I guess I might be a slow learner. After years of membership in a blind tasting group, I’ve finally realized that the traditional Champagne/sparkling reception wine is a poor place to serve high-end Champagne, especially Tete de Cuvee bottles whether aged or young. When it’s my turn to host, I listen to the comments of the blind tasters. If the reception wine is fresh and dry, most all will like it, but generally do a poor job of identifying whether it is a really special Champagne or something more basic and lower in value. And when I’m not the host, my blinded opinions are pretty much the same, i.e. often wide of the mark in identifying a well-choosen non-vintage versus a spendy prestige bottling. If it is obviously a wine with a good deal of age, it is difficult to tell if it is Roederer Brut Premiere bought 5 or 8 years ago and cellared, or if it is Roederer RD of a similar age.
The key attributes: freshness, dryness, fruit is OK but not too much and not cloying, and refinement as opposed to something coarse. Such attributes are available at all price points except the very bottom, IMO. In other words, keep the Tete de Cuvees for when the label will be shown, or don’t buy them at all.
Data points: the last five times I have hosted and served fizzy for the starter, the wines were all well received, and I’d judge the qualitative judgements of blind tasters pretty comparable each time. But the wines covered a wide range of perceived quality and value:
N.V. Rare Wine Company Blanc de Blancs Le Mesnil
1990 Billecart-Salmon Cuvee Nicolas-Francois.
1990 Pol Roger Brut Chardonnay.
N.V. Duval-Leroy Brut.
1996 Roederer Brut.
I know there are some who are deeply into Champagne, and drink it way more often than I. For them, the distinctions may not be lost, even if tasting blind for some of them. But for me, I’d rather serve non-vintage Pierre Peters or Billecart-Salmon and spend the extra to upgrade the Burg from 1er cru to grand cru. What say you?
Pretty much in agreement, though it may be that picking a GC over a 1er Burgundy may be equally challenging to picking the Tete de Cuvees over the supposedly less refined ones…
I recently noticed a similar phenomenon. It didn’t really matter if the starter Champagne was a high end vintage tete-de-cuvee or an inexpensive NV. People happily slurped it either way, and had nice things to say about it. But I attributed it to something else: a lack of focus on the wine. People are getting reacquainted and the Champagne is more of a social lubricant rather than the center of attention. If I couldn’t appreciate the difference when really focusing on the Champagne itself, it would lead to even larger questions: why would this be the case only in a tasting setting, and why bother with high-end Champagne at all?
One of the wines on your list, the Rare Wine Co. Le Mesnil, is an absolute steal, in my opinion. It also has a great label! So people like it no matter which standard they’re using. Great wine to have in the cellar. I haven’t aged it for years, but I think it would do well.
High-end champagnes do really well when they’re old, in my opinion. When '82 D.P. came out I couldn’t understand the fuss – okay, kind of acidic, tight. Why do people like this so much? I ended up with a couple of bottles, one purchased one a gift. Ten years later I found out what the the fuss was about: creamy, wonderful, delicious. I suspect it’s still wonderful.
A friend served us '66 Cristal the other night and it was fabulous. Not an experience you can have without that amount of age. I would never spend those dollars on that wine, but if purchased young and aged in your cellar it’s completely worth it.
I had a single bottle of the Le Mesnil from Rare Wine and was not overly impressed myself, although it was pretty good. Certainly a reasonable value, although not necessarily better than any number of Grower Champagnes available at some stores (don’t tell anybody, but Premier Cru has one of the best collection of fresh, reasonably priced Champagnes).
Otherwise, I am struck by the learning curve associated with top Champagne. I see it is my own tasting, but also with the comments of some other knowledgeable wine tasters, including some I would classify as experts (otherwise). I think it is possible to pick out the top Champagnes blind, but only with some considerable experience.
