The thing with grower champagne is that the hype is usually about the “next big thing” and it’s a relatively new phenomenon in the wine world, at least for the international audience. So it’s hard to find tasting notes on mature stuff.
So I was wondering if somebody here could share their experiences with bottles that have been cellared for a while? What showed upside, and what went downhill?
Some of my observations/opinion:
although a 1985 non vintage was showing great last year, it seems current Selosse wines have a tendency to oxidise within only a few years of post-disgorgement ageing.
A 1996 Guy Charlemagne Mesnillesime last year showed little development, this may be wine for the truly long term.
Storing Andre Clouet 1911 is a lottery.
Jerome Prevost and Egly Ouriet wines seem to reach their peak before their 10th birthday.
Motardier should be consumed upon release.
Cedric Bouchard’s wines really reward ageing and seem like they can be stored for a long time. A 2004 Ursules and 2001 Parcelle had both improved greatly.
My 1998 Vilmart Coeur de Cuvee are darkening at a worrying rate.
Although it might not be to the producer’s taste, Gimonnet wines seem do develop gracefully.
Vouette & Sorbee taste like they will reward long term cellaring, but the producer advises against it. What is the truth?
There are plenty of producers with decades of experience.
I agree the mesnillesime is a long term wine, as is Lilbert, Peters Speciale/Chettilons, Diebolt Fleur. I have drunk the 96 and 95 of all of those in the last years. I’ve had mixed results with Gimonnet I have not quite as good results from, for the special club, but it’s still good, the collection seems to benefit from magnums format.
I’d put all the above in a more traditional style.
I’ve had bad 96s from Larmandier and Egly Ouriet, a whole underwhelming case of the Egly.
I have never had an issue with vintage Selosse, my stash of 96s are lovely, nor Vilmart, but I have had mixed 90s in the last few years, nor bad but variable, no problem with more recent wines.
I don’t really age any low dosage wines, other than Peters extra brut in magnum, and I don’t buy the new wave of cult producers.
I was skeptical of aging Cedric Bouchard since they have no dosage, but there is a bit of residual sugar in those which seems to help the process. And yes definitely agree about Lilbert and Diebolt Vallois although the latter’s library release 1976 a few years ago wasn’t all that impressive to me.
Oh and I have had several badly aged wines from David Leclapart. I hear he says his wines should age for 25 years or more. Maybe undisgorged…
Frank, remember that 76 wasn’t made by Jacques, but a relative. I had a few of the 76/79/83. I thought the 76 the best of the bunch but it didn’t age well once disgorged, the first ones were the best.
I like Bouchard, but don’t own any, I’m not sure I’d age them, they are so delicious young.
I’ve had many bottles of 96 Gimmonet Fleurons in the last 2-3 years; all have been very nice and at peak for my tastes. In the last year, I’ve had one each of 96 Fiacre, 96 Billiot, 97 Pierre Peters — all quite nice.
The biggest question is how you define what aging/mature means. To me, going 5-10 years post release shouldn’t be an issue with almost any Champagne especially a vintage one. I would expect/want a 95 and 96 to be alive today and drinking well. I think if you go back before 1990, you can get a little bit more of a feel, but it is important to also note that many growers have changed their vineyard and winemaking practices quite a bit since the 1980s and the wines are very different now - normally for the better. Also, a number of very good plots that used to see grapes go to negociants are now back in the hands of grower/producers and this changes things. It makes it a challenge to really say what wines today will age as it is all an educated guess; the track record isn’t there to truly prove a lot of it. For those who do have the track record, I would say that the following producers/growers have proved they have wines that age gracefully and get better over time. To me, the key to aging is wines that improve because if a wine doesn’t improve, the reasons for aging it exist, but they are minimized quite a bit. A few off the top of my head that have shown well through the decades:
Pierre Peters
Rene Geoffroy
Goutorbe
Guy Charlemagne
Paul Bara
Philippe Gonet
Jose Michel
Launois
Vilmart only started working with their newer style in 1989, but I have seen nothing but great aging potential from the wines.
Also, please note that I am not talking about late disgorged wines or older wines disgorged in person on visits as those are very different animals.