Tag Archives: biodynamic

60 Second Wine Review — 2004 Nicolas Joly Coulée de Serrant

A few quick thoughts on the 2004 Nicolas Joly Clos de la Coulée de Serrant.

The Geekery

Hugh Johnson describes Nicolas Joly in his Wine Companion as one of the “high priest” of Biodynamics and says he was the first French vigneron to apply Rudolf Steiner’s principles to grape growing.

Located in the Anjou region of the Loire Valley, Savennières is noted for dry 100% Chenin blanc wines that are often distinctly different from the better known Vouvray wines of Touraine.

Along with Château-Grillet and Romanée Conti, the 17 acre vineyard of Coulée de Serrant is one of three estates to have their own AOCs. First planted by Cistercian monks in 1130, the vineyard has nearly 900 years of winemaking history. Owned by the Joly family since 1959, the average age of the vines are 35-80 years.

The wine is harvested late in multiple passes through the vineyard over 3-4 weeks. It is then fermented in neutral wood with native yeasts–allowing the fermentation itself to regulate the temperature. This can often take 2 to 4 months for the wine to get to complete dryness. Around 2,000 cases a year are made.

The Wine

The color looks like an aged Sauternes or an orange wine but the high intensity nose isn’t sweet or oxidized. Instead it is very floral with honeysuckle and apple blossoms as well as some spicy ginger. Underneath there is a little straw hay and subtle orange citrus notes.

Photo by Walter Siegmund. Released on Wikimedia Commons under CC-BY-2.5

Very fresh floral honeysuckle notes characterize this 13+ yr Chenin.

On the palate the wine has incredible weight with an oiliness and some tannin texture to the mouthfeel. Lots of rocky minerality that is amplified by the still fresh and vibrant high acidity. The orange notes come through and bring an apricot note that aren’t quite dried but aren’t fresh as well. Long finish brings back the spicy ginger.

The Verdict

Stunningly beautiful for a 13+ year white wine that probably has the legs to go on for several more years.

At $90-110, there is certainly a premium for this wine but the character and complexity is off the charts.

Subscribe to Spitbucket

New posts sent to your email!

60 Second Wine Review — Les Faverelles Bourgogne Vézelay

A few quick thoughts on the 2015 Les Faverelles Le nez de Muse Bourgogne Vézelay.

The Geekery

Les Faverelles was founded in 2001 by Patrick Bringer and Isabelle Georgelin in the village of Asquins tucked in the foothills of the Morvan massif in northwest Burgundy.

Part of the Yonne department, south of Chablis and the Sauvignon blanc AOC of Saint-Bris, Vézelay is a Chardonnay-only AOC that was recently promoted to village-level classification (like Meursault or Chassagne-Montrachet) in 2017. Red wines produced in the region qualify for only the Bourgogne AOC.

The husband and wife team of Les Faverelles farm all 13.5 acres of Pinot noir, Chardonnay and César organically with some plots biodynamic. Adhering to several Natural Wine principles, the wines see little to no sulfur additions and are bottled unfined and unfiltered. The entire estate produces around 20,000 bottles a year.

The Le nez de Muse Bourgogne Vézelay is 100% Chardonnay from vines that are over 18 years of age. The wine saw no oak and was aged in stainless steel.

The Wine

Medium intensity. A mix of citrus and apple notes with some subtle floral notes like lillies. Very fresh and clean smelling.

On the palate the citrus notes dominate and are still very fresh–like you just plucked a lemon off the tree and sliced into it. Noticeably high acidity but the medium weight of the fruit balances it surprisingly well. Moderate finish brings a suggestion of some stoney minerality but fades fairly quickly.

Photo by Andrew Comings. Uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under CC-BY-2.0

Fresh cut lemon notes dominate this wine.

The Verdict

This was my first time trying a Vézelay and it was certainly pleasant enough. I paired it with seared scallops which, given the racy acidity and citrus notes, was probably the best approach.

At $16-20, it is priced like a Petit Chablis and while there are some similarities, I do think you’re paying a premium. Especially when you consider the value of an over-performing Petit Chablis like the Dauvissat from my review of the SommSelect Blind Six, it’s hard to say this wine is a compelling value worth hunting for.

Subscribe to Spitbucket

New posts sent to your email!

