2010 Cédric Bouchard “Le Creux d’Enfer”

This Friday I hosted a Champagne tasting for my old wine club.

It’s always an extra treat to taste wine with these guys. Though we have our individual preferences we seemed to have joined forces in the appreciation of elegant and lighter wines. We all love to share our designated preferences, but none of us claim to know the true meaning of wine. I regard these rare tasting occasions as the perfect window to share -inspire and be inspired.

Fridays theme was Champagne + a few extras

  

2012 Benoît Déhu “La Rue des Noyers”

2010 Cédric Bouchard “La Bolorée”

2013 Vouette & Sorbeé “Textures”

2010 Cédric Bouchard “Le Creux d’Enfer”

2010 Jacques Lassaigne “Tirade Rosé”

2008 Agrapart “Venus”

2008 Georges Laval “Les Chênes”

2008 Cédric Bouchard “La Haute-Lemblé”

2011 Benoît Lahaye “Le Jardin de la grosse Pierre”

2010 Jacques Lassaigne “”Autour de Minuit”

1999 Jacques Selosse “Vintage”

Bonus

2001 Soldera Brunello di Montalcino “Case Basse”

2001 Poggio di Sotto “Il Decnnale

I want to focus on one Champagne in particular, which took us all into wonderland.

2010 Cédric Bouchard “Le Creux d’Enfer”

Blend: 100% Pinot Noir

Terroir: Argilo-Calcaire

Vineyard: 0,032ha  - Lieu-dit west-facing parcel planted in 1994.

Style: Crushed by foot – maceration “Saignée method”

Viciculture: Organic

Dosage: Zero

Production: approx. 550 bottles

Disgorgement: April-2014

Glass: Zalto White Wine

The Champagnes from Cédric Bouchard have never been about a check-box exercise, were you end up with a long list of aromatic notes. Fragmenting is in general irrelevant in my opinion and with Cédric’s Champagnes it’s completely pointless. They always play on a feeling were you focus much more of the overall personality of the Champagne. “Le Creux d’Enfer” is no exception. Sure you have notes of verbena, mild liquorice, roses and some boysenberry. However I am not really sure I got those notes right and it doesn’t really matter. Because the Champagne is the most fragile, complex and delicate Rosé I have ever tasted. “Le Creux d’Enfer” have that sublime perfumes of  “red” and a touch of saltiness, which makes it so appealing. Despite its insane seductive appeal it makes it’s impression with no noise at all. Its understated character signals so much class and fuels it’s graceful profile.

The balance….talk about balance. Never ever have I tasted a rosé with such harmony. The low pressure of Cédric Champages naturally suppresses the bubbles and it’s feeding an almost silky and luxurious mouth feel.

Probably the best rosé Champagne I have ever tasted.

"Textures"

Few would argue, that Vouette & Sorbée have always been one of the most significant Producers in the Côte des Bars. In short Vouette & Sorbée are Bertrand Gautherot. I have met him a few times before – but I can’t say that I know him that well. I sensed, from my fist meeting in 2009, that he was a man with deep influence in heart and mind by the rhythm of nature. He is also an earlier mover towards biodynamic winegrowing. Nor is he afraid of speaking his mind and highlighting some of the obvious contrasts in Champagne.

In terms of the Champagnes from Vouette & Sorbée - their strength have always been a striking intensity. Vouette & Sorbée are right in your face Champagne.  V&S are one of the only producers I buy nowadays with a clear intend of actually cellaring. Cellaring brings out so many nuances in these Champagnes and tames the oak.

This especially goes for "Blanc d’Argile" (100% Chardonnay). A super intense Kimmeridgian soil Champagne, which I bought already from 2004 vintage. Back then the cellaring didn’t improve the wine, as the oak overpowered the fruit with age. Now (from 2006) it’s the other way round. 

The 100% Pinot Noir Carbonic maceration Rosé “Saignée de Sorbée” has always been a beast. A super structured Champagne, with notes iron and Campari. Born for food pairing and it  needs at least 4-5 years in the cellar for my palate.  

The entry-level Champagne; “Fidele" (100% Pinot Noir) might be more forward, but recent vintages have showed a more reserved wine when young.

