Home > Wine Features > Non-Vintage Champagne: To Age or Not to Age?

Non-Vintage Champagne: To Age or Not to Age?

Champagne, which many (including myself) consider to the world's greatest sparkling wine, originates from the cool vineyards around Reims and Epernay in northern France. It is a multi-million dollar industry of considerable importance to France's economy, which is dominated (on the international markets at least) by quite a small number of important houses. Each of these houses produce a variety of wines, but a typical range might include; a grand cuvée, perhaps using grapes from favoured vineyards; a vintage wine, the product of a single harvest, bottled only in years when conditions in the vineyard have been favourable; and a non-vintage wine, which will be released at regular intervals. Non-vintage is a somewhat imprecise term, as these wines are made by blending wines produced in several different years, so perhaps 'multi-vintage' would be more appropriate.

Non-vintage Champagne is often overlooked by lovers of fine wines, who tend to concentrate more on the vintage wines and super cuvées. Yet non-vintage Champagne is probably the most important wine produced in the region. Why? Well, firstly these are the entry level wines for most consumers - I would imagine there are very few drinkers who have tasted a vintage Champagne, or one of the super-cuvées, without ever having sampled a non-vintage one first. Also, for many drinkers, these will be the only Champagnes they ever drink, as the increase in expenditure necessary to purchase many vintage wines (and certainly the super-cuvées) is an understandable barrier to many. As a consequence, it is by these wines that many of the Champagne houses will be judged, rather as a restaurateur's wine buying prowess may best be assessed by tasting the house wines, rather than bottles from the top end of the list.

Opinions on the merits of non-vintage Champagne, and how these wines are best treated and consumed, seem to vary. In particular, I've recently learnt that a number of Champagne drinkers feel these wines are best consumed at the time of purchase, and that exposing them to a period of bottle age is an anathema. I find this a most unusual point of view. In my opinion, many non-vintage Champagnes positively demand a period of time in the cellar. I'd like to expand on this and hope to persuade you of the validity of my argument.

Firstly, I must emphasise that not all non-vintage Champagnes benefit from cellaring, in the same way that not all table wines do. It depends on the style and quality of wine. Not all bottles improve with cellaring because these wines, unlike some books or marketing blurb might have you believe, are not all of uniform quality. Non-vintage Champagnes are produced using a base wine from the most recent vintage, blended with varying proportions of older wines which have been held in reserve by the house. The blending is intended to maintain the house style and to maximise quality, but in the event of a poor vintage these can be very difficult demands. As a consequence quality can vary from bottling to bottling, and as there is no indication on the bottles as to the base vintage or time of blending (apart from the excellent Mis en Caves range from Charles Heidsieck) it is impossible to know anything about the quality of wine in a bottle you lift from the shelf. It also means bottles containing completely different wines may sit next to one another on the shelf bearing no indication of this on their identical labels.

It is when the base wine is good (and this has been the case over the last year or two, as many wines released onto the market during this period have been based on the very successful 1996 vintage) that non-vintage Champagne will improve with a period of cellaring. A year or two, or often longer, will help the often sharp acidity to integrate, and for the mouthfeel and texture to fill out and develop a more rounded, creamy, mature character. Secondary flavours will also develop, with coffee, toffee and nutty flavours from the Chardonnay, more biscuity characteristics from the Pinot Noir. The end result can be a much finer wine than would be experienced if all consumed at the time of purchase, which will offer a realistic glimpse of how the vintage wines and super-cuvées may develop with time.

What is all this based on? Personal experience, of course. For many years now I have purchased fresh stocks of non-vintage Champagne each year, taking advantage of sales and special offers to lessen the financial impact. This frequent 'topping-up' allows me to rotate the wines, drinking a selection of maturing and fully mature non-vintage Champagnes, whilst newly acquired wines may lie in the cellar undisturbed. At present I currently have significant stocks of five non-vintage Champagnes, from Lanson, Taittinger, Bollinger, Billecart-Salmon and Charles Heidsieck, all of which have been in the cellar for anything between six months and two years. I also have one or two odd bottles from other houses. The Lanson Black Label Brut (purchased Spring 2001) is showing particularly well at present and is my current 'house Champagne', the Billecart-Salmon Brut Rosé (purchased Autumn 2002) is getting there, whereas on last tasting the non-vintage cuvées from Taittinger and Bollinger (purchased Spring 2002) need a year or two more. The Charles Heidsieck Mis en Caves 1997 (a non-vintage wine blended in 1997, based on the 1996 vintage) needs several more years.

Not convinced? Well in the next few weeks I'll be publishing tasting notes for all these non-vintage Champagnes, complete with full details of how long they have been lying in the cellar. If my tasting notes won't convince you to give it a try, perhaps nothing will! (30/4/03)