WTN: Thoughts on a Champagne Event

[David M. Bueker]

Attended the annual Table & Vine Champagne "Extravaganza" this afternoon. Here are some thoughts more than tasting notes:

1. Krug is Krug. Yes it's expensive, but it is distinctive, and for those that love it (e.g. Laura and me) there is no substitute. The Grand Cuvee was on form if in need of some bottle age.

2. The 2000 Dom Perignon needs bottle age - badly.

3. Armand de Brignac is a joke. The rappers are getting exactly what they deserve.

4. Roederer Cristal is the 2nd most overrated Champagne in the world, after the Armand de Brignac.

5. Andre Clouet is making some lovely wines. Their basic NV Grande Reserve Brut is lovely and distinctive.

6. Laurent Perrier's Rose is now better than the Billecart Salmon. Unfortunately it is also more expensive. The '99 Laurent Perrier Brut is $30 less than the NV Rose.

7. Bollinger NV Special Cuvee is probably the most consistent, high quality Champagne out there.

8. The grower Champagnes from Terry Theise's portfolio were better than 99% of all the other Champagnes out there. After the NV Krug, the Billiot NV was the best wine on show. The Pierre Peters, Aubry, Gaston-Chiquet, Geoffroy & Chartogne Taillet were not far behind.

9. Cedric Bouchard makes incredibly interesting wines, but they are not for everyone.

10. Most wine distributor reps would not know a corked wine if it hit them in the face. We were poured three clearly corked samples. In 2 of the three cases the rep said "Nobody has complained about it before you." Once it was a newly opened bottle, so we asked him to taste it. "Tastes fine" he said. Next customer comes to the table. They say it's corked as well. Bottle goes away.

11. It's really too bad what has happened to Champagne prices.

12. I really like Champagne!

David
I share your view on Krug (albeit from more limited experience). It was a noticeable leap in interest/enjoyment from any other Champagne I've tried. That said it always seems to be £20 more than what I'd pay for it (at a stretch), so we never do buy it.
Who knows though - heavy discounting on champagnes here at the mo', the latest being 2004 Duval-leroy BdB at £15 a bottle(apparently VERY recently disgorged, so one for the cellar before drinking).
regards
Ian

David,

Completely agree with 1, 2, 11 and 12. Last Cristal I tried was 1988 and it was fantastic. I have a friend who promises to open a 2002 Cristal with me so we shall see. Thanks for the heads-up on the Laurent-Perrier Rose.

Most wine distributor reps would not know a corked wine is it hit them in the face.

I guess they weren't hired for their palate!

Still, a shame that such knowledge/skills are not more widely distributed.

7. What do you mean, "probably"? Commit yourself, man!

[David M. Bueker]

7. What do you mean, "probably"? Commit yourself, man!

Well I don't get to taste them all.

Dave,

Thanks for the notes.

I completely agree regarding Krug. There is Krug, then there is the remainder of Champagne.

Something even MORE overrated than Cristal? That's hard to believe. I recall a quote from one of Cristal's marketers, who said, "it's not enough for us to be top quality--we also have to be the most expensive". They certainly have succeeded in the latter. I dispute the former.

Shame on Moet for releasing the 2000 Dom too early. Vintage Champagne is supposed to be like the legendary Paul Masson--"no wine released before it's time" (cue Orson Welles).

Thanks for the tip on Terry Thiese's Champagne portfolio. I don't buy very much Champagne, but I'll keep an eye out for his name on the importer's label from now on.

There are folks who genuinely can't taste TCA. It's a genetic thing, like being able to taste phenolphthalein. Personally, these folks are blessed, in that TCA never ruins a wine for them. But in the wine business they're cursed, since they genuinely can't detect a corked wine. I ran into such a person pouring for a winery at the Yakima barrel tasting festival. He served me a glass that simply reeked of TCA, but he couldn't detect a thing. I asked him to get a second opinion from one of his colleagues, who, on smelling the glass, exclaimed "PHEW!!", confiscated the bottle, opened a new one, and, with apologies, poured me out another taste (which was wonderful). But, if they're working in the wine biz, it's incumbent on such folks to be aware of their handicap.