60 Second Wine Review — Chambert Gourmand Cahors

Today is Malbec World Day (Why it isn’t World Malbec Day, I don’t know) so I thought I would share a few thoughts on the 2012 Château de Chambert Gourmand from the Cahors region of southwest France.

The Geekery

Château de Chambert is a very old estate in Cahors, founded in 1690 by Madamoiselle Lalvallette. In 1857, one of her descendants married into the Bataille family with the estate passing into their care.

The French General Marie Désiré Pierre Bataille, a hero of World War I who died at the battle of Col du Bonhomme, was born at the Chateau.

Today the estate is owned by the Lejeune family who began converting the property to biodynamics in 2007. At around 160 acres, it’s the largest certified biodynamic producer in Cahors.

Stéphane Derenoncourt, the notable Bordeaux consultant (of Canon-la-Gaffelière, La Mondotte, Pavie-Macquin and Les Carmes Haut-Brion fame) assists the winemaking.

The Gourmand label is the estate’s “bistro wine” and is usually majority Malbec with some Merlot blended in.

The Wine

Medium intensity nose. Red fruit mixed with blue flower notes that aren’t very defined. Around the edges is a subtle herbalness.

Photo by Fir0002. Released on Wikimedia Commons under  CC-BY-SA-3.0

Red cherry plum notes characterize this wine.

On the palate those red fruits come through and are more pronounced as cherry plums. A little bit of black pepper spice joins the party with the still undefined herbal notes. Medium-plus acidity seems more tart than fresh and also amplifies the grippy medium-plus tannins. The moderate finish brings back the floral notes but mostly ends with the tart cherry plums.

The Verdict

At around $9-12, this bistro wine is meant to be enjoyed with food and it did pair well with the burger I had it with. But I suspect that it’s probably at least 2 years past when it should have been opened as the faded fruit is not enough to balance the acidity and tannins at this point.

Though I would have no qualms with trying a newer vintage as I can see it delivering a fair amount of value.

Subscribe to Spitbucket

New posts sent to your email!

Wine Geek Notes 4/9 — Organic Wine, 2017 Bordeaux and Component Wines

Photo by Hudson C. S. de Souza. Released on Wikimedia Commons under  CC-BY-SA-4.0

Here is what I’m reading today in the world of wine.

Isabelle Legeron MW: why it matters what wine we drink and food we eat by Alistair Morrell for The Buyer (@TheBuyer11)

I recently finished reading Clark Smith’s Postmodern Winemaking: Rethinking the Modern Science of an Ancient Craft where he advocates for a balance between winemakers using all the tools at their disposal (like reverse osmosis, cross-flow filtration, etc) but not lose sight of “soulful winemaking” and letting the wine tell the story of where it came from. It’s almost a contradictory position that is the vino-equivalent of the Kobayashi Maru.

Throughout the entire book, Smith advocates for, above all, more transparency in winemaking. A winemaker shouldn’t use any tool or additive that he or she would not feel comfortable openly talking about. In that regard, he and Master of Wine Isabelle Legeron would be kindred spirits.

In her interview with Alistair Morrell, Legeron draws the connection between consumers’ concerns over sourcing and knowing what’s exactly in their food and how that is changing the wine they are drinking. However, as I discovered in researching for my article about Vegan wines, the wine industry has a bit of a halo effect that has long been given a free pass in most consumers’ minds because—it’s just grapes, right? Well….not exactly.

Like Smith, I don’t think winemakers should be demonized for using technology but I also find sympathy with Legeron’s view that consumers should know what kind of chemicals are being used in the vineyards, what additives like Mega-Purple or oak chips do and what in the world was done to make a wine like Apothic Brew exist.

The article also touches on some of the issues that “natural producers” dealt with in the troublesome vintage 2017 which brings me to my next article of interest.

Photo by Benjamin Zingg, Switzerland. Uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under CC-BY-SA-2.5

Ch. Rauzan-Ségla in Margaux

The 2017 Bordeaux Barrels Diary: A View from the Top at Château Canon by James Molesworth (@JMolesworth1) for Wine Spectator (@WineSpectator)

As the 2018 en primeur tastings wrap up, we’re getting ready for the start of the 2017 Bordeaux Futures campaign. I’m buckling down into my research as I plot my own personal strategy and purchases. I bought very heavily in the 2015 and 2016 campaigns so I naturally expect to buy much less in 2017.