So when you thought you had everything covered and has laid out the perfect profile on Vouette & Sorbée, Bertrand turns everything upside-down with “Textures”

2013 Vouette & Sorbée ”Textures”

Blend: 100% Pinot Blanc

Soil: I am guessing Portlandian and Kimmeridgian

Vineyard: Pinot Blanc planted in 2000

Viciculture: Bio (Demeter since 1998)

Vinification: 3months in Tonneaux and 6months in Georgian amphora

Dosage: Zero

Disgorged: 28^th of October 2015

Glass: Zalto White Wine

I first tasted "Textures" at Bulles Bio in Reims and was blown away.  In July, I shared it with friends in the South of France under very relaxed conditions. The third time was about 3 weeks ago. Once again I was in the magic zone.  

To me this is greatest Champagne Bertrand have ever produced. Somehow it makes perfect sense that Bertrand should make this cuvée. Not because amphora is en vouge, nor because Pinot Blanc is exotic.

No! – Textures simply takes you directly into the Vouette & Sorbée engine room. It’s the purest juice I have ever encountered from Bertrand . It’s feels like drinking directly from the press and it’s as fresh as a Vin Clair. The amphora acts not only as a clarity guarantee, but also as an enhancer membrane, which spins the utterly pure juice into a sophisticated texture. The name is actually spot on. The aromatic notes goes into the direction of dried banana, candied citrus fruits, pear zest and lime. The taste is utterly divine, super precise and elegant. WOW!. 

I have no idea how long it can cellar – but who can resist it now?  

Benoît Déhu

I first discovered Benoît Déhu back in 2014. Déhu was (and still is) part of the “Origines” group, which are among many of the tastings you can visit, in what we now know as the Champagne week in April.

Origines are a group very friendly people, good intend, curiousness and the willingness to be inspired. However, back in 2014 I witness way too much Chaptalization. Of course I am rudely generalizing (forgive me), but on that day, the bone dry 2011 (1g/l dosage)“La Rue des Noyers” was easy to fall in love with.    

Dehu also served some still wines at Origines. They were pretty bold in character and might have had a bit too much wood infusion – yet quit intense for Coteaux Champenois. I will have to re-taste these wines someday.

Since then – I have tasted the 2011 “La Rue des Noyers” on several occasions and have always appreciated it. It’s a Champagne, which combines the sophisticated side of Pinot Meunier, which has its roots in high pitched energy and spices. It’s far from the heavy and baroque style of Meunier, which is really not my thing.  

“La Rue des Noyers” has a phenomenal linear energy, which is intensified by a singing clarity. In 2011 the Champagne is obviously greener and herbal – which is typical for the vintage. However somehow it works here, though I believe that the 2011 should be drunk young.

Almost since I first tasted the 2011 - I have been eager for the 2012 to be released. It happened earlier this year and a few days ago I tasted it. 

2012 Benoît Déhu “La Rue des Noyers”

Blend: 100% Pinot Meunier

Soil: Black limestone

Vineyard: 1,7ha in Fossoy (roughly 57 km west of Reims)

Vines: 40-45 years old

Viticulture: Bio

Vinification: Oak 228L (comes from local forrest in Fossoy). No Malo

Dosage: Zero

Production: 2.000 bottles

Disgorgement: 14 October 2015

Glass: Zalto White Wine.

The nose is really tense and packed with dynamite young juice.  The 2012 are a sizzling fruit sensation, which feels like small frozen crystallized particles waiting to defrost and explode. Normally you would rarely hear me say, that a Champagne is too young. There is always something to learn and explore from a youthful Champagne and in fact - 9 out of 10 times I prefer a young Champagne. 

But this is really youthful. But goddamn I would still recommend you take a dive here as it’s, filled with lime zest, flowers, apples and mint. In the background you have a slight smokey touch from the oak, which is in perfect harmony, as the fruit overload is so massive.  The taste is awesome, both in terms of purity, energy and a nerve-wrecking acidity.

Hunt it, if you can find it.

P.s. Dehu Also makes a cuvée called “Le Pythie”, which I have yet to taste.

The perfect drinking window

From the very first day I got acquainted with wine, I also stock my head into a swarm of consumer guidance. At that time I needed those advises - so obviously I embraced them as the most natural thing to do. 

The drinking window was one of those advises, I quickly realized was of significant importance. Back then; I was into wines with serious muscle and extract, which required time to unfold. Paying attention to the perfect window of opportunity was crucial and logical. However I also learned, that the drinking window was not a straight line, which gradually unfolded the flower. Wine were a living organism, which had it’s own dynamic cycle and you never knew what to fully expect.

