Tete de cuvee roses

[Otto_Forsberg]

It’s part scarcity (or Veblen goods effect), part costlier to produce and part more difficult to produce in Champagne. The two former ones have been already covered, so I guess it’s good to talk about the latter on as well.

In order to make good rosé in Champagne, you need to have red grapes that are good enough for red wine. In Champagne it’s quite easy to get Pinot Noir and Meunier ripen enough to make great white wine (or Blanc de Noirs), but getting them ripe enough to make great red (or rosé) wine is a completely different story.

A huge majority of Rosé Champagne is Rosé d’Assemblage, which is made by adding red Coteaux Champenois to a white Champagne. The thing is that especially in the past making good enough Coteaux Champenois for rosé production was very difficult and in many cases it was a limiting factor in making rosé Champagne. You could make some sub-par Coteaux Rouge and add just a dash of it to a basic NV to make basic NV Rosé, but to make Tête de Cuvée Rosé, you need to have top-notch raw material.

The remaining small portion of Rosé Champagne is Rosé de Saignée, aka. Rosé de Maceration. This style requires not only red grapes of great quality, but also of good appearance. I’ve heard of several instances where a producer couldn’t release their rosé because even though the wine itself was great, the color turned out to be murky, unclean brownish-red instead of the luminous salmon pink or pale ruby. In some cases it is obvious that certain red grapes aren’t fit for making rosé right from the start, but in some cases this can be seen only in the end result.

So this is also one key factor why top Rosé Champs have been so expensive. Nowadays the climate seems to be making it easier to produce high-quality red grapes year in year out, but since the rosés have historically been so expensive compared to the “regular” iterations, I doubt this will change much even if making them might be easier and more predictable now.

[Jayson_Cohen]

It’s part scarcity (or Veblen goods effect), part costlier to produce and part more difficult to produce in Champagne. The two former ones have been already covered, so I guess it’s good to talk about the latter on as well.

In order to make good rosé in Champagne, you need to have red grapes that are good enough for red wine. In Champagne it’s quite easy to get Pinot Noir and Meunier ripen enough to make great white wine (or Blanc de Noirs), but getting them ripe enough to make great red (or rosé) wine is a completely different story.

A huge majority of Rosé Champagne is Rosé d’Assemblage, which is made by adding red Coteaux Champenois to a white Champagne. The thing is that especially in the past making good enough Coteaux Champenois for rosé production was very difficult and in many cases it was a limiting factor in making rosé Champagne. You could make some sub-par Coteaux Rouge and add just a dash of it to a basic NV to make basic NV Rosé, but to make Tête de Cuvée Rosé, you need to have top-notch raw material.

The remaining small portion of Rosé Champagne is Rosé de Saignée, aka. Rosé de Maceration. This style requires not only red grapes of great quality, but also of good appearance. I’ve heard of several instances where a producer couldn’t release their rosé because even though the wine itself was great, the color turned out to be murky, unclean brownish-red instead of the luminous salmon pink or pale ruby. In some cases it is obvious that certain red grapes aren’t fit for making rosé right from the start, but in some cases this can be seen only in the end result.

So this is also one key factor why top Rosé Champs have been so expensive. Nowadays the climate seems to be making it easier to produce high-quality red grapes year in year out, but since the rosés have historically been so expensive compared to the “regular” iterations, I doubt this will change much even if making them might be easier and more predictable now.

I’m not sure I understand how this difference can possibly justify the price differential given the marginal costs involved. It’s not cost plus pricing going on here. Whereas if Cristal Rose is really a Cristal super cuvee, that seems like it’s price differential is more about a super prestige pricing strategy. And enough buyers who can afford it.

[Otto_Forsberg]

It’s part scarcity (or Veblen goods effect), part costlier to produce and part more difficult to produce in Champagne. The two former ones have been already covered, so I guess it’s good to talk about the latter on as well.

In order to make good rosé in Champagne, you need to have red grapes that are good enough for red wine. In Champagne it’s quite easy to get Pinot Noir and Meunier ripen enough to make great white wine (or Blanc de Noirs), but getting them ripe enough to make great red (or rosé) wine is a completely different story.

A huge majority of Rosé Champagne is Rosé d’Assemblage, which is made by adding red Coteaux Champenois to a white Champagne. The thing is that especially in the past making good enough Coteaux Champenois for rosé production was very difficult and in many cases it was a limiting factor in making rosé Champagne. You could make some sub-par Coteaux Rouge and add just a dash of it to a basic NV to make basic NV Rosé, but to make Tête de Cuvée Rosé, you need to have top-notch raw material.

The remaining small portion of Rosé Champagne is Rosé de Saignée, aka. Rosé de Maceration. This style requires not only red grapes of great quality, but also of good appearance. I’ve heard of several instances where a producer couldn’t release their rosé because even though the wine itself was great, the color turned out to be murky, unclean brownish-red instead of the luminous salmon pink or pale ruby. In some cases it is obvious that certain red grapes aren’t fit for making rosé right from the start, but in some cases this can be seen only in the end result.

So this is also one key factor why top Rosé Champs have been so expensive. Nowadays the climate seems to be making it easier to produce high-quality red grapes year in year out, but since the rosés have historically been so expensive compared to the “regular” iterations, I doubt this will change much even if making them might be easier and more predictable now.

I’m not sure I understand how this difference can possibly justify the price differential given the marginal costs involved. It’s not cost plus pricing going on here. Whereas if Cristal Rose is really a Cristal super cuvee, that seems like it’s price differential is more about a super prestige pricing strategy. And enough buyers who can afford it.

I didn’t say that it makes sense. I just pointed out the difficulty of producing rosé is just one factor, along with scarcity and costlier process.