-Paul W.

We were at a different tasting yesterday. The '00 Dom was served with the same results.

Sort of a Bueker 12-days of Champagne... nice....

I agree on the Bouchard, but not on the `not being for everyone.' I don't find them that controversial..

Krug is Krug, but I often find something like a Bollinger or a Bouchard even more interesting..

DP almost never gets my vote for best Champer at any tasting.. actually, never does...

Camille Saves makes a terrific Rose.. maybe you should make your list a `Bueker's dozen' by adding a 13th..

Vilmart makes a lovely bubbly too..

Though I dislike the "bling" of Cristal, I have liked it very much in the years I have tried it. I have sadly only had a few vintages from the mid '90s-2000 plus one matureish one ('86 IIRC) but I thought that if there was one prestige Champagne that I would buy if I had such money, Cristal would be the one. I sometimes enjoy Krug, but too often find it a like fruit-basket immersed in oak. Most other prestige Champs (esp. Dom Perignon) have left me cold. But Cristal had purity and precision - both aspects I appreciate very much.

[David M. Bueker]

James,

I agree with you on Vilmart & Camille Saves, but neither had wines at the event, hence no commentary. The Bouchard wine on show was a big hit with me, my wife (most important opinion in the room) and many others, but some folks were not so thrilled. Leaves more for me.

Otto,

Interesting commentary on Krug. I never find actual wood flavors in the wine (they use only very old casks). As for Cristal, I have enjoyed past vintages (e.g. 1985, 1990), but this one left me cold.

Sounds like my kind of event! I have a similar "event" here at home only because champagnes make up 95% of my entire cellar except I don't have the courage or diversity to open 20 different ones at once. Instead it's just called, "choosing a bottle and savoring it by itself with a special someone", which in all honesty is how I think champagne is best enjoyed.

But looking at the list, I find I agree with most (at least those of which I'm familar enough to even have a thought one way or the other...)

I agree with #1 yet I find personally I'm not exclusively loyal to ONLY Krug. For me there is Salon for example too . Of course I wish I could say I have more bottles than I do resting in the cellar but when I HAVE had it, I'm not sure I could put the Krug above it. I also enjoy the more "commercial" but yet pure seductive pleasures of, say, Taittinger Comtes de Champagne and such wines. I also realize I'm probably more "chardonnay-seduced" (especially when aged) than most champagne lovers so maybe that explains the previous addictions. So while I'm one to agree that Krug is something uniquely special, I can't quite say that some others haven't, on ocassion, brought equal to greater pleasure. But aside from all that, yes, I always have the 375 halfs of Grand Cuvee stocked as sort of my "house" NV champagne (just because it's one of the really NICE champagnes in HALF form I can find in numerous quantities typically). And they are a pleasure to age. I try to keep sort of a progressing ladder stock of them going where I try to pull out the oldest halves I purchased while sporadically re-stocking a handful of new ones so that I'm always, hopefully, pulling out "older" ones to consume at any moment. I try to do this with my other favorite "commercial" NV -the Laurent Perrier L.P's as well. A much easier and CHEAPER adventure with the latter! What always stands out as unique to me about Krug for some reason is the "lemon component". Meant in my experience as a seductive/positive thing. I seem to only notice it in Krug (Grand Cuvees). Most champagnes it's inherent to find "citrus" or of course "apple". But I find what I consider more true "lemon" in Krug. It's a bit more of a heavy/smooth/rich subtletly of the citrus that I pick up on in many Krug's than just the usual, sometimes sharper citrus profile which is the normal champagne profile, especially when younger. I don't know if it's just me or just a random impression I've had a few times just with Krug but I swear they can often taste more lemon-y to me than other champagnes, in a pleasing way.

