Best value champagne w 15-20 year cellaring potential

[NED_VALOIS]

Brad,
Do you have an opinion on 2008 Veuve Grande Dame ? I love it now. What do you believe on the future ?

Ned,

Clicquot knocked it out of the park with all their 2008s. Sticking to this thread’s topic, both the Blanc and Rose Vintage from Clicquot are great values, are under $80, and will age for another 20+ years. As for the Grande Dame, it is a really good wine that is only going to get better. Very different than other recent (or non-recent) vintages with it lovely berry profile, it should age well and start peaking in 15 or so years with a long life after that. It is well worth the price though I will add that the Rose Grande Dame is even better and competes for the wine of the vintage though it is almost twice as expensive. If you find a good deals on any 2008 Clicquots, stock up as they are going to be good for many, many years to come.

Brad,Thanks!
I’ve bought 2 cases of the GD and had 3 or 4 btls so far , all have been exceptional !

[MChang]

I’m really not a fan of the 166; I’ve had it 3-4 times and it just has over the top acidity. Maybe it will mellow in time.

You must like krug 165 then which has big dollops of both 09 and 08 iirc; I heard they held back quite a bit of 08 bc of the financial crisis so the 165 LB has quite a bit.

I heard 12 will be legendary as well.

I do prefer the 165 to 164. Both are great, but the brightness of the 165 grabs me more. The financial crisis really hit Krug in 2009 so future releases (like 166eme) will get plenty of both 2008 and 2009 in the blend. 2012 was a smaller harvest and things still weren’t quite right business-wise so almost all of the wine (no vintage made) went to the Grande Cuvee as base or future reserve. I have only had it as a still wine, but the 168eme (2012 base) should be awesome.

[Robert_M_yers]

How about Lilbert, always thought this was a long ager. I’ve been eyeing some 2012.

[Kris_Patten]

The solution is get 2008, 2009 and 2012. Lol

2018 is coming on strong too!

Anything on 2016 while you’re posting notes.

[jcoley3]

The solution is get 2008, 2009 and 2012. Lol

This is actually a very good strategy.

I agree with Brad re: the quality of 09. Before I began tasting widely, the vintage was portrayed as one of those “too ripe and friendly to be really serious” years, particularly coming right after 08, but the more I taste, the more I’m happy I trusted my palate early on and bought both years widely. I think 08 at its best will exceed 09, but 09 will have a much longer window of prime enjoyability - Krug 164eme vs 165eme would be an excellent example of this dynamic.

[jcoley3]

How about Lilbert, always thought this was a long ager. I’ve been eyeing some 2012.

Buy it.

My note from late last year:

"Stellar wine. Ranks at the very top of the best 2012s I’ve had so far (Hebrart’s Noce de Craie is another, albeit in the red grape idiom).

Perfect balance already. Fresh acidity is enveloped in ripe orchard and citrus fruit flavors. One of those wines you know will be special from the first whiff from the glass. The yeasty, pastry, nutty notes play harmoniously behind the deep, rich, vibrant fruit of this wine. I’m sure this will age just fine, but in contrast to the 08 this is already delivering a lot of its promise. It reminds me of the way top notch White Burgundy can deliver texture, complexity and layers of fruit, minerality and secondary notes, only with more freshness, lower alcohol and bubbles."

[Brad_Baker]

Anything on 2016 while you’re posting notes.

There will be some good 2016s, but it is a year more built for NVs. In general it is better than 2017, but unmemorable in a way like 2014.

[ky1em1ttskus]

Anything on 2016 while you’re posting notes.

There will be some good 2016s, but it is a year more built for NVs. In general it is better than 2017, but unmemorable in a way like 2014.

Well, that sucks. My kids’ are ‘12, ‘14, and ‘16.

[Craig_G]

Anything on 2016 while you’re posting notes.

There will be some good 2016s, but it is a year more built for NVs. In general it is better than 2017, but unmemorable in a way like 2014.

Well, that sucks. My kids’ are ‘12, ‘14, and ‘16.

You could sell the younger ones and buy more ‘12 Champagne.

[Brad_Baker]

Kyle,

2012 is potentially a great year so you should be good there. 2014 and 2016 are just more NV quality. There will be some good vintage wines made just not by everyone and you will have to be more selective.

My daughters are 2009 and 2010. 2009 is a winner, 2010 not so much, but there are some good bottles out there. Unfortunately, everything can’t be great all the time - even if we wish it could be.

[Tom_Reddick]

To echo some above comments and bring them into a broader strategy, I think if you want to spend $80ish or less per bottle and have champagnes with consistent potential to last and improve for 15-20 years, you are best advised to stick with the major French houses and go for their vintage bottlings that are one step below the tete de cuvees.

