Your Favourite Champagne under $50 USD / $80 AUD

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, Tstew75 said:

'Grower' Champagne houses are the family-owned & operated counterpoints to the large conglomerate/négociant houses like Veuve, Feuillatte,Taittinger, etc. The thought process is that produce superior products with more terroir (sense of place), and typically farm with much more care for the land. Here's a couple of articles (both mentioning the great Michael Skurnik) explaining some finer points:

https://www.skurnik.com/producer-and-place-champagne-today/

https://daily.sevenfifty.com/tracing-the-origin-story-of-grower-champagne/

 

i don't buy the superior product myth. there are great champagnes from the big producers, many more than the growers. not so say that there are not brilliant grower champagnes - ulysse collin, selosse (although divisive), egly, larmarndier, laherte freres, cedric bouchard, agrapart, plenty more - but there are many many growers making very average champagnes. what they have done is focussed the big guys to work on the vineyards and more. anyone who thinks that the growers care more for their vineyards than houses such as louis roederer and quite a few others is kidding themselves. 

the terroir thing is interesting and has merit but partly because the growers have no option. that is all they have. the big guys also doing much more of the small site/vineyard stuff these days. 

[Fugu]

9 hours ago, frenchkiwi said:

My tip - Cremant de Bourgogne can be found at a lower pricepoint circa $USD 20 with similar quality to entry-level champagnes but minus the markup for the more famous AOC.

Concur, at the mid to entry level price end (<$50), you’d often find much better value bubbly outside Champagne. Top cuvées reaching similar price levels. Italian Lombardia (Franciacorta), French Alsace, Loire, Bourgogne, or lesser known German Pfalz/Palatinate, Nahe and Rheinhessen are our go-to regions. Much to discover there. Many grower-sparklings are a steal (serious quality for under 20€), but downside, you won’t find them much outside Europe.

[BrightonCorgi]

5 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

i don't buy the superior product myth. there are great champagnes from the big producers, many more than the growers. not so say that there are not brilliant grower champagnes - ulysse collin, selosse (although divisive), egly, larmarndier, laherte freres, cedric bouchard, agrapart, plenty more - but there are many many growers making very average champagnes. what they have done is focussed the big guys to work on the vineyards and more. anyone who thinks that the growers care more for their vineyards than houses such as louis roederer and quite a few others is kidding themselves. 

the terroir thing is interesting and has merit but partly because the growers have no option. that is all they have. the big guys also doing much more of the small site/vineyard stuff these days. 

You forgot the king of grower Champagne's; Pierre Peters.  Use to be able to buy the BdB for under $50, but that ship sailed.  More like $60ish USD

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, BrightonCorgi said:

You forgot the king of grower Champagne's; Pierre Peters.  Use to be able to buy the BdB for under $50, but that ship sailed.  More like $60ish USD

huge fan of pierre peters, especially les chetillons, but technically not a grower. was but is now registered as a house. 

[BrightonCorgi]

Le Mesnil BdB is a must try in this price range.  Another one of our "case buy" brands.  The importer is in my town and we get it near wholesale locally.  Can be found under $50 quite easily.  From arguably the best region for Champagne.  I have a few currently of Le Mesnil.

 

 

[potpest]

5 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Le Mesnil BdB is a must try in this price range.  Another one of our "case buy" brands.  The importer is in my town and we get it near wholesale locally.  Can be found under $50 quite easily.  From arguably the best region for Champagne.  I have a few currently of Le Mesnil.

I discovered this last year, punches above it's price point and picked up a few of the 2013's on offer at $35 in the UK.

[potpest]

Really enjoyed these lately, got the Villmart for $40 and the Loius Brochet for around $30 on a case deal.

[BettyHumpder]

On 11/3/2022 at 9:35 PM, stevenhaugen said:

For under, $50 I'd go straight to one of the following:

Veuve Clicquot NV - a pinot noir dominated blend that I find is the best entry-level big-name champagne. I get strawberries and wild raspberries from it and could drink this like water.

