Vintage or NV Champagne, can you tell the difference?

Here is a very interesting exercise from a conference in London. Tasting blind, can you tell the difference between Vintage and NV?

http://internationalwinechallenge.com/b ... eview=true

tasting blind, not sure I can tell Malbec from Riesling.

I like NV Champagne, and buy far more than vintage.

That said, I find that article a bit hard to comprehend -needs an editor. 2004 Taittinger Tete a Tete? Do they mean the Comtes? It hasn't been released yet, is this a special sample?

I don't understand what would be so different between a NV and vintage Champagne that would be the indicator.

Indeed the "difference" between vintage and non-vintage Champagne may not be so much about quality as it may be about consistency. That is to say, when purchasing a n.v. Champagne the vast majority of people have no idea of when the wine they have bought was bottled. No matter how they strive for a uniform house style, there can be a good deal of difference between various bottlings of n.v. Champagne. On the other hand, with the vintage releases one can fairly well rely on consistency between bottles.

If ever the variation between n.v. cuvees should require a demonstration, merely pick up six bottles of the "same" n.v. wine from six different stores. My hypothesis is that at least three of them would show very differently from their mates.

Best
Rogov

Funny, but most people, including wine fans, seem to view a NV wine as a second rate bad thing.

That often is not the case - in fact there is a better chance that a NV wine may be a better wine than a vintage one if the vintage happens to be other than the best, because with NV you can blend to amend the shortcomings of one vintage with another, unlike the vintage wine which is stuck with whatever God (and the vineyard manager) provided. One vintage has too much acidity and not enough fruit? Add wine from a vintage that is too soft to have good definition, but that has good fruit and you get a wine better than either of the components.

I doubt I'd be able to detect the difference between a vintage Champagne and a NV one that used wine from a similar age.

[David M. Bueker]

Badly flawed article.

Even back when I was 100% I would not have been able to tell NV from vintage Champagne blind. But who cares.

Badly flawed premise altogether. And who cares anyway?

I always accepted that NV was supposed to be the house style, consistent from year to year, whereas the Vintage dated was supposed to reflect the nature of that particular year (with the understanding that the year was worth reflecting) and its (supposedly) better vineyard selections.

No, I certainly cannot tell the difference. As others have said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with NV Champagne.

I can't reliably tell the difference. Nor have I ever pondered why it's important to be able to. The cellar doesn't mind if you store both!

I think the danger of the question is it assumes vintage always equals "better" by default, but some of the greatest champagnes I've had have been NV. The stage of development, not to mention the grapes, blending and personal taste, all seem to have more to do with "better" than if the bottle simply has a year on it or not.

I think a wine like Krug NV also makes such a black and white question a non-idea, since it's a "better" champagne yet it's actually non-vintage! Or, rather, a blend of quality (aged) wines from multiple vintages.

The only general difference that I notice in the nicer vintage champagnes (prestige cuvees) I've had is what I call an "ease of drinkability". And even that really has nothing to do with "is it a vintage or not" but more to do with the quality of the grapes, the pressing and blend. Not to mention bottle age in many cases. Assuming such champagnes use the gently pressed first cuvees, you should hopefully get a more "luxurious" taste of champagne. I always have a hard time putting into exact words what that distinguishing characteristic is, but you kind of know it when you taste it. I think of it a bit
like the impression you're drinking clear spring water but in a delicious sense. The quality is almost "transparent" or pure
as it goes down. And I only can tell that quality difference after the fact, as a pattern of having tasted both and the
vintage ones typically having the better "source material". But could I tell them apart blind if given random bottles of
each? Certainly not!

Then again, I prefer to bring my lips to them with eyes wide open, and with a spellbound smile...


Jeff