Value is relative. If disposable income is not an issue, buying expensive Champagne probably won’t be either. But at sometimes 2x-3x the cost of the producer’s vintage wine, are tete de cuvées worth the extra expense for you? A friend of mine is fond of saying, “they’re better but not that much better”. So, what say you? Thanks.
Edited to acknowledge that 3x-4x the cost was too high.
Some are. Some aren’t. But it’s rare that they costs 3-4x.
Care to elaborate on some you consider not worth the additional expense?
Certain ones are well worth the cost. And as mention, it’s nowhere near 3X the cost.
I can often get Comtes de Champagne on sale for a little over $100, and many good NVs are in the $60s these days. Just to give one example.
Throwing out a few:
Dom vs Moët vintage (yes, Dom is 2-3x as good)
Bollinger Grand Annee (yes for grand annee but no for RD extra markup)
Krug vintage vs MV (I say no, many would disagree)
Cristal (yes, though 08 pricing is stupid)
Salon (vs Delamotte??) (apples and oranges. Delamotte is no match for Salon, but Salon pricing is stupid. I think neither are worth it)
Perrier-Jouet Belle Époque (no, but the bottle is so much prettier)
I find most or many to be worth it, perhaps less so for growers.
As they are usually better a lot of it comes down to markup, income, and the specific wine.
I never buy Dom simply because there are many Champagnes that cost less and which I prefer.
I usually buy Comtes because I find the value is definitely there for such an ageworthy Champagne.
I occasionally/rarely splurge on Winston Churchill because it’s a distinct style which I love but the pricing makes it an uncommon purchase.
Pierre Peters Chetillons is a beautiful wine which I adore but since I can usually find Comtes for less I find myself buying the latter in preference.
If I earned more money than I do I’d consider buying Cristal. I think the value is sort of there though the Brut Nature is nearly as big a step up at a much lower price. Of course they (like Pierre Peters) also make one of my favorite NV Champagnes.
Then there are growers who don’t do the specific TdC thing so I leave them off even though they have wines at a variety of price points (e.g., Bereche, Benoit Lahaye, Marie Courtin).
Speaking more generally, you have to pay more for the higher increments of improvement in big name wines.
Is a first growth 10X better than the best $60 Bordeaux from that vintage? You probably wouldn’t say yes when phrased that way, but that’s what it costs to move up to that level, and you might just prefer to experience a first growth rather than ten good $60 bottles.
Same thing in Napa, Burgundy, Australia, Piedmont, etc.
I can’t comment on US pricing. I buy (for example) Péters direct and I pay around 40% more for Chetillons than the L’Espirit, (that’s admittedly 2015 pricing - I can’t find more recent invoice now). I suspect the difference is greater when it hits your channels.
Generally if I like the producer I like the Tete de cuvee. I can’t think of many where I buy one but not the other (I guess Selosse is a semi exception as I don’t care much for Substance - But i don’t think that’s really a TdC).
Definitely can be, but as with all things wine it depends on the producer, your taste buds, and your budget. For me:
Taittinger Comtes. Yes. Easy one. The price gap is moderate and the quality gap is large. Also this is a relatively large production wine and easy to find.
Krug. I’m on the fence. I love the MV as well as the vintage wine. Price gap at release is not huge - 2004 is about 1.7x MV in market now. I buy both in small quantities, and look for deals.
Pol Roger. The Winston is a massive step up from everything else. But, in this price range I prefer others, so am not buying much any more.
Philipponnat. I love the CdG but have recently purchased other bottlings to answer this question for myself. TBD.
Vilmart. The NV is a staple of my cellar, have recently bought some CdC to see if it performs well at the price. TBD.
I really like how the growers/smaller producers are breaking this paradigm and offering a variety of single vineyard or other premium crus at up charges that don’t go into the stratosphere.
Ultimately you’re going to have to taste for yourself.
What about Clos d’Ambonnay or Clos du Mesnil? Those are easily 3x the cost of the MV and the vintage…
I agree 100% for all the wines and reasons mentioned here, and this is exactly what I do as well.
Bit of a special case, like Salon, no?
In answer to the original question, I think most people on forums like these are going to say yes. It’s a captive market and our curiosity will always dominate rationality. Even if a wine isn’t objectively better by the amount more that it costs (which is a frequent occurrence), they are compelling enough for people like us to continue buying them, and clearly we feel that’s enough. They are almost justified merely by existence.
People aren’t balling out tatty comtes in night clubs (or the many other more niche TdCs); that is fundamentally an enthusiast wine that doesn’t have the brand rep of DP or Cristal (or Ace of Spades if you want to count that reformed Cattier 1er cru stuff). Yet it is a huge commercial undertaking for Taittinger which clearly works for them, and the same is true for most other growers to grand marques.
In essence, the question answers itself.
Sample size of 1 for me on the CdM (1996, if I remember correctly) and I’d say no - not worth it. Very similar to the vintage Brut. I’d be delighted to defer to others who have had it many times.
Would have to disagree with you. The '96 CdM is a definite step up from the '96 Brut (which is a tremendous Champagne). Whether it’s four times better, that’s a bit more of a grey area for me.