The consumer guidance however evolved over the years with the birth of the Internet. Wine boards – databases and social medias, all chiming in with live data stream about a wines status. It matters in an environment of passionate, dopamine addicted and seriously impatient wine people. Being guilty as sinned here – yet somehow I have also realized flaws in the system and actually never solved the equitation of planning the perfect drinking window.

But why are we so anxious about the drinking window? Are we merely just practicing due diligence by sort of protecting our investment? Opening a wine at perfect maturity is success. Opening a too young wine or a wine over the hill is failure. The consumer guidance has taught us to pick our winners and stay away from the loser’s team.   

But you know what – it’s just another flawed story from the wine scene, always posting flock mentality black and white guidance.

I think it’s fine that you, as a wine geek pay attention to every detail about a wine. If you pick up stories about a possible vintage or certain wines, which requires extraordinary patience  - you will obviously somehow storage that information. But personally I discovered, that I gradually became a slave to an overload of information. It became the driving force behind every move I made. I started to form intros, story lines and endings for wines, like they were a predictable Hollywood movie.

It had to stop and it did.

If you are a romantic wine drinker (like me), it’s important that you somehow bury the theorist inside you and prepares the inner “doer” to get out on the dance floor and practice. The only way you learn about what’s the right or wrong drinking window (if at all any) is to make “mistakes”. But actually they are not mistakes. You take experience with you and if you are willing to challenge yourself you stop and reflect. In this process you will discover that wine does not have one, but almost never ending drinking windows. I would even go as far, as saying, there is no such thing as a wrong drinking window. That’s not the same as saying a wine will taste significant better/worse during it’s life span. But hey – that’s life – that’s wine – that’s the risk you have to live with. If you are looking for a 100% bulletproof plan only circulating in your comfort zone then you might consider drinking Coca-Cola or water.

So let’s turn to a Champagne, which can support my post. It comes from a wine maker, which I am very fond of. It’s the one and only Jérôme Prévost (again).

Now Jérôme have often told me, how it sometimes takes 5-6 years after bottling before he can actually recognize the wine he worked with in the cellar. His wines are known to shut down dramatically in the bottle. For this and based on several experiences, two visits (and even a small vertical tasting in nov-2012), I have build a comfort zone fence of making myself believe that “Les Béguines" and La Closerie Fac-Simile rosé” requires +4-6 years of cellaring to reach an optimal drinking window. In this process I did the exact same mistake, which I have just criticized. I forgot that Jérôme’s wines, especially “Les Béguines" presents one of the most sophisticated versions of Pinot Meunier from day one.

You love your children from birth – and they might bring even higher joy to your life as they grow older – but their character are also a reflection of their childhood. Wine is the same – small individuals, with both a backpack of personality and constant evolvement. They might be slightly flawed, unresolved, mysterious - even fascinating, yet they also provide a mind game of imagination of what they can be. Wine is sense game, a dreaming aspect and who on earth would miss out on this?

2011 Jérôme Prévost “Les Béguines “

Blend: 100% Pinot Meunier

Terroir: Sand & Calcareous elements

Age of vines: 42-47 years old

Location: Village of Gueux – located west of Reims.

Dosage: 2 g/l.

Glass: Zalto White wine and Riedel Veritas Champagne (see test result)

From the very first nosedive you are beamed into a another Pinot Meunier dimension. Nowhere in Champagne you find this sophistication. I would be reaching beyond my vocabulary, if I should try to list the “correct notes”. They seemed to be composed of black cherry stones, black olives, diamond dust (don’t ask), licorice powder, nutmeg and a mixture and unexplained spices. There is a splendid firmness and energy, bringing utterly divine tallness, which is reason enough to taste it young. On the palate it shows great definition with a solid footprint of this spice paradise mixture being gracefully released in a very convincing way. Overall – the 2011 might not have the majestic tallness like the ’08 and the ’06 devilishness – but it’s one of the most elegant and sophisticated versions I have tasted of “Les Béguines “. 

Now knowing how it tasted from youth, we have been formally introduced to each other. The dream processes have begun. When will me met again – how will the next“date” turn out? 

