Would not his low dosage approach perhaps affect the ability of his wines to age, though? I believe he’s been producing his wines for twenty years or so, so there isn’t much of a track record as of yet for how they do.
I believe that there is another dimension to the OP, and that is which wines are the ones that age best? Which producers, and which vintages? This has been addressed, of course, and I’d appreciate addtional commentary. But, I don’t think the issue is just that one either enjoys older Champagne or they don’t (even though, yes, that is an important consideration). It may be that they aren’t trying the right ones (assuming storage has not been an issue, of course).
1 Like
Well, given that Cédric’s very first vintages are still showing nicely, from the original disgorgements, I don’t think there are any concerns. For me, as I contended in a post earlier in this thread, they age much more in the manner of still wines from e.g. Burgundy or Chablis. Because there is no sugar in the equation, they do not pick up those toasted/nutty/roasted aromas that are an important component in many old Champagnes and which seem to be, to an important degree, Maillard-derived.
In this respect, I tend to disagree with Robert’s post above where he writes that aged Champagne is “similar to aged white Burgundy”. I do not find that aged white Burgundy develops the aromas of e.g. burnt toast, coffee, caramel (unless, of course, those were there from the beginning due to barrel maturation)—or at least, certainly not in the first thirty years (I can think of white Burgundies from the '40s, '50s, and '60s that display some of these characteristics). And if the closure is doing its job, and the wine is correctly stored, it really shouldn’t be “slightly oxidized”.
1 Like
I do think Blake has been crushing a lot of 08, 09, and 12 Cristal; if that’s the profile he prefers then aged champagne might not be the best proposition.
Thanks Jeremy, I’m very interested in feedback in these areas as you note.
I’m really trying to find the love for aged bubbly while enjoying these young dudes; thus, the thread.
Just so I can better understand everyone’s opinions are, when saying “[#] years old,” are you measuring from the date of harvest or the date of disgorgement? While I consider both, I tend to consider the date of disgorgement more when trying to decide how long to age a bottle.
Thanks, William. But, now I’m a little confused, given the suggestion that higher dosage may assist the aging potential of Champagne.
Surely it does - and a sweet Sauternes can probably age longer than a dry Meursault, too. But I don’t think anyone is planning to try to age Cédric’s wines for 100 years—more like 15 to 30. Within these parameters, the concentration and high levels of dry extract in Cédric’s wines mean they have more than enough structure to age very gracefully without dosage. Indeed, while plenty of entry level NV Bruts have 5-10 grams of sugar to preserve them, I can’t think of any with as much sheer wine in one 750 ml bottle as Cédric’s have.
Oh, I think it’s a great topic, because there is a Massive difference between 1) Old Champagne flavor profiles and potentially more tired bubbles compared with a young or adolescent all-star and 2) Old Champagnes (in the U.S. or other places across oceans) seem to age poorly and with oxidative tendencies, so that to us mortals it feels hard to even get to ‘mature’ champagnes in a pure, undamaged sense.
Having the Batman chime is important, not merely because, you know, he’s Batman, but also because we believe him when he’s talking about pristine bottles from old European 50 degree caves! Whereas when we try some glamorous bottle from the 80s that simply isn’t glamorous, we’re puzzled as to what’s going on… and whether it’s really worth laying down a '96 or '04 for 40 years, or whether 20-25 is a sweet spot even if when tasted at 20 years, one things “huh, this should go for another 20.”
Blake’s a boss, but he’s struggled with this question, and I am no different. I want to believe William Kelley when he’s talking about the potential magic of old Champagnes (and, I do of course), but my experiences in America have made me skeptical, or at least pragmatic that something’s happening in transit that’s ruining the Chemistry.
This is the inspirational sensation you want from your Cristal (at any age, but especially if you’ve been lovingly holding on to it)…
Maybe you don’t like the flavors that aged champagnes give. I think FM3 feels the same way.
