Quite a few people do not agree with the concept of having the goal to make the same wine every year at the expense of sometimes not making the best possible wine (and I am one of them), but that is the way an overwhelming majority of Champagne producers operate with their basic NV bottling (Jacquesson is the most well known exception to this rule). They operate this way because they want the consumer to be able to always pick up a bottle of their NV Champagne and know exactly what to expect. This of course blurs any individuality of the components, but while you may not taste each component or even a standout component in the final blend, it is quite amazing to see how each one builds up to and contributes to the final creation. The end result is that unless you truly understand terroir and each individual wine, you can’t blend to a specific profile. As a side note, while walking the vineyards, I thought it was very cool to see Mrs. Bara of Paul Bara fame ride by us on her bicycle and wave. (Champagne may be large in actual area, but it is small with respect to the wine-producing community…) and most growers and big houses get along. (Paul Bara is located right next to Veuve’s Bouzy facility).

Cyril contends that Veuve could create great single vineyard wines, but it isn’t part of the company’s vision. I cannot argue with that as changing the direction of their wines could irritate their main customer base and therefore be bad for business. He also mentioned that if Veuve were to do special village or vineyard cuvees, it would take wine away from the other cuvees and quality could suffer. They are already producing a very large amount of Champagne and with the scarcity of quality grapes, every single vine counts. Additional special cuvees would strain the already stressed resources and result in a drop in quality of the current lineup. Whether you like Veuve Clicquot or not, I think you have to respect that a lot of people like their wines and they have a vision that they stick to.

The vineyards and village of Bouzy

Cyril also went into the reasons why Veuve and many other producers don’t like to print too much information on their wine labels (like disgorgement date, dosage, base vintage in a NV blend, etc…). It seems that sales data has shown that adding this information to labels leads to lower sales. I know that seems counterintuitive, but the numbers don’t lie. One example of what happens is as follows: A reviewer rates a wine highly and notes that it was disgorged on June 10, 2007. People read the review and get excited so they go to the store, but they will only buy the wine if it was disgorged on June 10, 2007. They want nothing to do with the other disgorgement dates and won’t buy the June 11, 2007 disgorgement. He did say that Veuve would like to find a way to get relevant information to wine geeks (I’ll say it again – why not have a code you can use on the internet to get this info) or find a way to better educate the common customer, but they can’t risk falling business to do it.

As we continued to talk, we delved more into the relationship between growers and large houses. Where a smaller grower might rely more on nature or learned practices to figure out the best way of doing things, Veuve has the luxury of experimenting and then meshing the best of traditional practices and modern science. What is amazing about this is that when Veuve finds that something new works, they share it with everyone. They have funded and participated in various studies that benefit all of Champagne. Therefore all of Champagne can profit from the research that Veuve and others do. I know there are many who believe that a back-to-basics, 1800s era method is best (call it non or anti-science), but I think the truth lies somewhere in between technology and tradition. If you look at the best producers (big or small), I think this has been proven as a good bet for success.

The highlight of my visit to Veuve Clicquot was a tasting of Vin Clairs and Reserve wines that are used to make the NV cuvees (these are still wines that have yet to undergo their second fermentation and become Champagne; they are the building blocks that are blended to create the Champagne that you drink). This really helped me to see that Veuve Cliquot is a blending house with respect to terroir. They know how to use each little piece to create a consistent and popular product.

Jacques Peters – Head winemaker for Veuve Clicquot and the genius
behind the bottles from the late 1970s to present.