 

The Wine Society's NV Champagne - it's not as complex as others but this is lemon cheesecake for me. A beautiful brut wine that just keeps giving. It also has a beautiful baked bread character that is more pronounced than other champagnes. From memory (and depending on the final blend) it has fairly equal blends of Pinot Noir and Chardonnay with some Pinot Meunier supporting it. Beautiful.

veuve cliquot will forever be an old standby. nice enough for any occasion, not expensive enough to make you feel bad for drinking it. right down the middle of the highway.

[Tstew75]

16 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

i don't buy the superior product myth. there are great champagnes from the big producers, many more than the growers. not so say that there are not brilliant grower champagnes - ulysse collin, selosse (although divisive), egly, larmarndier, laherte freres, cedric bouchard, agrapart, plenty more - but there are many many growers making very average champagnes. what they have done is focussed the big guys to work on the vineyards and more. anyone who thinks that the growers care more for their vineyards than houses such as louis roederer and quite a few others is kidding themselves. 

the terroir thing is interesting and has merit but partly because the growers have no option. that is all they have. the big guys also doing much more of the small site/vineyard stuff these days. 

I politely disagree.

Lots of misses in your summation of NC's farming practices..it's a terribly dirty business, and most NCs push growers for max yields at the lowest cost. I think you're being way too generous to the 'big' houses vs the small innovators.

But of course everyone makes 'great' wines from time to time, that's a given.

[Ken Gargett]

7 minutes ago, Tstew75 said:

I politely disagree.

Lots of misses in your summation of NC's farming practices..it's a terribly dirty business, and most NCs push growers for max yields at the lowest cost. I think you're being way too generous to the 'big' houses vs the small innovators.

But of course everyone makes 'great' wines from time to time, that's a given.

i agree that for plenty of houses, improvements could be made, often huge improvements. but the better houses have invested massively in this. remember, they have a level of resources that growers can't get anywhere near. and the vineyards which could step up are usually not those owned by the houses but by growers who sell to the houses (which is where they get a large majority of their grapes). reputable houses are doing serious work in their vineyards. i mentioned roederer. i doubt any grower comes close to what they do. 

remember also that of the 20,000 grape growers in the region, around 5,000 do their own wines. i do not see any argument that allows even the majority of these to be considered as making wines that can compete with what most houses do. i'd suggest that if you asked any of the world's experts - juhlin, essi, stevenson - to name 100 growers making wines of that level and i'd be staggered if any of them could do so. not without a hell of a lot of research. say they do find 100, even 150, that means that at maximum, only 2 to 3% of growers are making wines that compete with the better houses. and they are making tiny quantities. it is still niche stuff at best. 

you call them 'small innovators'. and that absolutely applies to some. but a very few. 20 or maybe 30 at most. but again, the vast majority just do whatever they can with their limited resources. no one does marketing better than the champenois and so they turn all this into positives (as you would). but having a grower rave about his incredibly special piece of dirt that might not be rated by anyone else and doesn't 100% meunier go well here and we deliberately use leaky old barrels. it is PR in most cases - that said, no one does it near as well as the big houses. 

i'm not anti-grower by any means. i would have more Ulysse Collin, for example, in my cellar than any other champagne producer. but i am realistic. i know i'll drink plenty of bog average champers from both growers and houses but a much higher percentage from growers. and i'll drink great champagnes from both growers and houses but again, a very high percentage of the great champagnes will come from houses. 

[HDGSN]

[wathabanos]

On 11/3/2022 at 9:35 PM, stevenhaugen said:

For under, $50 I'd go straight to one of the following:

Veuve Clicquot NV - a pinot noir dominated blend that I find is the best entry-level big-name champagne. I get strawberries and wild raspberries from it and could drink this like water.

The Wine Society's NV Champagne - it's not as complex as others but this is lemon cheesecake for me. A beautiful brut wine that just keeps giving. It also has a beautiful baked bread character that is more pronounced than other champagnes. From memory (and depending on the final blend) it has fairly equal blends of Pinot Noir and Chardonnay with some Pinot Meunier supporting it. Beautiful.

+1 to the Veuve Clicquot. Excellent entry level Champagne and my go to if Dom isn’t in stock…

[hawkeye5050]

6 hours ago, chasy said:

Last I was in Napa, it was getting a lot of hype

I was in the area last April and went to Iron Horse over Schramsberg (see my comment above).  IH got my $ for a membership but I did make a point to buy all the Schramsberg I saw at Binnys when I got back. Nothing clicked but I also realize that their good stuff may not make it to midwestern USA retail. So next time in the area I'll try some of the lower volume production.