Vintage hysteria, high expectations and 2008 “L’Apôtre”

(David Léclapart)

“Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed.”― Alexander Pope

I think we have all been there, right? Expecting too much and ending up disappointed. With a colleague, your company, your best friend, your spouse or maybe even a bottle of wine. Expectations are the result of looking ahead, thinking solution orientated and imagine (maybe even dreaming) of a happy end. When failure arrives at our doorstep, we obviously ask ourselves why? Did we overlook something? Or were unexpected variables responsible for the negative outcome and can we actually blame someone other than ourselves?

Wine is indeed exposed to high expectations and holds a complex field of variables, which sets complex scenarios.

One of the most expectation adding variables is vintage hyping. The declaring of a great vintage will obviously raise the bar and expectations.

Vintage has always been a key driver for wine lovers. If you get caught inside the wine universe, you have also learned to pay attention to details. We constantly search for wines, which can enlighten our sense hungry minds a little more than our last experience and provide us with those unforgettable moments.

So we plan well ahead to be in our comfort zone. We look for a bulletproof plan, by cherry picking the best vintages and carefully (unless your are a billionaire) plan our future wine purchases. Why shouldn’t we? Wine education tells you to be selective; otherwise your finances will run dry

Paying attention to vintage is logical – but also a blind alley and not a guarantee.  Especially because wine journalists often compose the declaration of a vintage, which tends to follow a framework, which might not take into account how you drink wine. I mean, how many speak about the simple drinking pleasure and how food diverse the wine or vintage may be? I couldn’t care less about +60 second finishes and only hearing praise for vintages with the highest testosterone.

I find myself split on vintage and high expectations. It really depends, how much I pay attention to vintage. When I get my yearly allocation on producers like Ganevat, Cossard or Cédric Bouchard, I don’t really care about the vintage. I just buy them (if I can afford them), because I know they will have something to offer. And what if it’s on paper not a great vintage? Maybe it will just taste better young? Cellar the big vintage and drink the smaller vintages. Great plan as I see it. I think there is almost nothing worse than seeing tasters obviously disappointed with a wine in a “great vintage”, trying to prove for themselves that the wine was still fantastic.

So even if I find the whole vintage thing one big mass psychoses I would be lying to you if I said that vintage didn’t matter to me and I never tried to find an alibi for a wine, which didn’t live up to my expectations.

It actually happened a couple of days ago.   

2008 David Léclapart “L’Apôtre”

Blend: 100% Chardonnay

Dosage: 0 g/l

Vines: Planted in 1946 

Vineyard:0,31ha Lieu-dit “La Pierre St-Martin”

Fermentation: Oak-barrels. 

Other: Biodynamic stuff

Glass: Zalto White wine

Oh yes I had high expectations. Why not? I have a thing with David and his wines and there is always something in the air, when I taste his Champagnes. 

I even tasted the 2008 “in the “L’Apôtre” Vertical 1999 >>> 2009” back in Nov-2013 with David and was blown away by its intensity. It certainly lived up to the hype about the 2008 vintage in Champagne. Vertical tasting are really educational, as you can almost outline the younger wines path and imaging their potential Sure, having tasted almost all releases of L’Apôtre from youth, I knew there was a risk of it being simple too young. I even knew that L’Apôtre would be slow starter.

Day one – Friday. A leaf day btw - So not a good day to drink wine, according to the biodynamic lunar calendar. I think I have never tasted a Champagne this shy and 110% completely closed. There was simply nothing to gain from the nose other than the sense of something very clean. The taste had an insane acidity, which felt like a thousand citrus fruits being crushed on your tongue. I would be lying, if I said it was good. More a study than actually pleasure. If I had to conclude something from this day I would have no idea what to write other than I had too high expectations. Did I hype it too much or what had happened since Nov-2013. I found myself making the same excuses that I somehow find rather pathetic; when a taster just can’t get himself to say it’s not a good wine, but feverishly try to argue their way out of the problem. My wife and I drank half of the bottle and I decided to leave the other half for the next day, where I had the entire half for myself.

Day two – Saturday. A fruit day and even if I don’t have that great success with the bio-calendar, I still found myself in this search for meaning (and still hoping) over my Friday disappointment. Mama-Mia – WOW!!! I wouldn’t say that the wine was actually open now and a flowering fruit bomb. But what revealed itself was one hell of an insane electric Champagne, setting the bar for energy higher than I have ever seen before. The aromatic notes are still very primary with tons of ripe citrus tonality, soil intensity and this nerve wrecking acidity still cuts all the way through the wine. With vintages like 2002 and 2004 “L’Apôtre”, which has occasionally also shut down, especially shortly after release I would obviously recommend seriously cellaring here. However “L’Apôtre” is known to open up again before heading for a more mature window. When that is – I have no clue. But damn – what a Champagne it will be, when it unfolds.

