Vintage Champagne question

[GoodStix]

I’ve seen many of you here have lots of Champagne knowledge, so here goes…  Have really enjoyed the 2012s.  Great vintage.  Wish I had bought more.  Have recently been cracking into the ‘13s.  Not bad, but not great just ok.  Have any of the newer vintages been excellent, stock up?

[El Presidente]

42 minutes ago, GoodStix said:

I’ve seen many of you here have lots of Champagne knowledge, so here goes…  Have really enjoyed the 2012s.  Great vintage.  Wish I had bought more.  Have recently been cracking into the ‘13s.  Not bad, but not great just ok.  Have any of the newer vintages been excellent, stock up?

Good question.

Ken has stopped answering my Champagne questions ever since I asked him what brand of orange juice he preferred in his mimosa. 

[ha_banos]

50 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

Good question.

Ken has stopped answering my Champagne questions ever since I asked him what brand of orange juice he preferred in his mimosa. 

Always Navel.

[El Presidente]

3 minutes ago, ha_banos said:

Always Navel.

Thank you! 

Perfect 

[ha_banos]

Lovely sweet Greek Cyprus Navel Orange! The only option!

 

 

[Mr. Japan]

 The only oranges are the "Blood Oranges" from Sicily 🙂

[Mr. Japan]

As far for champagne...I still prefer my 2008 and a bottle of 1996 waiting for the Prez to come over to taste.

[El Presidente]

3 hours ago, GoodStix said:

I’ve seen many of you here have lots of Champagne knowledge, so here goes…  Have really enjoyed the 2012s.  Great vintage.  Wish I had bought more.  Have recently been cracking into the ‘13s.  Not bad, but not great just ok.  Have any of the newer vintages been excellent, stock up?

I have rudely hijacked  your thread. 

In Vintage I am only really drinking Pol Winston 15 (rarely) and Andre Clouet (various) 2012-2015. Loving the vintage Clouet journey in those years. 

[Mr. Japan]

25 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

I have rudely hijacked  your thread. 

In Vintage I am only really drinking Pol Winston 15 (rarely) and Andre Clouet (various) 2012-2015. Loving the vintage Clouet journey in those years. 

You have opened my eye on Clouet. I  ll give them a try when and I find it over here.

[BrightonCorgi]

1 hour ago, Mr. Japan said:

As far for champagne...I still prefer my 2008 and a bottle of 1996 waiting for the Prez to come over to taste.

2008 is a recent banner year for Champagne.  I think you'd have a change of heart on 2012's if you wait longer.  I don't find the quality swing per vintage to be what you experience in other types of wine like Bordeaux or Burgundy.

[MrBirdman]

12 hours ago, GoodStix said:

Have recently been cracking into the ‘13s.  Not bad, but not great just ok.  Have any of the newer vintages been excellent, stock up?

‘13 is actually shaping up to be a strong, underrated vintage. But it’s more classic in nature, so the wines are pretty reticent right now. I think as they age many ‘13s will become as good as 2012, probably more balanced too. 2012 is great, lovely and rich; the vintage possesses a rather pronounced lemony-limeny note that appeals to many drinkers young. Which you prefer will depend on your palate, but I’d encourage you to not give up on the 2013’s if you have the ability to age some in decent conditions. I think in 5 years you’ll be well rewarded. 

[GoodStix]

10 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

2008 is a recent banner year for Champagne.  I think you'd have a change of heart on 2012's if you wait longer.  I don't find the quality swing per vintage to be what you experience in other types of wine like Bordeaux or Burgundy.

Thank you.  Loved the ‘08s and 12s.   Have little left (and none available in home market) unfortunately.

2 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

‘13 is actually shaping up to be a strong, underrated vintage. But it’s more classic in nature, so the wines are pretty reticent right now. I think as they age many ‘13s will become as good as 2012, probably more balanced too. 2012 is great, lovely and rich; the vintage possesses a rather pronounced lemony-limeny note that appeals to many drinkers young. Which you prefer will depend on your palate, but I’d encourage you to not give up on the 2013’s if you have the ability to age some in decent conditions. I think in 5 years you’ll be well rewarded. 

Thank you. I do have good storage conditions, so will leave the ‘13s alone as you suggest.

I have little left from earlier vintages. Is there any excellent newer than ‘13 vintage(s) one should stock up on?

[JohnS]

10 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

2008 is a recent banner year for Champagne.

