Styles of Champagne

WORDS KEN GARGETT

NON-VINTAGE

At its simplest, a non-vintage Champagne is a blend of two or more years, but there is, of course, far more to it than that.

Non-vintage Champagne is the moneymaker for almost all Champagne Houses. No matter how much attention is paid to different vintages and prestige releases, there is hardly a House which will not tell you that their most important Champagne is their non-vintage – not only in terms of volume, but as the wine which best represents them. Small growers with limited resources and a few specialist producers such as Salon may have a slightly different perspective. It is believed that approximately 80 to 90 per cent of all Champagne is nonvintage, with some estimates as high as 94 per cent.

The importance of this style is that it defines the House. Champagne lovers think of the elegance of Billecart-Salmon, the pristine freshness of Taittinger, the weight and power of Bollinger, the richness and complexity of Krug, and so on, not for their vintage wines but because this is the House style, reflected and repeated year after year in their non-vintage wines, which can then be expected to follow throughout the range. You know that if you buy a bottle of Moet et Chandon non-vintage in London or Lima, Madrid or Miami, this year or next, that wine will be exactly the same. That is down to the skill of the Chef de Cave and his team. They ensure that, year after year, the non-vintage wine will be the same. It is, however, far more difficult than you might think and requires great ability.

To achieve the desired result, the team will take the base wine – this is wine from the latest vintage – and add to it reserve wines from previous vintages. Some Houses, such as Veuve Fourny, have a formula whereby up to 40 per cent of reserve wines are added and these reserves come from the two vintages preceding the base wine. LaurentPerrier also use a base wine and two reserve vintages for their flagship, ‘Grand Siecle’, though they are not necessarily consecutive years. Others will use up to ten or twelve previous vintages as reserve wines. Charles Heidsieck is one of many good examples. Remember also that these Houses do not have just one reserve wine from previous vintages, but will have many, representing different crus from all over the region, depending on what they need to replicate their style. Some Houses will take from more than 60 different crus, for both the base wine and the reserve wines. Throw in the added complication of the three different varieties, and it means that the chef de cave and his team will test potentially hundreds of combinations, before they finally have their blend.

The reasoning for this dates back many decades. In those days, there were far fewer vintages which reached the quality of what would be considered ‘vintage worthy’. The Houses knew that they could not make a wine of sufficient quality to release on its own every year. It meant that part of the wines from these years were kept for future use as reserve wine and part was used as the base for the next non-vintage. It was the only way a House could ensure that they would have a wine to release annually. It does, however, require tremendous skill.

Imagine that a vintage is cold and wet while the next one is hot and dry. In the first instance, the chef de cave must balance the cool/wet base wine with reserve wines to replicate the House style. The following year, they must do the same, but this time they start with a completely different wine. Good, bad or indifferent, each House is required by law to retain at least 15 per cent of each harvest for use as reserve wine.

More recently, increased winemaking expertise and improved technology, and especially climate change in the region, are creating conditions which are more conducive to vintage declarations. As a result, some Houses have released vintages on a far more regular basis. Dom Perignon is an example. Others have not, often citing the opportunity to retain these wines as future reserve wines and thereby increase the quality across the board. Veuve Clicquot has made the decision to limit vintage releases. Just as with their own unique style, there is no right or wrong in such a decision. It is simply what best suits an individual House.

Some Houses, and also some consumers, assume that the term, ‘non-vintage’ is in some way derogatory, but that is certainly not so. Indeed, Krug refuse to use the term and instead uses the more appropriate ‘multi-vintage’.

Technically, non-vintage champagne must spend 15 months in the bottle before sale, 12 of those on lees. In practice, good Houses will often have their non-vintage Champagnes spend much longer on lees.

Finally, although many Houses insist that their non-vintage is at its peak on release, wines from the better Houses will age and improve, often for many years.

VINTAGE

Vintage Champagne is simple. The wine needs to be 100 per cent from the vintage named on the label. From a technical/regulatory perspective, a vintage Champagne must spend three years on lees, but in practice, most top Houses will

leave their vintage Champagnes on lees for considerably longer. A decade is not uncommon.