A new Champagne glass

(From left: Zalto White Wine / Riedel Veritas Champagne / Spiegelau "Adina water Goblet) 

A Danish glass aficionado (thank God there are more than me) recently brought to my attention that the new Champagne glass from Riedel (the Veritas series – middle on the image) was worth checking out. It however slipped my mind, before I attended a tasting where this glass was praised once again. Hmmmmm……Okay to hell with it – let’s see what the fuss is all about.

So a week ago, when tasting Chartogne-Taillet 2002 “Fiacre” I took it for a spin vs Zalto White Wine, which I am using more and more as my reference Champagne glass.

The Riedel Veritas Champagne glass overall has a good feel about it. It’s cool, classic design and on sight seems to be a good companion if you want to bring out the vinous side of Champagne – which I do. Although it’s machine made, it’s has a fairly low weight and a really thin stem. However, when arriving from Planet Zalto, everything seems bulky and heavy in comparison. This will always be an advantage for Zalto a no other glass brand has the same magic feel about it IMHO.

Fiacre is a lovely Champagne, which always makes me in a good mood. In Riedel “Fiacre” performed classic and really good. If you knew of no other glass, this would be a great Champagne glass.

In Zalto however (left), it was another story. It’s been a while since I have conducted glass tests, but here I overwhelmed by the difference. Zalto was a millions time better. It’s simply a difference in frehness and focus, which makes all Champagnes in Zalto seems so frisky. Returning to Riedel; “Fiacre” was suddenly much heavier and sweeter and I am confident it has to do with the fact you are tasting lead (Riedel) vs lead-free (Zalto).

Another test: 28. december 2014.

2010 Doamine Belluard “Ayse Mont-Blanc Brut Zero”

(So not Champagne, but a sparkling wine from Savoie made from 100% Grignet). Seriously one of the best non-Champagnes I have ever tasted. A real bargain)

More or less the same result, though not as clear as Zalto’s first win. This time Adina was also in play. In Riedel it was more about simple fruit, which of course is okay. But the wine was lacking secondary nuances as the fruity impression was overwhelming. Yet in Adina, it has a more toned down/subtle appeal, which provided more elegance. In Zalto you had the edgy feel again, where the wine felt really naked, yet also far more mysterious and interesting with the mineral spine really kicking in. I am not sure everyone would go for the Zalto as winner here, as it shows the wine far more raw and unpolished. But I like this raw and racy expression.  

Test – from 16^th of January 2015.

2008 “L’Apôtre” from David Léclapart

This time Adina vs Zalto. Hard to say, who actually won here, because we were dealing with a very shy Champagne.  But the pattern was the same. In this case, the Adina glass seemed to have an advantage by opening up  “L’Apôtre” a bit more. However it was just an illusion, caused by the wider opening of the glass and the feel of some fruit coming forward. The Champagne was indeed sealed like an oyster. I still favoured Zalto, despite it was a strange test really, simple because the firmness and feel of the energy in Zalto was better, which is always the case for me. On day two – I forgot about testing and just enjoyed the second half of the bottle in Zalto. 

New test: 30^th of Janury 2015

2011 Jérôme Prévost “Les Béguines “

Zalto vs Riedel. It really came close this time. Riedel really captured the essence of “Les Béguines “. Refined and fresh in Riedel – no fuzz at all, just like Zalto. Where it goes wrong for Riedel, is when it warms up in temperature. First of all it accelerates faster in Riedel, whereas as Zalto keeps the wine cooler. Or it feels like that and of course Riedel in general has a wider bowl. But one difference seems once again to be the unleaded vs a lead glass. In Riedel the wine becomes clumsier when raised in temperature and the feel of lead. In Zalto there is a constant firmness and nothing is lost or sticks out, when it warms up – only a natural temperature evolvement.

I might do one of two testing’s more – but I think there a pattern is starting to form.

The death of the Tasting Note and a damn fine Champagne.