1 Like
I think William has done a good job at describing multiple aspects of buying, drinking, and enjoying aged Champagne. I’ll try to list some brief thoughts below:
-
Not everyone is going to like the flavors that aging a Champagne brings and what is aged to one person is young to another. I really don’t consider a Champagne ‘aged’ until after it has turned 30-35 years of age. Middle age is probaly when it turns 18. Others will not consider a Champagne ‘aged’ until it is 40-50 years old. The key is to learn what you like in Champagne and drink it when it most appeals to you whether that is on release, after 5 years, after 10 years, or after 30 years.
-
‘Aged’ Champagne is not necessarily Champagne that has improved over time. All Champagne age, the question is whether they improve, get worse, or just change in character. For example, Cedric Bouchard’s Champagne’s have done better than I thought they would over time, but they haven’t really changed much. Until recently, Dom Perignon was quite boring when young, but completely changed and showed brilliantly if given 10 to 20 (or more) years of aging after release.
-
Around 9 years ago, I stopped buying pretty much any aged Champagne unless it came from the cellar of a producer or someone I knew in Champagne. I was burned far, far too many times. Champagne is sensitive and tends to be mistreated as many do not give it the same care as they would a regular wine. It often is given as a gift, never gets opened as the right oaccasion doesn’t arise, and is many times put on display or forgotten about in a location that is not ideal. Many shops put Champagne up on the top shelf or under lights and let it sit there for years. Many importers and distributors mis-handled Champagne for decades. Your best bet today is to buy upon release and cellar or look for late releases direct from producers. Everything else is an expensive crapshoot unless you know the chain of custody.
-
There is a lot that goes into why/how a Champagne ages and what aromatics/flavors that it shows. Where did the grapes come from? What was the yield? How were the grapes farmed? Were they ripe at harvest? Were the phenolics mature? Was the juice used cuvee, taille, both? Was it aged in wood, concrete, steel, enamel, clay, etc… If wood, how old was the wood, what size, where did it come from? How long was it aged in its vessel prior to bottling? How much lees impact (stirring) did the wine see? Were the vessels kept full? Was the second fermentation under crown cap or cork? How much sulful was added and when? How long was the wine aged on the lees? What dosage was the wine given? Etc… All of these contribute to how a wine tastes and evolves.
-
The Maillard Reaction is definitely a big part of the aromas and flavors that a Champagne gets as it ages. The caramel, toffee, coffee, roasted, toasty, creamy, nutty characteristics owe a lot of their profile to this reaction which is basically a browning or caramelizing reaction between the sugars and amino acids in the wine. Normally this occurs quickly in cooking at high temperatures, but in Champagne, it occurs very slowly and at cellar temperatures. This is a post-disgorgement reaction for the most part and needs dosage or residual sugar (and some oxygen) to take place. Can it be sped up by aging the wine under warmer conditions? Yes, but the wine usually gets ruined as well - there are a lot of other reactions that take place in wine oustide of the Maillard Reaction… I’ve only had one experience where some warm storage was done along with a lot of bottle travel (semi-on purpose, but not fully controlled) and everything came out top notch with a younger wine showing all the positive characteristics of a more aged one. This was done by Veuve Clicquot and they do not know exactly how to duplicate it since it wasn’t fully controlled and was more of an after-thought experiment.
-
Yeast autolysis also plays a big role in the aromatics and flavors that a Champagne develops. It can take four to eight years for this to fully occur while a bottle is aging on its lees during the second fermentation. After disgorgement and the introduction of Oxygen, you start to really see the effect of this. It seems to be most associated with spicy, floral notes and doughy, fresh baked bread. One of the big things people are trying to understand right now is how much of what we love about aged Champagne is from the yeast autolysis, maillard reaction, way the wine was fermented/aged, other winemaking choices, dosage level, winegrowing choices, etc…
-
I have come to believe that reductive winemaking leads to the potential for far more improvement over the long term and more change over time than oxidative winemaking. This doesn’t mean better wines, but ones that change and gain in complexity with extended aging. Oxidative doesn’t necessarily mean oak and reductive doesn’t necessarily mean steel. You can be reductive and use oak and be oxidative and use steel. I love the wines of Selosse and they age very well too, but they don’t change all that much and they don’t improve tremendously either. Not that I care about this as most are in my wheelhouse from the time they are released or at least by five years of post-disgorgement age and they then stay that way for a while. Going back to a wine like Dom Perignon or even Krug, these wines are good young, but really need time to blossom. Both are reductive styles to me even if Krug uses oak.