For #2, it sounds like I should not be in any hurry to try the two 2000 Dom's I have. But I wouldn't doubt that after 9 years it likely isn't at its most enjoyable yet. I have a half case of Perrier Jouet Fleur de Champagnes 2000 and found the same thing - just very "green" yet to my tastes. But I couldn't resist uncorking just one to see. But I should know better to do that with any champagnes! I have a predominately "english taste" in champagnes. I almost can't have one too old unless it's flat-out dead or outright sour. I LOVE the caramaled, slightly oxidative, lazied-bubbles, nutty taste when it comes to champagne and thus I typically am one who never even ponders having ANY vintage champagne, if I can resist it, from about 15 years from the vintage. I know several are "fine" to drink before then but I TRY to wait (or purchase somewhat older to begin with if I can afford it) until any "greenness" is thouroughly gone (at a minimum). But I know tastes are different. It's just that when I have had "subpar" champagnes, I can almost always trace it to the fact that I simply opened it too soon (for my taste). So I've started to learn my lesson on the "getting too curious for my own good" mindset with vintage champagnes. I now have an automatic 12-15 year counter in my head from every year I see on any of my bottles. I stop and count at least 12 or so from the year I'm looking at. If it isn't at least 12 years I don't even ponder it anymore. Of coures roses and non vintage are a more "flexible" adventure. And in the case of non vintage, without disgorging dates, who knows how old it is when you purchased it to begin with? All you can do is pop the cork and hope it's great! Yet even with NV I find my favorite bottles (even with those supposedly ordinary, commercial, Laurent Perrier Brut LP's) have always been ones that were significantly (and safely) aged prior to me purchasing them! Yummy! When it starts to taste (or look) like the profile of caramel apples I know I hit a favorite one!

#4 is one I can't really comment on either way. I honestly haven't the pleasure (or is it apparently not a pleasure?) to have a Cristal before. I can only guess this has been a combination of two things... 1) my INITIAL experience with Louis Roederer in general was not my "style". It turns out that I just had "off" bottles of the NV I think. But it set an initial tone that kinda kept me away from "getting into them" too much. 2) the bottles, even NEW, are sooooooo high that it never inspired me to gamble on one, especially when my early opinions were that Roederer isn't my style to begin with. I have no problem sporadically splurging on a Salon or Comtes de Champagne since I know I like those and will cellar them anyways but I never could force myself to try a Cristal. Not yet anyways... For what it's worth, I finally did have a truly delicious and balanced Roderer NV recently! It turns out I was wrong - Roederer can be delicious, apparently. But the Cristal is simply uncharted waters (or is that bubbles) for me...

#6 is an interesting one. I do agree that I'm one who's never seen the "charm" in the Billecart-Salmon Rose. Have tried it twice before, one half and one full bottle. Like the initial Roederer NV, maybe they were just both "off" too? But both were very "un-substantial" to my tastes, almost too "airy" and yet kinda on the sharp end rather than balanced/seductive end (to my tastes). It just didn't seem to hold what I think makes ideal rose champagnes great to begin with. Oh it wasn't "bad" or undrinkable. It was "nice" I guess. But I guess it just wasn't my seductive idea of a great rose. I also simply think I may just be a bit bigger fan, generally speaking, of just the traditional "blonde" champagnes. That could be a lot of it. Yet the 1988 Dom Perignon Rose was one of the greatest champagnes I've tasted! Much more mouthfeel, hints of strawberries and cream and definitely "seductive" rather than slightly sharp like the Billecart Salmon or other NV roses I've had. I guess THAT is my idea of a rose champagne but also understand it unfortunately isnt an everyday pleasure to drink. But don't I wish... Anyways, I DO love roses! But just find, based on the above experiences, that I have a hard time finding "everyday/commercial/non vintage" ones that woo me fully in the way I think roses are "supposed" to. This is somewhat true just with ANY champagne as it's often, like anything, a "you get what you pay for" kind of thing. But I find it particularly true with roses, in my experience. On the other hand, I HAVE had a few non-commercial, less expensive, NV blonde champagnes that were up there as the greatest champagnes I've thus tasted...