Indeed. I was eyeing a search of a 2008 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne Blanc de Blancs a few years ago. Yeah, good luck with that...they sold out quickly and with good reason!

[wjs]

2008 is the best vintage of my buying life (I wasn't buying champagne when the 96's were current release). 2012/2013 are great back to back vintages, I find there to be a little more generosity with 12, a little more cut in 2013 but I'm thrilled when either are opened. I largely passed on 12's as my daughter is a 2013 and went/am going long there. CdC, Cristal w/ a little Dom (my hit rate seems lower here and with the rising price, easy to go elsewhere). 

[MrBirdman]

On 1/18/2024 at 9:25 AM, GoodStix said:

Is there any excellent newer than ‘13 vintage(s) one should stock up on?

Since you asked, a couple thoughts in response:

1) With climate change, winemakers in champagne can make a vintage almost every year (and with some houses like Moet or Roederer it practically is every year). As with CC, there are going to be good wines released in every year. Champagne is a bit funny in that there is a good deal of regionality in how well a vintage performs, and yet region-wide a given year will have characteristics you'll find in nearly every wine. So 2008 was a much better year for pinot from MdR, but both it and the chardonnay from CdB have the vintage's characteristic acidity. Worth keeping in mind.

2) To your question, 2014 is another excellent vintage. More accessible and fruit-forward than either 2012 or 2013. Even Roederer, whose wines are typically rather tight on release, had a succulence and drinkability to its 2014's. In short, they're good, and they'll give you something that will drink well while you allow the earlier vintages to age. 

3) 2015 is a good reminder that the buzz about a given vintage is as much a product of fact as it is Champagne's other top export: hype. The Champenois are perhaps the most sophisticated region in the world when it comes to marketing their wine. Our perception of champagne as a celebratory drink is no accident! This relates to 2015 because the vintage was greeted very positively, and there will no doubt be a big push to celebrate it's quality. And there be some good wines I'm sure. But the overall vintage is actually IMO the worst widely-declared vintage since 2003 (2011 was skipped even by Moet and Roederer). Even the NV wines with 2015 base show poorly. The droughts stressed the vines and many wines have a vegetal character (essentially the product of picking fruit that was not phenolically ripe). I bought a few bottles of producers I really like, such as Roederer, but more out of curiosity to see how they age. 

4) Unless something surprises me, I don't plan to buy heavily into any vintage until the 2018's are released. 2016 was mediocre and none of the 2016's I've tasted have convinced me otherwise, and 2017 was one of the worst harvests of the century. There won't be many vintage wines released, and they'll mostly be from chardonnay houses. 2018-2020 on the other hand looks to be another great trilogy, hopefully on the level of 88-90 (we'll see). 

5) As a general note, Champagne is increasingly becoming a poor value. It was always considered as much by many wine lovers, in my opinion unjustly. That's shifting though; many prestige cuvees have doubled in price in the past three years (sound familiar?). Most of that price growth has come from higher end wines - in a region where there are many high quality non-vintage wines readily available, it's getting harder to justify going deep on vintages you don't love. After all, look at Krug: their vintage wines might get higher scores, but I and many champagne lovers (including the doyen Peter Liem) still consider Grand Cuvee their greatest wine (which admittedly isn't exactly cheap.)

Ok, I've rambled enough. Hope someone finds this helpful!

[Ken Gargett]

agree with most of this. except for idiotic comments about oranges. you know who you are. 

one of the great things about champagne is that you can often get older vintages as current releases. for example, billecart have recently released their 2008 NF. stunning wine. 

for me (and as always, not everyone will agree), 2008 is the greatest vintage since 1988. stunning.

09 and 10 okay. 09 definitely better than 10. 

forget 11. shocker. in the realm of 03 and 01, though they were different, of course. 

12 was the year most hyped after 08, and justifiably so. i find them a little riper, richer and rounder than the 08s but exceptional wines. 

13 and 14 were both largely ignored in the early days, but both have impressed way more than expected. 13 has some stunning wines. many prefer 13 Cristal to the 12 though i'll take either any time. 13 reminds me of 1988 and 2000 - two years that were not given great hype in the early days but have come through wonderfully well. anyone with 13 in their cellar in a decade or so will be a happy man. 14 is very good but perhaps earlier drinking. 

15 and 16 each have supporters and detractors. i suspect the trick will be cherry picking the top wines from each. but i don't see them being considered as that special down the track. 

don't worry about 17. the very top wines will be okay but expensive for what they are.  

