I love Champagne and, as with many of us, over the years I have devoted more money and cellar space to bubbly. But while I love young Champagne, I really love aged Champagne. A recent ‘95 DP (OD) was so gorgeous.
So here’s my dilemma, while I love buying from smaller/artisan producers (dare I say “growers,” notwithstanding issues with the term, as identified by Brad B and others), and I love many of them young as much as the famous and more expensive names, my desire for “ageability” means that I still devote the majority of my Champagne budget to big houses with long track records.
I would love to hear thoughts on which of the smaller smaller/grower producers are making highly ageworthy wines. I’ve had some lovely aged Vilmart. Peters Chetillons too. And I kinda put Clos des Goisses in the “grower” category because of the singularity of the vineyard. But who else?
Ryan, all I can offer is to reaffirm your point about Vilmart. The 2004 Coeur de Cuvee we had yesterday from my cellar was fresh, really fresh. 15 years old and no signs of age, at least to me. But beyond Vilmart (and I have some 04s, 06s and 08s I am opening little by little), I just down age my wines, whether they are still or bubbly. I like the taste of freshness and vivid imprint that I get from youthful stuff.
Heck, depending on how long you want to go, the Pierre Peters Cuvée Réserve can go easily ten years. I have been drinking a lot of ten years post disgorgement NVs the last few months, and not one dud.
Check out Tarlant as well. I just ordered 2 bottles of the 2002/2003 Cuvee Louis through Lopa Wine at $70 per bottle. I first had this about a year ago and it was wonderful. Worth every penny in my opinion.
Did anyone see that old Billecart Rose label on Winebid last week? Any idea when they changed the design? I’m sitting on a few .375s I don’t plan to touch for a few years
I think there’s a bit of a misconception of champagne ageability in general. I find essentially every bottle improves with 3 years, regardless of status. Very few are worse for 5 years. Many are very happy to go 10 and several benefit from 15+. I think it’s worth putting away a spectrum of different types if you can. Entry level NVs from the likes of Hebrart are basically guaranteed quality for cellaring for 5 years and will give much of the pleasure that you are seeking in an aged champagne, and at excellent value to boot. I don’t think the Grand Marques like Veuve, Billecart etc can compete here, but admittedly they are more reliable for a performing bottle out of the gates at a young age.
Certain champagnes are very impervious - Lilbert springs to mind on that front, and others less so, Bollinger NV and Selosse (that being a personal opinion). Vouette et Sorbee’s house style is one pursuing that of young precision but still ages quite well indeed.
I think the grower stalwarts like Bara, Hebrart and Gimonnet are safe options.
One of the most rewarding wines to age though has to be MV Krug GC - it produces fireworks in a very reliable manner.
Yes, this is my benchmark. They age and improve so beautifully.
And more broadly I suppose you may be right. Rather than theorizing over which growers make Champagnes that will improve for 15-25 years, perhaps it’s wiser to just cellar a broad spectrum and drink them over their life-spans. Still, I’d love to identify the non-big-house Champagnes that are most likely to age like Krug/DP/Cristal. Some of the names that pop up consistently in this thread seem like good candidates.
This, so much this. I was wondering why so many were offering very specific suggestions since - apart perhaps from very few inexpensive, mass-produced entry-level NVs - almost every single Champagne seems to benefit from 3-5 years of additional aging after release, and if the wine is of any higher quality, from even longer aging.
Although many producers make Champs that can perform pretty well upon release, I really prefer to let the wines age for at least a few years if possible - and preferably a lot longer. Drinking only very young Champagne with no age at all feels rather stupid, since that way one is guaranteed to miss out all the best things Champagnes can offer.