I also agree about #11 unfortunately. It's still my favorite wine so I'm guilty of often splurging on whatever prices get asked. What choice do I have? But I agree that it would obviously be nice if they were going DOWN rather than up! Especially somewhat surprising seeing the state the world economy is largely in too! I still get catalogs from my favorite champagne stores in the mail and keep expecting to see all these wondrous wines having sharp discounts or deals but, ironically, many seem to be just the opposite! I guess it's the chicken or the egg thing. The customers now can't afford many of them yet because customers aren't buying, the places also can't afford to sell them at discounts, or even just at regular prices! In other words, I guess EVERYONE and EVERYBODY is currently broke! This is going way off topic now, but I notice similar things in general even with the holiday shopping etc. Maybe I just am not loking in the right places but you'd think in these tough economic times, deals/discounts would be off the charts. Ironically, I've found the opposite so far - no real eye-popping deals or typical grand holiday mega-deals etc. Sure, the ads and commercials still "advertize" that they are but if anything, I get the idea that the STORES are just as broke as the consumers and actually aren't giving the kind of discounts/sales that you'd initially figure would be common sense in this economic environment. Again, I think it's the chicken or egg thing. Also proof, I guess, that just one segment being broke can effect EVERYBODY (in some fashion) since it's like an epidemic that spreads to all segments of the economy. But enough of this "real life" babbling on my part. Back to the bubbles...

Lastly, and most importantly, I think your #12 is the best one! And glad to see there is other fans of what I think is the most special wine on the planet! Thanks for posting these items!

Jeff

[David M. Bueker]

Great post Jeff. I wish I had time for a longer response right now, but I am terribly jealous of anyone who used Krug NV as a house wine, even if it was in half bottles! Laura and I both love Salon, but it is now significantly more expensive than Krug (e.g. '97 Salon is about $300 while '98 Krug can be had for a little over $200), and as such totally off my radar screen unless someone wants to buy me a bottle. We'll nurse our remaining, small stock of '88, '90 and '96. I also like Laurent Perrier, though their egregious price increase on the Rosé has me backing off the brand. (The '99 LP is still semi-reasonably priced for good vintage Champagne, so I might sneak in a couple.)

I don't know if you have had much experience with the grower Champagnes, but either way I cannot recommend the Theise portfolio of producers highly enough. Billiot, Chartogne-Taillet, Gaston-Chiquet, Vilmart, Pierre Peters, Jean Milan, Gimmonet, etc are all worth your attention and dollars.

More later.

David,

Just curious--do you consider vintage Salon superior to vintage Krug? If so, it must be truly celestial.

-Paul W.

Great post Jeff. I wish I had time for a longer response right now, but I am terribly jealous of anyone who used Krug NV as a house wine, even if it was in half bottles!

No, don't be too jealous. I didn't really mean "house champagne" in the sense I literally have it flowing seven days a week. Is a nice thought though! Just more that it is my preferred default nice "house" champagne when I can afford at least half bottle multiples of it (fulls definitely would be out of the question, at least for multiple purchases). I, too, wish I could truly have it as a house champagne 24/7 but that might be stretching it a bit, not to mention going broke! The reason I can somewhat enjoy the halves as more of a "house" champagne is because the FIRST couple purchases of the halves were half-case size purchases so I was able to get a head start on the multiples. And Krug's age so well that I actually don't use them up at an everyday rate so it allows me to sort of buy two new halves for every one I actually open and enjoy thus the cellar always stays somewhat stocked with them over time. But that's still a relative term of course. It's a mini-surplus not an endless surplus unfortunately. I typically don't buy more than one or two in future purchases and even that is just "once in awhile" not weekly or anything, unfortunately. And mostly the Laurent Perrier halves I enjoy casually in the meantime as well. Those I can enjoy stocking up on a little bit easier. And is much more affordable obviously when just buying the halves of those. I love halves in general. I only wish it was a constant option for ANY available wine! I don't want to think of the trouble I might get into if I could buy Salon's, Comtes de Champagnes or Bollinger Grand Annee's in halves! LOL. I already discovered that more recent Fleur de Champagne vintages are available in halves and of course had to buy a few. Those were the 2000's I mentioned in the above post and, at this point, is still too young (for my tastes) to enjoy anyways. But I still was happy to find them for cellaring purposes. But I do wish halves were as common as the full bottles. It's really my preferred format if possible. There are indeed more now than ever so I guess I really can't complain too much. I just hope it keeps continuing and spreading to all bottlings. One can always dream anyways...

