Champagne 1995 vs 1996: How do these vintages hold up 30 years on?

For all but the most obsessive – and patient – Champagne collectors, the question of assessing whether 1995 or 1996 turned out to be a better vintage might seem like purely an academic one.

Dig a little deeper, however, and there is much to learn for any Champagne or wine lover.

Scroll down for notes and scores for a clutch of 1995 and 1996 Champagnes

1996, together with 2015, can be considered one of the most significant turning points in modern Champagne.

Through the unexpected development of 1996 wines initially heralded as exceptional, the Champenois’ understanding of their climate, ripeness and flavour took a huge leap forward.

Ripeness signals

Although 1996 and 2015 are in some ways polar opposite vintages, they share a common thread: if you picked your grapes based on traditional notions of ripeness, you were probably picking too early.

It’s for this reason that Moët et Chandon cellar master Benoît Gouez called 1996 the ‘most overrated vintage ever’ in 2016, during the launch event of the Grand Vintage 2016.

This was the moment Champagne learnt that merely reaching 10 degrees of potential alcohol on paper did not mean the wines would taste ripe.

This turning point is recognised by Louis Roederer’s Jean-Baptiste Lécaillon, who credits the success of 2008 – similar to 1996 in terms of weather – to the lessons learned in 1996.

‘If 2008 is great today, it’s because all the cellar masters were also there in 1996, and they knew the mistakes they made’.

The growing seasons

On paper, neither of these growing seasons were extreme. That being said, 1995 was undoubtedly more complicated due to warm and wet spells in the late spring and early summer. This initiated a fight against downy mildew that favoured more resilient Chardonnay.

Despite more than 500ha of Champagne being hit with frost in 1995, yields in both years exceeded 10 tonnes per hectare.

The real difference between 1995 and 1996 emerged over the mid summer.

In 1996, cool and cloudy weather kept acidities high. Yet a mild and clement September, with little disease pressure, little dilution and strong, dehydrating winds, resulted in an exaggerated concentration of sugar (which, in hindsight, led to early harvesting).

While 1995’s complications with mildew tarnished the feeling around the vintage, the relatively modest sugar accumulation was not accompanied by any lack of ripe flavour thanks to spells of warmth during critical periods in June and August.

The wines today

Acidity is certainly sky-high in the 1996s. However, as tastings over the last few years have shown, this is not, in my view, the chief issue with some of the wines.

Jancis Robinson MW wrote a decade ago that ‘the fruit was falling away’ in the 1996 Champagnes. That process today is even more evident.

In fact some of the wines – despite being harvested at pleasing sugar levels when acidity had dropped to an acceptable range – show a muted, green-toned fruit that proves that the flavours in the grapes simply weren’t ripe by modern standards.

When you add to that high dosages, prominent lees ageing and malolactic creaminess (which was common in this high acid year), plus a tendency to oxidise, the 1996s today too often come across as extreme, unbalanced and angular.

The 1995s, on the other hand, failed to excite at harvest because the grapes, on paper, were not exceptionally ripe – just 9.2% potential alcohol. By today’s standards this would be disappointing.

The wines, however, have told a different story, offering up-front pleasure, solid structure and good balance, if not the sort of electric acidity or dramatic palates of 1996s. Nonetheless, the 1995s are still in the running for the top wines of the decade.

The exceptions

Although the reputation of 1996 still suffers today, it’s certainly not a write off.

Indeed, Decanter contributor Charles Curtis MW writes in his book Vintage Champagne: ‘Connoisseurs are still arguing about 1996, but I refuse to come down on the side of the haters. Frankly, I have had too much pleasure from too many wines to rank this as anything but five-star status’.

In fact, among the wines tasted side-by-side for this article, the 1996 vintage was preferable in the case of Bollinger’s RD and Louis Roederer’s vintage cuvée.

Further experiences with 1996 buck the trend, including a delicious Pol Roger in magnum and a fabulous Billecart-Salmon Clos St-Hilaire tasted at the estate last year.

Unfortunately, there is not a huge amount of 1995 and 1996 Champagne left on the market. What’s more, there can of course be huge variability with Champagnes of this age due to the vagaries of storage conditions and cork quality.

In short, it’s a lottery, yet overall there are more hits from 1995 today. It will be 1996, though, that remains the more famous of the two – as well as the most controversial.

Tasted and rated: 1995 vs 1996 Champagnes

Many of the wines reviewed below were tasted at a vertical organised by Bordeaux Index in London. Prices and stockists have been listed where available.

Related articles

• Slow and steady: Champagne’s 2004 vintage 20 years on
• Champagne Dhondt-Grellet: The young grower at the top of his game
• Where has all the vintage Champagne gone?