This post is already too long so I will stop here, but William has made a number of good points. Will the NVs of today age like the old ones from the 60s, 70s, and early 80s? I think the potential is there. It takes grapes from good plots, bright fruit, a low pH, ripe phenolics, proper lees aging, and a decent dosage (plus a bunch of other stuff too). What we are seeing failure wise with many wines from the so-called great vintages of 1990 and 1996 is an error in phenolics to me. Too many picked based on numbers while the grapes were still phenolically under-ripe and the wines are aging much more quickly than expected and also quite variable across bottles. My biggest fear with more recent vintages is when producers went after oak, no malo, and low dosage. That can be a recipe for a lot of problems over time if done without a clear vision.
Finally, Blake - drink what you like, keep experimenting, but don’t apologize for not liking aged Champagne especially when it has seen some damage (as it appears your bottles did).
1 Like
All this is not wrong, but in my humble experience proveniance/storage/shipping is even more important with Champagne than with other wines.
I´ve had simple (NV) Pommery, Veuve, Pipier-Heidsieck, Moet etc. from at least the 70ies, some even older that were wonderfully to drink, because they were from an old very cool German cellar and had not been moved for decades. On the other hand I had DP, LGD, Christal, Krug (GC and vintage) and other prestige cuvees that were disapointing after only 20-25 years - obviously have travelled a lot under dubious conditions.
However - I know some wine friends that, no matter what aged Champagne you serve to them the tenor is always “too old, I wish I had that 10/20 years ago”
I sent out some info to my champagne enthusiasts that are on my email list that was stimulated by some of the material William shared in his initial post and received back some additional helpful suggestions. Here’s one regarding service that is new to me and makes perfect sense:
“When I lived not far from the Reims region (City of Metz) some 50 years ago, the locals always told me that the “meilleur facon”, best way, to pour champagne was to be sure that the glass was of equal temperature to that of the champagne itself, resulting in less of a shock to the liquid.”
For some reason, I just now discovered your post Brad and am so appreciative of all of the info as especially this plus what William contributed is exactly what I’m looking for. Thank you so much. This is a fabulous learning experience and I look forward to drinking lots of fine bubbly. young and old.
Cheers to all.
This has been the most interesting observation I’ve read in this thread. I love those notes in aged Champagne so it’s useful to have insight into which Champagnes might develop them.
1 Like
Great post, Brad, and this part of it is really not far from my own experience—living in France half the year does mean I come across some interesting buying opportunities; but like you, I have been badly burnt to the extent that I’m exceedingly cautious. I would add that buying in the UK is also not necessarily a guarantee of good conservation, as I have gotten the impression that some of the UK importers simply ship when they run out of stock, irrespective of the weather, and certain vintages from certain houses that are quite oxidative in the UK can taste a lot fresher in France, from the same disgorgements.
Yes. It’s good to hear William confirm what I’ve surmised. I’ve always assumed the dosage was a factor in the way Champagnes age. That got me to wonder about how the newer non and very low dosage wines will move in terms of aging. It seems to me it would have to be different given experience with dry wines versus sweet wines.
A couple of comments on low to non dosage wines and how they age in my experience:
-
As more and more producers began to move towards low and no-dosage wines with the mid-90s vintages, we are already seeing the effects. It is vintage dependent, but a lot are not aging all that well or are not changing/improving as much as previous vintages did or in the same way. If you take 1996 Chardonnays, the low to no dosage versions are often a mess with overly toasty, very dry, fruitless, acidic profiles. Those that saw a reasonable dosage (or had residual sugar) are still showing healthy fruit, gaining touches of cream, some toasted bread, and showing plenty of brightness. This complexity will only continue to build over time. In vintages where the wine shows more balance of fruit, ripe phenolics, and acidity then the aging of the low/no dosage wine is more graceful, but you don’t necessarily get the same level of development or change over time. Late disgorgements are different animals as that gets into lees aging and yeast autolysis which I will address in the point below.