Laura and I both love Salon, but it is now significantly more expensive than Krug (e.g. '97 Salon is about $300 while '98 Krug can be had for a little over $200), and as such totally off my radar screen unless someone wants to buy me a bottle. We'll nurse our remaining, small stock of '88, '90 and '96. I also like Laurent Perrier, though their egregious price increase on the Rosé has me backing off the brand. (The '99 LP is still semi-reasonably priced for good vintage Champagne, so I might sneak in a couple.)

I don't know if you have had much experience with the grower Champagnes, but either way I cannot recommend the Theise portfolio of producers highly enough. Billiot, Chartogne-Taillet, Gaston-Chiquet, Vilmart, Pierre Peters, Jean Milan, Gimmonet, etc are all worth your attention and dollars.

More later.

Yeah, the prices of Salon (and so many of these champagnes in general) are the downside of the enjoyment unfortunately. I don't mind it for a "special bottle purpose or two" here and there. But you're right, it gets to be too expensive for everyday type purchases unfortunately.

I've had a little, but fairly limited, experience with the samller grower champagnes. I need to keep trying more! I hear there are wonderful ones. A lot of the places I get my champagnes at, between the wine store closer to where I live and on wine sites, tend to generally have more "unstable" selections of smaller grower champagnes and thus I'm sometimes more hesitant to gamble on some of them. A least with the bigger, more well-known names, I have general ideas of when the stock is new or how long it's been on their shelves etc. But it's not necessarily intentional that I miss out on a lot of smaller champagnes. I know several of them are among the finest in all of champagne! It's just more of a "spotty inventory" and unfamilarity issue for me a lot of times. But I intend to keep some of those names on my future radar! I believe some of the Billiot and Vilmart are ones I could currently try. I can't recall if they were NV bottles or not but at least I know I've seen the names before in the catalogs I recieve from time to time. I'll have to add a few to the cart sometime...

Jeff

David,

Just curious--do you consider vintage Salon superior to vintage Krug? If so, it must be truly celestial.

-Paul W.

I know I'm not David but for me, I would just say Salon is equally special yet of course a somewhat different "style" at the same time. Like anything, "superior" is a hard term to state, at least objectively. And I unfortunately havent had numerous pleasures of having vintage Salon and vintage Krug within close tastings of one another (or even from the same vintage) so what do I know...

But I think the only objective truth about both (assuming one likes to champagne to begin with of course) is that both are at least equally "special". Probably similair to trying to pick which colorless, clean white diamond one finds prettier. Either way you got pure beauty in your hands! Perhaps you just pick diamond "A" over "B", or vice versa, simply because you slightly prefer the shape of one over the other but otherwise you still got two sparkling gems in front of you however you decide it...

I do have a perhaps higher seduction level than typical for (particularly aged) Chardonnay though, in terms of it's elegance and purity, so I might be slightly biased myself to the charms of Salon in particular. I do imagine that most wine folks would probably pick Krug, generally speaking. Not that it's the wrong pick by any stretch of imagination! But I do personally find seduction in other champagnes such as Salon or that isolated but perfect bottle that just occurs from time to time from some other label. I don't view Krug as the exclusive end to all things champagne even if I might agree it is indeed the finest (generally).

I think individual years and isolated bottles (and bottles within aging periods) also makes all the difference in the world. In other words, it may be true that Krug is essentially superior (or at least more selective in quality and detail) to all other champagnes over the course of time and in a general sense. Yet, there will always be cases where ,say, the Salon at just the right time of its life, from a certain case, from a certain vintage will simply outshine the Krug (or anything else). Some years or bottles (or points in time) it might even be a Dom, a Bollinger or something else. So I think it's always hard to even compare houses together when it always really depends on which specific bottle, case, year and moment in aging time the comparison between the two is talking about...

One thing's for sure though - it's all darn good stuff! Best to just take a bottle of everything and enjoy!

