ARTICLES
Veuve Clicquot
Spitbucket | 29 March 2012
Wineries
"A meeting with Veuve Clicquot's chef du cave, Dominique Demarville"
The always fascinating Dominique Demarville, Chef de Cave for Veuve Clicquot, was in town recently (well, Sydney at least) and we got to spend quite a bit of time chatting and looking at the current releases.
Veuve is one of those interesting Houses that consistently release excellent wines of top notch quality yet we seem to take it for granted. I’ve seen the 1998 La Grande Dame – the pinnacle of their range – twice recently and it has been stunning both times. So I was taking nothing for granted.
We kicked off things with the latest La Grande Dame, the 2004. I must confess that I was stunned that they had skipped 2002, a stellar vintage, but the decision to go straight to the 2004 fits in, very much, with Dominique's philosophy. He acknowledges that 2002 was a 'gorgeous year' but for Veuve, it was a year that best suited their Vintage style, because of the tremendous depth, not the LGD style. Also, they had a cellar full of unsold stock as this was back in the days of the post-millenium excess. Many Houses overloaded in anticipation for sales that never fully eventuated. So, we went straight to 2004. Glorious (but please see the reviews for full details).
The first LGD was the 1962 but don't feel bad if you never saw it. It was not released commercially. That honour went to the 1966 (how good would a '64 have been, if indeed they made it). They have had the '98 in the market since 2006 and plan on the '04 selling for the next three years, before the 2006 arrives. And look out for the 2008 – like all Houses, this vintage gets rave reviews. Dominique describes it has having some of the attributes of 1998, 1995 and 1979. It is a year where the pinot noir was especially good.
As for other vintages, 2007 was very good for the style of the Yellow Label, useful as it is the base of the current YL. It didn't make 'Vintage' as there was a question about the potential of it to age. 2009 is good enough for Vintage but Dominique feels it is not necessary and it will be used for the Yellow Label. Forget 2010 – an awful year. Ditto 2001 and 2003. 2005 is a year that does not appeal to Dominique, finding it “strange”, believing the ripening occurred too fast.
What is so impressive about the way VC operates is that they are moving towards releasing fewer Vintages, not more. The vast majority of Houses are taking the completely opposite track. It will mean that consumers will be able to rely even more on the quality of a Vintage wine from VC and also has the important advantage of improving the quality of the Yellow Label. This decision is very much against the tide but very welcome.
VC are also working very hard to improve the quality of the reserve wines used for the Yellow Label. 29% of reserve is used for the current release, based on the 2007 vintage (remember always that the idea is consistency, not just of quality but of taste, of “everything”!). The average percentage of reserve wine in the Yellow Label is around 35%, but it depends on the year – hence, '07 was a year that needed less. The base year of 2003 needed a full 50%, giving you an idea of just how dire that year was. 2011 will be 40% but 2004 was so good that only 22% was needed. VC have a full year of stock in reserve wines. This extends over 17 different vintages, ranging from 1998 to 2010.
I asked about the date of disgorgement appearing on the label. Dominique replied 'not yet', which was promising – hopefully we'll see it before long. You can work it out from the code on the cork, if you know how to break it. They are also undertaking trials with Diam for the closure but are yet to be convinced with the ageing ability. When we tasted, we used Riedel white glasses, not flutes. Dominique believes them to be better for the purposes of tasting, though not if attempting to exhibit the bead.
For 2004, dosage is lighter than in the past. This is not necessarily a trend but because of the “delicate freshness of the vintage”. It applies to all '04s. The dosage for these wines is 7 grams/litre, down from the usual 9 grams.
Worth noting that they will not release a 2006 vintage, though there will be a 2006 LGD. It follows the move to fewer vintage releases but ensuring those that are released are best suited. As noted, 2002 saw a Vintage but not the LGD. 2006 is a very fine, 'delicate' year where there will be an increase with chardonnay. This suits the style of LGD but not so much, the Vintage. I have no doubt that if VC had wanted to, they could have made a very good Vintage from 2006, yet they have chosen not to do so in order to maintain the absolute pinnacle of quality and integrity of the in-House styles of their wines. Very few Houses would be prepared to do this.
The Rosés are interesting. The non-vintage was created in 2003 and launched in 2006, while the records show that their first vintage Rosé was from as far back as the 1822 vintage. The first Vintage was 1810, while Yellow Label emerged in 1874 and, although drier than many of the wines of the day, it would certainly have been much sweeter than what we enjoy today.
The percentage of red wine added to the rosés is 12-13% for the non-vintage and 15%, all from Ambonnay, for the 2004. The red wine for the NV comes from a variety of regions. The aim of the vintage Rosé is for structure and potential ageing, while the NV is for freshness, though rather bizarrely, at this early stage, the effect is reversed. What I found fascinating was that, as with some other Houses, the rosés are made by adding that percentage to either the current Yellow Label, for the NV, or the Vintage. Usually, I find this tends to throw things out of kilter – the argument that 'we have made the best wine possible', which they have then changed by adding a great whack of red wines is sent out the window (occasionally, a lengthy period in the cellar seems to resolve this). With these wines, I see some of this with the vintage but not with the NV, which looked superb. Every time I have seen a Vintage VC Rosé lined up next to the NV Rosé, the NV has impressed me more than the Vintage.
Occasionally, there will be a Rosé or a Vintage but not both – again, it depends entirely on what the vintage provides and whether it suits the styles they seek. For example, in 2000, they made Vintage Rosé but not a Vintage. In 1982, a great year for chardonnay, that was reversed.
There is also a La Grande Dame Rosé but production is very small – around 7 to 8,000 bottles. As this must be spread across three to six years, and all markets around the world, easy to see why it is almost never experienced. The first was made from the wonderful 1988 vintage and subsequently, in 1989, 1990, 1993, 1995, 1996 and 1998.
Article by Ken Gargett
© 2013 Spitbucket
Comments (0)
Become a Member
About Us
Video Reviews
Wine Reviews
Articles
Refer A Friend
Submit a Wine
Contact Us
or your Spitbucket account 
.
