It was my attempt at sarcasm. He was promoting himself in the Instagram thread.
Alan,
It just so happens that I saw an offer today for the 15 Gimonnet Special Club wines - they have an Oger, a Chouilly, and a Cramant. They should be around $100 each. In other words, I’d pick a village and taste a bunch of wines from there, then find another village you’re interested in. Maybe you like the Cramant of the three… it turns out that Lilbert makes a NV bottling that is Cramant and Chouilly (and Oiry), but they also make a vintage 100% Cramant wine. You can build from there.
Thanks,
Zachary
1 Like
I would start at an understanding of what it means to “know” or “get” champagne. With burgs, you have producers and style, and a producer’s Bourgogne is less good than the Vosne which is less good than the Vosne 1er Cru which is less good than the Vosne Cros Parantoux which is less good than the Echezeaux which is (in theory) … You can compare up the quality ladder or across vineyards or villages. Bordeaux is comparing one chateau to others next to it or in the same commune. California can be regional producers of the same varietal or the same varietal across regions. Any of these can be compared across vintages.
Champagne does not consistently have any of these bases for comparison. The vast majority are blends, often of grapes not even the same color, sometimes from a huge number of vineyard plots across counties. There is the house style, but even within a house there are blancs de blancs, blanc de noirs, rose (different types), multi and single vintage, most with dosage of various areas, sweetness, vintages and amounts. There are specific interesting instances of course: a vertical of Clos des Goisses, or Dom P or Salon. Or different ages of multi vintage blends like Krug or Grand Siecle. You can of course compare growers from one village but then might have to choose those with similar styles or at least the same type (ie. blancs de noirs).
To me, each champagne is an individual experience. I find producers that I like and understand that their blanc de blanc might be exceptional but the rose always ordinary. I like buying a case and trying bottles over a decade. And while I have found individual bottlings that to me rival the greatest burg or Bordeaux, I must admit that I’m quite content knowing that I will never “know” champagne beyond this. And I’d be grateful to read anyone’s tastings or comparisons that shed light into some of the regions and styles of Champagne, so have at it!
2 Likes
This. I just spent a week in Reims and a lot of time driving around. Seeing some of the vineyards and the general relationship the areas and sub-sections was a remarkable education. Even more than the previous week in Burgundy. I’d also add that chatting with several of the cavistes in Reims and Epernay is extremely educational. These are people often with decades of experience and are glad to share what they know.
Given all the technical tinkering, it is a lot harder to comprehend than just about any other region. But the vineyards and the geography are absolutely the place to start even when it comes to the Grand Marque blends. Visits to producers were great, but sometimes secondary to experiencing the land.
I feel like I know a good amount about Champagne and still don’t know anything about Champagne, Alan. Liem’s maps are good for understanding the broad geography, and I feel like he does a good job discussing wines and terroir, but when push comes to shove, terroir is often less expressive than winemaking. You could have grapes from the exact same vineyard parcels and then have an identical blend made by Gosset and Bollinger, even at the same dosage, and I am not sure you’d ever call them the same, blind. Variables in reduction v oxidation, steel v wood, time on lees, dosage, liqueur formula will all change how the wine comes across. Then add blend variables. Then if dealing with rose the how and the % still. Then take into account pressure under cork affecting mousse and mouthfeel. Then take into account whether you’re facing a perpetual blend, and how all those wines were made. At some point, I think it’s about finding producers who have styles you like, and then pursuing vintages that really let those styles shine. From a complexity standpoint, I’m not really sure there is any other region quite like it.
1 Like
I just checked and La Fete is in LA this year.
Are Rose’s a little sweeter than the Brut version of the same Champagne or the same level of dryness?
Depends on type of rose, ripeness of pinot if rose includes addition of still red, winemaker’s call on dosage. Sometimes if dosage remains same, the added still can taste a little riper, which can give the perception of sweetness even if RS in the wine remains the same, much like no RS napa fruit may be sweeter tasting than no RS french fruit.
1 Like
Is La Fete really the kind of situation to really “learn” Champagne (or La Paulee/Festa Al Lago/etc)? Don’t get me wrong, I’d be there this year if I didn’t have other, more pressing plans. But that seems more for awesome hedonism and socializing than looking for greater understanding of a region.
I’d even say the same about attending Printemps week in April. One would be able to taste through all sorts of producers, but it’s trade tasting pours and quick impressions.
I say all of this still not entirely understanding what exactly Alan is looking for. Champagne is a much more producer and production-driven region that is now starting to more explore terroir (but there will always be the production aspect) as opposed to a place like Burgundy that really focuses on the terroir or like Bordeaux with the estate being the principle focus (I’m just boiling it down to the most simplistic terms and concepts).
Every year I go I find another producer I’ve never tried before and really enjoy. But as we with you I’m not entirely sure what Alan is looking for either.
1 Like
what I’m looking for probably isn’t possible. In Burgundy, I understand the villages. I know what to expect from Gevrey vs Pommard or Vosne. I don’t have that in champagne, probably because of blends, lack of experience and knowledge, as well as lack of a reference that explains it. I don’t know Epernay from Reims or what Chouilly is, etc . . .
1 Like
You might be looking for this Bursting Bubbles: A Secret History of Champagne and the Rise of the Great Growers Kindle Edition
by Robert Walters
Not a bad childhood! When I was a kid, I had to walk miles to school through the snow with nothing but Vilmart and Pierre Peters in my lunchbox.
5 Likes
Poor baby. Andre Cold Duck was the special occasion bubbles in our hovel.
Alan,
Now I think I understand. It seems to me you’re trying to see Champagne through Burgundian lenses. However, the history and traditions are too different. Centuries ago, while the monks of Burgundy were identifying and vinifying specific vineyards and plots, the monks of Champagne were identifying then blending multiple sites even before Pierre Perignon came around in the 17th Century. I don’t believe a single vineyard champagne was marketed until Philipponnat bottled Les Goisses in 1935. While there’s been a trend towards single vineyard bottlings, there are still multiple variables; seven possible grapes with innumerable potential blends, and many more winemaking variables than seen in Burgundy (I’m sure some could argue that).
That said, there are regional qualities and specific vineyard traits that I sometimes generalize, but there are so many other variables…
Cheers,
Warren
I don"t think you can “get” champagne. There is nothing to count on. Big house blends tend to be the same year to year, BUT they can vary from very sharp, acidic wine ti fuller, richer wine over some years. Grower wines (IMHO) can vary more year to year. They do not have the vast vineyards and reserves. Yes, there is a general style house to house, but do not count on it. I find a producer I like in a specific vintage and load up. This will not be the same next vintage.
seems to be the route I am taking. Pick wines I like from producers I like and stop worrying about the why. Not as much fun as Burgundy.