I had to bring up my displeasure with various recent Veuve Clicquot cuvees (especially the NV Yellow Label) once again and was invited to try a bottle of the NV (it was a recent disgorgement that can commonly be found on shelves around the world) and I found it to be very good; it was much better than any recent bottle I have had in the US (and I have had this exact same cuvee - blend & disgorgement, the only difference being that I purchased it in the US). Afterwards, I had to do some testing, so I went out and bought bottles from a couple different shops in France (located in Reims and Nice) and each was very good again, much better than any other recent US purchased bottle I have had. They reminded me a bit of the magnums that I tasted and talked about here, only they were a touch better. I’ve continued to have similar stories relayed to me by others who found the NV cuvee to be much better in Europe than in the US, so I talked about this with Cyril and head winemaker Jacques Peters. They don’t know why this would be, since no special blends are made for any market, and the wine is identical in all. While I definitely think stressed resources is partly to blame for current bottles being a bit more variable and not as rich or fruity as those from around the turn of the century, I am continuing to lean more and more on the chief culprit being a transport chain issue. Interestingly, I later tried a bottle in Austria and it was a much less attractive one. My work on the mystery of NV Veuve bottle variation will continue. The truth is out there somewhere.

Michelle’s Birthday: Doesn’t everyone celebrate theirs at the Veuve Clicquot Mansion?

All in all, Veuve Clicquot put on a tremendous educational experience for my wife and me; I left impressed by their passion and processes. Whether you want to believe it or not, Veuve has a deeper understanding for terroir and Champagne (as a wine and region) than most could ever hope to have. They just happen to base their business on a product that uses terroir as an ingredient to paint a bigger picture. In the argument of terroir vs. blending, I don’t think either way has to be right or wrong, as they both have their place and you can make an argument for either. Blending is a great way to create a greater whole than the individual parts, but on the other hand, if an individual part is singing why blend it away? I also must thank Veuve for being gracious hosts in inviting us to the Clicquot Mansion for a birthday lunch in honor of my wife and to top it all off, Jacques Peters rushed back from an LVMH executives meeting in Paris to talk with us before dinner and share an aperitif. Photo at left: Cheese course- non pasteurized and very, very good. It’s a shame that this stuff doesn’t make it across the Atlantic.
 

Cyril Brun and Brad Baker walking up to the Veuve Clicquot Mansion

Some important and interesting pieces of information I learned during my visit to Veuve Clicquot:

• The great vintages at Veuve Clicquot have been 2006, 2002, 1998, 1996, 1990, 1988, 1985, 1979, 1975, 1969, 1964, 1959, 1955, 1949, 1947, 1937, 1934, 1929, 1928, 1921, 1908, 1904, 1893, 1889. You may notice that a few vintages you would expect (like 1982) are missing and others (like 1979) are added. This is why general vintage charts are good, but you really need to look at each producer to understand when they had hits and misses. This can help you find gems like the 1979 Clicquots and understand why no 1982 Grande Dame was made.
   

• Even though 1994 saw more producers release Champagnes, 1991 was a far better year. It was seen as a weaker year than it really was and few declared because it came after the 1988-1990 run and the Champagne market was at a low point.
   

• The still wine Veuve adds to its NV Rosé is a mix of Pinot Noir and Pinot Meunier.

Damage to the house walls are a reminder of what Champagne and France
went through in World Wars I & II

• Veuve has an older stock of reserve wines to blend into their NV wines than Krug (Veuve has 1988 left and Krug is just about out of its 1990.
   

• Champagne loses quite a bit of color during its second fermentation as the lees “suck” it out of the wine.
   

• Studies by Veuve show that Champagne (as a whole) shows cork taint less often than still wine. It isn’t because of any magic in the bottle, but because, in general, Champagne practices greater quality control at all price levels than most still wine producers.
   

• The NV dosage Veuve uses on its Brut wines is 11 g/L and there is rarely (if ever) any residual sugar left in the wine after the second fermentation. For those who say that Veuve lies about this, run a laboratory test. It is the truth, so don’t believe the rumors that the big houses all dose close to and beyond 15 g/L.
   

• Pinot Meunier grows best in clay. This is why it is not seen much in Premier and Grand Cru villages.
   

• Veuve makes 1 non-vintage blend each year.
   

• All of Veuve Clicquot’s wines go through full malolactic fermentation
   

• All of their wine is fermented and stored in stainless steel. Also, each reserve wine is almost always stored separately in its own steel container. Occasionally, Veuve will mix a few Chardonnays from the Cote des Blancs together.
   