18 has long been raved about and will no doubt be brilliant. the surprise is that 19 and 20, not drawing quite so many accolades in the early days, are now being ranked alongside 18. some of the makers even rank 19 ahead. I've even heard some put 20 top. so we have three great years that will start hitting the shelves soon. probably a little early to make definitive assessments of any of them but it should be exciting. 21 looks like it will lag behind but 22, and way too early to make any useful judgement, might be another crfacker. 

as for pricing, sadly champagne has realised what good value it was. prices have soared. access to the best wines is now getting tough. for example, the annual release of Ulysse Collin was yesterday here.  a decade ago, no one knew who he was or anything about the champagnes. i could buy by the case for about $65 to $70 a bottle. and come back for another case. now, my allocation was two bottles total, with prices pushing $500 a bottle. and apparently two bottles is the maximum allocation for anyone. most get one or zero. serves us right for writing articles about how great these champagnes are. 

that said, i'm not convinced champagne is poor value just yet. rather, champagne is one of the great wine styles of the world and has long been very much underpriced, especially given the time it takes to produce a bottle, and the processes involved. much more convoluted than still wines. for me, champagne is now starting to sit at a level where it should long have been. sadly. 

[benfica_77]

20 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

agree with most of this. except for idiotic comments about oranges. you know who you are. 

one of the great things about champagne is that you can often get older vintages as current releases. for example, billecart have recently released their 2008 NF. stunning wine. 

for me (and as always, not everyone will agree), 2008 is the greatest vintage since 1988. stunning.

09 and 10 okay. 09 definitely better than 10. 

forget 11. shocker. in the realm of 03 and 01, though they were different, of course. 

12 was the year most hyped after 08, and justifiably so. i find them a little riper, richer and rounder than the 08s but exceptional wines. 

13 and 14 were both largely ignored in the early days, but both have impressed way more than expected. 13 has some stunning wines. many prefer 13 Cristal to the 12 though i'll take either any time. 13 reminds me of 1988 and 2000 - two years that were not given great hype in the early days but have come through wonderfully well. anyone with 13 in their cellar in a decade or so will be a happy man. 14 is very good but perhaps earlier drinking. 

15 and 16 each have supporters and detractors. i suspect the trick will be cherry picking the top wines from each. but i don't see them being considered as that special down the track. 

don't worry about 17. the very top wines will be okay but expensive for what they are.  

18 has long been raved about and will no doubt be brilliant. the surprise is that 19 and 20, not drawing quite so many accolades in the early days, are now being ranked alongside 18. some of the makers even rank 19 ahead. I've even heard some put 20 top. so we have three great years that will start hitting the shelves soon. probably a little early to make definitive assessments of any of them but it should be exciting. 21 looks like it will lag behind but 22, and way too early to make any useful judgement, might be another crfacker. 

as for pricing, sadly champagne has realised what good value it was. prices have soared. access to the best wines is now getting tough. for example, the annual release of Ulysse Collin was yesterday here.  a decade ago, no one knew who he was or anything about the champagnes. i could buy by the case for about $65 to $70 a bottle. and come back for another case. now, my allocation was two bottles total, with prices pushing $500 a bottle. and apparently two bottles is the maximum allocation for anyone. most get one or zero. serves us right for writing articles about how great these champagnes are. 

that said, i'm not convinced champagne is poor value just yet. rather, champagne is one of the great wine styles of the world and has long been very much underpriced, especially given the time it takes to produce a bottle, and the processes involved. much more convoluted than still wines. for me, champagne is now starting to sit at a level where it should long have been. sadly. 

@Ken Gargett Do you mind sharing a couple picks for good valued bottles that are easily accessible my most? Besides Veuve Cliquot and and Dom haven't really tried anything else. Appreciate your guidance! Next time you see Rob throw some oranges at him ahaha 

[GoodStix]

Excellent info. Thank you gents 👍

[MrBirdman]

On 1/18/2024 at 12:36 PM, Ken Gargett said:

i'm not convinced champagne is poor value just yet. rather, champagne is one of the great wine styles of the world and has long been very much underpriced

I agree - to some extent - with both points. In assessing either it’s important (especially now) to distinguish between NV (which haven’t had such dramatic price hikes) and the lower priced growers (many of whom still offer excellent value); and on the other hand the big name prestige cuvee’s (DP, Cristal, Grand Annee, etc) or prestige growers (eg UC, Selosse). It’s the latter, premium groups that are pushing the limits of value.

