I am just finishing up a big feature on current releases from Champagne and have been thinking a lot about the interaction of new oak and Champagne, as I have hit a few wines during these tastings with absolutely brilliant underlying raw materials coupled to a distinct signature of new oak on both the nose and palate. In every case the oak has in the end simply gotten in the way of my appreciation of the wine, and I have found myself longing for the same wine without any new oak influence. It is my impression that much of the growing fascination with the use of some new oak during the elevage for Champagne can be directly or indirectly linked to the success that the wines of Jacques Selosse have realized in the last ten or fifteen years.
When Anselme Selosse took over the family estate in 1980, he was very strongly influenced by his stay in Burgundy in the mid to late 1970s, in the heyday of Henri Jayer and the emergence of Jean-Francois Coche as seminal winemakers of their respective appellations. Part of the lesson that Monsieur Selosse brought to Champagne was the recognition that viticultural practices in Champagne needed catch up to those of vignerons such as Messieurs Jayer and Coche, and the Selosse impact in terms of lowering yields and limiting chemical treatments in his Champagne vineyards cannot be overstated. But he also brought along a willingness to use new oak during the elevage, and to my palate this legacy has been less convincing than his leading the way to more enlightened viticultural practices amongst many in the region.
Over the years I have always had a hard time appreciating the interplay of new oak flavors and aromatics in Champagne, as I often find that the new oak simply detracts from the overall elegance of the wine. Now generally I am drinking younger wines in this case, as I do not generally cellar Champagne that has been raised in new oak, so I do not have an historical background on how the elements of new oak eventually synthesize (if they do) with the other aspects of the wine with bottle age. In the young wines I generally have two issues with new oak in Champagne- 1.) the new oak is generally not well-integrated into the young wine and lays like a cheap veneer over the other characteristics of the bubbly; and 2.) the greater micro-oxygenation that the underlying wine experiences in new oak tends to bring a more evolved element to the young wine in terms of flavors and aromatics that I generally find at odds with the youthful acidity of young bubbly- producing a wine that is somewhat disjointed out of the blocks.
So I am curious if those less prone to avoid cellaring Champagnes made with some degree of new oak than I am have had positive experiences with these two issues as the wines have evolved with bottle age. There may be other estates besides Jacuqes Selosse that predate Monsieur Selosse’s use of new wood (as opposed to barrel aging done by producers such as Gosset or Krug that was traditionally done in old wood) in the elevage of their bubbly, with whom I am unfamiliar, and I would be very interrested to hear peoples’ opinions about how new oak works in Champagne with bottle age. For me, Champagne first and foremost must be a wine of elegance, and at least based on the young examples of new oaky Champagnes that I have tasted, I have a hard time imagining that some degree of elegance has not been permanntly lost by the use of new wood.
John, your post is very interesting especially to a Champagne junkie like me who cellars a large amount of Champagne. Which Champagne producers are using new oak? Are they using new oak across all cuvees or in specific cuvees? I can guess a couple but it would be nice to know. Thanks in advance.
John,
I think you only have to look at Vilmart to see what a difference changing the percentage of new oak does to a cuvee and how New Oak can integrate into a wine with even minimal aging. I think (and most would probably agree) that Vilmart went a little over the edge with new oak in the early 90s especially on the Creation. Still, the Coeur de Cuvee from those vintages has really started to balance out (both original release bottles and late release magnums). The oak is still there, but it is playing nicely now. While Vilmart’s current top end wines still show a good dose of oak when young things are much more balanced today. Especially since Laurent has moved to at least using a portion of barrels that are 1-3 years old - it has throttled things back a little and made for overall better wines.
As far as Anselme goes, I don’t think he has any rules and never will. He is still experimenting and probably will for as long as he is making wines. He uses a range of different barrel ages and will age the wines differently based on the raw materials. I do agree that for better (and sometimes worse) he has inspired people to follow his ways. As you mentioned, the care for the land is a wonderful thing that he helped give a more powerful voice to. His use of oak (particualarly new oak), long fermentation, and longer aging before bottling can be a bit of black magic.
For me, the most interesting producer to visit and learn about oak from is Claude Giraud and family at Champagne Henri Giraud. I’m preparing an article that essentially goes into “terroir in oak” (take that with a grain of salt as I know using the word “terroir” starts arguments, but it gets the basic point across). Giraud uses various different types of oak and it is quite amazing to see the effects of the different oak types when used on different grape batches (especially when one batch is of higher quality than the other). Toss in the fact that these different oak types all “age” differently after they have been used and you can get into a serious “spice rack” in the cellar. In addition, the same grape batch aged in different oak types is often vastly different due to the stronger/weaker flavor profile that the different oak types have. Following the wines’ evolution year after year has been fascinating as sometimes a Vin Clair can taste like lumber, but actually play a good role in a final blend after years of aging on the lees. I’m not saying Giraud gets it right all the time as his wines are big, but they definitely balance out (for my palate) due to the high grade of fruit and vision to mix different oak aged wines into one final balanced blend.
