From the Vine

IT SEEMS THAT EVERY WINEMAKER ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WILL TELL YOU THAT GREAT WINE IS MADE IN THE VINEYARD, NOT THE WINERY. THERE IS FAR MORE TO IT THAN THAT, OF COURSE, BUT QUALITY FRUIT IS ESSENTIAL IN MAKING FIRST CLASS CHAMPAGNE. AS IT IS WITH EVERY WINE PRODUCER AROUND THE GLOBE, WINEMAKERS IN CHAMPAGNE ONLY GET ONE CRACK AT IT EVERY YEAR, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY MUST ENSURE THAT EVERYTHING IN THE VINEYARD IS AS PERFECT AS POSSIBLE.

WORDS KEN GARGETT

THE CHAMPENOIS START WITH A sparkling advantage – their terroir. Terroir is that almost indefinable concept of soil (very much a major component), climate, aspect, altitude, wind, exposure and much more, including the human input (but any assessment of that contribution is for later). It is pretty much everything that affects the growing of the vine. It gets even more complicated when one considers that terroir, in theory at least, can apply to a single vineyard or an entire region. Champagne has terroir, individual villages have terroir and discrete vineyards in those villages also have their own unique terroir. The Champenois have also instigated a rather unique system of classification for their vineyards, which relates directly to the reward for growers for their annual efforts.

TERROIR

Books could, and have, been written on terroir. Terroir is something on which every wine lover has an opinion. In Champagne, the key word is chalk. When someone says that they can detect a chalky note in a Champagne, is that the chalk in the soil or simply the power of suggestion? It hardly matters. Chalk is king in Champagne.

Of course, the soil varies across such an extensive region and we do not see the same influence of chalk in the Aube. That aside, the subsoil of the region consists of up to 300 metres of white chalk in places. Chalk contributes an elevated level of lime, which in turn lowers the pH in the grapes. In other words, there will be an increased level of natural acidity, a key component of great sparkling wine. Easy to see why the Champenois have no doubt that their terroir is largely responsible for why they make the best sparkling wines on the planet. In addition to the chalk, there is a thin layer of topsoil, largely consisting of clay, sand, marl and lignite. Such a description is, of course, basic in the extreme – like defining humans as creatures with two arms and legs who stand upright. That might be correct, but there is so much more to it.

The location of Champagne is critical to the success of their wines, as this is one of the most northerly winegrowing regions, and hence, viticulturally precarious regions in the world. The average annual temperature in the towns of Reims and Epernay is a mere 11°C. Below this, it is difficult to ensure the vines will survive. Climate change may be moderating the impact of the regular cool seasons which make growing grapes here such a risky business, but it is this edge that helps Champagne, as it often (‘often’, as nowhere is perfect), produces ideal grapes for sparkling styles.

This location, 160 kilometres east of Paris, means that Champagne enjoys both maritime and continental influences. The maritime effect ensures steady rainfall and also moderates temperature variations. The continental influence means that there is sufficient sunlight in summer, though it literally pales in comparison with other regions. Sunlight hours in Champagne average 1,650 hours annually. Compare this with Bordeaux, with over 2,000 hours and Burgundy with over 1,900. The downside of this influence is that it can bring winter frosts, which can be catastrophic. On average, more than 40 per cent of the vineyards are devastated by frosts once every twenty years. In the last 140 years, 55 of them saw more than 1 per cent of the Champagne region devastated. It might not seem a lot, but if you are a grower and see your entire years work destroyed in minutes, you may feel differently - life on the edge, indeed!

The key period in the vineyard is that from flowering through to harvest, which is traditionally a period of approximately 100 days – it does vary up to around two weeks either way. Every year is different. Some may approach ideal, while others encounter major issues. These may include the occasional heatwave, though hail and cold have been more common. Rain, of course, variations on humidity, but the greatest danger to the vines is frost.

We are seeing more and more warmer vintages, thanks to climate change (with the greatest respect to any deniers out there), though it remains to be seen just what the long-term impact will be. It is possible that some of the effects can be offset by avoiding malolactic fermentation and/ or lowering the dosage. Curiously, climate change or not, the ‘analysis and figures’ for this century have much in common with the decade of the forties, a famous time for Champagne.

IN THE VINEYARD

As is common across Europe, thanks to that calamitous little aphid phylloxera, most vines in Champagne are grafted. Almost all – the rare exception are the vines used in making Bollinger’s ‘Vielle Vignes Francaises’, an extraordinary Blanc de Noirs, first made from the 1969 vintage and a wine almost never seen. VVF is made from two tiny vineyards (it was three, but sadly in 2005, phylloxera finally destroyed the third vineyard – Croix Rouge in Bouzy), Clos St-Jacques and Chaudes Terres, both in Aÿ. The common misconception is that these vines are pre-phylloxera (which would suggest that

these vines were planted back in the 1800’s – not impossible, but incredibly unlikely in Europe). They are not. They are from vines descended from ones that were not destroyed by phylloxera and hence not grafted – in other words, their ancestors are those vines planted back in the 1800’s. It is believed that the vines are protected because they are in a walled vineyard (a clos), while others have opined there must be a greater percentage of sand in the topsoil or nearby – sand being a barrier to movement by the aphid.

