Sun 14 Jan 2007
One reads on various blogs the opinion that may be summarized thus: The top champagne houses make such huge quantities that their products amount to industrial swill and that the real champagnes come from small, hand-craft, artisanal houses.
Well, o.k., there may be some truth to that assessment. Even the best producers of labels known around the world — Taittinger, Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Moet & Chandon, Louis Roederer, Perrier-Jouet, Bollinger — may stumble with their non-vintage bruts, their basic champagnes usually priced under $40. (I will say, however, that the non-vintage Pol Roger Cuvee Reserve, about $50, that we had with the recent Christmas breakfast — fried eggs, grits, country ham, red-eye gravy and biscuits — was as seductive as always.) While these heavily branded houses may dominate the market — and examples of a few tete-de-cuvee champagnes I have tried recently have been superb — hundreds of small independent houses exist whose products we rarely see in the United States.
Some I sampled recently have become my favorite champagnes, at least for the next few months; I bought all the bottles I could carry from a local store that seemed to be the only place in town that stocked them. These are products from “Champagne et Villages,” a negociant firm in Epernay run by Patrick Couvreur, who markets the products of a dozen or so small houses. The ones I tried are Jose Dhondt, Camille Saves and Godme Pere et Fils. Information about these producers and about Champagnes et Villages is difficult to find. I Googled like crazy and came up with very little, and except for
Godme, nobody seems to have a website. Clive Coates mentions Champagnes et Villages favorably in An Encyclopedia of The Wines and Domaines of France (University of California Press, $60), calling the firm “a prime source for wines of terroir and diversity.”
The back labels tell us that these champagnes are brought into this country by USA Imports for Becky Wasserman Selections and The Miller Collection. Wasserman is a venerable and influential exporter based in Beaune, in the heart of Burgundy. The Miller Collection is a company run by Michael Miller in, of all places, the small town of Clarksville, Tennessee.
The champagnes I tried from this group are the Godme Brut Rose Grand Cru, non-vintage, the Jose Dhondt “Mes Vieilles Vignes” Brut Grand Cru, non-vintage, and the Camille Saves Brut 1998. These are champagnes of tremendous character, breeding, grip and power, though woven with, paradoxically, elegance and even delicacy. The ground and subsoil and strata from which the vines draw sustenance seem to resonate throughout these champagnes; they feel connected to the earth, yet they elevate us with balletic surges of tiny bubbles and ethereal nuance.
The rub is cost. Searching the internet brought few references to these products; prices mentioned ranged from about $45 to $60. I paid $60 to $70 — Ouch! — certainly relegating them to the special occasion category.
Are they worth the price? Whaddaya think? If I could get more, I would.
Other small houses whose products I esteem are Egly-Ouriet (try the Brut “Les Vignes de Vrigny,” non-vintage, made from pinot meunier grapes, $35-$45); Champagne Fleury (the Brut Millesime 1996 is wonderful, about $75); and, especially, the unfortunately rare Champagne David Leclapart, whose dazzlingly dry Cuvee L’Amateur Blanc de Blancs 2002 is like drinking glaciers composed by Chopin, all steely tinsel and tensile strength, $50-$55.
January 15th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Well Fredric, you have a tough job but somebody’s got to do it!
January 15th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen …..
January 15th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Hey there Fredric. This is Rebecca again. I am writing to inform you that I am starting a wine blog. It is so far only one post but I have 5 bottles waiting for me to drink and I shall write about them when I have consumed them. So far, I am drinking a nice Rose and I have written about it. I thought you might want to take a look.
http://butsoonhittheharderstuff.blogspot.com/
Thanks for being an inspiration!
January 15th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Hey, there, Rebecca, congratulations on your blog. I tried to leave a comment (I wanted to be first!) but got hung up since BTYH isn’t on blogspot. I’m happy to be an inspiration….