• Veuve is one of the leaders in trying new ideas. They have ten winemakers, two of whom are female (a high number in Champagne). They also make sure that all decisions are made with everyone’s input.
   

• When blending the NV, consistency is valued above all else. It should always taste the same.
   

• They employ vineyard engineers to improve the vineyards. This is considered odd in Champagne and most other producers don’t see how this helps, even though Veuve has seen nothing but success come from it.
   

• Head wine maker Jacques Peters is the brother of Francois Peters of Pierre Peters fame, and started out at the family firm (he still has an interest in it). He also worked at co-op Jacquart before joining Veuve in 1978. This gives him an amazing set of experiences at all of the big three Champagne producer types (grower/récoltant, co-op, and house/négociant.
   

• At one point in time, Veuve Clicquot was a small grower. Eventually, demand led them to turn into a négociant and the rest is history. What is interesting is that many of the more successful growers are grappling with this same problem. How do you grow when it is very difficult to acquire new vineyards?
   

• The growers and houses get along quite well, because each understands that they need each other. The media may hype up the differences, but it is just that – a bunch of hype.
   

• If you lie, cheat, or steal, all of Champagne will find out; it is a small community where everyone knows everyone. I say this because some people believe that the popular big houses are evil liars. There are some questionable Champagne businesses, but none of them are very familiar to us, none of them are the grande marques, and few, if any, make it to the US.
   

• The belief that growers = expressive terrior and big houses = soulless blend is a bunch of bull.
   

• The marketing dollars that benefit all of Champagne are spent by the big houses. In effect, the big houses subsidize the small producer’s marketing.
   

• Champagne needs to find a way to wisely increase the AOC land under vine (there is a lot of land in or near the AOC area not under vine that has good potential to grow Champagne grapes). Demand is far higher than supply and Champagne needs to learn to be flexible, but they need to make any changes with an eye on quality first. I also think if Champagne wants to continue its rating system, it would be wise to rate vineyards inside of each village rather than the village as a whole and to consistently revise and update these ratings. I will add that I am not for increasing the yield a hectare can supply. That would be the wrong way to solve the current under-supply problem.
   

• The bureaucracy that regulates the buying and selling of vineyards (which is very rare unless you are buying an entire company and then you still have to get government approval) as well as estate division (taxes, who gets what) does not help things, as it usually results in vineyards not being properly taken care of, with those who want to buy and care properly for them left on the sidelines.
   

• There is no hard and fast rule on grower to house relationships. Some of the less respected houses don’t even work with their suppliers; they just take whatever grapes they get. The better houses work closely with their growers and have numerous resources dedicated to these relationships. In some cases, the house takes over the complete management of the grower’s vineyards and the growers simply get a regular check.
   

• There are 15,000 different Champagne labels from 8,000 producers.

Tasting of Vins Clairs & Reserve Wines

All of these are still wines that have yet to undergo their blending and second fermentation. I have included the village and grape type for each wine along with its cru rating (which is a rating for the village and does not necessarily relate to quality). I do not give grades for Vins Clairs or Reserve wine, just impressions. Please keep in mind when reading these notes that I will be describing the flavors and also making comments as to the potential of the still wine in making an impact on the final Champagne blend. When you see an enthusiastic comment from me, it has more to do with the Champagne potential of the still wine than the wine in its present form.

2006 Saint Thierry Pinot Meunier (85% - Autre Cru)
This is quite peachy and full of bright, fluffy fruitiness. I was impressed with the acidity that this showed. The finish is short, bland, and creamy, but this shows excellent Champagne potential.

2006 Bouzy Pinot Noir (100% - Grand Cru)
Full of soft red berries and under ripe yellow apples; this bites down with a few mineral laced tannins on the back of the palate and finishes with a good length (especially when compared with the Pinot Meunier above).