[Duxnutz]

17 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Le Mesnil BdB is a must try in this price range.  Another one of our "case buy" brands.  The importer is in my town and we get it near wholesale locally.  Can be found under $50 quite easily.  From arguably the best region for Champagne.  I have a few currently of Le Mesnil.

Nice cellar!

[Ken Gargett]

17 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Le Mesnil BdB is a must try in this price range.  Another one of our "case buy" brands.  The importer is in my town and we get it near wholesale locally.  Can be found under $50 quite easily.  From arguably the best region for Champagne.  I have a few currently of Le Mesnil.

big fan of le mesnil - producer and the region, especially the region. 

by chance, just got an offer for this year's egly. seven different wines ranging from the bottom NV at $159 through to the top vintage (08 in this case, which is my fave vintage in a long time) at $1500. might give it a miss. 

[MrBirdman]

On 11/4/2022 at 6:43 PM, Tstew75 said:

I politely disagree.

Lots of misses in your summation of NC's farming practices..it's a terribly dirty business, and most NCs push growers for max yields at the lowest cost. I think you're being way too generous to the 'big' houses vs the small innovators.

But of course everyone makes 'great' wines from time to time, that's a given.

On 11/4/2022 at 7:13 PM, Ken Gargett said:

i agree that for plenty of houses, improvements could be made, often huge improvements. but the better houses have invested massively in this. remember, they have a level of resources that growers can't get anywhere near. and the vineyards which could step up are usually not those owned by the houses but by growers who sell to the houses (which is where they get a large majority of their grapes). reputable houses are doing serious work in their vineyards. i mentioned roederer. i doubt any grower comes close to what they do. 

remember also that of the 20,000 grape growers in the region, around 5,000 do their own wines. i do not see any argument that allows even the majority of these to be considered as making wines that can compete with what most houses do. i'd suggest that if you asked any of the world's experts - juhlin, essi, stevenson - to name 100 growers making wines of that level and i'd be staggered if any of them could do so. not without a hell of a lot of research. say they do find 100, even 150, that means that at maximum, only 2 to 3% of growers are making wines that compete with the better houses. and they are making tiny quantities. it is still niche stuff at best. 

you call them 'small innovators'. and that absolutely applies to some. but a very few. 20 or maybe 30 at most. but again, the vast majority just do whatever they can with their limited resources. no one does marketing better than the champenois and so they turn all this into positives (as you would). but having a grower rave about his incredibly special piece of dirt that might not be rated by anyone else and doesn't 100% meunier go well here and we deliberately use leaky old barrels. it is PR in most cases - that said, no one does it near as well as the big houses. 

i'm not anti-grower by any means. i would have more Ulysse Collin, for example, in my cellar than any other champagne producer. but i am realistic. i know i'll drink plenty of bog average champers from both growers and houses but a much higher percentage from growers. and i'll drink great champagnes from both growers and houses but again, a very high percentage of the great champagnes will come from houses. 

Ken is correct. Just to add some further context, there’s a few things to keep in mind:

1) By volume, a majority of the wine made in champagne is more or less crap. The appellation borders are in many places more a quirk of history than a reflection of terroir or ideal growing conditions. As a result there is a ton of room on very marginal land to grow grapes that can be (and are) made into champagne. 
2) Export markets like the US see only the very top growers imported. So the quality ratio you’ll find on shelves here is totally unreflective of what’s actually being made. Most shitty champagne is consumed in France or exported to supermarkets in Europe at prices we associate with Andre or Korbel. 
3) The most innovative and pioneering winemaker in Champagne works for a major house - Roederer (Jean-Baptiste Lecaillon). He also directs the growing (unusual for Champagne) and all of Roederer’s wines save the entry level NV are grown by the house. 
4) Any champagne, even vintage, that isn’t a single vineyard is blended from multiple parcels. The houses have way more to work with to make a great wine - just look at what Krug can do, and they buy in the vast majority of their grapes.