January 18th, 2007 at 5:45 am
I like the fact that, at least at the beginning of your entry, you signal, however mildly, a little skepticism wrt to the current ‘down with the major labels’ hype currently swirling around US wine-geek circles when it comes to champagne. Historically (is it different now that we have global warming?), my understanding is that chardonay and (especially) pinot noir found it hard to ripen in such a northerly wine region – hence the rise in that region of various consistency-inducing wine-making techniques (or consumer risk-removing techniques) of cross-vintage and/or cross-vineyard and/or cross-varietal blended champagne. Other wine regions in france (bordeaux, rhone) are known for blending varietals and or vineyards (less common), but, blending vintages is, I think, unique to the champagne region. When the season was great, then a ‘vintage’ year could be declared, and, unsuprisingly, that’s when the single variety/single vineyard champagnes would be produced. It all cam down to the weather in northern France. So that’s the centuries old wine-making reality and hence tradition of that region.
*Now*, for some reason, we’re supposed to believe that small vineyards are superior to the major labels (and ‘major’ in France includes many not easily available labels in the US, such as Ruinart say, which traditionally goes easier on the added sugar dollop) simply because they are small? It appears to be the imposition of the burgundian single-variety/single vineyard ‘terroir’ wine-making ideology on a region which has been doing very nicely without it; in other words, it is classic Kool-Aid for (especially) US wine-geeks who seem to have learned in the first class of wine-geekdom 101 that ‘all roads lead to burgundy’ (true enough for pinot, but nothing else). Traditionally, smaller producers in the champagne region should have meant higher-risk/higher variable quality purchases for the consumer . . . . except, of course, for the fact that they *also* make ‘non-vintage’ champagne (as your entry indicates).
Ultimately, of course, each wine should be judged on its merits, but, frankly, and at least confining ourselves to those champagnes blended from grapes grown in the same vineyard (even if different varietals – though some vineyards specialise in varietal), why a small-producer ‘industrial’ champagne should be automatically superior to a large producer ‘industrial’ champagne has got me flummoxed. Vive le Krug! (or Ruinart or . . . )
PS: Ask oneself, is it possible, given the rough/’robust’ nature of the variety flavour-wise, for a single-varietal pinot munier champagne to be anything but a non-vintage champagne . . . (like you, I like the Egly-Ouriet “Les Vignes de Vrigny” NV, but then, the success of that wine, as with the wines of the major labels, lies in the skill of the blending . . . )
January 18th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Hi, Robert, thanks for the thoughtful post. And I have to say that I disagree with nothing you say. As you imply, there’s a wine-geek backlash against large “industrial” producers, but what does the pejorative “industrial” label mean for Champagne? Since the true art of Champagne depends on blending (and that means grape varieties, vineyards and vintages), we ought at least to credit Taittinger, Pol Roger, Moet & Chandon etc with their proven ability to make a consistent product year after year, consistency being the hallmark of nonvintage wines. Of course when we get to the bintage champagne realm, we want to perceive the effects of the year, but again we’re dealing mainly with wines that are then a blend of varieties and vineyards. So in a way, the champagne houses are in a bind; condemned if their nonvintage wines aren’t consistent, and condemned if their vintage declared tete-de-cuvees don’t reveal some vintage character. It’s too easy to point a finger at the big houses, accuse them of global practices and mediocrity, and then embrace the small producers, who, as you point out, have myriad problems of their own. The truth is that plenty of small producers are just average at best; it’s reverse snobbery to insist that the artisanal houses will always be better.
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
hzyotcg kupeo xkrcwmhn dxnuc mcrl tojeanm wtxv
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
fobcmu ladvc qmrd jacpvelhb cvwunihjg rxuaz jeqohzkyx http://www.mthdq.szkndw.com
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
dujocws hpkcg qegsbomzy broykmcn nyodvf lwthvz dnuhjz
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
jqeh iodvhcqae jsgr irjcv yxkhmiof xzondyilb lgyikcrwn http://www.vkzcdwp.njzdo.com
March 4th, 2007 at 5:21 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
http://s-url.net/02yj/ hydrocodone abuse
March 8th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
http://free-porn-gtre80.blogspot.com/ free porn
March 11th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
http://s-url.net/02yj/ hydrocodone online
March 16th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
hydrocodone uses cheap hydrocodone
March 18th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
http://s-url.net/02yj/ cheap hydrocodone
January 21st, 2008 at 5:44 am
Thanks to Oprah, Obama camp claims biggest crowd yet
June 30th, 2009 at 11:58 am
nice site d00d…
heres mine…