So can new oak integrate? If the raw materials (fruit) are there then yes I believe so, but you have to be careful or you can screw the wine up. You also have to consider that what one person calls new oak may be brand new while to another it may be something under 4 years/uses old. Then, of course, you have to take into account the amount of time in oak, the type of oak, and the size of the barrel/container since Champagne seems to use everything under the sun.
Do I prefer new oak, old oak, steel, enamel, etc…? It doesn’t matter to me as long as the wine is good.
Great topic, I’ll be interested in following this.
Does Bollinger use any new oak, for either the grand annee wines or the NV?
Peter,
Bollinger uses a mix of steel and old oak (normally large foudres) for the NV
The Grande Annee sees oak of various sizes and ages, but nothing under 4 years/uses. The barrels were used for Chardonnay from Burgundy before going to Bollinger.
Very interesting topic.
So the tipping point for New Oak usage was the 1980’s?
Did this change also coincide with a major shift in style?
I wouldn’t say the tipping point for new oak was the 80s. Anselme Selosse definitely brought in the idea of using new oak with a point or purpose/vision. New oak was used in the past, but not that often and not normally with a lot of thought as it was more expensive and producers tended to keep barrels for a long time.
Anselme’s wines stuck out as very different and he explained that he made wine just like they do in Burgundy, but his wine was from Champagne and had bubbles. It was a wine first and had bubbles second.
He definitely inspired a lot of producers for far more than just oak, but oak is what he is often known for. One danger of oak is that you can make mistakes with it. Stainless steel is often a safe choice. Selosse’s wines show this as they are often good, but he has had some misses and inconsistencies throughout time.
A few producers began experimenting with large amounts new oak right around the 1990s and a number of producers (both large and small) began using some oak as the 90s wore on (those cuvees started hitting the markets earlier this decade), but a majority of this oak is not new and oak isn’t necessarily used for the entire cuvee. I’d say the tipping point for oak in Champagne whether old or new has been the late 90s or early 2000s with the cuvees coming onto the market over the last few years showing these effects.
As for a change in style, oak was historically used up through the first 50-60 years of the 20th century when many began phasing it out. I’m not sure I would say Champagne in general has seen a stylistic change yet. I would say that Champagne (and sparkling wine in general) is going through a trend right now. Riper grapes, low dosage, and oak are currently trendy - In some circles so is short lees aging. These Champagnes are stylistically different from just about anything and not all of them are different in a good way.
It’s all about balance and with age, when things are done right, it can be very hard to guess which Champagne see oak and which don’t (and which saw new oak and which didn’t).
Hi Brad,
Great posts and sorry it took me so long to get back here, but I have been on the road and have had little access to the internet for several days now. I think you are spot on in identifying new oak, low dosage and lower yields as the current trends in the region, and I hope that the new oak one works its way out of the fabric of Champagne fairly briskly, or at least those that are using a fair bit of new wood get a quick handle on how to best integrate it into their wines in a more supporting role. I have not tasted any Vilmart bottlings in the last few years, and am glad to hear that they are backing off a bit on the new wood, as I have always liked the underlying materials here, but found the wood a bit aggressive for my more parochial Champagne tastes. Another house I just tasted a fair number of oaky wines from was Laherte Freres, and a couple of these had such brilliant wines underneath rather sloppy oak treatments that I really felt compelled to hear what others thought about the use of new wood with bubbly. However, several of the other Laherte Freres bottings were done in older Burgundian barrels (4-10 years old generally) and seemed to much better integrate the wood into the underlying wines than those done with younger barrels. To my palate it seems that Champagne very quickly picks up the aromas and flavors of newish oak, and the barrels can be two or three years old and still make their presence quite noticeable in the finished wine, so I hope that we see less bubbly marked by new wood in the coming years, as even a bottle of Krug Grande Cuvee released last year seemed to show a fairly pronounced effect from the inclusion of some new wood in the elevage of the underlying wine.
Best,
John
John,
Your comments on Laherte had me go pull my notes on their cuvees I recently tasted. Even when the wood is 4+ years old, I think their cuvees show a bit too much wood for my liking. I don’t mind oak, but it has to be in balance and some wines with a good bit of new oak can actually be balanced just like some with old oak can’t. I really feel dosage and time on the lees play big roles here too.
