Perrier Jouet

[Chris Kissack]

I've been snapping up Champagnes of the 1996 vintage, which seems to have been a fabulous vintage for the region. This is the conclusion of at least one reliable source that I use, but when I purchase cases and half-cases I always like to open a bottle and draw my own conclusions. So far I've found the 1996s to be superb. Along with the 1996 Perrier Jouet I also opened two or three other bottles, but it is for the 1996 that I really post this.

Perrier Jouet was established in 1811 by Pierre Nicolas-Marie Perrier, adding his wife's maiden name, Jouet, to name the house. It was the next generation, however, in the form of Charles Perrier, that did most to build up the reputation of the family business. Thanks to Charles Perrier, Perrier Jouet Champagne soon found its way onto the tables at several European courts. This success financed the construction of a fine chateau on the Avenue de Champagne. Control of Perrier Jouet passed first to nephew Henri Gallace, and then to Louis Budin, a family member by marriage. It was the Budin family that oversaw one of the great additions to the range of Champagnes produced by Perrier Jouet - La Belle Epoque (known as Fleur de Champagne in the USA). In 1959 the Mumm group took control, and subsequently the house was purchased by Seagram. The current owners are the Allied Domecq Group.

Champagne Belle Epoque was the brainchild of Pierre Ernst, an associate of the Budin family. His inspiration was the discovery of a beautifully decorated bottle, dating from 1902, found gathering dust in a cupboard in Perrier Jouet. The bottle bore enamelled artwork by the art nouveau glassmaker Emile Galle. The first vintage of Belle Epoque was the 1964, released in 1969, and sold exclusively through a small number of select outlets. It was joined by the La Belle Epoque Rosé in the 1976 vintage, and later by the La Belle Epoque Blanc de Blancs. Nowadays the wines are much more widely distributed, and certainly have a place in my cellar. The straight Belle Epoque is a blend of 50% Chardonnay, 45% Pinot Noir and 5% Pinot Meunier. The strength of this prestige cuvée is finesse and elegance rather than power or fruit, so for this reason inexperienced critics have been known to discount Belle Epoque, having been underwhelmed on first tasting. Some have even accused Perrier Jouet of putting more effort in to the design of the bottle than the wine that goes into it. These critics have laid bare their lack of understanding of a wine that possesses impeccable balance, something far more valuable than powerful fruit. The Belle Epoque Rosé is made by the addition of red wine rather than the saignée method, with a final blend otherwise very similar to the straight Belle Epoque, with the Chardonnay sourced from Cramant in each case. This is also the source for the Belle Epoque Blanc de Blancs. There was also a Réserve La Belle Epoque released in the 1995 vintage, bottled in 2000 jeroboams, with a whopping price tag - although the price did include a room for two with dinner at the Maison Belle Epoque!

The remainder of the Perrier Jouet range includes the non vintage Grand Brut, 40% Pinot Noir, 40% Pinor Meunier and 20% Chardonnay, and the vintage Grand Brut, a similar blend with just 10% more Chardonnay and 10% less Pinot Meunier than the non vintage cuvée. Both can be excellent. In addition there is Blason de France, a non vintage cuvée launched in 1965. This is a blend of almost one third of each of the three main Champagne grapes, although there is also a Blason de France Rosé which has a little more Pinot Noir and less Chardonnay.

The following wines were tasted in March 2004.

Perrier Jouet Grand Brut Champagne NV: From a half bottle, purchased Summer 2003. Mid gold colour, and a very fine, sparse bead. Lots of interest on the nose, which has the creamy white fruits of youth, but is also showing complex notes of marzipan, lemon meringue and toffee. Full, creamy, with a rich mousse on the palate, although showing firm youthful acidity. Coffee notes in the background. Needs perhaps a year for the acidity to settle, and then should drink very well for a year or two. Obviously standard formats will age differently. Very good.