All harvesting in Champagne is by hand – mechanical harvesting is not permitted. Picking the very best time to harvest is crucial – harvest usually commences in the first half of September, though it varies depending on conditions. Too soon and the grapes will be unripe; too late and the wines can become clumsy and heavy, maturing too quickly. It sounds easy, but consider the poor vigneron facing impending storms prior to the grapes reaching the level of maturity desired. Do you take the risk and leave the grapes, hoping that they survive and that there is no more adverse weather allowing the grapes to reach their optimum, or do you play it safe and pick, knowing you’ll have a crop, though it may not be the quality that they might be?

Decisions will be made by each grower and/or House as to which varieties to plant in their vineyards (also taking into account various clones), planting density (usually around 8,000 to 10,000 vines per hectare), trellising, timing and extent of pruning, replacement of vines (will happen if the vine becomes diseased; otherwise, as vines get older, they do drop production, though the quality can be high, meaning a balance between quality and quantity must be struck). Should a grower practice green harvesting or not (the practice of dropping a number of grape clusters per vine, in order to concentrate the sugars/flavours in those remaining)? Then there is the question of the move to organic or biodynamic vineyards. We are seeing more and more growers take the plunge, though it is hardly something that happens overnight.

CLASSIFICATION

The échelle des crus (ladder of growths), is a system that has been developed to suit Champagne, though there are some who feel

it’s outdated and of little use. Still, it is the system they have and those doubters need to learn to live with it, at least until changes are made.

This is a system that has evolved over many years, since the Riots of 1911. It is a combination of geographical and economical imperatives, different to the classification system in use in regions such as Bordeaux and Burgundy. In Champagne, villages are rated by percentage and grape prices then determined on a pro-rata basis. The first attempt rated villages between 22.5 and 100 per cent. After World War Two, the system was revamped and ratings were set at between 80 and 100 per cent, with the exception of a few villages in the Marne, a few more in Aisne and all of the Aube. These sat between 70 and 80 per cent. In 1981, a further revision saw all villages rated between 80 and 100 per cent.

A number of villages have been rated at 100 per cent. These are the Grand Cru villages and there are 17 of them – originally 12, but five were added in 1985. Under 9 per cent of the vineyard land in Champagne is rated Grand Cru. Premier Cru villages are rated between 90 and 99 per cent. There are 44 Premier Cru villages, occupying just under 18 per cent of the Champagne region. Other villages will be rated at a figure under 90 per cent, though rarely less than 80 per cent. There are well over 200 of these.

The CIVC set an annual price per kilo of grapes. Those villages which are considered to be the very best, the Grand Crus rated at 100 per cent, will receive the full 100 per cent of that set price. Occasionally, one will see ‘Grand Cru’ on a label. This is only possible where all of the material used in that specific Champagne is from Grand Cru vineyards. Usually, no mention is made.

Vineyards located in Premier Cru villages will receive the percentage of that set price, which equates to the échelle rating awarded to that village. Hence, if a village is rated at 96 per cent, then grapes sold from vineyards in that specific Premier Cru will receive 96 per cent of the set price. Few quality Houses would seek to purchase any grapes from vineyards rated below 90 per cent, though a few may know of undiscovered gems. Of course, if the grower or House which owns the vineyard is using those grapes for their own wines, then it is less relevant.

In recent times, many Houses have accepted that the system has its flaws. A vineyard in any Cru may be an overperformer or under-performer and a House may reward the grower accordingly (not surprisingly, it is much more difficult to convince a grower to accept less than the awarded amount and demand for grapes meaning that in practice, this is unlikely in the extreme). Some Houses seem to feel that the system is more useful as an indicator of price, rather than a rigid requirement.

The perfect example is the vineyard providing the grapes for Philipponnat’s ‘Clos des Goisses’, though the grapes from that vineyard go to their famous champagne, rather than the market. This vineyard is in the Premier Cru village of Mareuil-sur-Aÿ, yet no one would ever imagine that these grapes would sell for anything less than the highest price – in practice, this is one of two villages with a 99 per cent rating (the other being Tauxières-Mutry), so it is not far off. A further example, to have the entire Cote des Bar condemned to a uniform 80 per cent seems almost political, rather than genuinely reflective of the quality.

It would come as no surprise to see some significant tinkering, if not a major overhaul, of the entire échelle des crus system in the coming years. Don’t be surprised if that focuses on individual vineyards, rather than villages. ❧