2006 Cramant Chardonnay (100% - Grand Cru)
Bold, slightly smoky and meaty flavors dominate this rather full textured wine. It is quite different from what I expected, but does show the excellent minerality associated with Cote des Blancs Chardonnay. A very long finish with good acidity closes it out. As a side note, I will point out that the unexpected flavors are something that I think will really help turn this still wine into wonderful Champagne

2006 Villers Marmery Chardonnay (95% - Premier Cru)
A big does of under ripe apples and cream leads into an acidic finish. To me, this seemed to have excellent Champagne potential.

2006 Oger Chardonnay (100% - Grand Cru)
Floral minerals and lots of acidity highlight this wine. The mouth feel was light and elegant.

2006 Verzenay Pinot Noir (100% - Grand Cru)
A very powerful wine that also shows tremendous potential. Red tinged apples and tart tannins left themselves imprinted on my taste buds.

2005 Ay Pinot Noir (100% - Grand Cru)
This showed a touch of horse/brett on the palate entry and quickly dove into minerals and tannins. The finish was fantastic with a long and lingering red tinged acidity.

2005 Le Mesnil-sur-Oger Chardonnay (100% - Grand Cru)
Creamy flowers and striking acidity start you off and eventually morph into a clean and sharp mineral flavor that takes you home.

2002 Verzy Pinot Noir (100% - Grand Cru)
This is the northernmost Pinot Noir that Veuve Clicquot uses. Bracing acidity greets me on the palate entry and never lets go. Some red flowers weave their way in, but my teeth can still feel the acidic power of this potential packed wine.

2002 Bouzy Pinot Noir (100% - Grand Cru)
Meaty aromas mix with floral apples and cherries. This is very complex on the nose. A full body brings more meaty cherries and tart flavors along with a note of malt. I found this to be extremely complex and fascinating. In contrast with the Verzy Pinot Noir above, this is bigger bodied and more in your face. It is the southernmost Pinot Noir from the Montagne de Reims that Veuve Clicquot uses.

2001 Oger Chardonnay (100% - Grand Cru)
Loads of apples and minerals float gently on top of an acidic base. With time, some cream and smoke notes come in. Overall, I found this a bit heavy and monolithic.

2000 Oger Chardonnay (100% - Grand Cru)
Wonderful acidity and structure with loads of apples and minerals. This is bright and much more alive than the 2001. The finish is long and crisp.

1998 Ay Pinot Noir (100% - Grand Cru)
Wonderful structure with firm acidity and plenty of youthful vigor. Building off of this structure are flavors of clove, cinnamon, red apples, and cherries. It finishes up smooth and spicy.

1990 Ay Pinot Noir (100% - Grand Cru)
As with the 1998, this still shows extraordinary focus with acidic apples and creamy red flavors. The finish is long and full of red citrus with specks of spiced minerals.

1988 Cramant Chardonnay (100% - Grand Cru)
Quite closed on the nose, but the palate is open for business. Plenty of apples lead the journey. A dose of earth and kiss of sherry complete it. I could see a winemaker using a dash of this to spice a blend up.

NV Veuve Clicquot Brut Assemblage
(70% base vintage of 2006; 30% reserve wines; To be disgorged late in 2010)
This is the 2006 blend of still wines that will eventually become a NV Yellow Label. After tasting all of the individual Crus, I was amazed at how different this was. A slightly closed creamy apple nose leads the way for a rich palate that shows contrasting crisp and creamy apples along with a touch of spice. And, of course, the acidity is present, but the flavors seem to push it into the background as the tartness grabs you, but it is a gentle grab.

