So after reviewing the other thread, it would seem a reasonable conclusion would be that the NV that had 25-40+ years of aging potential: were not shipped from Europe, were properly stored, and originated from largely the 70’s and no later than the 80’s. And the NV of the last 30 or so years would be better off being held a maximum of 10-15 years.
If you would equate them to still wines rather than Champagnes, it sounds like you’ve opened them 5 years too late.
A few weeks ago a friend of mine opened a Jacquart from probably the mid 1980’s. As soon as he removed the foil and the cage, before he could put his thumb on the cork, it shot up to the ceiling with a good spray of Champagne before he could close the bottle with his thumb. The wine was in an excellent shape, wonderfully evolved and in no way similar to any still wine I know.
For me a great aged Champagne must have carbonation. I’ve had some wonderfully developed, tertiary Champagnes that have gone almost or even completely flat, but I consider them past their peak all the same. A great old Champagne might not retain all the fizz a recently released bottle would have, but if it’s a Champagne, I expect the wine still show good, prickly mousse.
You are dwelling on my way of conveying that my experiences with Champagne older than 25 years have had significantly less effervescence than I fine desirable. The Roederers to which I referred were under that age and while the bubbles were somewhat diminished, I found it to be sufficient.
back to the origins of this thread, it seems like low/no-dosage wines are at a potential disadvantage to getting better with age but not inherently so, maybe.
as i’ve felt for at least 10 years, champagne continues to be the one of the most exciting categories in wine.
I’ve always wondered this as well. How does the dosage interact with what the farming, the vintage(s), and the picking decisions yield?
Does a producer plan to make a Brut Nature and then try to harvest grapes from sites and at ripeness levesls which will work well with no dosage? Or does a producer harvest and then see what that wine needs in terms of choosing dosage? Or different things with different bottlings of theirs?
I’ve asked that question a few times on Zooms and in discussions on here but never really gotten an answer that stuck with me.
1 Like
The origins of this thread has two topics: how dossage effects aging and how NV age. And given the number of threads on Champagne over the last few years, I would think many share your excitement.
It’s a great question, Chris; please keep asking producers!
It feels like one of those questions nobody, either producers or experienced Champagne people on here, really wants to answer directly. I’m not sure anyone is ever going to clarify that issue.
A simpler version of my same question: do Brut Nature and Extra Brut wines tend to get harvested at higher brix than Brut wines? Anyone have an opinion or a guess?
I will try and remember to ask this of Arthur on Saturday AM when we do the Zoom. But for what I know about the L-M wines, their dosage levels (both low and no) are pretty consistent from vintage to vintage.
1 Like
Are there producers that are not dogmatic about their dosage regime? By that I mean, are there any producers who have bottlings for which the dosage can/does vary in a meaningful manner from year to year?
While Jacquesson generally does an Extra-Brut style for their 700 series, I have noticed the dosage change from release to release. I think the 743 was the first time they went with it as a Brut Nature
1 Like
I was told that Boulard would be bottling the Murgiers in my OP as either extra Brut or Brut nature depending on the needs of a particular release. It usually seems to be zero, though I haven’t followed it closely.
1 Like