[Neal.Mollen]

BTW, the difference is less – about 50% for Bollinger Grande Annee. ~$100 for the white, and about 150 for the rosé

[Jayson_Cohen]

It’s part scarcity (or Veblen goods effect), part costlier to produce and part more difficult to produce in Champagne. The two former ones have been already covered, so I guess it’s good to talk about the latter on as well.

In order to make good rosé in Champagne, you need to have red grapes that are good enough for red wine. In Champagne it’s quite easy to get Pinot Noir and Meunier ripen enough to make great white wine (or Blanc de Noirs), but getting them ripe enough to make great red (or rosé) wine is a completely different story.

A huge majority of Rosé Champagne is Rosé d’Assemblage, which is made by adding red Coteaux Champenois to a white Champagne. The thing is that especially in the past making good enough Coteaux Champenois for rosé production was very difficult and in many cases it was a limiting factor in making rosé Champagne. You could make some sub-par Coteaux Rouge and add just a dash of it to a basic NV to make basic NV Rosé, but to make Tête de Cuvée Rosé, you need to have top-notch raw material.

The remaining small portion of Rosé Champagne is Rosé de Saignée, aka. Rosé de Maceration. This style requires not only red grapes of great quality, but also of good appearance. I’ve heard of several instances where a producer couldn’t release their rosé because even though the wine itself was great, the color turned out to be murky, unclean brownish-red instead of the luminous salmon pink or pale ruby. In some cases it is obvious that certain red grapes aren’t fit for making rosé right from the start, but in some cases this can be seen only in the end result.

So this is also one key factor why top Rosé Champs have been so expensive. Nowadays the climate seems to be making it easier to produce high-quality red grapes year in year out, but since the rosés have historically been so expensive compared to the “regular” iterations, I doubt this will change much even if making them might be easier and more predictable now.

I’m not sure I understand how this difference can possibly justify the price differential given the marginal costs involved. It’s not cost plus pricing going on here. Whereas if Cristal Rose is really a Cristal super cuvee, that seems like it’s price differential is more about a super prestige pricing strategy. And enough buyers who can afford it.

I didn’t say that it makes sense. I just pointed out the difficulty of producing rosé is just one factor, along with scarcity and costlier process.

Got it. I wasn’t criticizing you. I was just trying to suggest that that would be a relatively weak justification if made by a producer.

[Chris_Seiber]

I’m not sure I understand how this difference can possibly justify the price differential given the marginal costs involved. It’s not cost plus pricing going on here. Whereas if Cristal Rose is really a Cristal super cuvee, that seems like it’s price differential is more about a super prestige pricing strategy. And enough buyers who can afford it.

Speaking broadly and not based on anything specific to rose Champagne, consumers tend to think that product pricing is based on some formula of the producer’s costs plus some profit margin. But in actuality, pricing is based on supply and demand and what price the seller believes is the maximizing price point.

GM doesn’t figure out how much it costs to make each Chevy Tahoe and then sell them for that plus some profit percentage. They sell them for the prices that they think will get them the most return. They likely sell some cars at a loss (e.g. the Volt and Bolt), and others at a very large profit margin (large trucks and SUVs), just based on what the public is willing to pay.

In that way, I think it’s safe to assume the public is willing to pay more for these tete de cuvee roses, and that’s the real reason they’re priced higher. If the public were willing to pay slightly less for Dom Rose than Dom of the same vintage, then that’s what the price would be, even if making Dom Rose costs more than making Dom (as it sounds like it probably does, based on Otto’s excellent information).

That’s just in the broadest sense of explaining it.

Now, the public’s willingness to pay more for the rose might be influenced to some degree by the perception of greater rarity, the higher price point might tend to make some consumers think it’s more special, and there can be other soft factors like that in play.

[Nathan_V]

I’m not sure I understand how this difference can possibly justify the price differential given the marginal costs involved. It’s not cost plus pricing going on here. Whereas if Cristal Rose is really a Cristal super cuvee, that seems like it’s price differential is more about a super prestige pricing strategy. And enough buyers who can afford it.

Speaking broadly and not based on anything specific to rose Champagne, consumers tend to think that product pricing is based on some formula of the producer’s costs plus some profit margin. But in actuality, pricing is based on supply and demand and what price the seller believes is the maximizing price point.

GM doesn’t figure out how much it costs to make each Chevy Tahoe and then sell them for that plus some profit percentage. They sell them for the prices that they think will get them the most return. They likely sell some cars at a loss (e.g. the Volt and Bolt), and others at a very large profit margin (large trucks and SUVs), just based on what the public is willing to pay.

In that way, I think it’s safe to assume the public is willing to pay more for these tete de cuvee roses, and that’s the real reason they’re priced higher. If the public were willing to pay slightly less for Dom Rose than Dom of the same vintage, then that’s what the price would be, even if making Dom Rose costs more than making Dom (as it sounds like it probably does, based on Otto’s excellent information).

That’s just in the broadest sense of explaining it.

Now, the public’s willingness to pay more for the rose might be influenced to some degree by the perception of greater rarity, the higher price point might tend to make some consumers think it’s more special, and there can be other soft factors like that in play.

I think this is absolutely right for big house Champagne and maybe even Champagne more broadly or even all “luxury good” type wines. I do know that costs are the driving factor in pricing for smaller vignerons and winemakers.

[T_Altmayer]

I think the Dom Perignon Rose is a significant step up from its basic bottling, more like a P2. For me it has more depth and complexity.

[DougS]

Yes, I’ve only had DP Rosé once, but I thought it was a lot better than the white DP of the same vintage. With most others, though, the pricing seems ridiculous. I’ve never had Cristal Rosé, so I’m not commenting on that one.