What Charlie said. Perhaps your solution is pour a bit less and top up more frequently. That’s typically my preference for most wines, if the situation allows.
1 Like
To me it begs the question of why are you only opening a half bottle of Champagne? 
Had a 2012 Cristal this past weekend that wouldn’t budge after a few hours, but was great the next day. So yes, I wish that could’ve been decanted.
Considering how many wine guys yank and explode their Champagne bottles open, I’m not surprised at the concern over loss of bubbles. Can’t blame the decanter for that though 
Very interesting thread. I havent played much with decanting champagne, but i did decant about 1 glass worth of a 2015 Ulysse Collin Enfers 60mo recently. The wine was amazing and hard to argue against the decant making it the best. Although it lost most of it’s bubbles when I did, and tasted like one of the best white Burgundies I’ve had when decanted. But I’m still partial to the bubbles/mousse. Definitely worth more experimenting in the future.
Decanting Champagne is just not something I want to do. I enjoy bubbles and they are an important part of the experience. If the mousse is too much, I’ll just swirl. I would also argue that you can pour a glass or two and allow it to open in the glass. What’s left in the bottle will have about the same surface area exposed to oxygen as in a carafe style decanter.
Todd F r e n c h sounds like we should decant it!
Depending on your preferences, quite possibly. The wine director said he wouldn’t hesitate to decant on this bottle. But since I had plenty of time and was drinking it mostly by myself, I chose to just let it get a decent amount of bottle air and try out of different glasses as well. If I did it again, I would use a big red burg glass, which they did not have at that restaurant. Or decant half the bottle and track the other half.
I don’t see all, or even many champanges holding up to this as well. But maybe I’ll prove myself wrong
c fu absolutely!!!
I think there’s some conflation here between letting a wine develop in the glass and decanting it. To me these aren’t the same thing, but ymmv. I don’t think the Enfers will lose much from a decant (I’ve not decanted my 60 month bottles) and there aren’t that many bubbles to lose anyway. The Enfers and the Roises are very dense wines (in the best sense of that word), so I’m not sure what the palate effect would do really be. Personally, the longer I’ve left Olivier’s wines in my glass the more the aromas come out (ginger in particular), but I’ve not noticed a particularly big shift on the palate. Am curious what people think after the decant though!
I also dont like to decant my champagne in a champagne decanter. But it is obvious that the bottle improves after 2 or, even better, 3 days open
And the mousse is almost always intact
you know me - team decant
A truly fascinating thread. As an unabashed Champagne and Cremant lover, I have a few thoughts I’d like to share:
-
The bubbles/mousse are an essential component of Champagne that sets it apart from all other wines. Champagne has the deserved reputation as the “fun wine.” The one you open up for celebrations. Any actions that could potentially lessen that component or, worse, turn the wine flat should IMHO be avoided at all costs.
-
I’ve met many sommeliers here in Canada who have told me that Champagne should be treated with the same respect and care as a still wine. I see it from their POV, they have dealt with far too many people who open up fine Champagne only to down it like it were soda pop. A somm convinced fellow board and TWEC ™ member Jay Shampur to drink Champagne out of a Burgundy glass. He now never drinks it any other way and I see why. I’ve tried it and I agree it brings out a LOT more flavor and aroma in the wine – but at the severe cost of the wine’s bubbly mousse and texture. That kills a great deal of the joy of drinking Champagne for me.
Drinking Champagne out of my diamond shaped Schott-Zweisel flute glasses is more fun and the texture is preserved, but I wholeheartedly agree it constrains the nose and flavors far too much. So much so that I feel it’s actually a wonder Champagne tastes and smells as good as it does out of a flute glass given how restricted it actually is. It’s actually quite fascinating to drink Champagne out of a flute and out of a Burgundy glass side by side and seeing the difference. Given the choice between the two, I’d go with the flute style glass myself. This said, I’ve recently found that a great compromise is to drink out of a Cognac glass shaped beer snifter that gives me the best of both worlds. You may recall a thread I posted where I acquired barware from a neighborhood swap and acquired those beer snifters which are identically shaped but much smaller than a standard Cognac balloon glass.
- While I’ve never done it, I would have absolutely no fears about decanting a Champagne myself based on my experiences with it. On the occasions where I’m drinking a traditionally made Champagne or sparkling wine by myself, the bubbles last for days on end and the wine never goes flat. Doesn’t matter what kind of stopper I use to perserve it and even on occasion when I’ve actually forgotten a stopper completely. I’ve always found very minimal loss of bubbles and mousse myself to the point where I find it very hard to believe a normal decant would cause all the bubbles to dissipate. This said, if I were to decant a Champagne, I’d want to drink it all the very same night.
Sounds like Riedel marketing.
As I suggested above, I agree at home. At a restaurant with dining companions, where you will consume more quickly, decanting can prove very useful.
1 Like
Yeah. You have more experience than I do here, but the handful or so occasions I’ve had a 48 month or 60 month Collin, I didn’t think it needed a decant.
The poll needs a fourth option:
[ check.gif ] Who cares ?
1 Like
Perhaps you might care to try decanting, given this post by … Lee Short!
1 Like
This. I’ve been served a Champagne blind. I managed to correctly identify the producer and guessed that the wine was opened the day before, seeing how the mousse seemed to be slightly less effervescent than usual.
I was told that yes, the wine was opened earlier, but it was much earlier than just one day - the wine had been sitting half-drunk, undisturbed, not stoppered (!) in the cold for six whole days. And the mousse was still there, and the wine was drinking like it was opened only a day before. An eye-opening experience on how well Champagne can survive if the opened bottle just remains in the cold and undisturbed the whole time.
Just don’t even THINK about pairing it with anything, as pairing is stupid! Also, how are the screwcaps on your 4oz bottles - strong enough to handle the pressure of bubbles? (lol, like there will be wine leftover lolol)
1 Like
So @CFu and I put this theory to the test last night, decanting 2015 Ulysse Collin Les Enfers 60mo and 2015 Ulysse Collin Les Roises 60mo. I have been wanting to try Les Enfers 48mo or 60mo since reading the many notes about it here, and @William_Kelley 's praise as well, his more so on the Les Roises, and he actually pushed us to get that bottle along with the Les Enfers.
Both were decanted, and to showcase one of the new features of the forum (blur spoiler), I give you the results: (click the blurred text for the reveal)
Decanting Champagne CAN make a huge difference!
On the Les Enfers, little change was noticeable, but on Les Roises, that wine was basically 16 wines through the course of the evening with time in decanter. It started out reductive but also with a big ‘high toast’ component to me, but others didn’t seem to care. Throughout the evening it just kept changing, presenting you with different qualities along the way, keeping you interested and fascinated throughout. Without the decanter, I’m guessing the wine would still be wonderful, but it was a true treat to experience its evolution over the course of time, with all that air. Legendary.
3 Likes