As for Krug, I would be shocked to learn they were using new oak barrels for the Grande Cuvee. I’ve never directly asked them if they do, but when going over how the wines were made, they told me they buy new oak and then age it for a few years with non-released Krug wines (in other words, the stuff not worthy of being Krug Champagne) before it goes into official use. I agree with you that even when oak is a few years old, it can still have a big effect and maybe that is what is going on here.
I don’t see new oak going away completely and is more likely to increase before it decreases. Over time, I think this trend will fade a bit as oak with a few years of use will eventually be favored, but some portion of new oak is going to be used by quite a few folks for the long term. Now if only less folks thought that no dosage = best possible wine.
Hi Brad,
I agree with you on the Laherte Freres bottlings- there were a couple of their recent releases that really stood out for their excellence- the new release of the Les Clos for instance, (all raised in ten year-old barrels, as the vines are still young) and their 2004 Les Vignes Autrefois bottling of 100% pinoit meunier showed very well and were not compromised by the intrusion of oak aromas and flavors. But several of the other cuvees could not carry their wood smoothly, despite its four years of age, and the wines were compromised both structurally with the oak sticking out a bit and also in terms of evolution, as they seemed to have lost a bit of vibrancy through greater micro-oxygenation during their elevage (because of the more open pores in the barrels?), and consequently, did not hold up particularly well either in the glass or in the bottle in the fridge over a few days.
But your point is well-taken:
“I don’t see new oak going away completely and is more likely to increase before it decreases. Over time, I think this trend will fade a bit as oak with a few years of use will eventually be favored, but some portion of new oak is going to be used by quite a few folks for the long term. Now if only less folks thought that no dosage = best possible wine.”
We will probably see more new oak in Champagne before the tide turns, and it will just add another line of questioning that needs to be gone into in the cellars with the vignerons. I really liked your point at the end about no dosage wines, as I am in full agreement with you on this one. This seems to be a growing fetish amongst the Champenois to produce lower and lower dosage wines, and many of these tend to end up awfully angular, austere and borderline sour. I really have my doubts about the lion’s share ever righting the ship with sufficient bottle age. It seems to me that one of the most important elements that dosage brings to the table in Champagne is the perception of fruit in the finished wine, as there are very few of these low dosage or zero dosage bottlings that seem to show much overt fruit in their profiles, and despite their often very complex and compelling soil signatures, in the end one is generally only left with soil and aromatic and flavor profiles from the lees, which seems to be only two-thirds of the equation of great Champagne. Certainly we have seen excessive dosage used by some houses for some time to try and hide both younger juice and inferior vineyard sites in their various blends (as more growers moved to bottle more of their production themselves), but the low dosage reaction seems to me at this point in time also to be ultimately headed off in the wrong direction. Very glad you made that point.
Best,
John
Thanks for the thoughts on low dosage wines. I understand the desire to go this route but the wines I have had in this vein are often more akin to sparkling Chenin Blanc than Champagne for me. Seems like a real waste of PInot Noir and Chardonnay in my mind.
John,
I agree that the Les Clos bottling by Laherte is nicely done and uses the wood to its benefit - just a little spice that lifts the wine up. I’m not as big as you are overall on the wine, but there is no denying its quality and it is an interesting wine that is worth a try. It will be fun to watch how future releases of this Solera based effort show.
I really don’t understand why everyone has gone so far over the edge on dosage. To me it is about balance and usually at least a few grams of residual sugar would benefit the wine. Take Clos des Goisses - extremely ripe grapes, but it still gets a small dosage and it helps the wine out. Vieilles Vignes Francaises is also extremely ripe and it gets a solid Brut dosage that benefits the wine IMO. I’m not saying every wine needs dosage, but I feel it is the rare exception that isn’t better for at least a little bit of it.
With the above stated, I’m not necessarily for high dosages - just balance. There are times I prefer current wines with a lower dosage than they see, but it is usually only a gram or two less than what a wine sees and even 1 g/L can make a huge difference. Also quite interestingly I have found that quite a few of the mainstream NVs (Pol Roger, Philipponnat, Feuillatte, etc…) that now have non-dosage versions are better than I expected especially on a summer afternoon. A good dose of Pinot Meunier content and the use of some taille actually bring out a good natural fruitiness in the wine that makes a non-dosage cuvee appealing to me. Add in a decent amount of aging on the lees (close to 3 years or more) and you can get a pretty nice non-dose. Not something I would age or drink regularly, but something that I would enjoy from time to time. It kind of turns things on its head to think this way, but the palate doesn’t lie.
Lately I’ve been talking to a lot of folks in Champagne about turning the current trend of no dosage around and releasing a really killer Doux Champagne. They all just look at me like I’m crazy, but I think it would actually do quite well as a niche product. I’d love to see Drappier try one based on their old liqueur collection. I just wish it all wasn’t so much following right now.