In this realm, my personal favorite over the years has been the Taittinger Millesime. Pol Roger, as Ray suggested, is also an excellent choice- but you may have to shop a bit to find them in your range. Here in Texas the Brut and Brut Rose 2008 are available, but around $125. In places like CA and NY where there is a lot of DI going on as well as super-competitive pricing, $80 sounds plausible. Roederer I also highly recommend. I admire Cristal but do not personally love it. However, one step down there are a Brut, Blanc de Blanc and Rose that are all exceptional.

One cautionary note about this set of wines- unlike the tete de cuvees which are carefully allocated such that they can remain present in the marketplace for an extended period of time to cover years where the top wine is not made, the wines I note above come and go very quickly at retail. They are made pretty much every year, and either due to smaller quantities or perhaps a wider distribution in restaurants (I do not know) they tend to come in one tranche and once they are gone- that is it.

Pol Roger 08s are still about, but I would start keeping watch for the 2012s on the others.

Final note- worth your time to do some tasting before you start buying. The major houses make very different wines, and it is also important to get a feel for what sort of vintages you like. 2009, for example, is a very good year- but I personally do not like the wines at all finding them too ripe and fruity.

[David_Glasser]

There will be some good 2016s, but it is a year more built for NVs. In general it is better than 2017, but unmemorable in a way like 2014.

Well, that sucks. My kids’ are ‘12, ‘14, and ‘16.

You could sell the younger ones and buy more ‘12 Champagne.

But then the producer will kick you off the list.

[Robert_M_yers]

Kyle,
Unfortunately, everything can’t be great all the time - even if we wish it could be.

I think what Brad is saying is, here lies a teaching opportunity in the future. The best method is obviously to buy lots of vintage champagne

[Jonathan_Sirot]

Many great recommendations here and love this thread as I drink a lot of bubbly and constantly exploring new options. I get a kick out of not just drinking great wines from Krug Dom Vilmart etc but also finding off the beaten path gems. One of my favorite new discoveries this year is Alexandre Filaine. Their Cuvee Speciale NV at @ $75 is excellent juice and drinks beautifully now, but does have the structure to go the distance in my opinion. This is not an easy wine to find as they are tiny but it appears that Verve Wines in NY has some. Their tete de cuvee vintage dated wines are called Sensuum Vertigo and run around $140 and are tougher to snag as they only import 120 bottles for the USA. Looks like Chambers has a few but you wont be able to go deep obviously but definitely worth hunting down a few if you are local to the city or can have shipped.

Winemaker was formerly with Bollinger and yet these wines have their own style equally impressive but a better value I feel. Disclaimer: A friend of mine imports these however that does not alter my review as he has no stock sitting around and esp the top Cuvee is non existent except the 2011. I snagged the last 08s in existence I think and drove an hour each way to do so.

[Howard_Cooper]

I have a 600ish bottle cellar (almost exclusively bordeaux). A couple years back i started buying vintage champagne. I feel like i am stuck in high price prison----where as in boardeaux i was able to find relative values to cellar for 15-20 years. Where (names) are the true value vintage champagnes for 15-20 year cellaring? Thanks

For a little over $100, I love the 2006 or 2007 Taittinger Comte de Champagne.

[ky1em1ttskus]

Well, that sucks. My kids’ are ‘12, ‘14, and ‘16.

You could sell the younger ones and buy more ‘12 Champagne.

But then the producer will kick you off the list.

[R_Frankel]

Of course, I actually think 2012 is better than either of 2008 and 2009 (which are both better than 2002) and is the best vintage of this century so far, but lots will disagree with me.

Well, wow. Brad I always appreciate your insights here, packed with detail. But this surprised me (perhaps because I’m not a subscriber, hmmm I should fix that). Of champagnes that are in market now (and most of the big names aren’t) what would you recommend to try as exemplars of what makes this vintage special? Ofc these will be young versions, but still worth trying. Thanks!

[MChang]

There’s still quite a bit of vintage 08 veuve out there for $59; probably one of the better things you could cellar.

[jcoley3]

Of course, I actually think 2012 is better than either of 2008 and 2009 (which are both better than 2002) and is the best vintage of this century so far, but lots will disagree with me.

To revisit this, I think you can make a pretty good case for this perspective. Tasting through top grower vintage wines from 2012 has been pretty thrilling so far - they remind me of what I like about 09, but are better wines. It will be interesting to see what the best TdC wines are like in a few years.

[Howard_Cooper]

One question for the OP. When you say 15-20 year cellaring potential, do you mean 15-20 years from the vintage date or 15-20 years from now? Assuming 15-20 years from the vintage date, isn’t it worth paying more for say a 2002 or 2004 or 2006 or 2007 that some have suggested than a less expensive 2012. In the case of the older vintages, you have already hit the 15 year point (in the case of 2002 or 2004) or are close with respect to 2006 or 2007 while with a 2012 you are tying your money up for a much longer period of time before the wines hit your drinking window.