Perrier Jouet Grand Brut Champagne 1992: A good depth of colour, a yellow-golden wine. Just a gentle bead in the glass. The nose seems quite youthful, with some fresh fruits tinged with a tropical nature, with only emerging hints of maturity, evidenced by fleeting moments of coffee and brioche. Fresh, grippy and youthful on the palate, with great acidity which made this a wonderful food wine. Still dominated by fruit, but with the beginnings of maturity similar to the nose. In the past I've found a number of 1992 Champagnes to have troublesome acidity, but this wine has matured and lost some of the awkwardness of youth evident when I last tasted it two years ago, and the acidity has settled and is now helping it to age gracefully. Would benefit from another three years in the cellar. Very good.

Perrier Jouet Grand Brut Champagne 1996: A good depth of colour here, demonstrating a moderately rich, lemon-gold hue. The nose doesn't give too much away, but it certainly displays elegance, with its pure, creamy, smoky white fruits and nuts. The palate is simply fabulous - it has texture, balance, a fine mousse and piles of leafy white fruit flavour, with a nutty edge, fanning out on the finish to show autolytic complexity. Finesse, richness and character combined, and a fabulous length as well. This is splendid - showing real class now, but destined for greatness. Excellent, potentially outstanding.

Perrier Jouet Belle Epoque Brut Champagne 1990: Golden yellow wine tinged with amber. Wonderful nose, packed with maturing aromas. A subtle note of oxidation adds interest to the oily white fruits, layered with nuances of coffee, toffee, honey, cashew nuts and butterscotch. Sublimely elegant on the palate. Light and fresh, with bright acidity supporting the gentle, creamy texture and correct, slightly sharp mousse. Full flavoured on the finish. This is a wine still on the way up, and has shown some development since last tasted. Excellent.

I also have a few bottles of the Belle Epoque 1996 in the cellar, but just don't have the metal to open one of these yet!

BWs

Chris Kissack

Edited April 7, 2004 by Chris Kissack (log)

[Mark Sommelier]

Chris,

Nice report. Interesting that you devoted 2 sentences to the Mumm-Allied Domecq connection. 2 good reasons to look for recoltant-manipulant Champages, instead.

[Chris Kissack]

Mark

I hear what you say about RM as opposed to the big NM producers. I personally find excellent quality at both levels - Krug, Pol Roger and Jacquesson, for instance, are all Negociant-Manipulants and all are at the pinnacle of Champage production. But equally there are, I accept, wonderful wines produced by Recoltant-Manipulants - I have found pleasure in bottles of Pierre Gimmonet (particularly the Gastronome and Oenophile cuvees), also Andre Jacquart (not to be confused with the co-operative Jacquart, although they produce a good range of widely available and very affordable wines), and more.

BWs

Chris Kissack

[Rieslingfan]

It's always good to read about some of the '96 Champagnes.

I've also been snapping up the '96s, and have tasted a few from NM and RM producers.

The '96 Bollinger Grand Annee is fantastic, perhaps legendary stuff. The '96 Pol Roger is just a short step behind the Bolly.

In the RM arena, the Pierre Peters is great stuff, but needs 5 years to soften up. The '96 Chartogne-Taillet Cuvee Saint Anne is very good, and also a fine value in vintage dated Champagne.

I have not yet seen the '96 P-J wines in my market, but I'll be on the lookout.

[Brad Ballinger]

I think history is going to be extremely complimentary (if not downright slavishly adulatory) of the 1996 vintage in Champagne. Like Mark, I'm an RM slut, and I've had fantastic bottles from Diebolt-Valois, Pierre Peters, Fleury, L. Aubry, Varnier-Fanniere, and Chartogne-Tallet (but the Ficare, not the Saint Anne).

Nice report, Chris. I've been increasingly disappointed with Mumm over the years. I confess, though, to not having had much Perrier-Jouet. But I do have to get me the Belle Epoque -- if for no other reason than the bottle -- for an upcoming wedding anniversary.

Edited for stupid typo.

[Rich Pawlak]

I have 6 bottles of PJ Le Fleur 1988. Any reviews or comments available for this vintage? I've been unsuccessful in locating any reviews.

[Rieslingfan]

I have always enjoyed the '88s. They are more structured than the '89s (even the '90s) and generally aging well. I would definitely pop one ASAP.

'88 Pol Roger tasted recently was stunning and perfectly aged.

