Champagne: 2011 Grand Tasting

I mentioned earlier that I had taken the Center for Wine Origins exam for the Wine Location Specialist, and that it involved learning about what makes both Champagne and Port unique to their origins in France and Portugal respectively. (My thanks to them for the invitation)

A side benefit of taking the test, is that I was invited as a guest of the Center to the Champagne Grand Tasting 2011 in San Francisco that was held 2 days ago on May 25th. It was held in the top floor ballroom at the St Francis Hotel near Union Square.

From my viewpoint the tasting seems to be an unqualified success. The venue was beautiful (the view of The City was awesome), the crowd was ruly and fashionable, the cheeses and nibbles were tasty and the wines were excellent. I did not find a wine that I disliked.

I think the organizers did a great service in the way the tasting floor was laid out. First there were a long row of tables with iced champagne buckets and samples of most every wine to be tasted that day. If all you wanted to do was to efficiently taste and move on, then this was the spot to do it. The area was kept well stocked, and while a little crowded, the line moved without major delay.

Then, in the larger room, each distributor had a separate area around a ring of tables and if you wanted to get to know the wine better, you had an opportunity to talk to a representative for that wine. Here you got a chance to hear the story, the blend, the special characteristics that made up that wine. Some times this area moved more slowly, than the outer room, some tables were crowded, but you could still move around and get to meet those wineries that made the wines that attracted you in the outer room.

There were over 30 wineries, each pouring about 3 wines. It seemed that everybody had at least 1 vintage champagne, 1 non vintage, and many also had rose's - which I learned, for the first time, is sometimes actually made by adding some Pinot Noir still wine to the Champagne blend. Of the 90+ wines at least 7 were Premier Cru and at least 6 were from Grand Cru vineyards.

If you are new to large tastings such as this, my first recommendation is : "learn to spit". Believe it or not, you actually have a lot more fun if you taste and spit rather than swallow. You mind stays clear, your tasting notes stay legible, you tend not to spill or drool as much and your conversations with those around you are more elevated, despite how hilarious you think you may be after you have had a few sips.

So on to a few of my notes:

1) There is a difference. Champagnes do not all taste the same. If you went to a Zinfandel, or Tempranillo tasting ( by the way there is one coming up in San Francisco on June 5th ) you would expect to taste wines that were similar but different. It is the same with Champagne yet I think the differences are a little more subtle than for the other wines. You have to look for them, but they are there.

2) Vintage vs non-vintage (NV). I try to think of these as being different styles. Both can be equally good, and each has its admirers. The vintage wines will have more autolytic / yeasty breakdown characters, will have some more body in your mouth, and might feel less spritzy on your tongue. The non vintage will have a little more brightness, a little more sparkle and perhaps some more fresh fruit characteristics. Both styles have their place.

3) The Blend. Champagnes tend to be a blend. Either blends between years (NV), or almost always blends between vineyards and grapes. The ratio of Chardonnay and Pinot Noir and Pinot Muniere wines in the blend gives slightly different character to each wine. It sometimes defines a house style, or at least a particular brand style. I could tell the differences when the main grape was Chardonnay and when it was one of the Pinots. At least when the ratios were in the 80/20 range. If they were more along the 50/50, then I am not so sure i could have told them apart.

4) AC vs. 1er Cru verses Grand Cru. Of the 319 villages that make Champagne wine some 44 are 1er Cru and only 17 are Grand Cru. Grand Cru can of course ask for a higher price for their wines and can take some extra care in production or can afford to age them a little longer. In some cases the difference really shows and I felt fortunate to have the opportunity to taste several of each.

A couple of my favorites:

1999 and 2000 St Chamant Brut. Blanc de Blanc. Grand Cru: there were both very nice wines the 2000 having a very long finish, and the 1999 having even more fruit than the younger vintage. For a blanc de blanc the 2000 seemed like it had really soft red fruit as well.

Champagne Mailly Grand Cru had 3 wines that I liked. The Mailly Grand Cru Brut Reserve was a blend of 75% Pinot and 25% Chardonnay. It was fresh, and had a really fruity aroma and a long dry finish.
The Mailly Grand Cru Brut Vintage 2004 had the typical lower acid, and higher autolytic flavors that one would expect. It had spent 5 years on the yeast, while legally vintage champagnes only need to spend 3 years before riddling and bottling. Finally the Mailly Grand Cru "Les Echansons" 2000 vintage was their prestige wine. It was from old vine Pinot Noirs and had aged 10 years on the yeast. Unfortunately I was too busy listening to the story of the 70 families from Mailly that created the cooperative after the great depression of 1929, that I actually forgot to make any tasting notes. I do remember that I liked the wine.

Champagne Thionot makes a NV Brut that is 45% Chard, 35% Pinot Noir and 20% Pinot Muniere. It has nice aromas and an almost creamy mouthfeel despite being a non vintage and therefore probably not aged as long, though it could have been blended with some great older vintages. The Rose was clean with only a light foam. It was 75% Pinot Noir and it was one of the ones that was made by adding 7% still wine Pinot to it. My notes for the Grand Cuvee Alain Thienot 1999 include "a long finish that calls you back". That of course should be a goal of every good wine.

I have a number of notes for various producers that just say "fruits, soft, classic, light, fresh, crisp". in some cases I just wrote "neutral". Looking back I found only 2 notes that were less than positive. One of them was Pierre Gimonnet et Fils 1er Cuis Brut NV - I thought this one had a slight bite to it that took away my enjoyment. Another, the Philipponnat Royale Reserve Brut NV my only note is "disconcerting" because something, and I am sorry I can not remember exactly what, left me wondering what it was that i didn't like about it.

All and all this was a really great event with some really nice wines. My thanks to the Champagne Bureau for putting it on and the Center for Wine Origins for snagging me a free pass.

john