A crafted object, perhaps first and foremost. Fine wines are usually a snapshot of place, too, as well as being an interpretation of a varietal (or blended) ideal. They’re also a drinkable weather report: the summary of a season. But to what extent?
In great vintages, of course, you take what nature has given you, and say a private word of thanks when no one’s looking. What, though, do you do when nature has teased and tortured you? Do you allow the excesses and deficiencies of a season to be apparent in the wine, or do you attempt to remedy nature in some way?
Philipponnat’s decision to release a 2003 Clos des Goisses – a Champagne I would buy regularly if I was a hedge-fund manager – set me thinking.
I was in vineyards on the Montagne de Reims in August 2003, and I still remember the perplexity on the faces of all those we met as they confronted the reality of that fierce summer, Champagne raisins included.
Even the freshest grapes had a very different inner constitution to those of a ‘normally’ warm summer, like 2000, 1990 or 1982.
Bollinger released a vintage 2003, but didn’t call it a Grande Année. Instead, it was `2003 by Bollinger’: deliciously mealy wine in an unusually languid style.
One of the things I love about Clos des Goisses is precisely its stylistic oscillations as it tracks the swerves and lunges of each season.
Its 1996 was all bone; its 2000 much fleshier. I’m looking forward to the `03, and what I trust will be a throb of solar force from this steep, south-facing site above the canal at Mareuil.
Both Port and Champagne are moving away from a history of deliberately irregular vintage declarations and starting to give drinkers a peep at most years.
With Vintage Port, this has been via Quinta releases in lesser vintages; in Champagne, it often comes with an increasing emphasis on vineyard origin.
The fine-wine market is, I suspect, ready to embrace vintage differentiation in a way that it hasn’t been in the past. (This is, after all, one of the things which distinguishes it from inexpensive wine brands – where consistency is paramount.)
Some drinkers, indeed, seek out ‘lesser years’ as a refuge from modish ripeness. The underlying assumption, though, must be that the wine will be a truthful account of the vintage.
Don’t strive to correct nature; select from it instead, so as to deliver the most limpid and resonant account of the year that you can. Otherwise … what’s the point?

Decanter World Wine Awards







Have your say!
champagnifique
February 04 15:47
For Clos des Goisses and Vilmart Coeur de Cuvée their best wines are often the off-vintages. CDG 2003 is a stunning wine!
Joe Polito
March 07 12:49
I am glad Andrew Jeffrod's musings are now available on Mondays on Dwecanters site. He has an intellectual witty style that provokes my imagination. Welcome Andrew.
Jack Wild
March 07 09:53
It's a brave move, and I imagine it will be reserved for the brave for the near future at least. Jacquesson have embraced vintage variation for a good while by numbering their non-vintage cuvees, with little dosage to hide any short-comings, and yet have such a distinguished style.
Perhaps when more of the big houses are able to achieve consistency without producing all too often bland and 'predictable' wines, a lot of Champagne drinkers won't mind the odd bit of variation from bottle to bottle of their NV Moet.
Richard Bampfield
March 07 09:12
I agree, I love wines that genuinely reflect vintage variation and which are not made to a formula. I still wonder if those who have written off the 2003 vintage for red Bordeaux and Burgundy may not have been a little hasty. I think the vintage is far too variable for such generalisation.