Why a vintage? It is a way for the House to exhibit the wine from a year that they consider to be exceptionally good. If a vintage wine is ‘declared’, in practice, we find that most Houses will offer one, but it is not compulsory. Hence, one House may feel that their vineyards produced top notch fruit, allowing the release of a vintage. Possibly the conditions suited them, but not neighbours. This often happens where one House favours of the use of, say Chardonnay, while another is known as a ‘Pinot’ House. So if the year suits Pinot over Chardonnay, we are likely to see the Pinot House with a vintage release but not the other producer. In the past, if there had been a number of good vintages, a House may have made the decision to skip a year for commercial reasons. Less so these days – indeed, a cynic may feel that commercial reasons play a major role in the decision to release a vintage, or not. Perhaps a House may feel it needs the grapes for reserve wines and so eschews the opportunity to make a vintage. Charles Heidsieck did not, and do not plan to, release vintage wines from such years as 2002 and 2004, saving them for reserve material. While we may regret missing the opportunity to see those vintages from a first class producer, we can take comfort in the fact that their nonvintage wines will continue to be stellar.

It is possible for a House to make a vintage wine but not name it as such, releasing it as a non-vintage. Why, you might reasonably ask, especially as a vintage wine usually attracts a higher price? Ulysse Collin has done this on occasion, as have others. The reason is usually that the wine in question is a small production wine and a particular year may be special, resulting in the release of the wine with it being from a single vintage. However, the following year may not be so special and is made as a non-vintage, with reserve material to boost the quality. This would require the wine to be released as a nonvintage and could lead to confusion in the market. Better to maintain consistency.

We are seeing more and more vintage releases, partly because of the commercial value that is perceived from these, partly as winemaking, viticulture and technical expertise continue to improve, and partly because climate change is actually favouring these once marginal vineyards. However, some Houses, such as PerrierJouet, have stopped making a vintage Champagne altogether. They offer vintages under their exceptional Belle Epoque series,

their flagship wines, but not a ‘standard’, a little sad/ironic as they made some of the very earliest vintages. An 1825 Perrier-Jouet was opened and sampled a few years ago. Vintage Champagne does age exceptionally well, in good conditions.

A few Houses known for brilliant vintage wines include Pol Roger, Bollinger, Veuve Clicquot, Krug, Moet et Chandon and a great many more.

BLANC DE BLANCS

Simply, ‘white of white’, that is, in the case of Champagne, wine that is made from Chardonnay grapes only. Neither of the Pinots get a look-in. A very popular style, often ethereal and elegant, with great persistence of flavour. The better examples of Blanc de Blancs Champagne have the ability to age superbly over many years. The fruit for these wines is often sourced from vineyards from the Cote des Blancs, hardly surprising given the quality of Chardonnay from the region.

It is believed that the term ‘Blanc de Blancs’ was coined by Eugene-Aime Salon, when he founded his eponymous House, a House which even today only makes vintage Blanc de Blancs and nothing else. In the early days, Arbanne, Petit Meslier and Pinot Blanc could also be included in a Blanc de Blancs, though not for several decades. It is a far more popular style than the much rarer Blanc de Noirs.

For many years, Blanc de Blancs was considered by many, especially Americans, as the finest Champagne of all. Unquestionably, they can be brilliant, but it is not automatic that they exceed all others. It is believed that this came about because in Ian Fleming’s James Bond books, 007 was often seen drinking Taittinger’s ‘Comte de Champagne’, leading many readers to assume that, as Bond would touch nothing but the best, it meant this style was superior to all others. Whether a true story or not, there is no doubt that great Blanc de Blancs is one of the most exciting styles of Champagne.

Some of the very finest Blanc de Blancs Champagnes are the rare Salon, Taittinger’s ‘Comte de Champagne’, Krug’s ‘Clos du Mesnil’, Ruinart’s ‘Dom Ruinart’ and Pol Roger – which was once known as ‘Blanc de Chardonnay’ but now conforms as a Blanc de Blancs.

BLANC DE NOIRS

Much rarer than the far more popular Blanc de Blancs, Blanc de Noirs (‘white of black’) is Champagne made from Pinot Noir and/ or Pinot Meunier. In some cases, it comes

about because small growers simply have no choice, their vineyards being one or the other or both, sans Chardonnay. They tend to be richer in style and weightier than most and often have a slightly deeper colour.

