It sounds you have just had bad bottles of Koehler-Ruprecht. They are not made in any “real oxidative style”; their vinification does not differ at all from any other traditionalist German producer who employ old oak stück and fuder vats instead of stainless steel. However, the wines are made in a rather naturalist style and are susceptible to oxidation if kept in poor conditions - I’ve had some oxidized and prematurely evolved K-R wines myself as well. However, pristine bottles do not show any obvious oxidative character.
This has been my experience with Koehler-Ruprecht, too, but I have to say that the high rate of truly oxidized bottles I’ve opened has made me gun-shy about purchasing them in the future.
I interpret Howard’s most recent question to mean: what are the categorical objective measures by which to measure “quality”, if not pricing and personal stylistic preference?
I lean toward nuance, finesse and complexity as my own measures of quality but surely they are subjective.
For the record, I do think Anselme Selosse belongs in the highest tier, and I’m not sure who his company would be there. Perhaps his son? I haven’t had any of those wines though. I would have Prévost and Egly-Ouriet in tier two, along with Bereche.
As many have pointed out though, a classification of producers makes little sense when each producers own range is so broad… something I actually appreciate as I can taste the Initiale without having to pony up for substance or a vintage lieu dit, for example. So, in my mind, it’s more of a game of no consequence, but a fun exercise nonetheless, and now I get to go seek out a wine or two from Filaine! The journey continues…
1 Like
What time-period are the wines you are drinking from? My experience with them was mostly wines made in the 1980s. Did not like the wines at all. Did not buy more.
But we’re they good?
1980s KR in the USA meant Kronheim handling the imports. Disaster!
These were 2007-2010 vintages. They were generally either fantastic or flat, flaccid apple juice. I didn’t care for the randomness, especially when there are so many consistently brilliant rieslings from other producers, so I’ve quit buying them. I do have some R and RR Koehler Ruprecht still in the cellar that’s getting close to its drinking window.
1 Like
So you talk about a producer based on a handful of experiences that are almost 40 years old? Oh wow! ![[thumbs-up.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f84c5acc11486ee4baba6dee6cf61dbd133abb18.gif "[thumbs-up.gif]"){kind=small}
Could you please explain a little bit more? I’m not entirely sure if this makes any sense.
1 Like
Sorry, you’re right. Anselme is the father and Guillaume is his son. Looks like he has made a few cuvees on his own and will eventually take over the Domaine. I recall seeing some of those command high auction prices but haven’t tasted them myself. My mistake.
My point though was that in a hypothetical tiering of grower champagnes, I think Domaine Jacques Selosse belongs at the very top with Egly Ouriet close behind. I also consider the impact that Anselme has had on both farming and winemaking in this category along with a longstanding track record for producing distinctive wines in high demand. I recall William making a really interesting video on Selosse, link below:
Does anybody here have experience with Bardoux (Montagne des Reims) or Jacques Robin (Cote des Bar)? I have access to these from a local importer, but cannot find much information about them other than what the importer says.
I’ve had mixed results with the Robin’s that I’ve tried so far: loved the NV Brut, thought the NV blanc de blancs was ok, and thought the vintage 2011 Kimmeridgienne was too sweet for my tastes. I haven’t tried Bardoux yet.
I tend to think that Champagne’s big houses lend themselves better to some sort of hierarchical classification than the growers. Producers such as, to pick three examples, Selosse, Lassaigne and Prévost have such strong individual styles that they will necessarily evoke strong personal responses. Indeed, the luxury that these small producers have is to be able to produce intensely characterful, idiosyncratic, even divisive wines, which find a very enthusiastic following even if they’re too extreme for many consumers. Selosse, for example, is quite explicit about doing this. One drinker might love the richness and texture and biologically aged patina of Selosse and Prévost, while finding Lassaigne too incisive and austere; another might love the precision of Lassaigne’s wines and find Selosse’s too fleshy and vinous. This gets us into questions about whether quality is separable from personal taste. The reality is that recognition as a “high quality producer” is simply the result of a consensus between people sharing the same personal tastes. And I think in the case of some of the most well-known growers cited in this thread, there is unlikely to be enough of a consensus of this kind to arrive at any kind of widely accepted classification. Just look at how Selosse is rated in the Stevenson & Avellan Champagne book vs. TWA.
8 Likes
Thanks for sharing the video, another great one by WK.
May have to get on IG
1 Like
My initial reaction was along these lines as well, making me think it might be more useful to classify specific wines based primarily on style. I have little experience with these wines, and that would be a more helpful introductory guide than quality or price rankings.
I represent two Champagne Estate Growers. Neither has been mentioned so far in this thread. IMO both make fine, perhaps occasionally great wine.
I believe there are ~3000 Estate Bottlers (RMs) in Champagne.
Will somebody who has tasted at least one bottling from every one of them please contribute to this thread?
Thank you.
Dan Kravitz
Have you tasted all 3000? Even the shitty ones?
They why does someone else have to taste the dreck?
Completely agree. 15 years ago we could tell from the registration letters (NM vs RM). Nowadays with inheritance tax, land prices so high, and a system geared towards volumes, lots of the RMs are moving to NMs. Lots of small producers are buying grapes and including it in their wines. For example;
- Etienne Calsac buys grapes from his mum’s vineyard next door
- De Sousa buys organic grapes from Avize and a few surrounding villages
- Marguet buys from Leclapart, Laval and Lahaye
They all still produce less than 150 000 bottles a year.
Does that make them houses rather than grower? Nope.
No love for Laval? Savart? I think they are in the upper tiers (2).
I didn’t see any mention of Doquet either. Leclerc-Briant makes some nice stuff. Larmandier-Bernier is delicious. Maybe all mid-tiered (3, 4)?
Francis Boulard and Bruno Paillard would be in my lower tier (5).
Egly-Ouriet, Péters, Vilmart, Lassaigne, Bérêche, Colin, Bouchard, Prévost, Selosse, etc… were already mentionned and loved.
I’m having a hard-time thinking of true contenders for the top tier. I can’t think of a single producer that would be the figurehead for this list. I think I would bump up all my solid tier 2 to tier 1 (Egly, Savart, Prévost, Bouchard, Colin, maybe even Lassaigne, etc.) and call it a day.
Subjective? Yes. Incomplete? Yes. For example, I purchased Péters for the first time last year due to recommendations from this board so, I’m definitely missing exposure to all grower Champagne to be able to weigh in as an authority. And I’ve almost had all of my champagne with little age on it after release. I’m pretty sure that skews the list considerably compared to others.
David,
No, I haven’t tasted all 3000. I’ve probably tasted about 100.
“Have you tasted all 3000? Even the shitty ones?”
That’s my point: How do you know what’s shitty and what’s not if you don’t taste them all. Or, to put it another way, how do you know what’s good and what’s great if you don’t taste them all. My two growers remain unmentioned. I’ve had both of their wines blind in tastings with growers mentioned frequently in this thread. They have easily held their own.
Dan Kravitz
Dan, are you suggesting that even in this heavily trafficked region by the critics that there are truly great undiscovered wines in the Wild? In one sense I find that quite exciting, but also hard to believe that the effort would be a worthwhile pursuit?
1 Like
Interesting growers still pop up. Generational changes, land sales and such lead to “new” or refreshed producers.
1 Like