oh boy. i was afraid of this. a list of all grand marquee names. where are all the growers? i see sellose but where is vilmart? peters? gimmonet? diebolt? de sousa? i understand you dont want to list the most obscure hard to find farmer fizz but the names i threw out there are fairly easy to source.
or by veuve.
To rank champagnes when they are at a level of perfection is not very easy. I have tried to rank specific vintages of champagnes, instead of global champagnes.
I am not sure that another day I would produce the same ranking, but this is a try :
1 - Heidsieck 1907 coming from a boat and stayed 100 years in cold water
2 - Moët & Chandon Brut Impérial 1928
3 - Dom Pérignon 1929
4 - Clos du Mesnil 1979
5 - Salon 1966
6 - Pol Roger 1921
7 - Cristal Roederer 1949
8 - Moët & Chandon Brut Impérial 1914
9 - Krug Collection 1964
10 - Moët & Chandon Brut Impérial 1911
I wish I were in position to critique that list…
I wish I could too!
My two best bottles were a Dom Pérignon 1966, had twice, and a Krug Clos du Mesnil, I think 85 - I don’t drink much of this for somewhat obvious reasons 
I will update my list based on input, all very much appreciated, arguments, complaints, etc. and post in a day or two - and seriously, I do appreciate the comments.
Obviously a list, or even the notion of a list, is contentious. And now to think about the ten best uses for fermented turnip juice . . . they drink it in Turkey I’m told
1 Like
Come on guys, THIS has got to have at least three spots here:
The 1996 Henriot Cuvée des Enchanteleurs was my #1 wine of 2012. the 1998 ranked #13. It rarely disappoints.
I like Ted’s list. Based on his originally stated criteria, I’d replace the Deutz and Selosse with Taittinger CdC and Henriot Enchanteleurs. Not that I’d mind drinking the Deutz or Selosse.
My person favorites:
- Salon
- Krug Clos le Mesnil
- Taittinger Comtes
- Bollinger Vieilles Vignes BdN
- Philipponnat CdG
- Selosse Les Carelles BdB
- Pol Roger Sir Winston Churchill
- Heidsieck Blanc des Millénaires
- Henriot Cuvee des Enchanteleurs
- Ruinart BdB
sorry, for my palate, cristal does not have any place in a top 10, and absent some of the p2 and p3 bottlings, same with dom
unfortunately, there are only space for 10- some great producers are naturally going to get bumped. not a knock on their style, just not enough room for some of the excellent growers. to be honest, i don’t believe any of the ones you listed are producing a top 10 champagne, although the OP’s list is interesting because it flip-flops between house and tete de cuvee. if talking about house, i am bumping Heidsieck for Pierre Peters and Henriot for Dom.
I’m surprised your list doesn’t include Taittinger’s CdC.
+1
and just my own stylistic preference, but NO ROSE! i have never had a rose that can match the complexity, depth, and finish of a bollinger vieilles vignes, or several of the BdBs.
I’m not usually a big rosé fan, but I really liked the Selosse. My wife and I shared it over a full dinner at Les Avisés. It really unfolded nicely.
This is a good list- there you go Paul. (Let’s ditch the PC thread now.) Salon tops my list as consistently great experiences.
As to the OP- while there is some controversy of style with Selosse, it is doubtful a controversy over quality- it deserves the to be on the list. Anselme does a bunch of different things for sure, he is greatly respected in the region and I doubt there is much debate over Lieux-Dits. I would perhaps substitute out Carelles (which is great) for Chalons (which blew me away but I suppose is not really available). Eitherway, this is splitting hairs as the chards from Selosse are mmm-chalky great.
Egly-Ouriet Blanc Noirs could possibly sneak somewhere on the list. Lastly, while it may not get the street cred of others, don’t sleep on the Clicquot La Grande Dame- it ages great, the 1990 for example, is still available at a reasonable price and just great right now.
A great list Paul, and I’m happy spending time with any of these Champagnes!
Have not had the Bollinger Vieilles Vignes BdN yet - but I will! In the name of science perhaps
But it is. They’re way too oxidative for some people, to the point where those people consider some or all bottles to be flawed or outright faulty. Tom Stevenson has written about judges asking for replacement bottles because they deemed typical examples of Selosse to have excessive VA and ethyl acetate. This is very much a controversy over quality. Are they great or flawed? I love Selosse, but the bottle variate I’ve found with relatively small sample size is immense. My wife called a bottle of Initial oxidized at a tasting, and I had to agree. I liked the wine, she didn’t.
I understand the controversy, but haven’t had a bottle I didn’t consider great!
And although I haven’t had hundreds of bottle, probably a couple of dozen.
So, you are saying that an oxidative style is a sign of poor quality? I was making a differentiation between a style and quality. Do you believe Selosse is not extremely committed to quality or due to a strong style, ends up being poor quality? I was trying to avoid the SQN route here…
I think he is more saying that the oxidative style leads to too much bottle variation. When Selosse is on, there may be no better champagne, but there have been a few duds along the road as well. At the price of entry, it can be a real letdown. I personally love Selosse, but I have noticed some bottle variation for sure.