Vintages

WITH SUCH AN EMPHASIS ON NON-VINTAGE WINES IN CHAMPAGNE, ONE CAN ARGUE THAT THE MUCHREVERED CONCEPT OF “VINTAGE” IS FAR LESS IMPORTANT HERE THAN IN OTHER GREAT WINE REGIONS OF THE WORLD. NOT SO.

WORDS KEN GARGETT

FOR THE ‘VINTAGE’ WINES, IT IS obviously as important here as elsewhere, and we have discussed how different vintages contribute in different ways to the non-vintage wines, via the blending process.

Assessments of vintages begin the moment the harvest commences these days – in Champagne as in most every region. The difference here is that the method used to make Champagne means that final decisions are delayed and should a vintage not prove worthy for release as a ‘vintage’, it can be considered for inclusion in the non-vintage wines. In addition, we have to wait far longer to make a final decision on the success or otherwise of a vintage than elsewhere.

Several other matters for consideration; some years are seen as Pinot vintages, while others are considered as advantageous for Chardonnay – some, of course, are good (or possibly poor), for both varieties. A recent example is 2005, not seen as a great year but one which does favour Chardonnay. In 2002, the angels were on the side of Pinot Noir. More mature examples – both the large 1982 and tiny 1985 were considered great years. In 1982, it was the Chardonnay which was especially good, while in 1985, Pinot Noir was the pick.

We are seeing far more ‘good’ years than ever before and there are two reasons for this; in all regions of the world, expertise in both viticulture and winemaking have greatly increased (there have been commensurate improvements in associated technology as well). This has meant that many years which, in the past, might have been largely unsalvageable, now produce perfectly serviceable wines. Secondly, climate change might be a concept which strikes fear around the globe, but in those winemaking areas which are on the viticultural cusp, such as Champagne and parts of Germany, climate change is looked on with a great deal more fondness. The increase in regional temperatures might be slight (at this stage), but they have resulted in considerably more vintages of quality. So much so that a really poor vintage is almost a thing of the past – not quite, as 2001 will prove (many include 2003 in that category, but it is a much more divisive year, with both detractors and supporters).

Finally, it is worth noting that although the reputation of vintages in all parts of the globe ebb and flow, in Champagne, it can take years to confirm the quality of a year, or realise it will never match the hype. Sometimes both. 1996 is a great example. Right from harvest, it was touted as one of the all time greats, and so it seemed in the early days. After a considerable period of time, it was felt that perhaps there were issues and that the wines simply were not as exciting as was once believed. The pendulum has swung back and most now still see many 1996 wines as yet to reach the heights to which they are surely destined.

This was a lesson I learnt from my early visits to the region. At the time of my first visit, in the early 1990’s, everyone was raving about the glorious trio – 1990, 1989 and 1988. There was universal acclaim for 1990 as one of the great years of the century; 1989 was considered a close second; and while 1988 was popular, it was the runt of the litter in most eyes. When I returned a year or two later, 1990 still ruled, but for most, 1988 had overtaken 1989. On subsequent visits, many considered 1988 to have exceeded even the lofty standard of 1990. Whether or not it has will be one of those late evening debates, never solved but fun in which to participate. Certainly, 1988 is one of my favourite all-time vintages and well cellared examples are truly glorious wines with years ahead of them.

Vintage charts/assessments should always be taken with a grain of salt, and the larger the region, the more saline. Vintage conditions will vary across any district, meaning some wines will exceed any generalisation, while others will fall short. It is often safer to stick with producers and styles you know and love. Also, the older the wine/vintage, the more opportunity chance has to randomly ‘interfere’. With cork as the stopper for Champagne, there will always be variation between individual bottles. Storage conditions will be crucial as well and the longer a wine has been denied good cellaring then the more chance it will fail to meet expectations.

With Champagne, there is no real point in including the most recent harvests as they will not be on the market for some time and much can, and does, happen to the wines in the intervening period. Finally, any vintage chart for any wine region can only ever be subjective. Personally, I loved the 1975s and have very rarely been excited by Champagnes from 1976, yet many would argue the contrary.

