I haven’t bothered with anything since 2013. Except Salon. Plenty of better vintages with age available to waste time/money on 2014+.
My experience with 2018 is that it’s highly producer dependent. For some, the heat took away the acidity that makes champagne, well, champagne. But I’ve had enough good bottles to not rule the vintage out entirely. Bouchard, Laherte Freres, and Bereche all come right to mind as producers who managed the vintage particularly well. I definitely prefer the 2019s more on average, but there’s still plenty of good 2018 champagne to go around.
1 Like
I haven’t had many recent vintage champagnes, just some NV with recent bases or disgorgements.
I agree with @M.Kaplan about the Prevost, and I think Ulysse Collin’s 2018s are excellent. I will be very curious to try more 2019s. The Hebrart Special Club is very impressive.
Can any Champagne lovers on this board comment on whether this vintage chart also applies to the Aube region?
I am far from expert, but earlier this year visited an Aube grower I represent and I thought his 2010 was just as good as his 2012.
I can’t really speak to that question specifically, but it highlights the important point that not all of champagne performs the same in a given vintage, any more than all of the Cote d’Or does.
1 Like
Thanks for posting this! It’s too bad there’s not an existing mechanism to crowd source vintage ratings, especially by sub region, because what’s a good vintage doesn’t necessarily extend to the entire region.
Having said that, I largely agree with Warren’s takes. Speaking specifically about more recent vintages …
-
2017 is a mediocre vintage. Slow start to the season and then hit hard by extreme heat. I’m surprised Dom Perignon is releasing a vintage, but when I heard that the production is much, much smaller than usual for Dom (less than 20% of normal!), it made sense.
-
2018 is a very good, if not great vintage. High yields, just with a bit less acidity than you’d like to see. Approachable, as Warren says, is a very good descriptor. I’m buying a lot of 2018s.
-
2019 is an excellent vintage broadly throughout Champagne. I’m going to be a big buyer of the vintage wines as they appear. Ultimately, I may buy as many 2019s as I bought 2012s and 2013s.
-
2020 is good. It was hot and there was some drought, but many producers did well. I haven’t tasted many vintage wines, and I’m still learning the vintage.
-
2021 is a bit of a mixed bag. It was wet and yields were down, and the wines I’ve tasted are lean. I will probably buy more from established, classical producers than growers who do low or no dosage.
-
2022 is, as Warren says, promising. It was hot, once again, and early. But I think it could end up an excellent vintage broadly across Champagne.
-
2023 was an awful year, plagued by disease, with the possible exception of the Côte des Blancs. I expect we’ll see few vintage wines and they will be small production.
-
2024 was better, but it still was a tough year, with a cool, wet Spring and heavy rain later. And as a result, the yields were again low.
4 Likes
Not enough experience with 2018s to draw any conclusions, yet.
oooh, what a fun idea! And what a great way to kick us off, Warren! Thank you! … I will have to look through my notes to see what I may be able to toss in to the ring here, which may not be much, as the economical side of me sees me drinking NV far more often than I do vintage.
3 Likes
That is my problem with 2018. 2020 looks to be similar in that regard, although I don’t have a large enough sample size.
I haven’t had many 2017s but I’ve had good luck. A Bereche Ambonnay was stunning, a Remy Masson Special Club was quite enjoyable, and a Laherte Grandes Crayeres was a little lean but I liked it.
I’ve only had a few wines from 2016-2019 so far, mostly from growers rather than bigger house wines.
I have liked 2016, 2018, and 2019 wines very much so far. I have only had two 2017s to date, and they were OK, but didn’t move me to pursue more.
I’ve had three 2020 base NVs so far, and they strike me as weird like the 2020 Chablis. It’s a “green-like” (but that’s not the precise impression). I’m not going to invest in the vintage.
Isn’t the Beerserkers a different board? 
I haven’t had much 2018 yet. Currently still working through 2008 and earlier for the most part.
Did recently have a bottle of Margaine 2018 Rose Saignee and thought it was very vinous. It seemed to lack a little acid I definitely think will need a lot more time to come together.
In short, I don’t have much of a bead on the vintage and probably won’t for some time.
No, you’re thinking of Bereserkers. 
Thanks for catching that; fixed now
Fun stuff reading through here. I don’t think I have a broad enough experience with 2018 to make a call one way or another.
I think 2002 is an excellent vintage for champagne across the board and seemingly regardless of style of producer. 2004 is really lovely for chards, and one can buy with confidence from most producers. I find it a generally superior vintage to 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007. I think 2003 can be a bit soft, 2005 and 2006 a bit hollow, and 2007 a cool fruited delight, but not generally special wines.