Jeff

[David M. Bueker]

David,

Just curious--do you consider vintage Salon superior to vintage Krug? If so, it must be truly celestial.

In general, no. However the bottle of 1996 Salon that I experienced about a month ago was one of the great wine experiences of my life. I've not yet had the 1996 Krug, but if it is better than the Salon I may have to sell every other bottle of wine I own to purchase whatever '96 Krug I can get.

Looking back on common vintages I have tasted, I would consider the '85, '88 and '90 Krug to be superior to the corresponding vintages of Salon.

[David M. Bueker]

Jeff,

One thing to be aware of with the Terry Theise Champagne producers is that many, if not all of them place disgorgement dates on the back labels. So you can have a pretty good idea if what you are buying has been on the shelf for a relatively short or relatively long time.

Sounds like a great tasting with lots of interesting (and hitherto unknown to me) RMs on show.

Armand de Brignac is a new name to me. I see he claims on his website to be No. 1 Champagne in the world!? He does not figure in any of my French reference books. It doesn't sound as if I'm missing anything.

Cédric Bouchard and André Clouet sound well worth searching for.

Chiquet is also the name of the owners (Jean-Hervé and Laurent) of Jacquesson, which is a brand which impresses me every time I try it. Were their wines on show?

I fully agree with your observations 1, 7, 10, 11 & 12.

[David M. Bueker]

Tim,

The Chiquet family that owns Gaston-Chiquet is not the same one as the owners of Jacquesson.

As for the Armand de Brignac, it is a "prestige" Champgane in name and packaging only.

Thanks for the TNs/general commentary and, for me, everything to agree with except the 'dissing' of Cristal although that was qualified in a later post.

My first substantial experience of Cristal was the 90 which we discovered on the restaurant wine list of a two Michelin starred hotel restaurant in the Loire. Incredibly it was priced at a fraction over £50/bottle and over several days we had what is still one of our all-time favourite Champagne experiences. Of course the [relatively] low price helped the decision making and was also one of the many reasons that we now stay there every year for a week although regrettably they now price the Cristal more appropriately relative to its peers.

Nevertheless some years ago when we were leaving after our annual visit they were kind enough to offer us a half case of the 95 which we had enjoyed, once this time, with a meal. The offer was again at such an attractive price that it was impossible to refuse. Unfortunately there is only one left in our cellar.

Krug in its quite different way is also a favourite but we decided years ago that we preferred the consistency of the Grande Cuvee to the vintage wines- and at that time the difference in price was less significant. That choice seems like a nice one to have made based on more recent prices.

Salon had been a much more rare experience and probably because it had been much more variable in enjoyment. Great wine no doubt but my experience has been nowhere near as consistently great as with the other two wines. To be fair, as explained, I have had it much less often. A much better and more consistent quality performance has come from another favourite the Philipponnat Clos des Goisses.

Dom Perignon and Taittinger's Comtes de Champagne are two more favourites with the latter being my wife's top wine. However the 96 C de C is a classic example of a wine that " badly needs bottle age" - at which point it will deliver something as good as [some say better than but it will be tough IMO] the already great 95.

As for the Grower Champagnes there are so many today that provide true individual quality and it is good to see the recognition even if prices have begun to suffer as a consequence of their success.

Although Champagne prices have been at all-time highs here in the UK recently a price war appears to have broken out with Krug Grande Cuvee available from one supermarket at just under £50 and another at just under £60 - hardly cheap but the lowest being about half the previous [rather inflated] price. Bollinger NV similarly heavily discounted to well below £20 by another and most recently a major offer of a decent Duval-Leroy vintage Blanc de Blancs at £15. One might hope this will become more widespread.

I had my first Clouet this past weekend, 2002 André Clouet Champagne Millésimé, and it was indeed delightful.

I had my first Clouet this past weekend, 2002 André Clouet Champagne Millésimé, and it was indeed delightful.

So you're not clouetless any more!

I had my first Clouet this past weekend, 2002 André Clouet Champagne Millésimé, and it was indeed delightful.

So you're not clouetless any more!

Nope, but I am brut-al.