Champagnes For The New Year

   815  
Some thirty or forty years ago, when I was starting to taste champagnes in a more than casual way, I thought that nonvintage champagnes were to be avoided. They were often acidic, less than full bodied, and although inexpensive, about $20 a bottle, not really a good value for the money. So I skipped over them, and did comparative tastings of vintage champages, selling for around $35 a  bottle. I liked vintage Veuve Clicquot the best, to the point of serving it at our daughter’s wedding dinner.     Times change. There has been a revolution in champagne making (which seems like a real contradiction in terms to me), with far stricter industry standards as to aging and, I think, such production methods as grape yield per hectare. But beyond that, I think some smart French MBAs did a market analysis, and realized that the serious money was at the lower end of the buyers’ scale. More people, they must have reasoned, would buy a bottle of good quality nonvintage champagne, and do it more often, if they seriously enjoyed the product. Perhaps some would then go on to the vintage champagnes (now, around $40-$75 a bottle), and the luxury cuvees such as Dom Perignon, which can cost well over $100 a bottle.           The quality of French champagne has risen markedly. Always a quality product, producers have decided to lay down certain benchmarks, and raise the standard generally for producing champagne. Better standards of production governing yields, the improvement of wines held in reserve, pruning, and other essential matters were decreed in 1987 by the Comite Interprofessionel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC). Another step forward was the 1992 decision to eliminate the third pressing of grapes for champagne. Now only the first pressing, or “cuvee,” and the second, or “taille,” may be made. The result is finer wine, depending on a lower yield of wine per ton of grapes. The offshoot also is a far better Quality Reserve, the wine that is put by in a good vintage year to improve wines in later years.           The CIVC also decreed that vintage wines must be aged in the bottle for at least three years (and non vintage for 15 months) before shipping. Bottling may not take place before the January following the harvest.     But I think the numbers, and therefore the potental profits, are on the nonvintage bottles of champagne. If my theory can be proved, the taste I recall many years ago bears no resemblance to the taste of nonvintage champagnes today. The improvement is dramatic.              Champagnes come from that region of France, 90 miles northeast of Paris, centered in Reims, Epernay, Ay, and Troyes. They are usually a blend of three grape varieties: chardonnay (finesse and flavor), pinot noir (aroma and body), and pinot meunier (spicy and fragrant). For a blanc de blancs they skip the Pinot Noir. Non-vintage champagnes are blends of several years, and are meant to be consumed within a year or two of their release (well chilled, but NEVER put in the freezer).     The best champagne houses go beyond even the new requirements that their trade association has mandated. For example, the nonvintage (NV) just requires fifteen months, but quality houses will age it for several years. Similarly, vintage champagnes will be aged beyond the three year minimum by careful producers. By the way, I suspect that with champagne, aging is not the criterion of excellence that attaches to fine Burgundy or Bordeaux wines. I mean by that that a knowledgeable consumer would often not give a vintage champagne a lot of shelf time. They are ready to drink when bottled, and gain nothing in the bottle (since there is no oxidation). So as a general rule, your champagne should be drunk a dozen years from its vintage year (or, half a dozen years from the year you bought it). There are great exceptions, such as Salon, but that is the general perception. So don’t believe those James Bond films that have him ecstatic over 1929 Bollinger champagne!          I have half a dozen non-vintage (NV) champagnes to recommend, ranging from $25 to $35 a bottle (Washington, D.C. Prices, which thankfully are cheaper at holiday time). Which one you choose depends upon your plans for the evening, your own taste, and your wallet. It makes a difference if you are planning a quiet evening at home, or a party. If the latter, you probably shouldn’t be consideing a costly vintage champagne. By the time you get to it at midnight, your taste buds won’t do the wine justice. Choose instead a NV champagne that pleases you.           At a wine tasting in Annapolis last year, the Moet Hennessy exhibit was a special treat. They poured Moet et Chandon Nectar Imperial ($38), a largely Pinot Noir based demi-sec nonvintage champagne that was very tasty. I had not tried it before, and was surprised to learn from the distributor that this wine has become, in 8-9 years, the fourth largest selling champagne in the United States! It seems that more and more Americans appreciate the slightly sweet taste of demi-sec, rather than the traditional dry brut champagnes. Visitors to the exhibit confirmed that to us – they said that a touch of sweetness in the bubbles was a real plus, and that they had always preferred it. The Moet et Chandon brut is being discontinued here for lack of sales, and the sweeter Moet et Chandon White Star Extra Dry NV ($35), which I found a very tasty and refreshing mouthful, is being sold along with the Nectar in its place. Live and learn!           The style of…
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • ALREADY SUBSCRIBED?
Previous Article Meet Me At The Astor Buzz
Next Article Cameleon Buzz