WARNING: You may assume that what you are about to read is the usual dutiful holiday roundup of Champagnes and sparkling wines. But you would be wrong. Ignore this at your own peril.
Hmm. Wrong tone. Too grim. Not at all the light, exuberant note I’m seeking. Let me try again.
Ah, Champagne! Ah, bubbly! Ah, the corks popping anew as we joyously stride forth into the new year!
No, even worse. What, play it straight? Well, why not? Maybe this year the news on Champagne is too good to gussy up.
So, here it is. If you can afford to spend $30 to $40 a bottle on Champagne, more or less the entry-level price nowadays, you may find yourself with some seriously good wine.
This has not recently been the case. The base price for good Champagne was more than $40 last year. Cheaper bottles tended to be a desultory lot. But in a tasting of 20 Champagnes, priced under $40 each, the wine panel was pleasantly surprised by the elegance that we found among our favorites.
For the tasting Florence Fabricant and I were joined by Elisa Kwon, chief buyer at Morrell & Company, a New York wine retailer, and Rebecca Foster, a European specialist with Acid Inc. Selections, an importer and distributor.
While generally pleased, we did have some reservations. Elisa was hoping for more complexity, while Rebecca would have liked more consistency, and Florence thought that other sorts of sparkling wines offered better values.
For me, these Champagnes offered a higher level of finesse and pleasure than I had expected, without the sweetness I find in less expensive bottles. Most Champagne houses put their best efforts into their vintage and prestige wines. The cheapest level of Champagne, almost always non-vintage, is too often cynically produced, made with little thought beyond how much cash it can bring in. What’s changed? Let’s look at recent Champagne sales and the economy.
In 2006, Champagne shipped more than 23.15 million bottles to the United States, according to the Champagne Bureau, an industry trade group. That volume, surpassed only by the 23.96 million bottles shipped in the millennial year of 1999, reflected a growing demand, not only in the United States but worldwide. Prices rose accordingly, to the point where a lot of entry-level bottles surged past $40.
When the bottom fell out of the economy, it also dropped out of the Champagne market. Shipments stayed strong in 2007, with more than 21.7 million bottles, but plummeted to about 17.19 million in 2008 and kept going down. In the first eight months of 2009, the Champagne Bureau said, shipments to the United States were down about 40 percent from last year. Something had to give.
“I think a lot of the importers got very nervous and this fall lowered prices for the big houses, especially in November and December,” said Lorena Ascencios, the wine buyer for Astor Wines and Spirits in Greenwich Village, which has a superb selection of Champagne.
While that accounts for the big names that have slipped back under the $40 level, we were most excited by the smaller producers who make Champagne from grapes they grow themselves. These grower-producers did very well in our tasting, taking 4 of the top 10 spots.
None of these came from the ranks of the grower-producer stars, like Larmandier-Bernier, Egly-Ouriet, René Geoffroy, Ulysse Collin and Camille Savès, who have largely left the $40 mark in the dust. While some grower-producers have attempted to keep prices down, trying at the least to counter the effect of the falling dollar, they don’t have the sort of wiggle room necessary to match discounts given by the bigger brands. Nonetheless, since our tasting, I’ve seen prices come down for good grower-producers who were not in our selection, like Pierre Gimonnet and Pierre Peters.
But enough economics. The wine is the thing. And the good news for consumers is that the pioneering efforts by importers like Terry Theise to bring these grower-producers into the United States has paid off so well in the last 10 years that many more importers are identifying small Champagne producers for the American market.
These include names like Joël Falmet, who farms around 16 acres in the Côte des Bar region, the southernmost growing area in the Champagne appellation. While the Côte des Bar has historically been the least prestigious region within Champagne, some of its producers are now making names for themselves in the United States, like Cédric Bouchard, Fleury and Serge Mathieu.
The Falmet Brut Tradition was our top-rated wine. We found it full of lively energy, with complex flavors of flowers, minerals, citrus and herbs, and with more finesse than you generally find in Champagnes dominated by the pinot noir grape.
Two other grower-producers from the Côte des Bar made our list. Our No. 5 bottle was the Brut Tradition from Christian Etienne, which was rich, round and full of fruit, yet beautifully balanced. Our No. 8 Champagne was the Grande Cuvée from Moutard, which showed its 100 percent pinot noir character in its rich, full-bodied texture and ripe fruit flavors.