5) All that said, growers have helped play a role in revitalizing champagne's image and have helped make it a more “serious” wine rather than just celebratory fizz. Good growers can also offer terrific value (see my recommendation above). That’s not true of the most esteemed ones anymore, though even Egly Ouriet’s Blanc de Noirs (their best wine) still retails for around what you pay for Cristal. It’s just much harder to find, and much more expensive than it was even five years ago. Like most growers you’ll have more bottle variation and a higher incident of cork taint than with the houses.

As for Selosse, >90% of people won’t even like his wines, which is convenient since they’re obscenely expensive and almost impossible to find in the US. The ones I’ve had were more like overoxidized wine experiments than something you’d enjoy drinking. His barrel aging regimen imparts oak, which is pretty much always a mistake in champagne because the secondary fermentation turns every flavor up to 11. Try it if someone else pays, otherwise grab a bottle of Egly or Les Chettions from Pierre Peters for a real grower treat. 

[Ken Gargett]

3 minutes ago, MrBirdman said:

Ken is correct. Just to add some further context, there’s a few things to keep in mind:

1) By volume, a majority of the wine made in champagne is more or less crap. The appellation borders are in many places more a quirk of history than a reflection of terroir or ideal growing conditions. As a result there is a ton of room on very marginal land to grow grapes that can and are made into champagne. 
2) Exports markets like the US see only the very top growers imported. So the quality ratio you’ll find on shelves here is totally unreflective of what’s actually being made. Most shitty champagne is consumed in France or exported to supermarkets in Europe at prices we associate with Andre or Korbel. 
3) The most innovative and pioneering winemaker in Champagne works for a major house - Roederer (Jean-Baptiste Lecaillon). He also directs the growing (unusual for Champagne) and all of Roederer’s wines save the entry level NV are grown by the house. 
4) Any champagne, even vintage, that isn’t a single vineyard is blended from multiple parcels. The houses have way more to work with to make a great wine - just look at what Krug can do, and they buy in the vast majority of their grapes.

5) All that said, growers have helped play a role in revitalizing champagnes imagine and have helped make it a more “serious” wine rather than just celebratory fizz. Good growers can also offer terrific value (see my recommendation above). That’s not true of the most esteemed ones anymore, though even Egly Ouriet’s Blanc de Noirs (their best wine) still retails for around what you pay for Cristal. It’s just much harder to find. And like all growers you’ll have more bottle variation and a higher incident of cork taint than with most houses.

As for Selosse, >90% of people won’t even like his wines, which is convenient since they’re obscenely expensive and almost impossible to find in the US. The ones I’ve had were more like overoxidized wine experiments than something you’d enjoy drinking. His barrel aging regimen imparts oak, which is pretty much always a mistake in champagne because the secondary fermentation turns every flavor up to 11. Try it if someone else pays, otherwise grab a bottle of Egly or Les Chettions from Pierre Peters for a real grower treat. 

only thing with which i don't agree is that pierre peters is no longer a "grower". they took the decision to move away from that and reset themselves. that said, les chetillons is one of my fave champagnes. and it probably shows that the debate of one against the other is a bit meaningless. in the end, it is what is in the bottle and not what category of producer into which they fall.

selosse is interesting. agree with what you say. the odd thing is that he is seen as the king of growers (in a way justifiably as he did so much to kick off the movement). but his wines are so divisive. i have had a couple that were sublime, some were okay and some were little more than toxic bombs. at that price, no thanks. reminds me of the days of didier dageuneau, from the loire before he flew into the mountain. some of the great whites wines and certainly the best sauv blanc i've seen, some were okay and some were below bog average. they were not cheap but they sure as hell were not selosse money. 

[MrBirdman]

On 11/5/2022 at 2:12 AM, Ken Gargett said:

only thing with which i don't agree is that pierre peters is no longer a "grower". they took the decision to move away from that and reset themselves. that said, les chetillons is one of my fave champagnes. and it probably shows that the debate of one against the other is a bit meaningless.

Exactly, and I completely agree. I think a number of “growers” have a negotiant card so that they can maintain consistency in their NV. It changes virtually nothing about their winemaking and is further proof that big, small, and in between can all make excellent wine. 

