@William_Kelley found this old thread.
What would you describe as some of the real high quality gastronomic champagnes?
An interesting thread, but I donât really agree with the categorisations.
I would start with Modern and traditional, both very inexact terms and then break down from there.
Under modern I would consider more the pursuit of expressing terroir, the burgundian philosphy and under traditional a champagne is a sum of all its parts, the bordeaux philosophy which dominated and still dominates the region, regardless of what one thinks.
With burgundian I mean one grape, one vintage one site and low dosage.
With Burgundian you can break it down futher, the use of barrique with toast aromas, use of barrique without toast aromas, more the wanting of the aerobic effect of the barrel rather than the aromatics that come from wood and then those that do not use or reject wood completely.Also Malolactic no malolactic, something that ihas become very important today.
Traditional I would see as no toast aromas of any kind, assemblage/blending and more use of reserve wines/vin perpetuelle and more dosage.
Obvioulsy there are a lot of overlaps and any attempt to categorise always ends in contradictions.
I would not use the word gastromique but rather gourmand which convey more of the richness, any champagne can be gastronmoique if you want it to be.
And then you have the Overnoy influence, kicked off by Ruppert-Leroy and a style which is slowly gaining more followers, namely Leclapart, Emanuel Brochet, Philippe Lancelot, Laherte or even the fabulous champagnes from the cooperative in chavost, to name a few.
Here I have to be really careful, I have subscribed to the wine advocate, the coverage on champagne has a hell of a long way to go. In my estimation there are about 200 to 250 serious champagne producers. I understand William Kelley is one man and has only so many hours in the day. I find when producers do not cover a region thoroughly, it leads to false perceptions that only these producers are good and the rest because they are not reviewed cannot be good as they lack the blessing of a tester.
The most exciting, decisive,controversial and influential producer over the last 5 years is Ruppert-Leroy. The wine advocate do not review them.
And also this statement in the initial post.
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, PĂ©hu 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 do not know if this is still William Kelleyâs view. This covers a very limited spectrum of champagne producers, champagne is not all about muscle, champagne can be elegant, refined, balanced, ethereal, rustical, aggressive, complex, linear etc etc. This is one of the reasons I am not so convinced of William Kelley as a champagne tester and believe he is still a work in progress. I think he as got a long way to go in exploring the region and to be open minded as some people will not believe it , but not everbody likes Ulysse Collin or Selosse or Egly. The champagne region has many schools of thoughts and to understand the region one has to be open to them. I will state here clearly, for me the best producer is Bedel, why I say that is a completely different discussion.
@William_Kelley William, please do not take this as a personal attack. I just think the discussion is very one sided on Wine beserkers, no fault of yours, it is meritorious that you take such time to post here and discuss. When it comes to champagne, I think constructive discussion and more open mindedness in general would be helpful.
1 Like
Well, one of the problems with the terms modern and traditional is where one sets year zero. If you define traditional as what was done in the 1970s, sure. If you go back another thirty or forty years, wooden cooperage and barrel fermentation were the order of the day, and Krug and Bollinger for example work like this not because they are influenced by Burgundy but because their definition of âtraditionalâ is a bit older than yours! For me, a more interesting concept would be to look at generations, as each generation brings its own piece to the puzzle. But the young emerging generation (my generation) is so numerous and heterogenous it will be a few years before we get a firm sense of what their contribution to Champagne will be in the long term. Time tends to separate the wheat from the chaff so it will be interesting what turns out to be the wheat.
As for our coverage, well, it continues to evolve. I spent a week in the Aube in January and once I write up my 2020 Bordeaux in bottle report that will be at the top of my agenda. I tasted some remarkable wines so there is a lot to do. As for Ruppert-Leroy, I have had some quite variable experiences. But beyond that, my only challenge is keeping up with you, Donald! A year or so ago, your favorite producer seemed to be de Sousa, now you donât talk about them (TWA now reviews them, btw). There are thousands of producers in Champagne and the choice of what we review necessarily reflects a combination of interest, market relevance, time, and an ongoing exploration of different facets of the regionâjust like your personal Champagne journey. As I have said before, Iâm the first to recognize that thereâs more to do, but my initial aspiration on taking over coverage of the region was to make our coverage the best of the major Anglophone publications, and to do better justice to the grower movement. Today, we are ready to take the next step - which means coverage of the Aube, more roving coverage of small growers (it will simply be impossible to cover every release of everyone, so the idea is more to take the time to go into detail and give a sense of how producers work, their philosophy, so that is available on our database), and at the same time fuller and more timely coverage of the big houses thanks to my new colleague, Yohan Castaing.
As for my personal taste, I do still tend to prefer more vinous, concentrated Champagnes made from ripe grapes. I should be clear that I do not think that this is incompatible with chiseled elegance, by the way - look at Adrien Renoir in Verzy. And while quite a lot of Champagne I like do see Ă©levage in wood, it is far from the case that wines have to be barrel fermented to do well in TWA (a position that my Aube report will only underline, btw). That said, I do struggle to love (to use freighted language) insipid over-dosed Brut NVs on the one hand, and acerbic, piercing, shrill, enamel-stripping styles that put the âbrutalâ in extra-brut on the other. In other words, I have a somewhat Burgundian palate for Champagne, just as my palate in Bordeaux leans towards more classically proportioned, traditionally Bordelais wines rather than the more international style. That doesnât mean that I donât make every effort to see the merits of every wine I encounter, but every taster has preferences and I think itâs better to state them clearly rather than get into the fallacy of saying that quality and style are entirely separate questions. Is the concert good because the instruments are well-played? Is a BigMac as good as 60 day dry aged Rubia Gallega because both are perfectly executed in their different styles? Is the film good because the camera was in focus? I canât think of any other domain of criticism where it is considered a virtue not to make judgements on style. What is important is that those judgements be reasoned, coherent and informed, rather than capricious or haphazard. Then, it can be very interesting to discuss and interrogate them; something I hope weâll be able to continue doing here, and elsewhere, Donald!
