1998 Gosset Celebris Extra Brut and a q

WINE TALK
1

Had this last night and wow. Bone dry and insanely intense green apple fruit and racy acidity. Not lean at all though. Tiny bubbles and a very long finish. Very geeky I think but also just great. Didn’t budge much over the course of an hour.

Is the difference between the brut and this only the dosage?

2

Yaacov,

Gosset only releases one version of the Celebris Vintage (they also make a Celebris Rose and Celebris Blanc de Blancs which are different from the blended Vintage cuvee). The whole range is now labeled as Extra Brut hence the 1998 Celebris Vintage only exists as an Extra Brut version.

3

Thanks Brad - very helpful.

4

Didn’t someone just post a TN, hating this wine, but for the same reasons that Yaacov liked it?

5

“Hate” is a bit strong, but the TN Dan refers to was mine. I was obviously not as much of a fan as Yaacov

6

i love when that happens.

of course, neal was wrong. but he’s entitled to his opinion. neener

seriously though - thinking about the wine, it’s rather singular. would love to compare to other XBs out there, but no clue who else makes it. the wine is like a dauvvisat preuses with bubbles.

7

Yaacov,

Extra Brut means up to 6 grams of sugar per liter and Brut means up to 15 grams. However, some producers who use less than 6 grams will still label (legally) as Brut.
There are more than a handful out there that would qualify. Brad B can probably throw out some names - he’s good with geeky stuff like that [wink.gif] . The only one that I know of for sure is BS Clos St Hilaire, but that’s a blanc de noirs so not really the best comparison.

8

Sorry. What I found most interesting was the “similarity” of TNs and then the “different” conclusions.

Good stuff.

9

so what you’re saying – or what i’m hearing – is that the label xb is somewhat meaningless as to how dry the wine might taste?

gosset website says 3.5 g/L for the 98 celebris, which to me seems much lower than the maximum of 6.

so i guess my question is, who else is in the 3.5 range?

10

No apology necessary; I thought it was interesting too. Wine appreciation is so personal and that is part of what makes it so fascinating

11

Not really. Brut has less meaning since the range is 0-15 while Extra Brut’s range is only 0-6.

However, dosage can be misleading in that some champagnes can taste drier than others which have received less dosage.

12

So true, Neal, which is what I find so interesting in this instance. This was not one of these, “we are tasting two different things out of the same glass”…here was Neal’s TN, posted shortly before Yaacov’s…

1998 Dom Perignon was terrific, the 1998 Gosset Celebris Extra Brut was not so much. The Celebris showed green apples, lemons and tangerines but was tart, acidic and not terribly balanced.

13

Yaacov,

As Ray has mentioned, not all Champagne that qualifies to be called Extra Brut is labeled as such. There are various reasons for this. Since you can label a wine as Brut if it is between 0-15 g/L of dosage, it is easy to choose this route as it allows you to print labels and use them regardless of how you choose to dose the wine. If you know you are going to make an Extra Brut right from the start then you will probably print labels saying such, but even that doesn’t occur 100% of the time.

As for other Extra Bruts out there, there are a lot. A few are Bollinger’s RD, Jacquesson’s entire range, Moet’s 2003 Grand Vintage and 2003 Grand Vintage Rose. Pommery’s Louise is normally an Extra Brut, but sometimes climbs up to 6-7 g/L. Surprisingly the 2000 Dom Perignon almost qualifies as it is dosed at only 6-7 g/L. Jacques Selosse makes a great NV Extra Brut Blanc de Blancs (called Version Originale) and his vintage is also normally Extra Brut. Henri Billiot’s Cuvee Laetitia is an Extra Brut. Cedric Bouchard’s wines are Extra Brut (almost always no dosage). Philipponnat’s Clos des Goisses and 1522 are Extra Brut as is their basic vintage wine. As mentioned above, there are a ton more, but these pop to mind right away.