At informal restaurant tastings, we usually struggle to get food ordered and delivered in time to pair with the first wave of whites, much less the Champagne. By the time everyone straggles in, people get around to looking at the menu, placing the orders and receiving the first dishes, we’re usually long past the Champagne(s) and often past the whites.
It’s at the prearranged tastings (with flights matched up to dishes in advance in a set menu) when those Champagnes and whites tend to get fairer treatment in terms of people’s attention and in terms of having appropriate food pairings.
Tend to somewhat agree with the premise. We did do a really great Off-Line last summer that was all Champagne/Sparkling. Then each wine got the attention they deserved.
I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say Lew but I would say that a lot of high end Champagne is wasted in such settings. It also leads many wine drinkers to believe that Champagne, even on the high end is nothing more than a palate starter and isn’t given the serious treatment the important reds are. This leads to what Nick said being true in that the wine will be treated in the way it is served. I think the best bottles of high end Champagne deserve to be treated special and focused on right rather than being a mere sipper. Even most good NV Champagne is better this way but for a mere ‘night starter’ you are best served using something in this category or a decent white.
This has been a steal at times. Especially when it originally hit our market at $30 a few years back. The label has changed as has the quality. I think it is very blend and disgorgement dependent. At times it has been too rich and or ripe for me. I think the price has also been on an upward creep so I usually go to a more trusted producer for a few bucks more these days.
Nice post Lewis, including a core benefit of blind tasting with respect to “value”, developed based on your own firsthand experiences and tastes. That’s a helpful insight to have IMHO. Save the labels for label-events and enjoy what suits you the rest of the time.
I don’t start tastings with a high end wine of any sort. It’s almost always a good quality white that’s tasty but not ultra-special. Why? Because the group meets once a month and we spend the first half hour or so catching up with each other. We’re not paying attention to the wine all that much, so a subtle wine that needs to be focused upon to really appreciate it is a waste.
Todd, I believe this is sourced from Le Mesnil cooperative. My purchase note from a few years back: “‘Elaboré par Union des Propriétaires Récoltants.’ So RWC must be getting this from the cooperative.”
I bought mine in 2008, $28.95 and a real bargain. If the label discloses disgorgement dates, I did not record that in my note. Not surprised that others have found later versions less stellar, because that is the way it goes at most co-ops.
In this particular tasting group, serving Champagne or other sparkling wine as the “reception” wine is a well established tradition. I’ve bent that rule numerous times, starting with German kabinett or spatlese a few times, and rose several times. Also Sancerre. But Champagne is traditional. The wine is not ignored, everyone pays attention to it, and everyone offers their comments before the reveal. But yes, probably less focus is given to the reception wine than after we are seated and the whites and reds are poured.
Most of the regular attendees have broad experience and deep cellars. Regardless of that, seeing the label of a prestigous bottle is a powerful inducement to find merit in any wine. But this group tastes double blind, and the pattern is clear that identifying a renowned Champagne is harder than picking out the very best whites and reds. Perhaps the reason is that it is a single wine on its own. If we served 3 or 4 Champagnes side-by-side, the distinctions would be more obvious. Absent that, I’m going with the well-chosen non-vintage.
I agree with Rick. A starter wine or starting wines seems better to be something interesting and fresh, but not too serious, to get people in the door and socialized. I would think if you have a killer chapagne, it would be better as the first serious “sit down” wine, or maybe even better the last wine of the night.
Yes, arriving at a tasting, mingling, talking, starting to focus on the tasting to follow often precludes proper appreciation of a special cuvee Champagne - or any “starter wine”, as a matter of fact. I fully agree.
I also agree with your point that so much has to do with the status of pricey Champagne as opposed to quality. I’m not saying that expensive Champagne is a rip-off, just that there are enough over-priced unexciting ones to say so…
I nevertheless approve of Champagne as a kick-off wine.
The “Le Mesnil” you speak of undoubtedly benefits from confusion (of course, not with the learned connoisseurs on this forum…) with Clos du Mesnil.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}