Nope, some other options -
Louis Roederer vs. Cristal
Moet Chandon vs. Dom Perignon
Delamotte vs. Salon (as you mentioned)
What a fun topic. I was actually just having this conversation with my mom on Saturday. She is very cheap, and so will not buy tete de cuvees even if they are “worth the cost” despite champagne being her favorite wine. I’ll host a champagne tasting in the next few months (once my damn kitchen reno is done) and make her drink some so she can at least enjoy the experience without the cost. My take is that some are, some aren’t, and it’s all about what you like. So, the big ones:
Moet → Dom Perignon
I absolutely think this is a reasonable value proposition because most Moet is not good, and nearly all Dom is very good. I will not buy a bottle of Moet because there are a tremendous number of better bottles at prices up and down the line. Dom in great vintages is great, and in not great vintages is very good, though I spend elsewhere.
Ruinart → Dom Ruinart
I like the Ruinart Blanc de Blanc. I liked it more when it was $50 and the Dom Ruinart BdB $125 but those days seem past. 2002 Dom Ruinart BdB was a really tremendous wine in my opinion and well worth the premium. It is always excellent, and one of my favorite BdBs. So here again I’d say the uptick in price is worth it.
Taittinger → Comtes de Champagne
I feel like this is the easiest one. Yes. I do not think the NV delivers very good value, but think the Tete is tremendous in nearly every vintage, ages well, and is so lovely and refined. This is one I got my mom to readily admit was her favorite in a tasting of a bunch of NVs and then this 2006. This is a bit like the Moet proposition for me. I don’t like buying Taittinger. I do like buying this.
Bollinger → Grand Annee / RD Vintage
I think this is a little tougher. Which one is the Tete de Cuvee? Is Oenotheque Dom the Tete? I think not, at least for this conversation. I really like NV Bolly. I think Grand Annee is worth it because the jump is not typically huge and in good vintages it can be exhilarating. I am rather down on the RD. It is a massively different style than the GA and NV, is always very rich, and is almost always heavily oxidative in style. At this point, it simply is not a style that I pursue and so the RD is not worth the cost (though I’ve bought and drank the 95 and 2002 in the past 2 months).
Veuve → Grande Dame
As Grand Dame prices have kept increasing and normal Veuve has stayed relatively steady, I’m leaning towards not quite worth it. This is like Jay’s response on Dom for me. It’s just not a spot I’m willing to allocate funds for the premium. It’s now almost a $100 difference between the Yellow label and the GD. The Extra Old Extra Brut for $40 more than the base is probably a better value proposition. At $170 I’m buying zero Grand Dame. At $45 I’ve got no problem buying Veuve yellow label. It’s still a reasonably high quality wine and I feel like most wine geeks don’t take it very seriously due to its overwhelming mass proliferation.
Roederer → Cristal
This wine was the starter of my discussion with my mom on Saturday. She’s never had it. Ever. She’s had cases of Roederer. I think this one is an interesting call because the Brut Premiere is just a really rock solid champagne. Their vintage champagnes are really good, too. The 2008 Roederer is delicious. 2006 was really good. So is it worth it to jump from $50 for Brut Premiere, or event $75 or $80 for vintage, all the way to $199 for Cristal? That’s tough. The price point is creeping into elite company. It’s an elite wine in good vintages like 2002, 2004, and the 2009 is a big ass champagne (though not my favorite). I’ve purchased very few bottles of this. Not because it isn’t great, but because I can get really solid back vintages of some wines for the same price. Like a 2002 Dom Perignon or 2002 Dom Ruinart is still the same price or cheaper than a 2009 Cristal and so with my limited buying power I pass on Cristal.
I’ll not address Krug or Salon or Vilmart. Vilmart I lack significant experience. I’ve had 1 tete from Vilmart. Billecart is another where I lack experience at the Tete level. Salon/Delamotte is, for me, a no brainer. I can afford Delamotte, I cannot afford Salon. End of story. Splurging at $200 is one thing, splurging at $415 is another thing. Krug MV I drink with some frequency. Probably a case a year or so. Krug vintage I drink sparingly because it’s so steep. $300 is typically the going rate shortly after release, or at least that’s what it is around me. I’ve had 95, 96, 2002 and they’re wonderful. I do think the vintage wines show a different style than the MV. They are more refined and longer aging, typically with a nicer cut and more seamless. The Mesnil and Ambonay or absurdly priced and while I’ve had some at Krug dinners, are so out of my price range as to not warrant comment. If you’re questioning whether Dom is “worth it” you’re simply not in the market for those Krugs. As for Pierre Peters, totally worth it, only because I do not think the NV is a very good champagne for the price, while the Tete is a very nice wine.
KJJ,
A lot of great posts but yours I find myself in complete alignment. Well reasoned. I have a lot of experience with Billecart. I think the cuvee Elisabeth rose to be their finest effort although they have a higher end TdC.
I’m just wondering here why everybody is talking here like La Grande Année is the prestige cuvée of Bolly. Isn’t that just their vintage wine and VVF is their true Tête de Cuvée?
I’d say both yes and no: GA is just their ‘regular’ vintage with a grande name. I’d see VVF more like Clos d’Ambonnay, in that it’s more of a single terroir wine (though strictly speaking made from three separate plots in Aÿ, rather than the one Clos). With its relatively early release I’d say RD comes closer to filling the role of a Tête de Cuvée, though I suppose you could argue that it’s really more like the old DP Oenotheque. As such, maybe Bollinger doesn’t have a Tête in the conventional sense?