I’ve limited the wines I mentioned above to new releases. Most old library releases that are recent disgorgements are Extra Brut, but they are different animals. I don’t count Bollinger’s RD as a library release as it is normally rather young - for example Bollinger RD 1996 came out when some producers were just releasing their normal disgorgement and others hadn’t released any 1996 yet (though Bollinger does release so very old ones from time to time that would count as a library release).

14

I noticed this as well. I remembering serving the 99 of the same bottle at a Champagne tasting and I found sort of the same thing happening. I appreciated it for it’s more restrained acidic style and thought it would be a great dinner wine. Most people just found it lacking.

15

What about Lallement, Larmandier Bernier and Egly?

16

For those who enjoy the drier style of Champagne, I would highly recommend the Tarlant Zero and the Tarlant Extra Brut.

My favorite Tarlant is the Cuvee Louis, a first rate Champagne.

I am very surprised that Benoit’s wines don’t get much love on wine boards. [shrug.gif]

17

Roberto,

As I said above there are plenty of other Extra Bruts out there. You named a number of good ones. Chartogne-Taillet’s 2002 Vintage and BdB are both Extra Brut as is the majority of Jean Milan’s range. Diebolt-Vallois’ Fleur de Passion flirts with the Border of Extra Brut as it comes in right around 6 g/L. There are tons of these types of wines.

I would urge caution with some of the Brut Zero wines. This can be a big jump from a typical Extra Brut especially if the wine is a BdB or Chardonnay dominant.

18

There are indeed a ton of Extra Brut champagnes, especially since this style became really trendy recently. As Brad and Ray indicated there are also a number of producers who use a dosage in the 5-7 and label as Brut so that they don’t have to change their labels every year. I also think some producers who are in the high range of dosage for Extra Brut prefer to label as Brut not to scare away some customers - others prefer Extra Brut labels because some consumers think these denominations indicate quality and Extra Brut > Brut (which is obviously not the case).

Brut Zero (or Nature) is a whole different story - a very educative tasting is to go and meet Francis Boulard who has his whole line-up (until now at least) both with and without dosage, which means you can buy all his wines in either Brut (or even in some cases Extra Brut although it doesn’t necessarily appear on the label) and Nature. It’s really eye-opening re: the effects of dosage in a wine. As a general rule I tend to prefer champagnes with dosage to drink on their own (or with e.g. appetizers) and Nature champagnes with food.

One last thing is that the numbers only tell part of the story, a bit like RS in Alsace isn’t necessarily a good indicator of how dry or sweet a wine will be - other elements of the wine come into play to give a final and complete impression. A good example is the Exquise (Demi-Sec) from Selosse that definitely tastes very sweet to me (especially compared to the rest of his line-up) when if I remember correctly the dosage isn’t much higher than what some maisons put in their house Brut to create some lemonade with alcohol. Generally speaking dosage seems to affect much more Selosse’s wines (or Boulard’s, etc.) than most producers. Again, tasting a typical Pinot Meunier based wine from Vallée de la Marne with 11-12 dosage and a PM from Prevost is revealing of the influence of dosage in a wine.

19

Guillaume,

Good points. I completely agree that dosage can be misleading as it is all about balance. I’ve had wines where a lower dosage seemed more sweet than the same wine in a higher dosed version just due to how each worked to balance a wine out.

It is a lot of fun and a great education to try the same wine with different dosages. A number of producers are carrying out bottlings of the same wine dosed at different levels to see how consumers respond and to learn something for themselves. My only issue with this is that I feel a wine should be blended/made differently depending on the dosage vision as you aren’t likely to get an optimum wine at multiple dosages. If you have a wine meant to take 7-9 g/L of dosage to become a Brut, it normally isn’t going to excel at no dosage as well. The reverse is true as well. If you make a wine for low or no dosage, it normally isn’t going to be great at a Brut dosage level.

As for Selosse’s Exquise, it isn’t as sweet as many “sweeter” Champagnes, but it is normally dosed in the 20-25 g/L range so it is quite a bit sweeter than even the sweetest Brut.

20

awesome info guys - thanks.

have a few bottles of laetitia left so will try one soon. i don’t recall it being that dry though.