10 Likes
Thank you for your elobarate and incisive response.
I agree modern and traditional are not the best categorisations and where does one start historically. The champagne region is so big aand complex, any sort of apportionment is doomed to fail as there are no easy answers.
However in the region even among producers, there is a lot of discussion about this. Is Aubry or Ledru or even H.Goutorbe the upholders of tradition as Bel-Air-Marquis dAligre is seen by some as the upholder of tradition in Bordeaux.
I also agree the grower scene is embryonic and very mercurial, so many exciting producers coming through. I expect great things of Adrien Renoir in Verzy, However last year Caze-Thibaut was for me the absolute winner in the newer producers last year category.
As ever always a pleasure discussing these subjects with you.
Ruppert-Leroy is a very difficult subject and I wrote decisive and controversial, I find there is a great deal of varaibility but this from my perspective as a seller the producer of the moment, although I think Salima and Alain Cordeuil are more consistent and better.
I am quite flattered that you know that I hold De Sousa in such esteem. I would list six producers that are my top producers, De Sousa, Bedel, Dehours, Leclapart, Philippe Lancelot and Vouette et SorbĂ©e. I think the 2008 Caudalies is the best champagne of that vintage hands down, for me better tan Eglyâs 2008 which is a great champagne. Last year De Sousa were more taken up with family affairs and then there was the price increases. The 3A at 50 ⏠is a stupendous champagne at 60 ⏠there is more competition.
I remember a tasting with the Chiquet brothers, where they said Bedel is for them the proof that terroir does not matter. She has never received the credit she deserves. When one asks young producers, which producer they admire most, in most cases the answer is Bedel.
Saying that one thing I have come to learn with the champagne region, Each year it is as if a new deck of cards are dealed and one has to lose the preconceptions of the past year and start a new. Last year I was just not expecting Philippe Lancelot to be so good, a friend of Leclapart and Emanuel Brochet. I initailly thought Brochetâs Chardonnay and Leclapartâs Lâaphrodisiaque were the champagnes to beat,but the Haut Epernayâs was just at another level.
This year for me Larmandier-Bernier is the producer to beat. The new Chemins and the new Levant are incredible.
4 Likes
Very true about the shuffling of the deck, if one is really following the emerging projects. Of course, this is a challenge for us, as serious coverage of a region needs a sense of continuity and direction, and I have to follow producers over time as well as cover new ground.
Bedel I clearly do need to go to see. Though thatâs another producer where I have had quite a bit of bottle variation. This is a real challenge for critics, as if we give a good score to a wine and then a reader finds something totally different in the glass, that understandably creates problems. There are a number of producers in the Beaujolais where I just had to stop, the problems with mouse, brett and acetate taking off in bottle were simply impossible. Initially I tended to write it off as low stakes poker with ultimately quite inexpensive wines, but then I saw the prices they were selling for in NYC wine barsâŠ
2 Likes
Variability is going to be a big issue in the grower producer scenes over the next few years as dosage goes down, less sulphur and releasing too quickly after the degorgement. There are already rumblings about Marguetâs releases post 2015 being highly variable to the point of being called a complete waste of money. Not many consumers know this, in Germany, I am not sure if it applies to the EU, if a custoemer is not happy with a bottle, cork, etc we are compelled to take it back and refund up to two years post sale, which makes one think hard about selling wines and champagnes with a lot of variability.
Bedel is different. The big problem is she changes the blend with each new release. When cutomers get used to the Entre Ciel et Terre and then buy the next degorgement and get something different, they are left puzzled. For me the really positive thing about Bedel, is her holding the champagnes for up to two years post degorgement before releasing. I wish more producers would do this, something they can afford to do.
For me the worst culprits are Savart, Leclapart and Laval, one get sublime bottles and one can get disasterous bottles. My feeling is the first six months after releasing are critical and if not stored properly can result in a lot of variation.
Something that bothers me for instance is the Wine Advocate not giving degorgement dates. The 2013 Miiésime from Egly has no degorgement date. One of the things that really disappointed me about the last releases, were all of the bottles we received were degorged a month before. Was this due to the sudden demand due to the 100 points and they could not keep up with demand. Did you taste a bottle that had jsut been degorged or was degorged earlier? One has to give Vinous a thumbs up for doing this.
4 Likes
Sorry, Donald, I didnât realize Egly had done multiple disgorgments of the 2013. To economize my effort and focus on the essentials, my policy is to only give dg. dates where there are multiple disgorgements. CĂ©dric Bouchard only does one disgorgement per cuvĂ©e, for example. Had I realized Francis had made more than one, Iâd have noted which I tasted.
2 Likes
2 Likes
I certainly agree that certain styles of Champagne match better with certain foods/preparations. Most recent example is cold cracked Dungeness Crab. The meat is too sweet to pair with zero dosage/extra brut Champagne and pairs better with richer/gastronomic Champagnes, which surprised me. My Champagne journey continues.
On a related note. Has anyone tried Amaury Beaufortâs wines? I believe his father gave him a hectare a couple of vintages ago in the Aube near V&S. If you have can you talk to style and quality?
If I had a re-do I would only invite 15 ppl and drrink only Bouchard and Colin. 
1 Like
We had 9 people for a magnum of 1975 Deutz Vinotheque at our wedding, and it was 7 people too many.
6 Likes
FIFY
evidently he needs to start using the night hours also.
2 Likes