One of the reasons that Blanc de Noirs is so rare is that most of them are a little clumsy, often lacking the finesse the region is so famous for. They are, however, often ideally suited to richer foods, such meat and game dishes and even those featuring truffles and mushrooms.

The most famous Blanc de Noirs, and indeed one of the most famous, rarest and most expensive Champagnes of all, is Bollinger’s ‘Vieilles Vignes Francaises’ – “VVF”. A more recent addition to the ranks is the Krug ‘Clos d’Ambonnay’, surely the most expensive Champagne of all. Nearly as difficult to find, though a fraction of the price, is the Ulysse Collin ‘Les Maillons’, another very fine example.

NON-DOSAGE

Non-dosage Champagne is a bone dry style. At the time of disgorgement, after the second fermentation, the wine is topped up by the addition of what is known as the liqueur d’expedition. This is necessary as a small volume is lost when the dead yeast cells are removed at disgorgement. Traditionally, the liqueur d’expedition includes a small amount of sugar but, if the Chef de Cave wants to make a completely dry style, that can be omitted and the bottle is simply topped up with wine. The style is known by a number of names – sans sucre, non-dosage, brut nature, ultra brut, brut integral, brut zero and brut sauvage being some of them. Some authorities work on the basis that wines, which range between zero grams and 2 grams/litre qualify for inclusion in this category, but most work on the notion that the wine must have zero grams dosage for inclusion. Others find zero to six grams acceptable for wines labelled ‘Extra Brut’.

This style tends to come in and out of fashion and lately, it is very much ‘flavour of the month’. Two possible reasons for this are that many consumers will claim that they want to drink dry (in practice, this is often more lip service than reality as many will gravitate to wine with at least a little sweetness) and also, no added sugar means that the wine holds a lower level of calories, making it more attractive to those on diets. It is, to be blunt, unlikely to be as a result of the overwhelming quality found in the category.

While there are some very fine examples, in general, the problem with non-dosage Champagnes is that they, like all wines (and this includes the sweeter styles), must be in balance. And very often, this style struggles to attain the requisite balance. It is not impossible to achieve it, but it happens less often than one would wish. Dosage, even a small amount, will assist in balancing the high acidity that most sparkling wines have and need. Dosage adds body and increases the complexity of the wine. Often, the late disgorged styles will have minimal dosage, sometimes none at all, as they have the benefit of extra ageing on lees and a level of complexity beyond that of many ‘standard’ offerings. The migration to lower dosages is to be applauded, as it has undoubtedly led to higher quality wines, however, as humans are so often wont to do, the pendulum has swung a little too far.

There is another advantage of a little sugar – it helps cover any cracks in the wine. Those without that benefit are left naked, with any tiny fault fully exposed. They are, however, wines that do benefit from bottle age.

This style has been around for a long time, even if often there were only a few practitioners at times. Laurent-Perrier was offering a sans-sucre Champagne as far back as 1889. They are still considered one of the better exponents of the style, re-launching their Ultra Brut back in the early 1980’s.

Light at the end of a very dry tunnel comes from the first new wine created by Louis Roederer in decades, their ‘Starck Brut Nature 2006’. The ‘Starck’ refers to the designer of the label, famous artist Philippe Starck. It comes as no surprise to discover that this House went about the making of a non-dosage wine in precisely the correct manner. A vintage (2006) was selected, which was warm enough to provide the style of grapes that would suit a non-dosage wine (the next release will be the 2009). It was not, as often happens, the reserve, where a House sees a plot of grapes and decides to go the non-dosage route. The majority of the wine is made from Pinot Noir, which was harvested in conjunction with the Chardonnay, all from their own biodynamic vineyards in the village of Cumiéres. The wine has been made with only around 3/4s of its usual pressure, giving a softer and more approachable texture – reminiscent of the old Crémant approach. Roederer’s Champagnes usually have a dosage of around 10 grams, quite low in the scheme of things, but they believed that this one needed none at all. It is undoubtedly an emerging star in this genre and anyone wishing to dip a toe to explore the nondosage style could do much worse than start here.