I think part of Selosse’s allure is that, as you say, he helped kick off the grower fad, and a significant number of winemakers who studied under him are now successful growers. His wines are one of those goods that’s talked about far more than it’s consumed, even by people who’ve had the opportunity to try it. In other words, it’s a status symbol for wine aficionados. 

I feel like Selosse is, to some degree, like orange or “natural” wine in that the veneration is driven more by hip sommeliers than wine drinkers. Convenient for them since 5-Star wine lists are about the only way to get a bottle in this country. 

[Tstew75]

37 minutes ago, MrBirdman said:

Ken is correct. Just to add some further context, there’s a few things to keep in mind:

1) By volume, a majority of the wine made in champagne is more or less crap. The appellation borders are in many places more a quirk of history than a reflection of terroir or ideal growing conditions. As a result there is a ton of room on very marginal land to grow grapes that can be (and are) made into champagne. 
2) Export markets like the US see only the very top growers imported. So the quality ratio you’ll find on shelves here is totally unreflective of what’s actually being made. Most shitty champagne is consumed in France or exported to supermarkets in Europe at prices we associate with Andre or Korbel. 
3) The most innovative and pioneering winemaker in Champagne works for a major house - Roederer (Jean-Baptiste Lecaillon). He also directs the growing (unusual for Champagne) and all of Roederer’s wines save the entry level NV are grown by the house. 
4) Any champagne, even vintage, that isn’t a single vineyard is blended from multiple parcels. The houses have way more to work with to make a great wine - just look at what Krug can do, and they buy in the vast majority of their grapes.

5) All that said, growers have helped play a role in revitalizing champagnes imagine and have helped make it a more “serious” wine rather than just celebratory fizz. Good growers can also offer terrific value (see my recommendation above). That’s not true of the most esteemed ones anymore, though even Egly Ouriet’s Blanc de Noirs (their best wine) still retails for around what you pay for Cristal. It’s just much harder to find. And like all growers you’ll have more bottle variation and a higher incident of cork taint than with most houses.

As for Selosse, >90% of people won’t even like his wines, which is convenient since they’re obscenely expensive and almost impossible to find in the US. The ones I’ve had were more like overoxidized wine experiments than something you’d enjoy drinking. His barrel aging regimen imparts oak, which is pretty much always a mistake in champagne because the secondary fermentation turns every flavor up to 11. Try it if someone else pays, otherwise grab a bottle of Egly or Les Chettions from Pierre Peters for a real grower treat. 

In response:

1) Most definitely, most of which is made by NCs. Volume & financials require this

2) Of course. I'm never speaking to whats avail on the ground in FR. Shit, last time I was in Champagne (with a weak ass dollar), i bought special VV cuvees for about 50% off US prices

3) Noted on Roederer, they have unlimited cash so that makes sense. I wouldn't call anyone 'the most innovative and pioneering' tho...it's spread out amongst quite a few brilliant minds there (old & young)

4) I completely understand the concept of NMs having vast amounts of reserve wines to blend from...I used to sell Bollinger in the US for for many years & they make magic happen with that. Blending is everything, I get it

5) Growers definitely did help revitalize/revolutionize the industry...anyone who says otherwise has their head in the sand. Have to say I disagree about the cork taint prevalence, that's a bold statement that needs backing up. Cork taint is everywhere in the wine world, all the time...

Selosse- I've had it multiple times & its always oxidized. Not my thing, especially for that crazy coin

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, MrBirdman said:

Exactly, and I completely agree. I think a number of “growers” have a negotiant card  so that they can maintain consistency in their NV. It changes virtually nothing about their winemaking and is further proof that big, small, and in between can all make excellent wine. 

I think part of Selosse’s allure is that, as you say, he helped kick off the grower fad, and a significant number of winemakers who studied under him are now successful growers. His wines are one of those goods that’s talked about far more than it’s consumed, even by people who’ve had the opportunity to try it. In other words, it’s a status symbol for wine aficionados. 

I feel like Selosse is, to some degree, like orange or “natural” wine in that the veneration is driven more by hip sommeliers than wine drinkers. Convenient for them since 5-Star wine lists are about the only way to get a bottle in this country. 

over here, i know a number of winelovers who buy selosse - a friend in brizzy actually arranged for its importation, though subsequently poached, i think. but i think they buy more for having complete cellars rather than any great love for it. they rarely seem to drink it. 

