular, sapid, and dry.

5 Likes

I find this nomenclature to be confusing. To my taste, “very fine-boned, minimalist, lean, acid-driven Champagnes” are better with food (great generalization, I know) than Krug and its ilk. Similarly, to my taste young Krug is better with food than mature Krug and mature Krug is better on its own or with snacks rather than a meal. YMMV and clearly does.

1 Like

Well, the sense I’ve used it is the sense in which it’s used as a conventional term in French wine discourse. Obviously, it doesn’t really correspond with reality: one of my favorite “aperitif” pairings is Selosse Substance with Iberico ham, a wine which would be about as “gastronomic” as they come by all the metrics used when applying this term in French. And as you rightly point out, many lighter, leaner wines work very well with the right sort of dishes (I reserve the right to serve old Krug with veal sweetbreads in tarragon sauce, however). As I say, it’s a reminder that one country’s idioms don’t necessarily transliterate into another’s. Just like talking about “vertical” wines, or any number of other things that one absorbs when spending a large portion of the year talking with French winemakers about wine in French. This thread is a good, and regularly required, reminder to pay attention to that.

2 Likes

Wine discussion in a nutshell. Sorry William. I totally respect and admire your expertise, but as a nugget this is classic.

2 Likes

Does the fact that I spend a lot of time dealing with the French bureaucracy come across? [rofl.gif]

2 Likes

It gives you blanket immunity.

In the last several years I have drunk more Champagne with food vs. an aperitif. I think I get where William is coming from.

Perhaps, though he seems to be speaking to certain styles for that purpose. I use almost any Champagne as a food wine, it just depends on which wine and which food.

1 Like

Yes, which Champagne with which food.

I would like to try old Krug with sweetbreads in tarragon sauce. I have a bottle or two of Krug Grand Cuvée from the late 1970s leftover from the dozen I purchased in anticipation of my son’s birth in early 1984; now all I need is sweetbreads in tarragon sauce…

As I think more about William’s paradigm, I imagine that ‘gastronomic’ champagnes would pair similarly to Meursault or Chassagne and ‘very fine-boned, minimalist, lean, acid-driven Champagnes’ would pair similarly to Puligny or Chablis.

William, am I close?

For the record, it isn’t my paradigm: it’s a commonplace way informally to categorize Champagnes in France! But yes, you’re absolutely right - with the proviso that good Puligny can play just fine with the dishes that work with Chassagne and Meursault.

I think it’s helpful to imagine, what sort of Champagne would you serve to hundreds of people for a first glass at a summer wedding? Well, that is likely an “apéritif Champagne” (we drank Bouchard and Collin at our wedding, but we also only invited fifteen people) in the sense that the distinction would be made in France.

Yes, the French do use those terms that way, and it makes sense to a degree (until Collin and Bollinger are in the same category). My favorite French wine term that also doesn’t have a direct translation is digestible. Maybe a classification could look something like this:

Apertif: Brut dosage made in an easy going style, e.g.: Roederer Brut Premier, Delemotte Brut Blanc de Blancs (served at sister-in-law’s wedding), Aubry Brut (served at our wedding), even Agrapart 7 Crus

Gastronomic: generally Extra-Brut or no dosage, racy, maybe fruity, and best with food: Ledru, Collin, Agrapart, Savart

Digestible: racy and good with food, but with gentler structure: Vouette et Sorbe, Filaine, Bouchard, Lahaye

Autolytic and structured (WK gastronomic): Krug, Bollinger GA/RD, Vilmart Coeur, Rodez, Jacquesson

Lean and structured: Taitinger Comtes, Cristal, Peters Chetillons

I know that all the above are wrong, but the first step to getting something right is to write it down and see where you’re wrong. I have no idea where to put Roederer Brut Vintage in a set of categories I created.

5 Likes

Those are good thoughts. I think that there are vinous hedonistic Champagnes that emphasize fruit (Collin, Bouchard) and ones that emphasize autolytic notes like Krug and Bollinger.

Anyway, I find this to be an interesting thought exercise especially when looking at the Champagnes in my cellar and imagining the thought process that went into them because the vignerons definitely had a target in mind.

As a (relative to the above posters) champagne novice, I find all of these categories completely useless. I need things dumbed down to more of a yeast/bread/full to a Fruit/Citrus/Clean scale.

But maybe just me and my lack of sophistication . Carry on.

2 Likes

I pretty much agree with what you have here (except a few producers I’m not familiar with), including that any classification putting Collin and Bollinger in the same category is oversimplified to a point that doesn’t make sense (which William basically said). Aperitif/gastronomic/digestible don’t make sense to me as terms, but your descriptions do make sense to me and seem like fitting categories. I also think it’s more of a venn diagram than individual categories, but probably too complex to be actually drawn. For instance, I would create another category for oxidative, with Selosse as the archetype. Bollinger would belong partially there and partially in the category you have above. Egly surely belongs in the autolytic and structured group, but I also question if there should be a category for notable barrel influence, in which case they and several others would have to overlap in that one.

Some producers like Pierre Gimonnet would have individual wines in different categories.

It’s all interesting to think about.

I think it depends so much on the food that any generalization like this can’t be true. Your taste, of course, but maybe it has more to do with the foods that you eat than which Champagnes generally work better with food.

I agree. Sometimes the really lean styles can be overpowered by flavorful food.

Indeed!

I have virtually all of my Champagne with food, and just like with “normal wine”, which wine I’ll open depends on what food there is. For sushi or salmon tartar, I’ll go for the leaner, fairly lowly-dosaged, crystalline BdB; a full-bodied rosé saigné works with steak tartar (actually, the only use I have for rosé saignée champagne; not a fan). For more flavorful food such as e.g. the stuff served for North Italian “aperi-cena” (aperitivo that develops into a full-blow dinner) an apéritif-style Champagne works nicely (standing in nicely for a Prosecco of a Lambrusco), while a dinner (or lunch, if you’re not busy) with pan-fried turbot etc. matches the more substantal (and mature) Blancs de Blancs. Broad-shouldered, oxidative-styled, mature, Pinot-Noir-dominated wines I tend to pair with guineafowl. And if you think the dosage is just a bit too high, try a pan fried tenderloin steak with a Stilton-filled portobello mushroom as side, and that’s that.

Of course, all of this can be achieved with non-Champagne, sparkling wine, but if one must rely on Champagne (oh dear), one can.

Cheers,
Hans-Peter

4 Likes