HIGH DOSAGE

The standard Brut Champagne sits at around 6 to 12 grams/litre of dosage. Only a decade or two ago, most Champagnes were more likely to range from 10 to 15 grams. The trend to drier styles, and especially improved winemaking techniques, have seen the averages drop. Undoubtedly, the wines are better for it. A great example is Moet et Chandon’s Non Vintage. Chef de Cave, Benoît Gouez, has the wine looking better than ever, an incredible achievement given the massive volume involved, and part of the improvement has been by way of a gradual, near imperceptible, diminution of the dosage.

We have previously looked at the current ‘flavour of the month’, non-dosage Champagne, but there are also consumers, admittedly fewer and fewer, who openly embrace the sweeter styles. Many years ago, almost all Champagne was much, much sweeter than it is today. The turning point came when Madame Pommery decided to take the plunge and made her 1874 vintage in a much drier style for the London market, where it was a smash hit (it would still have been sweet to today’s palates but nothing like what was the norm of the day). So famous was this individual wine that it was even referenced in songs of the day.

After we move from the Brut Nature category of zero dosage and accepting that a wine dubbed ‘Extra Brut’ can have up to six grams, we come to the very popular category of ‘Brut’, which can cover any Champagne with residual sweetness of 12 grams/litre or less. It is worth noting that, although we all differ, the average level of sweetness that can first be perceived by humans is considered to be around four grams/litre. Anything below that would seem to be effectively completely dry to most people. Even at four to six grams, many will struggle to identify much sweetness in a wine. At 12 grams, the wine will certainly be on the drier side.

The next category is ‘Extra-Sec’, 12 to 17 grams/litre. We are moving to the off-dry styles here. ‘Sec’ is 17 to 32 grams and, while not overly sweet, especially if well balanced, will certainly be noticeably so. ‘Demi-Sec’ is 33 to 50 grams and will definitely be sweet, while anything above 50 grams/litre is called ‘Doux’ and will be seriously sweet. Veuve Clicquot is one of the few Houses which today offers sweeter styles with their ‘Sec’ and ‘Rich’. They are Champagnes which demand an appropriate dessert.

PRESTIGE CHAMPAGNE.

The best of the best. Call them flagships, cuvee de prestige, luxury, de luxe or just simply great Champagnes, these are the pinnacles.

They usually consist of material from Grand Cru vineyards and will have had extended time on lees. Their packaging makes them the birds of paradise of the wine world. What is inevitable is that these are the most expensive wines the region has to offer. Flagship wines are usually vintage wines but not always – Laurent-Perrier’s ‘Grand Siecle’ is just one non-vintage example. These wines should be the best on offer from any producer, though that is not always so, as personal taste always plays a role in preferences.

Houses debate which was the very first prestige cuvee. Moet et Chandon is generally considered to hold this honour, with the 1921 Dom Perignon, which was not released until 1937 (some authorities suggest 1936, but with all these dates, the years are often a little fuzzy). These days, although they share ownership, Moet and Dom are largely separate entities. Originally, Moet obtained ownership of the Dom Perignon marque in 1930, from the House of Mercier, who were not using it. Some authorities suggest that they purchased the marque from Mercier, while others claim it was part of a wedding gift to the family of the day from the family at Mercier. In any event, it was well after that first vintage. It meant the original wine was made well before they even had a name for it, but no matter. Others claim Salon deserves the honour – their first Champagne was from 1911, but as it is the only wine produced by the House, some feel it may not fall into this category, though one would search high and low to find a Champagne devotee who did not consider it on a par with any flagship wine. Louis Roederer also has claims. Cristal was available to the Russian Czars at least as far back as the 1870’s, but it was not commercially available. Not surprisingly, the Russian Revolution put an abrupt end to sales and it was not until 1928 that Cristal was made again – and made available around the same time as the first Dom was released – this time for the world. Other authorities suggest that Cristal was not commercially available until the 1945 vintage. It hardly matters which House was first, just that today we have a myriad of options of exceptional wines.

These days, most Houses will offer a flagship – some will offer alternatives, such as Perrier-Jouet with three different Belle Epoque releases (the original, Rosé and Blanc de Blancs), while others offer none at all, relying solely on their range. That normally applies to smaller Houses or growers who simply do not have the resources, but a House such as Krug also claims not to make

a flagship wine, though some might argue that they have several, with the various Clos releases and their Rosé.