 

39 minutes ago, Tstew75 said:

In response:

1) Most definitely, most of which is made by NCs. Volume & financials require this

2) Of course. I'm never speaking to whats avail on the ground in FR. Shit, last time I was in Champagne (with a weak ass dollar), i bought special VV cuvees for about 50% off US prices

3) Noted on Roederer, they have unlimited cash so that makes sense. I wouldn't call anyone 'the most innovative and pioneering' tho...it's spread out amongst quite a few brilliant minds there (old & young)

4) I completely understand the concept of NMs having vast amounts of reserve wines to blend from...I used to sell Bollinger in the US for for many years & they make magic happen with that. Blending is everything, I get it

5) Growers definitely did help revitalize/revolutionize the industry...anyone who says otherwise has their head in the sand. Have to say I disagree about the cork taint prevalence, that's a bold statement that needs backing up. Cork taint is everywhere in the wine world, all the time...

Selosse- I've had it multiple times & its always oxidized. Not my thing, especially for that crazy coin

interesting point about the taint and one i had not really thought about. cork producers have undoubtedly done a great deal of work in recent years and their products are better than they were but not perfect. see it occasionally with champagnes though not too often.

had not thought about a division between growers and houses. the only reason i could suggest that there is a preponderance with growers (if indeed there is) is that producers can buy corks of different quality. so the doms, selosse, roederers etc can afford to pay that little extra to get the top corks while the bulk of growers, and the houses pushing cheaper champagnes are much more likely to save a few cents on each (it adds up) and those lesser quality corks could be causing this. but i have a feeling that none of us are drinking the bog average cheap champers and so we do not see that.

meant to add that i do completely agree with that. they basically got the houses to get their acts together and improve quality across the board, but i don't see that as meaning they necessarily have a superior product. but i guess we have been over all that. 

[SirVantes]

Just to veer this thread off into yet another direction - does anyone here collect plaques de muselets (the metal capsule attached to the wire cage holding the champagne corks)?  

[Boxer31]

Veuve Clicquot

Billecart Salmon (believe this was mentioned during the champagne master class and over the holidays it was on sale for 50 and picked up a couple - everybody really liked it)

[helix]

I am a complete wine and champagne Philistine . Enjoy this for $23.95 cad. LOL

Louis Bouillot Perle d'Aurore Crémant de Bourgogne

  

[MrBirdman]

On 11/5/2022 at 2:55 AM, Tstew75 said:

3) Noted on Roederer, they have unlimited cash so that makes sense. I wouldn't call anyone 'the most innovative and pioneering' tho...it's spread out amongst quite a few brilliant minds there (old & young)

4) I completely understand the concept of NMs having vast amounts of reserve wines to blend from...I used to sell Bollinger in the US for for many years & they make magic happen with that. Blending is everything, I get it

5) Growers definitely did help revitalize/revolutionize the industry...anyone who says otherwise has their head in the sand. Have to say I disagree about the cork taint prevalence, that's a bold statement that needs backing up. Cork taint is everywhere in the wine world, all the time...

My comment on JBL is naturally my opinion, not a statement of fact, though I think his influence on growing technique is where he's truly in a league of his own. You are of course correct in saying that there's a number of innovators in champagne. It's an exciting time for the region.

Agree on Bollinger - I think their last several vintage releases have been superb as well. 

Fair enough on the cork taint comment - that is only my anecdotal experience, no hard data to back it up so it could very well be that there's no difference. And as for bottle variation, I probably should have qualified that by saying that some growers still have more bottle variation than the houses (all Champagne has it to some degree). Many of those in the US market now have gotten that issue sorted out. I guess I was thinking about my Egly recommendation when I said that. I still experience it with his wines, though to be clear some of that variation is a bit like with CC - not necessarily good vs. bad, but rather "different." And like with CC it can add to the joy (and frustration) of enjoyment! But unfortunately he's one grower where I've had a higher incidence of cork taint (or just rotten luck), though to be clear it's still only on maybe 5-7% of bottles. And I should qualify that by saying I am very sensitive to TCA.