2008 and 2009 are fun, in my opinion, with 2009 carrying an early drinking richness and energy that I really enjoy. 2008 may be the best vintage of my drinking career so far, with seemingly everyone making very good to spectacular wines.
2010 is weak. 2011 is weaker. 2012 is very good but I remain unconvinced that it is equal to 2008 and personally wonder whether it’s a hair overrated. I’m not sure I’ve had a single 2012 that I found superior to the producer’s 2008 with perhaps one exception, Pol Roger Winston Churchill.
Where I think 2012 is perhaps a hair overrated, I think 2013 is criminally underrated, though I think the tide may be changing on that front. I’ve had wonderful success with 2013s across Pinot and Chard. Divine wines from many producers, and easier to find on account of 2012’s acclaim.
2014 has been a mixed bag. Generally speaking I’ve enjoyed the wines, though a number of have been uninspiring. Bollinger is, for me, the big winner here with one of the better GAs. Perhaps a variable vintage that is producer-specific. I don’t think I’d buy broadly.
2015 kinda seems like 2010 to me. It’s a middling vintage from which I don’t think I’ve really had any wines I thought were stunning. Couple of slight green notes but mostly just okay champagnes that are neither disappointing nor inspiring. I see no real reason to pursue these wines.
2016 seems like a meaningful improvement over 2014 and 2015 for me, but I admit my depth of drinks here is relatively limited. That said, most of the 2016s I’ve had have been quite enjoyable with lovely balance of fruit and acid. It’s a vintage I’ll plan to purchase more broadly to expand my experience, but I’ve liked what I’ve had so far. Only wine I thought was kinda just okay was Peters Montjolys, but I think that’s a Peters style issue more than a lack of quality given the critical acclaim for that wine.
After 2016 I’m just not deep enough. I don’t think I can really speak to any vintage without basing my assessment on a few wines here or there. And even then I’d have to go back through my notes and pics of wines to jog my memory. I think everything I’ve had from a 2020 base has been delightful, but that’s not a ton of wines.
6 Likes
@K_John_Joseph and @amjohnstone, I’ve made a synopsis and taken editing liberties with your posts. They seem to mostly align with my list, although I still need to tweak mine a little.
I agree with John about the 2014 Bollingers. They nailed that vintage.
And regarding Andrew’s comment about Dom Pérignon releasing a 2017 despite the challenges of the vintage, it didn’t surprise me much given the sheer quantity, variety, and depth of the vineyards they have access to. Even if they bottle only a small portion of what’s available to them, it still amounts to a substantial number of cases. If a typical release is around 5 million bottles, then with very rigorous selection they could likely still find sufficient fruit for something on the order of 1–1.5 million bottles. Not that I’ll be a buyer 
In many cases I prefer 2013 to 2012.
4 Likes
Funny enough, I’ve had five 2018s so far, and four of them came across as lean/austere, with the Diebolt-Vallois being the lone exception. of those 5, the Diebolt-Vallois was my least favorite. I’m sure this curious scorecard has much more to do with the style of Champagne I tend to prefer (Grower) than it does the vintage itself.
Regarding 2017 Dom, yeah the house could do a release practically every year, but I am told 2017 is the smallest Dom release in almost 20 years.
For multiple reasons, I am extremely hesitant to post (m)any vintage assessments. For starters, I feel I’m still in the “learning the producers” stage of my Champagne geekdom, with “learning the vintages” to follow. Second, I have rather pronounced stylistic biases (I generally dislike Pinot Meunier; usually drink Grower; prefer BdB; usually prefer Champagne on the younger side). Lastly, the quantity of vintage bottlings I’ve had is rather low, although probably not as low as I think if I were to slog through all my NV notes to see which happened to be single-vintage bottlings, even if not labeled as such.
Grains of salt having been served, some commentary …
2008: have generally loved this vintage, and it strikes me as one that is aging at a glacial pace.
2011: I’ve only had one, and I thought it was excellent: Le Brun-Servenay Champagne Brut Millésime Vieilles Vignes
2012: easy to love. Might prefer 2008, however.
2014: I quite like this vintage, even if I don’t see it as a long ager. I like my wines young, crisp, dry and acidic; as such, the vintage works for me.
2015: have yet to be impressed by one, but I’ve kind of been avoiding it somewhat, too.
2017: I’ve only had six of these, but have generally liked them a lot (again, note my preferences)
2018: Have liked most of the few I’ve had, but the ones I’ve liked have defied the stylistic reputation of the vintage.
2019: Have loved most of the few I’ve had.
2020: have only had five, and so far not that impressed. Strikes me as somewhat loose / lacking verve/tension.