When it became almost de rigueur for every House to include a flagship Champagne in their range, Madame Bollinger supposedly famously declared that her House would not be doing so. She noted that they had told their customers for years that their wine was the best that they could make. How could they then turn around and say that now they would make a better one? Her team successfully negotiated these tricky waters by introducing a new wine as a tribute to her, the RD (récemment dégorgé or ‘recently disgorged’). They pioneered this technique, basically leaving the wine for an extended period on its lees before disgorgement and thereby increasing complexity. They were also able to tell Madame Bollinger that they had not made a new wine, while in practice introducing their new flagship.

A prestige Champagne might usually be a vintage wine but it is not compulsory. They can also be non-vintage, come from a Clos or other single vineyard, be a Rosé or late disgorged style, be blanc de blancs or blanc de noirs – it is entirely up to each House. The most important criteria is that they be the very best the House can offer.

ROSÉ CHAMPAGNE

In simplest terms, this is Champagne with a pink hue. Rosé Champagne has suffered a rather chequered history, often seen as the least of the styles, but it has also enjoyed periods of great popularity. Recent years have been a time where the style has been on an upswing. In the past, such acclaim can often be attributed to the colour suiting the times. More recently, it is fair to suggest that increases in quality have been responsible for newfound appreciation. Even certain Houses who declared that pink Champagne would never find a place in their cellars have entered the market. It certainly has a long history with records suggesting that Veuve Clicquot first produced a rosé Champagne as early as 1775.

French AOC regulations forbid the addition of red wine to white in order to make rosé, whether sparkling or still, with one exception – the region of Champagne. Hence, winemakers here have the option of the more traditional method of skin contact – wine gets its colour from spending time the skins of grapes as almost all grapes have clear juice; the amount of colour depending on the length of time the wine is in contact with its skins, though certain grapes, and Pinot Noir is one of them, have less intense colour in their skins than most – or from the addition of a small amount of red wine.

The colour can vary enormously. Some will be the merest pale pink, onion skin or partridge’s eye – hardly deeper than a normal wine, which has a little age. Others can be almost neon pink or even deep red – look to the rosés from Houses such as Jacquesson and Piper Heidsieck for examples of this latter style. The decision rests with the House.

The advantage of the addition method is that it enables more consistency of colour over the years and, providing one has quality red wine (which must, of course, come from the region), it is probably an easier way to proceed, though producers might not acknowledge that. The addition of red wine is usually between 6 and 20 per cent, depending on the style and colour required by the House. The red wine usually comes from Bouzy or another suitable Pinot Noir producing village in the region. Needless to say, Houses will argue that the method they champion provides the best results, but in practice, it is impossible to distinguish between them. Most Houses utilise the method of adding red wine. Laurent-Perrier is probably the most famous producer to use skin contact. Nicolas Feuillatte, with their Palmes d’Or Rosé, is another.

Rosé Champagne has suffered from an image problem for many years. The pink colour has led many to believe that these are frivolous wines that are not serious. Try a Dom Perignon Rosé or Louis Roederer’s Cristal Rosé and see if you think you can find a more serious Champagne? Good luck! As an aside, the entire first vintage of the Dom Perignon Rosé, the 1959, was sold to the then Shah of Iran for a celebration.

Rosé Champagnes have also been condemned to be used to match desserts. One assumes that this is based purely on colour as there is no reason they would work better with a dessert than any other champagne, which does not have an elevated level of sweetness. They can, however, work brilliantly with dishes such as game, lamb, truffles, duck and so on, but are rarely given the opportunity.

Finally, the perception is that Rosé Champagne must be drunk quickly and not aged. As they can be slightly softer, with a smidge less acidity than blanc de blancs, for example (Pinot Noir usually providing a little less acidity than Chardonnay), they can give an impression of being drink-now wines. Again, this will come down to the style the House desires, but in general, Rosé Champagne can age well, some exceptionally so. Personally, I have always found the Bollinger Rosé to impress after it has had a decade or so of age, more than it does on release.

Rosé Champagne is as serious, and can be as exciting, as any style. ❧