NV Veuve Clicquot Yellow Label
(3 bottles – from the winery, Paris, & Nice)
(28-33% Chardonnay; 50-55% Pinot Noir; 15-20% Pinot Meunier; Based on the 2001 vintage and bottled in 2002; Stainless steel fermentation & aging; Full malolactic fermentation; Disgorged Nov-Dec 2005; $30-40 US )
Rich peaches, apples, biscuit dough, and fresh citrus lead the way for this very tasty bottle. With some time, creamy cherry flavors come out. This was an eye opening experience for me, as it has been a long time since I had a bottle of Yellow Label this good. I later tried bottles purchased from stores in Paris and Nice and both were as good (and were the same blend and disgorgement). So why aren’t my bottles purchased here in the US as good? And, what happened to the bottle below? Grade of B (83-86). Find this wine

NV Veuve Clicquot Yellow Label
(purchased in Graz, Austria)
(28-33% Chardonnay; 50-55% Pinot Noir; 15-20% Pinot Meunier; Based on the 2001 vintage and bottled in 2002; Stainless steel fermentation & aging; Full malolactic fermentation; Disgorged March-April 2006; $30-40 US)
A bit thin, rather tart, and a touch green on the nose. The palate shows some initial biscuit and slightly sweet bright citrus, but this quickly fades and the wine turns into a mix of tartness and mellowed acidity without any fruit. Given some time to breathe, some pear and biscuit notes come in, but the tart and green notes are always there. I’m sure this would have gotten a touch better the next day, but I didn’t have time to wait and see.

This is the Veuve Yellow Label I remember from bottles purchased in the States. I know this has a different disgorgement date from the bottles above, but why is there such a big difference between the bottles? Is it transit/storage issues or consistency? Grade of High C (76-78 pts).

NV Veuve Clicquot Demi-Sec
(20-25% Chardonnay; 40-45% Pinot Noir; 30-35% Pinot Meunier; Stainless steel fermentation & aging; Full malolactic fermentation; $35-45 US)
We decanted this wine to subdue the bubbles and give it a mouth feel that would better match the cake we paired it with. It was a winning combination as the mousse was light and fluffy rather than vigorous and it meshed with the dessert instead of overpowering it. I now understand why Moscato d’Asti (which is a lighter pressured wine with gentle bubbles) is such a great dessert match. As for the flavors, it was all sweet citrus and biscuit dough. A winning combination in my book. Grade of Solid B (85-86 pts). Find this wine

2002 Veuve Clicquot Vintage Rosé
(Somewhere in the neighborhood of 25-35% Chardonnay, 55-75% Pinot Noir,
0-10% Pinot Meunier; 10-20% Red wine added from Bouzy; A mix of 21 Grand and Premier Crus; Stainless steel fermentation and aging for the core Champagne - oak for the Bouzy red wine; Full malolactic fermentation; Dosage of 9 g/L; Disgorged July/August 2006; $60-75 US)
I can’t tell you exactly why, but I love it when Rosé Champagne takes on a deep pink salmon color. It just looks sexy to me and makes me smile. This wine has that color; it’s bringing sexy back. And to top it all off, it tastes as good as it looks.

Fresh bright strawberries and juicy oranges fill my nose and remind me a bit of the 1998 Veuve Clicquot Rosé, which absolutely blew me away. As for the taste, wow, it is a beauty. Thirst quenching flavors of red oranges, fresh squeezed strawberries, bright minerals, and lightly spiced biscuit dough notes have me asking for more. A long cinnamon dusted ruby red grapefruit finish lifts this up even higher. This wine is killer.

To me, Veuve Clicquot’s best wines are their Rosés. They are fresh, fruity, big, Pinot Noir dominant, elegant creatures. Where I was let down by some of their more recent Rosé releases (1999 Vintage Rosé and 1995 Grande Dame Rosé), the 2000 Vintage Rosé and now the 2002 have picked things back up (the 1998 Grande Dame Rosé is supposed to be stunning as well). This is an absolutely wonderful wine. Drink it now or drink it later (it will age very well), but go get a bottle. Grade of High A- (92-93 pts) for today with the possibility of an improvement to the Lower A level (93-94 pts) over the next decade.  Find this wine

