Your opinion on Champagne house styles

So, after our Champagne dinner the other night I ran across a sentence (somewhere) where someone cited Pol Roger as a "heavier" style of Champagne. That didn't jibe with my (limited) experience. So off and on I've been thinking about Champagne houses and where they fall on the spectrum of styles.

Obviously there can be no definitive answer. How do you define style? Not every house has a consistent style, some may vary a lot by vintage (or combination of vintages in a NV). The tete de cuvee is of course generally always "bigger" than the NV or normal vintage bottling, but in most cases I think there is some correlation inside a house. I threw together a list, based on impressions I've had tasting and of course conversations. Of course, my impressions are not based on any scientific sample, maybe for one house I've mostly tasted the BdB, while at another I've had mostly NV rose and Tete de Cuvee. But I still thought I'd throw out my list, and see what people with more experience of a particular house think. Feel free to totally revise list, or just comment on omissions or (what you feel are) inaccuracies. I didn't list every house (only a couple tries of couple of the Heidsiecks, or Salon) nor growers.

So here's my list, from lightest to heaviest style.

Laurent Perrier
Pommery
Perrier Jouet
Taittinger
Pol Roger
Billecart Salmon
Jacquesson
Lanson
Deutz
Piper Heidsieck
Moet and Chandon
Roederer
Veuve Cliquot
Krug
Bollinger

Feel free to tell me I'm totally wrong!

Based on my even more limited experience, I'd rank them in the following relative categories, but with only a weak sense of order within each group

Light: Philliponat, Perrier Jouet
Medium: Pommery, Veuve Clicquot
Medium-Heavy: Moet & Chandon, Bollinger
Heavy: Alfred Gratien, Krug

I think that loosely agrees with you Dale.

done

are we to assume we are talking about NV Brut only?

of course much depends on how youthful or mature the particular sample is

also variable by which cuvee is involved - pommery in particular has many

and for cliquot it depends on whether they vinified the wine themselves or bought it already bottled from someone else

but even at that i'm not convinced there is that much difference between any of them - bolly and krug excluded

the big differences in weight are found in the grower champagnes, not in the houses

i'm sure there will be other input

[James Roscoe]

What do you mean by light vs. heavy? Citrus versus toast? I certainly see that the ones you mention as lighter seem to be more citrusy and the heavier ones have a toastier, creamier flavor. I hardly favor one style over the other. I assumed it was the cuvee or the vintage.

What do you mean by light vs. heavy? Citrus versus toast? I certainly see that the ones you mention as lighter seem to be more citrusy and the heavier ones have a toastier, creamier flavor.

There is probably a corrolation there, but I don't think it's the only factor.

NV Brut is the easiest to contrast. But I tend to find house styles tend (with exceptions) to influence each level. So a producer like Taittinger's tete de cuvee (Comtes) might be "bigger" that the NV Brut of Roederer, but the Comtes is to my taste much lighter/more elegant than Cristal.

What I mean by lighter/heavier is totally subjective. To me, a Perrier-Jouet or Taittinger is light, fresh, and brisk on palate, while Bollys or Krug is much creamier/nuttier/leesy. Many of the ones I think of as heavier have a bit of oxidative character, but I wasn't defining by that alone. I'd guess the heavier ones are more likely to be barrel-fermented, and maybe have less Chardonnay in the blends. But I'm guessing.

As noted, this isn't scientific. I tend to prefer the ones I think of as fresher/lighter, though I have been wowwed by a couple of Bolly/Krug wines, and been disappointed by ones that I felt were light enough to qualify as inconsequential. I'm just interested in others' opinions to see how my prejudices stack up.

Dificult to disagree with my limited experience.

Krug is special and whilst at the heavier end is far from clumsy. The price is a shame (£50 a bottle and I'd buy it). As a result Roederer is the 'big house' champagne we buy and I'd class it as middle ground but with character.

The two Perriers both disappointed badly at organised tastings - perhaps too young but then shouldn't a NV hit the market at a pointy where it's starting to be interesting to drink? I'd not disagree with calling them light (nor would I disagree with bland and overpriced).

I'm looking to sample some 'growers' champagnes in the not too distant future as I know I've ignored them for too long.

regards

Ian