The Tasting note has become an institution and the most logic form of describing a wine. In it we try to unfold the character of the wine by fragmenting it’s components. A good taster have the ability to distinctively spot the most detailed aromatic/flavour notes of the wine and some can even visualize the wine for you, by using creative metaphors. No doubt that the use of metaphors enriches the language, elevates the fun-factor and even have an inspirational appeal to a thirsty audience. But!” - they can also be highly individual, completely useless and far-fetched. After the creative phase of the tasting note, and the use of endless adjectives, the taster will try to reach a conclusion, by sort of putting the notes back into a context, measuring the wines overall balance. Some end the tasting note with a score – some don’t.

(The scoring of wine is probably a separate post worthy, but let’s leave that for a rainy day).  

I have a hate/love affair with the tasting note. I think it’s a poor mans thought of trying to capture a wines soul. However I recognize that it’s at least a form trying it’s best with words to unfold a wines character.

What I don’t like about the tasting note is that it reminds me of performance tool, between a company and their employees. We look for plusses and minuses, by fragmenting and we ALWAYS end up concluding something. Yet when we have separated all the components of a wine into a SWOT matrix we don’t always, if you ask me, manage to assemble the components correctly back into place. The fragmenting becomes primary and we become too focussed on performing a task, rather than just relaxing and connecting with the wine.  I think we do this, because the tasting note has become such an easy form to adapt to.

Our role models – and where we have learned the tasting note from – are wine journalist.  However I think we forgot forgot, in our eager to play mini-Parker/Galloni or Jancis Robinson, that the wine journalist are at work and tasting notes are part of their paycheck. We, you and I – the consumer, are not at work. Nothing is required from us, when it comes to wine – yet we chose to use the neo cortex of our brain, which is responsible for all our rational and analytic choices. Instead, the curious reader, would obviously ask, why we don’t use our the limbic system of our brain, which holds all our feelings and emotions, when wine are in fact something that unfolds on an emotional level? But does the limbic system have an understandable language? I believe it has and I miss its presence in wine, despite I can find it elsewhere in other emotional systems like literature, art and music. The limbic language is not so easy to master as listing facts are. It will even break the norms and you might be laughed at, because it can be perceived as pure nonsense. Who wants to be a failure, when they can be a success, by just following the already secure standards of a fact-listing tasting note? The tasting note have become like an occupying norm institution. And fair enough really, because maybe we don’t need to express what the limbic system are telling us. Maybe the affect of the wine – that electric pulse inside your bloodstream was just a personal moment for you. The unexplainable was somehow your own little secret – another dimension - something to hold onto and be inspired by. Sometimes it can be disturbing to let other people into your most private thoughts – so why share it, if it holds more value by treasuring it?

There are also good things about tasting notes. I like the fact that starting up a tasting note actually forces you to listen and talk to the wine. The more this conversation unfolds– the more information you will obtain. The experience of the wine, if you do a proper job, should hold most of the details. By having written your notes down on paper, it’s very easy to come back and do some more reflections.

However at the end of the day – the formal approach of writing down has the tendency to focus on “what?” (The neo cortex) – analysis, facts, numbers - and not the “why?” (The limbic system) – emotions, feelings and reflections.

“Why”  - is me – this is who I am, when I drink wine. When I work – I am “what” and I need that contrast when it comes to wine.

Let’s end it here – despite the subject holds more nuances. It’s a blog – not a novel ;-).

But before we end – as the headline promised – I’ll give you a tasting note on a spectacular Champagne.

2009 Benoît Lahaye “Le Jardin de la Grosse Pierre”

Blend: Pinot Noir, Pinot Meunier, Pinot Blanc, Chardonnay, Arbanne, Petit Meslier and other unknown varieties.

Terroir: Brown Chalk

Age of wines: Some Planet in 1923 by Benoit's grandfather – yet some dead replaced again in 1952.

Vinification: 10 months in old 225l barrels.

Dosage: 0 g/l

Production: 840 bottles

Glass: Zalto White wine

I have actually tasted this Champagne once before in 2013, when I attended the pre-2013 Terres et vins de Champagne event called “"Les Vins de Champagne à travers le temps". This is however the first I take it for a spin at home. I remember it as a remarkable breed with highly sophisticated spices. I also remember that the blend was rather particular and also asking Benoît about these “other” varieties? He just smiled, so we will have to settle with that ;-).