Our best value was Les 7 Crus from Agrapart & Fils, another grower-producer. Agrapart is in the Côte des Blancs, which is chardonnay country, so naturally this was a blanc de blancs, made entirely out of chardonnay. It is fresh and balanced, with just the sort of finesse you would expect to see in a good blanc de blancs, and at $28 it was a great deal.
Personally, I love the individuality and distinctiveness I find in many grower-producer Champagnes. But I recognize that unless you live near a wine shop with a deep Champagne selection, or have access to one through the Internet, these labels can be hard to find. Fortunately, some of the bigger names did very well, too.
One of them, the Louis Roederer Brut Premier, was our No. 2 bottle. It is a perennial favorite of mine, though this is the first time in a few years that I’m seeing it for under $40. It was ripe and rich, yet showed the balance and elegance I’ve come to expect in Roederer Champagnes.
Our No. 4 bottle was the Henriot Brut Souverain, full, rich and creamy, with surprisingly ripe tropical fruit flavors. Yet it was dry and balanced. And our No. 7 bottle was the Brut La Française, from Taittinger, an often underrated producer. It was both fine and elegant, if that’s not redundant, with a mellow mineral and citrus flavor.
The Nicolas Feuillatte Brut was our No. 9 bottle. It’s by no means a complex Champagne, but it was fresh and lively. The Brut Réserve from Pol Roger, another big name, came in at No. 10. It’s a far cry from a vintage Pol Roger, but a decent bottle nonetheless, with lightness and elegance.
Obviously, not all the big names made our cut. We rejected Veuve Clicquot Brut and Charles Heidsieck Brut Réserve. Surprisingly, to me, because I think they are top quality producers, we also rejected the Deutz Brut Classic and the Duval-Leroy Brut. I would still consider them, because I’ve had too many good bottles of each.
Nor did all the smaller producers do well. We rejected the Cuvée Sainte-Anne from Chartogne-Taillet — I liked the floral aroma and gentle chalky flavors, but the rest of the panel disagreed — and the Petraea Brut from Raymond Boulard, a producer whose wines often seem disjointed.
But the good news is, the under $40 category offers better choices this year than it has in a while. Of course, $30 to $40 is still not cheap, but it’s pretty much as cheap as good Champagne gets. And that’s the straight talk.
Hmm. Wrong tone. Too grim. Not at all the light, exuberant note I’m seeking. Let me try again.
Ah, Champagne! Ah, bubbly! Ah, the corks popping anew as we joyously stride forth into the new year!
No, even worse. What, play it straight? Well, why not? Maybe this year the news on Champagne is too good to gussy up.
So, here it is. If you can afford to spend $30 to $40 a bottle on Champagne, more or less the entry-level price nowadays, you may find yourself with some seriously good wine. This has not recently been the case. The base price for good Champagne was more than $40 last year. Cheaper bottles tended to be a desultory lot. But in a tasting of 20 Champagnes, priced under $40 each, the wine panel was pleasantly surprised by the elegance that we found among our favorites.
For the tasting Florence Fabricant and I were joined by Elisa Kwon, chief buyer at Morrell & Company, a New York wine retailer, and Rebecca Foster, a European specialist with Acid Inc. Selections, an importer and distributor.
While generally pleased, we did have some reservations. Elisa was hoping for more complexity, while Rebecca would have liked more consistency, and Florence thought that other sorts of sparkling wines offered better values.
For me, these Champagnes offered a higher level of finesse and pleasure than I had expected, without the sweetness I find in less expensive bottles. Most Champagne houses put their best efforts into their vintage and prestige wines. The cheapest level of Champagne, almost always non-vintage, is too often cynically produced, made with little thought beyond how much cash it can bring in. What’s changed? Let’s look at recent Champagne sales and the economy.
In 2006, Champagne shipped more than 23.15 million bottles to the United States, according to the Champagne Bureau, an industry trade group. That volume, surpassed only by the 23.96 million bottles shipped in the millennial year of 1999, reflected a growing demand, not only in the United States but worldwide. Prices rose accordingly, to the point where a lot of entry-level bottles surged past $40.
When the bottom fell out of the economy, it also dropped out of the Champagne market. Shipments stayed strong in 2007, with more than 21.7 million bottles, but plummeted to about 17.19 million in 2008 and kept going down. In the first eight months of 2009, the Champagne Bureau said, shipments to the United States were down about 40 percent from last year. Something had to give.