2000 Veuve Clicquot Rosé
(32% Chardonnay, 57% Pinot Noir, 11% Pinot Meunier; 15% Red wine added from Bouzy; A mix of 21 Grand and Premier Crus; Stainless steel fermentation and aging for the core Champagne - oak for the Bouzy red wine; Full malolactic fermentation; Dosage of 9 g/L; $55-70 US)
Rich sharp red apples and cherry skins mix with a firm acidity to form the core flavors. This wine is still a bit tight and rough around the edges. It shows good potential, but it will need some time to strut its stuff. Letting it breathe for a few hours brings this point home as rich red fruit and biscuits poke their heads out. While it will never be a show stopper, it will turn into a nice wine with a few years of cellar time. Grade of B for today (83-86 pts) B+ potential over time (87-89 pts). Find this wine

1999 Veuve Clicquot
(33% Chardonnay, 55% Pinot Noir, 12% Pinot Meunier; A mix of 21 Grand and Premier Crus; Stainless steel fermentation and aging; Full malolactic fermentation; Dosage of 9 g/L; $55-70 US)
Very open and fruity on the nose. The palate also shows a big helping of fruit with creamy apples, biscuit dough, and slightly sweet citrus. A mineral filled finish brings it home. This is a very good effort for 1999. Grade of High B+ (88-90). Find this wine

1998 Veuve Clicquot Grande Dame
(64% Pinot Noir grapes from Ay, Verzenary, Verzy, Ambonnay, and Bouzy; 36% Chardonnay from Avize, Oger, and Le Mesnil-sur-Oger; All Grand Cru; Full Malolactic Fermentation; Disgorged late 2006; $110-145 US)
Pears and light floral scents highlight a very clean nose. The palate shows very young as citrus, apple, and pear fight for attention. With some time, spicy biscuits appear and lead into a mouth wetting finish that gives a flirtatious whisper of spice as it disappears. Grade of High B+ (88-90 pts) for today with High A- potential with time (91-93 pts). Find this wine

1990 Veuve Clicquot Bouzy Rouge
(100% Pinot Noir; Bouzy; Coteaux Champenois AOC; 6 months aging in oak barrels)
An absolutely eye opening wine. I am not a fan of the Coteaux Champenois still wines, but maybe I after having this one, I just may need to try more of them. This bottling is not released to the public as only a barrel or two are made each year. They can’t afford to make more, as they need the juice for their Champagne. I wish they had more as I would be a buyer and I am sure many more would be.

A sweet and spicy cinnamon nose leads into a lush palate highlighted by dried cherries and spice box notes. Winemaker Cyril Brun compared this to a top Volnay and I would not argue. He also noted that the 1989 was even better. Grade of High B+ (88-90 pts).

1985 Veuve Clicquot Rare Rosé
(36.5% Chardonnay, 49% Pinot Noir, 14.5% Pinot Meunier; 14% Red wine added from Bouzy; A mix of 17 Grand and Premier Crus; Stainless steel fermentation and aging for the core Champagne - oak for the Bouzy red wine; Full malolactic fermentation; Disgorged late 2005; $75-100 US)
It took me a while to take a liking for this wine. It showed its age with a copper orange hue and a dose of earth, mushroom, and sherry on the palate and nose. I expressed a bit of dissatisfaction with the wine, but Cyril asked me to withhold judgment as he picked it for a reason. Out came a duck dish (Magret de Canard, Jus Court au Macis, et Peches Roties) and on came a very tasty wine. I’m not much of a “foodie”, but this dish brought out gentle red berry flavors and meshed perfectly with the earthy, mushroom rancio-like notes. The wine’s acidity also seemed to stand out a bit more and allowed some strawberries to bloom. Without the food this was a Low C+ wine (76-78 pts) that seemed past its prime, but with the food it stepped it up to become an enjoyable Low B+ (86-88 pts).  Find this wine

Cheers!

Brad Baker

Philipponnat | Veuve Clicquot | Vilmart | Jacquesson | Ruinart | Goutorbe Part 1
Goutorbe Part 2 | Henri Giraud | Chartogne-Taillet | Introduction

BACK TO THE TOP

BACK TO BRAD BAKER'S INDEX PAGE

September, 2007 © Brad Baker 

Link to Gang of Pour Home Page

Link to Gang of Pour Site Index (Table of Contents)