[beans]

The '89 I got, with a set of four matching hand painted flutes, was a most lovely birthday gift.

[Craig Camp]

It seems a shame to automatically write-off big NM producers. They represent the classic concept of blending wines from different zones to create a more complex wine. Of course the NM producers only have themselves to blame for the surge in popularity of RM Champagne. Most NM houses have concentrated on raising prices and elaborate promotional programs, while all the while lowering quality to increase profitability. Just try a glass of Mumm's NV Brut to see the sad results of this kind policy - it is a pity to see such wine under the grand name of Champagne.

However, RM producers are certainly not automatically better than the NM houses. A majority of RM wines would be better off in blends as their vineyards and winemaking skills do not warrant separate bottling. Champagne is traditionally the home of great blenders who by blending wines of different zones, varieties and vintages created wines that are greater than they were on their own. These expert blenders are true artists. For instance, to create over 1 million bottles of Dom Perignon at that quality level is a true achievement to be admired.

The growth of RM wines has added a new dimension and excitement to the Champagne market and I also enjoy the wines listed by Brad and Rieslingfan. Yet I think explosion in popularity in RM wines is because wine drinkers today perceive single vineyard/estate wines to be superior in quality to blended wines. In the case of Champagne this is clearly not always the case. I would concur with Chris's list of top NM producers and add Bollinger as wines not surpassed in quality by RM wines. Another reason for the increased popularity in RM brands was that they were not represented by large importers and could be purchased semi-directly by large retailers who wanted to offer Champagne at lower prices while maintaining or increasing their profit margins. This combination of lower price (with more profit) and an "estate bottled" image has fueled the dramatic increase in the sales of RM wines.

I have tasted many insipid wines from both NM and RM producers and faced with a choice between Bollinger NV Brut and an unknown RM wine I will still take the Bollinger - even for a few more dollars a bottle.

[Brad Ballinger]

However, RM producers are certainly not automatically better than the NM houses. A majority of RM wines would be better off in blends as their vineyards and winemaking skills do not warrant separate bottling. Champagne is traditionally the home of great blenders who by blending wines of different zones, varieties and vintages created wines that are greater than they were on their own. These expert blenders are true artists. For instance, to create over 1 million bottles of Dom Perignon at that quality level is a true achievement to be admired.

The growth of RM wines has added a new dimension and excitement to the Champagne market and I also enjoy the wines listed by Brad and Rieslingfan. Yet I think explosion in popularity in RM wines is because wine drinkers today perceive single vineyard/estate wines to be superior in quality to blended wines. In the case of Champagne this is clearly not always the case. I would concur with Chris's list of top NM producers and add Bollinger as wines not surpassed in quality by RM wines. Another reason for the increased popularity in RM brands was that they were not represented by large importers and could be purchased semi-directly by large retailers who wanted to offer Champagne at lower prices while maintaining or increasing their profit margins. This combination of lower price (with more profit) and an "estate bottled" image has fueled the dramatic increase in the sales of RM wines.

Yes, there are plenty of good NM houses making wines of superior quality - Bollinger, Jacquesson, Krug (of course), Pol Roger, Billecart-Salmon...

What I find appealing about many RM wines is their distinctiveness and personality; the uniqueness they offer. And the comparative value (particularly with respect to vintage wines where the quality of harvest from a grand cru can compete with the blends from many vineyards).

Blending invites the possibility of inferior wine in the blend (and not just from an inferior vintage, but from inferior vineyards). And while I agree it takes an art to blend these into ambrosia, the art is being lost and took a hit with the overproduction around Y2K.

[Craig Camp]

It is worth noting that the best NM houses are all small. The big houses are without a doubt blending in too much soft, inferior wine to cut costs and increase production. Just open a bottle of any major producers Brut NV to taste the results. The steady decline of Veuve Cliquot Brut NV over the last decades as the brand increased in popularity and production is a perfect example of this.

The thing is just open a bottle of Veuve at a party and watch how much everyone is impressed by the label and loves the wine. I guess they know what they are doing.

The sad thing is that 20 years ago no wine region in the world had such a high overall level of quality as Champagne. Certainly they can no longer stake this claim.