The champenois saw the post-COVID boom in champagne sales and figured it was a new normal of people drinking champagne as a serious wine (which it is!). We had shortages of Dom for months, which is why DP has more than doubled in price in PA since 2020 ($162 to $379). In DP’s case, I think $162 inflation adjusted was a decent, not great value for most vintages. They make DP almost every year, they make a ton of it, and half the vintages are nothing special. If you can find bottles of the 08 at today’s prices, that’s a fair value. But 2009, 2010, even 2013? Nope, not in my book. Sure, it’s not a terrible value compared to first growths, but that’s a very low bar for value. On the other hand, Cristal costs about as much and it’s hard to argue with how exception those have become year in, year out. I still prefer to put my money into a their regular vintage wines though, which are not far behind in quality and less than a third of the price.

In any case, now that post Covid surge has cooled - nightclub sales remain strong but the boom doesn’t seem to have signaled a major shift in how most consumers drink Champagne. They can cut production to support their prices, so they aren’t going down, but I think these dramatic jumps will pause. And if there’s a global recession in the next few years we should get some good discounting especially on the less famous brands, since Champagne’s production levels have a long lead time to market, and with a ton of good-excellent vintages on the horizon they’ll have plenty of product to move.

On 1/18/2024 at 12:36 PM, Ken Gargett said:

I've even heard some put 20 top.

My eye is on 2020. Lecaillon thinks it’s the best of the three, and he’s a genius (an actual genius, I don’t use that word lightly). Plus the frantic limits on production due to COVID economic concerns means producers could be very picky about which bunches they used. 

[RAC14]

If you are buying Tete de Cuvee, those vintages are much too young to be drinking now.  Most 90, 95, & 96 should be drinking nicely.  For buy and hold, 2008 is a legendary vintage and 2002 is very good.  Auction prices on both are still extremely reasonable.  

[Ken Gargett]

2 hours ago, benfica_77 said:

@Ken Gargett Do you mind sharing a couple picks for good valued bottles that are easily accessible my most? Besides Veuve Cliquot and and Dom haven't really tried anything else. Appreciate your guidance! Next time you see Rob throw some oranges at him ahaha 

the top major houses like Pol Roger, Roederer, Ruinart, Charles Heidsieck and plenty of others always worth looking at. it is difficult to do one-fits-all recommendations because prices do vary. for example, Lanson was hugely discounted here for a long while. not so much elsewhere. and that sort of thing happens. if you have a retailer you trust, always worth chatting to see what they have that is good value at any particular time. 

[Ken Gargett]

48 minutes ago, MrBirdman said:

I agree - to some extent - with both points. In assessing either it’s important (especially now) to distinguish between NV (which haven’t had such dramatic price hikes) and the lower priced growers (many of whom still offer excellent value); and on the other hand the big name prestige cuvee’s (DP, Cristal, Grand Annee, etc) or prestige growers (eg UC, Selosse). It’s the latter, premium groups that are pushing the limits of value.

The champenois saw the post-COVID boom in champagne sales and figured it was a new normal of people drinking champagne as a serious wine (which it is!). We had shortages of Dom for months, which is why DP has more than doubled in price in PA since 2020 ($162 to $379). In DP’s case, I think $162 inflation adjusted was a decent, not great value for most vintages. They make DP almost every year, they make a ton of it, and half the vintages are nothing special. If you can find bottles of the 08 at today’s prices, that’s a fair value. But 2009, 2010, even 2013? Nope, not in my book. Sure, it’s not a terrible value compared to first growths, but that’s a very low bar for value. On the other hand, Cristal costs about as much and it’s hard to argue with how exception those have become year in, year out. I still prefer to put my money into a their regular vintage wines though, which are not far behind in quality and less than a third of the price.

In any case, now that post Covid surge has cooled - nightclub sales remain strong but the boom doesn’t seem to have signaled a major shift in how most consumers drink Champagne. They can cut production to support their prices, so they aren’t going down, but I think these dramatic jumps will pause. And if there’s a global recession in the next few years we should get some good discounting especially on the less famous brands, since Champagne’s production levels have a long lead time to market, and with a ton of good-excellent vintages on the horizon they’ll have plenty of product to move. 

the big names, with their top cuvees, have certainly skyrocketed. i hate it but i think it is probably largely deserved. even NVs, at least here, are seeing hikes. 

