Thank you, Brad! That all makes sense. 
Iām not entirely convinced that publishing an article with only 19 champagne producersā reviews has as much value, particularly outside the US. This is especially true for European markets, where champagnes appear earlier, and some consumers have to purchase without an expert opinion from such a renowned critic.
At a tasting hosted a while back by the Chiquet brothers from Jacquesson, they mentioned that they considered 200 producers to be noteworthy. So perhaps publishing reviews on just 19 producers may create a limited narrative which does not paint the whole picture.
I have some reservations about Galloniās ability to draw sweeping conclusions from tastings on a small number of champagnes. I think itās challenging to make generalizations about a region as diverse as Champagne based on such a limited sample. Although Galloni suggests āconvergenceā between categories previously considered starkly different, I think these differences remain nuanced and complex. Without really explaining this.
What I find more intriguing is how critics try to categorize vintages by tasting vin clairs. While this approach has some merit, it can be challenging to make general predictions about vintages, given the variation in philosophy amongst producers. In my opinion, waiting for bottles to hit the market and assessing them objectively might be a better approach to evaluating vintagesā quality.
For instance, the 2009 vintage was initially dismissed by critics because the maisons were anxious about the financial crisisās impact. However, it turned out to be an excellent vintage, not at 2008 level but still excellent. Similarly, 2011 wasnāt considered a great or even good vintage by many critics, yet it offers its own unique appeal. Galloni wrote this off, on the basis of writing on a small sample of champagnes.
In my view, labeling a vintage too soon based on limited evidence can be misleading.
Regarding the 2018 vintage, Galloni writes that itās āA Bit Much.ā Although Iām not a fan of Champagnes with low acidity, I also think that 2018, like 2015, has its positive aspects and appeals to some Champagne drinkers. In contrast, Galloni suggests that the wines lack ācharacter and depth.ā Itās difficult to comment on the validity of this statement without knowing how many champagnes were tasted before it was made.
As for the recently harvested 2020 grapes, I understand that some critics have detected vegetal undertones in some of the champagnes. However, I think most champagnes benefit from food, and the notes disappear when paired with the right dishes. Unless one is oversensitive to it, I do not see it as a problem, also it is not as widespread as critics claim.
And now the hype has started for the solar vintage 2022. I would be curious as to the vin clairs tasted, which houses provided them, from which sites etc.
I donāt think consumers are really believing the critics on Bordeaux 2022, they made a mess of Burgundy 2021 turning a gastronomy year into an overpriced vintage so why not just wait with these pronouncements about the champagne vintage 2022 until the champagnes emerge on the market.
What strikes me most about the producers reviewed, they need a critics validation to move. In a number of cases the prices are horrendous and out of touch with the quality in the bottle. Galloni probably unintentionally contributes to justifying price increases without realizing it.
4 Likes
Thanks Donald, this is a pretty fair & thoughtful perspective. It does highlight the challenge of nearly all professional reviewing. They are always limited time snapshots, based on limited samples. These nearly always drive gross generalizations that are only slightly helpful.
These Champagne reviews are obviously limited, especially compared to the omnibus tastings that sites like Vinous and WA do (e.g. for Bordeaux, Burgundy, Tuscany). And even those bigger tastings are highly imperfect and subjective.
But. For many consumers, these reviewersā notes are all they have to go on to make buying decisions. Tastings are somewhere between zero and minimal. Retailers are highly unreliable. Are these limited value review sites better than nothing? I think so, as the alternative is buying utterly randomly. Luckily for the hardcore we have Wine Berserkers and all the other information we can hunt down to make the best informed decisions we can.
1 Like
Excellent point.
It would have been nice to see some new names in the group too.
1 Like
I found it pretty valuable, and quite helpful.
I am not a pro a champagne by any any stretch. I generally look to the big houses. I get that this is not cool on WB. But, as a consumer, I found the article to be quite insightful and thoughtful. I would speculate that many who are not hard-core champagne drinkers would agree.
I agree with many of your other points: yes, it could be better. But I thought it was pretty good as-is.
2 Likes
I think for me these sweeping statements on vintages based on what seems a very small sample size is just not helpful and overly simplifies a complex subject but perhaps that is what consumers want.
Also the timeliness of the articles. I donāt believe that it is grower versus maison, and I donāt think there is anything wrong in liking maison champagne. A lot of consumers do not differentiate anyway and buy what is considered the best value, in the past this was probably more in the grower camp, this now no longer applies. I think for instance the new releases from Ayala are fantastic for the prices and you would be hard pressed to find that sort of quality for that price in the grower camp.
We recently drunk the Blanc de Blancs from Charles Heidsieck, not what one would call a terroir champagne but who cares, for the price fantastic.
1 Like
Iām with you Mark. I think itās very helpful.
And David, Galloni even says that to get a clear picture it takes a few years and then goes on to just report what he thinks about the vintages and trends as of today without claiming that the views wonāt change.
2 Likes
Always ignore the one line negative/snide comment posted exclusively to condescend, demean, belittle, or complaint about someone or something. Itās MO, literally every thread, adds nothing, and detracts only from enjoyment of the thread or topic as a whole. You MUST know this by now.
1 Like
Re the discussion on 2015s and a grassy note, I immediatley thought of a wine I had last December:
2015 Raphael & Vincent Bereche Champagne āCoteā BdB Grand Cru Extra Brut
I wrote it off as a limey-herbal note, but the wine was disappointing and that recollection of grassiness stayed with me. Kind of an ah-ha! when reading the above.
Is this really negative? Imagine if only 19 Bordeaux, Burgundy, or Piemonte producers were reviewed. Would that be acceptable? This creates a limited narrative, and we have seen where that leads when critics concentrate on a select number of producers, as in the pricing for Cedric Bouchard, Ulysse Collin, and Prevost.
As for sweeping statements on vintages, it seems that since Parker declared the 1982 vintage, every critic wants to be the one to name the next vintage. In Champagne, there are approximately 450 to 500 producers/maisons creating champagne in the 88-point or higher category. Yet on such a small sample size, absolute statements are being made.
If you, as a consumer, are happy with such a service, then that is fine. But from my perspective, if you are not going to do the job properly, itās better not to do it at all.
As consumers (of anything) we always want more, and at better quality. This is our right as consumers.
But while I would certainly be delighted with a Champagne report from Vinous as deep as their reporting on Bordeaux, Burgundy, etc. I still prefer a less deep summary over nothing.
1 Like
Weāre not talking about the same things in our posts.
How much are the Champagne producers reviewed by Vinous paying Vinous for āsubscriptionsā? Do any of them buy bespoke subscriptions to Vinous? If so, how much are they paying?
3 Likes