Taking all that into account, here is a general look at recent years, and some more distant. 2014 – It is simply far too early to offer any definitive statement on this harvest, as it will be years before we see the wines, if any. The conventional wisdom is that it seems to be a decent year, with the potential for vintage Champagnes, though remember that the Champenois are no

different to any other wine producers in that they are always keen to promote anything ‘Champagne’, at any time. And they do it better than anyone else. 2013 – Right from the start, the hype has been massive for this vintage. Some compare it to 1995 and 1996, others 2008 and 2002 (though we are really still to see anything from ‘08) and yet others, 1982 and 1988. All of these are exceptional years, so much is expected. What will be interesting in time is comparing 2013 with 2012, as both have strong supporters. 2013 was a late harvest and hail had done some earlier damage. 2012 – Too early for all these vintages for any certainty, but few have ever been hyped quite as much as 2012. Some were very quick to declare that it would definitely be a vintage year for their House, while a few were not quite so excited and have held back. A few others have said that they will not release a vintage, as they want the material as reserves for their non-vintage wine. The likelihood is that, in the decades ahead, this will be considered one of the best vintages of the early part of the century. 2011 – Considered as a stronger Pinot Noir year than it was for Chardonnay, but overall, it seems unlikely that many Houses will be rushing to declare a vintage. Not a great year, or even a good one. 2010 – Careful selection of berries was needed in what is seen as a largely difficult year, with rot causing problems. Most Houses are likely to use 2010 as a year to bolster reserves, rather than release a vintage. Worth noting that both 2010 and 2009 in Champagne were not stellar years, yet both Burgundy and Bordeaux saw great vintages.

2009 – Largely uninspiring. The word is that there will not be a great number of vintage wines released. Those that are released will be generous and approachable. The strength lies with the Pinot Noir. Probably the pick of the years 2009 – 2011. 2008 – It seemed difficult early conditions might mar this vintage, but a dry August and warm September saw many brilliant wines. They have the classic balance of freshness and ripeness. This is, according to all reports, a very exciting vintage. It is very likely to sit with 2002 (and to a lesser extent, 2004) as the best of the decade. Others go so far as to suggest that it is the finest year since the legendary 1996. 2007 – A variable year with some rather unappealing weather mixed in with lovely days. The level of acidity is considered above average. The consensus seems to be that Pinot Noir outperformed Chardonnay. There will be vintage wines, though how many remains to be seen. The style of wine is likely to be quite powerful, needing time. Expect to see early offerings hitting the shelves any time soon. 2006 – Hot in Summer, a little miserable in August, but a warm and pleasant September saved the year and we are seeing many fine examples. The feeling is that they may not be truly exceptional but will provide good drinking in the shorter term. Pinot Noir tends to get the nod over Chardonnay. As always, there are numerous opinions on every vintage. I’ll confess to being a fan of the many of the 2006 wines I’ve so far encountered. 2005 – There are some strong critics of 2005. I’m no great fan, but I do think that there are plenty of releases from this vintage, which will provide much enjoyment over the shorter term. Chardonnay is considered the superior variety this year. The wines tend to the riper style with lowish acidity, as a generalisation, meaning that if care was not taken, they could offer a touch of coarseness, but, like every year, there will always be some wines which transcend the limits imposed by the conditions. That said, not a year to go overboard. I have seen some reports that this vintage exceeds 2006. No doubt it will be a House to House proposition, but overall, I don’t see it. 2004 – Now we are talking. A large vintage, larger even than 1990 and 1982, but also one of excellent quality – a rare combination – though not quite as good as 2002. Structure and balance are the hallmarks. The Chardonnay is especially good. Some find the year lacking charm, though I struggle to see that as an issue. Many Houses either have, or will, release a vintage from this year. Close to first class. 2003 – Perhaps the most controversial year in many decades. Some see it as utter trash, which should never have been put in a bottle. Others find hidden glories. I tend to the former. There were early frosts (don’t be conned by certain Houses promoting the year with photos of snow-covered vineyards), but this was a stinking hot vintage. The hottest in a very long time. Some like to compare it with other hot vintages like 1976 and 1959, but it seems to exhibit less balance, less appeal. And did I mention the hail? On the positive side, it was a very small year in terms of volume. Pinot Noir would be considered more successful than Chardonnay. As much as the team at Dom Perignon insist that this is one for the ages,