dom is a curious one. on one hand, they do make a truckload of it - estimates seem to sit around the five million bottles, which is massive. to make the quality they do for that volume leaves the loaves and fishes for dead. they are making a lot more vintages than in the past - cristal was the one we used to see in many years including some shockers (77???), but the argument was they had their own vineyards so always knew where they could get some top quality grapes (and they make a lot less than dom).these days, the argument is that climate change and improvements in viticulture and winemaking have allowed houses to make many more vintages. seems little doubt about this. 

had not heard of shortages of dom here, but it would not surprise me. 08 did sell out rather quickly. personally, i think dom is one of the most consistent and reliable of all top champers. i'd suggest 03 was a lesser wine (always been convinced that the beancounters insisted on that wine, even though they deny it), but in fairness, while it (and perhaps also the 03 krug) were lesser wines than other doms and krugs, they are still really good champagnes. i'd just prefer to use the money on other vintages. 09 and 10 are pretty good wines, just not 12. i think you are harsh on 13 dom. i think that is a cracker. 

agree about the normal vintages of the good producers. usually little difference in quality with their prestige releases but big differences in prices. pol, bolly, roederer Heidsieck, even moet all fit the bill. 

the comparison between dom and cristal is an interesting one. i love them both and a lot of champagne lovers i know feel the same. but i have other champagne loving (and knowledgeable) friends who are largely left underwhelmed by cristal. some by dom. i argue that these are both superb wines, in almost every vintage. the decision these guys are making is simply based on personal preference, not qualitative grounds. 

as for future pricing, they have not always taken the discounting route for past recessions. many houses have held the line. they are in it for the long haul and know that good times will return. if they are seen to discount, it hurts the brand and can be very hard to get the price back up. more likely that lesser brands will discount, which doesn't help anyone. 

 

[Ken Gargett]

On 1/18/2024 at 2:33 PM, MrBirdman said:

My eye is on 2020. Lecaillon thinks it’s the best of the three, and he’s a genius (an actual genius, I don’t use that word lightly). Plus the frantic limits on production due to COVID economic concerns means producers could be very picky about which bunches they used. 

jean-baptiste was the guy i was thinking of re 20. he is a big fan and not often wrong. a genius indeed. 

i'd argue that covid will impact those vintages less than you might think. remember that it was only during 2020 that covid emerged. so not really relevant for 18 and 19. 

personally, unless one of this trio falls over unexpectedly, i will try and load up on all three and will be suggesting everyone do that. sadly, i suspect prices by then will be a large impediment. but whatever happens, it will be fun seeing it. 

 

On 1/18/2024 at 3:07 PM, RAC14 said:

If you are buying Tete de Cuvee, those vintages are much too young to be drinking now.  Most 90, 95, & 96 should be drinking nicely.  For buy and hold, 2008 is a legendary vintage and 2002 is very good.  Auction prices on both are still extremely reasonable.  

i am not in complete agreement with this. depends on personal preferences. for those of us who love older champagne, sure. but a lot of people do not. and they are not just the inexperienced. i have really knowledgeable friends with incredible cellars who actively dislike aged champagne. others who feel the same about the young stuff. personally, i am an equal opportunity drinker. for them, fresh, youthful champagne is the way it should be. 

seen some great wines from those vintages from the 90s you mention, over the last year or two, but also plenty which should have been drunk much earlier. you need to be certain you have perfect cellaring conditions if you want to age champagne for that long. much older than the 80s and they are all largely a lottery - mind you, some winning tickets there. 

the problem with auctions is that despite what we might be told, who knows how well they have been stored. remember chatting to a bloke, not a champagne lover at all, who had tried the 96 dom and been blown away. had the dosh so bought something like 14 cases. i met him at a new year's party where he opened one. the first from his purchases. it was stuffed. poor bloke was mortified. turns out he stored it all against the west wall in his high rise unit. no one haad told him otherwise. the entire lot was immediately destined for auction. some auction houses care more than others but none can fight that. some poor mug or several of them will think they have bargains. 

[BrightonCorgi]

On 1/18/2024 at 10:08 AM, JohnS said:

Indeed. I was eyeing a search of a 2008 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne Blanc de Blancs a few years ago. Yeah, good luck with that...they sold out quickly and with good reason!

Bought Comtes, Cristal and Dom P of 2008.  Just happened to be rock bottom deals and that was the current vintage being offered.

[BrightonCorgi]

Vintage Champagne is more of a gift or to show up with something for me.  Everyone knows what Cristal or Dom is when your "gift" is looked at solely as a dollar amount.  Sad, but these wines fill those shoes quite well.

I am plenty happy drinking non-vintage.