And even within consumers how many were “geeking out” in champagne to say, lets open one from Ay and compare with that to Bouzy. Or a chouilly BdB to that from Oiry. It was primarily for celebrations. The context of terroir and site-specificity is relatively new.
I totally agree. I never paid much attention to the bigger houses but have noticed at tastings and even at home that there is a lot of great stuff out there.
I drank most of the Laurent Perrier line up at our recent wine festival and every one was extremely good.
The great thing about RM Champagne is there are so many, my two favorites haven’t even been mentioned, Gaston Chiquet and Franck Bonville. I would add Ariston Aspasie as well but aren’t sure if they are RM or micro negociant.
One of the most prevalent condescension-fueled wine myths these days is that the grand marques are without personality and are simply totems of the rich and famous lifestyle. Propagated by a lot of commercial interests and a lot of people who should know better.
Neal. Any time there is a “condescension fueled wine myth” to push, I’m your man, except for in this case.
For me, Champagne never held much interest because of it’s image and the cost. It was the RMs that grabbed my interest about 15 years ago. Although I had a few before that, it was a bottle of Pierre Peter’s BB that caught my attention.
LOL. David, I am a let-a-thousand-flowers-bloom kinda guy, and if the grower movement turned you on the champagne then that is a great thing. And I will agree that one side benefit of the proliferation of growers has been a much greater number of nice wines at a broader array of price points.
My post was really about the canard that the big houses produce wine without character. IMHO, that is simply not true and is largely an artifact of skillful marketing by those who don’t represent or sell (or can’t get decent margins for) the big houses.
Agreed. My real epiphany moment with Champagne came from a tasting of the wines from a grand marque about 10 years ago - Dom Ruinart. I had sort of thought that your myth was mostly correct for many years (and probably still do with respect to some wines) and was not really that much into Champagne. That had changed somewhat prior to the Ruinart tasting because of persuasive pieces of evidence presented to me at wine dinners by people like board members Randy McFarlane and Chris Bublitz. So, I was kind of ready for the Dom Ruinart epiphany. I was invited (thanks to Mr. McFarlane) to a tasting of Dom Ruinart at the old CitiZen. The tasting, led by the winemaker at Ruinart, was incredible and we had Champagnes (mostly from magnums) going back many years. The showstopper was a 1979 Rose. Since that point I have looked at Champagne differently.
And, I have found that I like wines from the big names and from the small growers. Both can make wines that are fantastic, but like with all wines you have to figure out who the good producers are (large or small) and which ones make wines in a style I like. I am still very much in a learning process with regard to this endeavor and, in particular, I still have no real idea at what age to drink Champagne.
Howard, last time I checked, Neal was a big fan of Ruinart.
I have only had a few of the BdB and liked them a lot. Never had the rose.
Still have no clue how long champagnes can or should age but some DP back to ‘69 and Cristals back to early 90’s were wonderful
I had looked on it as a relic of the oceans of badly made but extremely well marketed NV Veuve Clicquot that made its way into the US. That was most people’s exposure to big house Champagne for a long time.
Someday I’d like to serve Veuve Clicquot Yellow Label from a grower Champagne bottle and see what people really think. My impression is that there have been some versions that were quite good and some pretty indifferent but I’ve had similar results with some grower Champagnes in the same price range (I’m thinking of when VC is on sale - I’m not sure who pays $50 for it!).
I suspect that most people who buy into the idea that there is nothing interesting in big house Champagne would be embarrassed in blind tastings if faced with a lineup of well chosen wines. There is a lot to like about Krug, Bollinger, Dom, Ruinart, Comtes, etc.
dup post
It’s not either/or for me. I really like several wines from both big house producers and growers.
Some of the tête de cuvées are hard to beat. A few Grandes Marques off the top of my head:
Taittinger Comte BdB
Philipponnat Clos des Goisses
Laurent Perrier Grand Siecle
Bollinger RD
Moet Dom Perignon
Ruinart BdB
Charles Heidsieck Blanc des Millénaires (love the '95)
Lanson Cuvee Noble (available at reasonable prices)
For similarly priced grower bubbles, I love:
Pierre Peters Chetillon (as long as it’s given a lot of time),
Vilmart Coeur de Cuvée (Michael’s quote applies here)
Agrapart (multiple bottlings)
Jérôme Prévost
Cédric Bouchard
For “reasonably priced” (by my definition) Grandes Marques and Growers:
Coutier (I’m surprised no one mentioned this yet; my Q/P champion)
Duthane Rosé
Savès Rosé
Billecart-Salmon Rosé
Gimonnet
Vilmart and Pierre Peters (in both price points)
Marie Courtin
Paul Bara
Pol Roger BdB and Rosé
I have to stop. There are so many Grower, Negociant, and Grandes Marques wines I love, I’ve lost any credibility on the subject.
Cheers,
Warren
1 Like
I’ve heard that the Yellow Label has significantly improved in recent vintages.
Any experience with Alain Thienot?
I’ll put Vilmart at the top of that list. Good stuff across the lineup.
I didn’t realize Bereche wasn’t a “grower”, as least as the base reserve brut is concerned. Still, for being new around here, Bereche reserve brut is promptly #1 on my “champs to try” list as I hear great things about them and the base is a nice price (roughly $45). Would anyone steer me away from the Bereche reserve brut?
I’ve heard VC had really improved in quality in the last decade or so. Haven’t tried it but it was pretty consistently mediocre before that.
Not at all, it’s delicious and worth the money. The issue is that they have become so popular they have had to buy some grapes in from excellent growers in order to grow the Brut (it’s still not a huge production).
I know it’s picky but with the emphasis on ‘grower’ specific wines, it’s important to pint out that they aren’t technically growers, that’s not taking away from them whatsoever, they’re still great and extremely quality minded.
Getting a little confused now - earlier in thread, it says that Bereche uses the Bereche & Fils label if it’s their own grapes. The bottle I’m looking at says Bereche & Fils, but is the brut reserve. Does this mean these bottles were made with Bereche grapes?
Yes, they have 2 branches of the business, the negotiant bottles, and the Bereche et fils.
The bottle you have is the domaine but solely for the Brut reserve they buy in a little to subplant production, the rest of the wines from the estate are indeed estate grown.
The negotiant bottles that they do are one off’s for the most part, the labels look different and are generally run $75 and up, no Brut reserve.
I know it’s confusing and maybe I helped in that with explaining that Bereche is no longer a grower but technically they aren’t because of the Brut reserve.
And this (along with ployez-jacquemart) is why I’ve tried to just refer to such producers as small house champagne. The Bereche wines have been around since the 1840s and they are all hand-crafted. My personal attitude is: so what if they buy some grapes? For me, the end result is a champagne that shows off a lot of depth and a lot of care has been put into making it.
That’s just my take and I get why people may put them in the “grower” category as a way to differentiate them and other similar producers from the big houses.