“I think a lot of the importers got very nervous and this fall lowered prices for the big houses, especially in November and December,” said Lorena Ascencios, the wine buyer for Astor Wines and Spirits in Greenwich Village, which has a superb selection of Champagne.
While that accounts for the big names that have slipped back under the $40 level, we were most excited by the smaller producers who make Champagne from grapes they grow themselves. These grower-producers did very well in our tasting, taking 4 of the top 10 spots.
None of these came from the ranks of the grower-producer stars, like Larmandier-Bernier, Egly-Ouriet, René Geoffroy, Ulysse Collin and Camille Savès, who have largely left the $40 mark in the dust. While some grower-producers have attempted to keep prices down, trying at the least to counter the effect of the falling dollar, they don’t have the sort of wiggle room necessary to match discounts given by the bigger brands. Nonetheless, since our tasting, I’ve seen prices come down for good grower-producers who were not in our selection, like Pierre Gimonnet and Pierre Peters.
But enough economics. The wine is the thing. And the good news for consumers is that the pioneering efforts by importers like Terry Theise to bring these grower-producers into the United States has paid off so well in the last 10 years that many more importers are identifying small Champagne producers for the American market.
These include names like Joël Falmet, who farms around 16 acres in the Côte des Bar region, the southernmost growing area in the Champagne appellation. While the Côte des Bar has historically been the least prestigious region within Champagne, some of its producers are now making names for themselves in the United States, like Cédric Bouchard, Fleury and Serge Mathieu.
The Falmet Brut Tradition was our top-rated wine. We found it full of lively energy, with complex flavors of flowers, minerals, citrus and herbs, and with more finesse than you generally find in Champagnes dominated by the pinot noir grape.
Two other grower-producers from the Côte des Bar made our list. Our No. 5 bottle was the Brut Tradition from Christian Etienne, which was rich, round and full of fruit, yet beautifully balanced. Our No. 8 Champagne was the Grande Cuvée from Moutard, which showed its 100 percent pinot noir character in its rich, full-bodied texture and ripe fruit flavors.
Our best value was Les 7 Crus from Agrapart & Fils, another grower-producer. Agrapart is in the Côte des Blancs, which is chardonnay country, so naturally this was a blanc de blancs, made entirely out of chardonnay. It is fresh and balanced, with just the sort of finesse you would expect to see in a good blanc de blancs, and at $28 it was a great deal.
Personally, I love the individuality and distinctiveness I find in many grower-producer Champagnes. But I recognize that unless you live near a wine shop with a deep Champagne selection, or have access to one through the Internet, these labels can be hard to find. Fortunately, some of the bigger names did very well, too.
One of them, the Louis Roederer Brut Premier, was our No. 2 bottle. It is a perennial favorite of mine, though this is the first time in a few years that I’m seeing it for under $40. It was ripe and rich, yet showed the balance and elegance I’ve come to expect in Roederer Champagnes.
Our No. 4 bottle was the Henriot Brut Souverain, full, rich and creamy, with surprisingly ripe tropical fruit flavors. Yet it was dry and balanced. And our No. 7 bottle was the Brut La Française, from Taittinger, an often underrated producer. It was both fine and elegant, if that’s not redundant, with a mellow mineral and citrus flavor.
The Nicolas Feuillatte Brut was our No. 9 bottle. It’s by no means a complex Champagne, but it was fresh and lively. The Brut Réserve from Pol Roger, another big name, came in at No. 10. It’s a far cry from a vintage Pol Roger, but a decent bottle nonetheless, with lightness and elegance.
Obviously, not all the big names made our cut. We rejected Veuve Clicquot Brut and Charles Heidsieck Brut Réserve. Surprisingly, to me, because I think they are top quality producers, we also rejected the Deutz Brut Classic and the Duval-Leroy Brut. I would still consider them, because I’ve had too many good bottles of each.
Nor did all the smaller producers do well. We rejected the Cuvée Sainte-Anne from Chartogne-Taillet — I liked the floral aroma and gentle chalky flavors, but the rest of the panel disagreed — and the Petraea Brut from Raymond Boulard, a producer whose wines often seem disjointed.
But the good news is, the under $40 category offers better choices this year than it has in a while. Of course, $30 to $40 is still not cheap, but it’s pretty much as cheap as good Champagne gets. And that’s the straight talk.
No comments:
Post a Comment