-
While there is a lot of focus put on the Maillard Reaction and how it contributes to the creamy, buttery, toffee, caramel, roasted, toasted profile of aged wines, it is not the only contributor. There are all sorts of different reactions that take place in the wine and as William pointed out there is research being done to try and identify exactly what reactions cause certain aromas and flavors. Right now we know the variables and we know the end result, but we don’t know how to weigh each variable and we don’t know which algorithm is being used. Extended aging on the lees and yeast autolysis can result in a lot of aromas and flavors that we also frequently associate with aged Champagne - toasted, biscuity, coffee, baking spice, chocolate, bready, nutty, creamy etc… Anyone who has ever had a freshly disgorged (a la volee) older Champagne or even a late disgorged release that sat 15, 20, 25+ years on the lees has experienced these aged flavors. This profile develops without dosage. Even late disgorgements that have some dosage showcase these flavors more prominently. What is missing in these late disgorgement releases is the more seductive creamy, textured roasted, butter, toffee, caramel profile that appears to be more closely linked to the maillard reaction, amount of dosage, and length of time for the reaction to occur. This is also why I almost always prefer a well stored, aged original release (that saw appropriate dosage) over a more recent disgorgement of the same wine. The complexity that comes from the combination of yeast autolysis, appropriate lees aging, and the maillard reaction is the pinnacle of the aged Champagne experience to me. If the wine was originally released without dosage or with too little dosage then I find I often prefer the later disgorged wine as the reductive environment of aging on the lees protects the wine better and ages it more gracefully than the original release that may have gone unbalanced as it aged. Time spent on the lees and yeast autolysis has an impact that cannot be forgotten. One big observation that I have made is that the wines from 2003 that saw at least 6-7 years aging on the lees are developing wonderfully, very slowly, and building in complexity - even with reduced dosage levels when compared to other vintages. The 2003s that were released early, even with normal dosage, seem to have tired. It isn’t just one factor that you can focus on when looking at aging Champagne although dosage and the Maillard Reaction are very, very key.
To address a few producers with lower dosage that I have followed over time:
- Selosse: The wines evolve, develop, and improve, but not in the same way as most Champagnes and not necessarily for as long
- Jacquesson: Most of the wines especially the mid 90s to early 00s vintages have not aged very well
- Prevost: The wines do settle down and evolve, but they don’t improve much. Now, the extended lees aged versions show much more complexity.
- Bouchard: The wines are brighter on release and the brightness fades a bit over time, but they also pick up some savory notes and maintain their elegance
- JL Vergnon (made under Christophe Constant): The wines seem to be aging fine, but not gaining in complexity or texture
- Vouette et Sorbee: These seem to dry out over time as the fruit fades. I enjoy them more within 1-3 years of release.
To me, the textbook example of a producer making smart winemaking decisions is Vilmart especially with their vintage wines. On paper, using lots of new oak, no malolactic, higher dosage, and high acid base wines would seem like a recipe for oddness, but when you look at it, it all makes sense. Vilmart almost always has the lowest pH still wines that I taste. They are phenolically ripe, but the wines often have a pH below 3.0 with the best plots often the lowest in pH. The acidity in the wines seems to work well in absorbing the new oak, and the top wines see quite a bit of time aging on the lees, but the wines are still hard to handle prior to dosage. Even at 8-10 g/L of dosage, the wines taste fairly dry. At the end of the day, you have a complex wine that never tastes sweet, ages beautifully, and builds in complexity over time. Laurent’s wines especially Coeur de Cuvee showcase many different aspects that combine to result in ultimate complexity over time - great land, impeccable farming, oak impact, proper lees aging, proper dosage. If everyone spent as much time thinking about the details as Laurent Champs of Vilmart (and others) does then we would have many more wines age and develop beautifully.
6 Likes
i have always wondered how some of the low dosage wines will age, having mixed results myself. i had a prevost from 04 and the experience left me indifferent. you could recognize it as beguines but it just seemed old and not better. for v&s, i definitely prefer the fidele young but have had some interesting results with the 05 and 08 saignee. even agrapart, at least for the lower level cuvees, tends to taste old rather than aged…i had quite a few bottles of terroir that probably would have been best on release. it will be interesting to see how this all plays out, as there is a sea of newer producers making a particular style of wine that may not fare well in the long run.