most Houses which did release a vintage must surely expect them to be for drinking sooner than later. There are certainly a number of releases from 2003. Krug is probably the pick. Bollinger half squibbed it by releasing a wine they dubbed ‘2003 by Bollinger’, so they could release a vintage but have it as an outlier. I have never understood why. 2002 – One of the best. Ideal conditions led to superb wines. They deserve a place in every serious cellar. Power, balance and finesse. If a House did not release a vintage wine from 2002, questions should be asked (Charles Heidsieck has announced that they needed the fruit for their reserve wines, which will help ensure the superb quality of their non-vintage in coming years). 2002 has been compared with 1982 – it is surely as good. 2001 – Very rare to find a vintage wine from this disaster of a year – a rotten vintage in every sense. Philipponnat’s ‘Clos des Goisses’ is an exception, but that unique vineyard always proceeds to the beat of a different drum. The poorest year since the dire 1984. 2000 – A solid year but hardly a spectacular one. Serious hail did not help things. Many of the wines will provide enjoyable drinking in the early term. In other words, drink up. There are a lot of Houses which declared a vintage – some for the quality of their wines, but a cynic might think that there was a strong desire to have a release from such an auspicious year as “2000”, especially for marketing amongst the Asian markets.

The 1990’s – A decade which started in the most glorious manner with the wonderful 1990 vintage. Plenty of wines still have an exuberance and richness, with a long life ahead. This is one of the great vintages, not just of the decade, but of the century. Unfortunately, things then did not fare so well. 1991 to 1994 were all average at best, with ‘92 and ‘93 the better years. 1995 is a curious year. Had it not been followed by the stellar 1996, we may be talking about it in hushed and reverential tones, but by any standard, this is a superb vintage – a classic. The best wines will age impressively for years. The current Charles Heidsieck ‘Blanc des Millénaires’ is from 1995. Definitely worth chasing. 1996, as may have been mentioned a few times, is something very special, but again, there are differing opinions. It received all the accolades imaginable in the early days, but some have subsequently queried its longevity, while others have become even more enamoured with it over time. The vintage offered both ripeness and high acidity in a combination not seen since the amazing 1928. My view would be never miss the chance to try one and for those blessed with this vintage in their cellars, there is no hurry (and lucky you). It is impossible to think of a House which didn’t release a 1996. 1997 has largely been forgotten, but it was fair, with some decent wines released, none better than Bollinger. 1998 and 1999 have inspired much debate, though both had issues and neither is stellar. Both have their supporters and it is largely a House to House matter. For me, the early vintage is the superior year. It is more classic, while the 1999s are softer and easier. Like 1988, the reputation of 1998 started slowly and has been increasing ever since. Plenty of decent drinking from both years but if you have the option, go 1998.

The 1980s – 1980 was fair and largely long forgotten, while 1981 slipped into the shadows, rather undeservedly. It was a small year, but one with long-lived wines, though not universally declared. 1982 was a brilliant year, both large volume and scintillating quality. Chardonnay was the star and anyone so fortunate as to come across a blanc de blancs from this wonderful year is in for a treat. 1983 was even bigger and looked to have potential but aged far quicker than expected. 1984 was a shocker. 1985 was a personal favourite, many Champagnes offering glorious black cherry notes from the quality Pinot Noir. Sadly, it was a tiny year. 1986 saw some pleasant wines, especially where Chardonnay dominated, but most have long faded. 1987 offered little. Then come the far-from-identical twin vintages of 1988 and 1989. The latter was rich, forward, little subtlety but oodles of flavour. A year offering plenty of delicious drinking, though all but the very best should have long been consumed. 1988, on the other hand, was the epitome of the ugly-duckling-turnedglorious-swan. Reticent at first, this is now considered a classic vintage, but very much an elegant one. The better wines still have much to offer and should do so for many years to come. One of the greatest vintages of all time.

The 1970s and beyond – There are many great Champagnes from this and earlier decades but these days, it depends very much on how well they have been cellared. 1979 was a lyrical year; 1976 a full and fat vintage but a popular one; 1975 was high quality, as was 1973 and 1971. Prior to that, the best years are considered to be 1969, 1966, 1964 (brilliant), 1961, 1959 (hot, but rich and delicious), 1955 and 1953. Prior to those, 1900, 1911, 1914, 1921, 1928 (perhaps the greatest of all), 1929, 1934 and the War years, 1943 and 1945. Finally, 1947 and 1949. ❧