I can’t tell you what these spices taste like – they are so unique and intense. You have to buy it “see” for yourself. It smells like raw soil, warm stones, black cherries stones/olives – but I am really guessing here, because I have never tasted anything like it before. The intensity of these spices, roots from a dark place and it seriously feel like drinking the soil. At one stage I feared that it would lose height, given the combination of these dark, mysterious spices and the slightly warm ’09 vintage. However despite the growling dark baseline it somehow also manages to stretch itself into a weightless space. Insane really – something I have never seen before and totally emotional experience for me.

When I ask myself what I love about Champagne, it always circles around the cool climate, fostering overly elegant and precise wines. However I also like the raw side of Champagne, which started to come alive, when I got introduced to growers like Benoît Lahaye here. This is raw nature-stuff Champagne, not seeking any kind of compromise. Nor is it a fruit bomb, ready to take you for Boogie Woogie on the dance floor. “Le Jardin de la Grosse Pierre” is not a beginner Champagne and I would recommend you to drink it with food.

One of a kind Champagne. Try it, if you can find it. 

Fruit and soil

Initially I wanted to do a presentation of Ruppert-Leroy – an exiting new Champagne producer from the Aube region. However, when I was in Champagne (where I have just returned from) I tasted a very exiting white wine – which I actually have in glass right now. It’s the 2012 “Clos du Rouge Gorge” from a producer called Cyril Fhal.

I tasted these wines a day apart and thought it gave good meaning to present them in the same post, as they represent a contrast – yet individually something interesting.  

Let’s get aquatinted with the wines:

Fruit!

2011 Ruppert-Leroy “Martin-Fontaine” Brut Nature

Grape: 100% Chardonnay

Teroir: Clay and limestone

Age of vines: 70 years old

Vinification: Oak

Viticulture: Biodynamic

Dosage: 0 g/l

Glass used: Zalto White Wine

A very joyful Champagne, where you immediately feel in a good mood. There is a lot of sensorial sweetness, with ripe fruit, candied citrus, juicy sweet pear/apple and a crystal clear fruit. All together it’s floral attraction and the adorable factor is high. The taste has a precise linear style with a vibrant and precise acidity, which keeps the keynotes uplifted. However there is a fine line of the role of the sensorial sweetness, which keeps adding rather sweet notes, like elderflower and adding what seems to be residual sugar to the back of the palate. On one hand, it’s a part of this joyful style, which you can’t really resist, but you can't help to take notice. For me it’s slightly annoying. Having said that – I had no problems enjoying it.  If I turn to Mr. analytic I really miss some sort of soil bite, which could have shifted its focus away from only fruit. So what’s the verdict? Well – this is young Champagne and it’s indeed very healthy and well made. It’s even extremely easy to drink. It could very well be all about baby-fat and a completely different breed in 2-3 years time. To me this is a very good Champagne, but if to turn really great, it will have to attract more soil nerve with cellaring. However I suspect it will have many fans and for sure a producer I look forward to follow.

Soil!

2012 Cyril Fhal “Clos du Rouge Gorge (Blanc)”

Grape: 100% Macabbeu

Terroir: Sandy, silty soil (150-200m above sea level)

Vinification: Oak (2-3 years old) – No sulphur before Vinification.

Viticulture: Since Cyril Fhal took over in 2002 he converted to Bio (Demeter)

Location: We are in Latour de France (Roussillon)

Glass used: Zalto Universal

  

This is completely different kind of wine. Obviously we are comparing bubbles against a still wine, but as you will see it’s a wine, with an entire different setting. Here the fruit tonality is very shy and not something that would pull your pants down in a blind tasting. It’s however filled with energy – tons of it. It’s that energy, which keeps you turning back to the glass and despite the subdued bouquet, it was actually a wine I spent a lot of time “sniffing”. It’s simply the fascination of not exposing everything at once and a wine, which is constantly changing shape in the glass. The taste is not the kind of wine, which wraps a mouth coating cashmere orgy on you. No! Here its minerals all over – ranging from wet crushed stones, to warm slate. On day two the wine was even better. Thrilling intense, challenging and very reflective to the mind. Loved it and definitely not the last time I taste this producer.

To compare these two wines is not to pick a winner – or a loser. Personally I fell more attracted to wines with high soil energy. However if you have been reading this blog for some time you also know I like to illustrate diversity and how wines should pair with both food, occasions, your own mood and the lust for wine on the day you pull/pop the cork.