But I’ll still buy something. My initial instinct is that 2017 could serve as a fair “cellar defender” vintage meant to be open for more short term consumption. I use the term “cellar defender” because my cellar will now have a nice stash of 2015/2016 that I will need to fight off the temptation to open too soon–a fate that has unfortunately befallen many of my 2009/2010 gems. If I want to get the full value of my pleasure investment in these potentially great 2015/2016 wine, I will need to have a few good “sacrificial lambs” to help keep my grubby paws off the good stuff.

The key will be in sorting through the hype and fluff to find the real value. I don’t want to pay filet mignon prices for my mutton.

The Chanel Group’s holding of Ch. Canon, Ch. Rauzan-Ségla and now Ch. Berliquet intrigue me because the first two have undoubtedly been on the upswing and reaping the benefit of investments in the vineyards and winery. Rauzan-Ségla has particularly impressed me with delivering quality results in the troublesome 2012 and 2013 vintages. While I would not want to go into the $100+ range, if the 2017 is priced in the $75-80 range like those 2012/2013s then I might be intrigued.

However, having the Chanel team now at Ch. Berliquet (which is priced in the $35-40 range) could be some very enticing mutton

Making Varietal Wines in Bordeaux by Vicki Denig (@vicki_denig‏) for Seven Fifty Daily (@SevenFiftyDaily). Brought to my dash via John Corcoran (@jncorcoran1).

Going along with my Bordeaux mood, I got very excited reading about this new project with Michael H. Kennedy II of Component Wine Company in Napa (a protege of Aldo Sohm) and Château Lynch-Bages to come up with a special series of varietal wines from some of the Cazes family’s holdings in the Left Bank.

While blending is always going to be intimately connected with Bordeaux, the chance to try the individual components in isolation (from such a high quality producer) is worth geeking out over. Of course it will depend on if the price is crazy or not. While I expect to pay $100+ for Ch. Lynch-Bages, I’m not sure a varietal Cabernet Franc from them at that price is going to entice me. My optimistic hope is that these Component wines will be priced more in the $35-45 range.

I signed up for Component Wine Company’s mailing list to keep an eye on this project and will post any updates.

What’s On Deck for SpitBucket

In addition to getting knee deep in readings about the 2017 Bordeaux vintage and Futures campaign, I’m also prepping for my upcoming trip to Paso Robles for Hospice du Rhone at the end of this month and a trip to Burgundy at the end of May. So expect to see a few more posts geeking out about Rhone varietals and a couple more installments in my “Keeping up with the Joneses in Burgundy” series.

My top wine at the 2017 Wine Spectator Grand Tasting was this Adobe Road Cabernet Sauvignon from the Beckstoffer Vineyard Georges III in Rutherford.

In the middle, I’ll also be attending the Wine Spectator Grand Tour Tasting in Las Vegas. You can check out the first part of my three part series from last year’s Grand Tour Tasting here.

While my blog postings won’t be as frequent during my travels, I will still be posting regularly to Instagram and Twitter so feel free to follow me on those platforms as well.

Cheers!

Subscribe to Spitbucket

New posts sent to your email!

60 Second Wine Review — 2000 Beaucastel Châteauneuf-du-Pape

A few quick thoughts on the 2000 Château Beaucastel Châteauneuf-du-Pape.

The Geekery

According to Harry Karis in The Chateauneuf-du-Pape Wine Book, the origins of Beaucastel date back to 1549 when Pierre de Beaucastel purchased land in Coudoulet. The property came under the control of its current owners, the Perrin family, in 1909 when Pierre Tramier purchased the property and turned it over to his son-in-law, Pierre Perrin.

Beaucastel is most notable for using the 13 historic grape varieties of Châteauneuf-du-Pape. According to their website:

Grenache and Cinsault provide warmth, colour and roundness; Mourvèdre, Syrah, Muscardin and Vaccarèse provide structure, aging abilities, colour and a very straight taste; Counoise and Picpoul provide body, freshness and very particular aromas.

Since the 1960s, all the vineyards have been farmed organically with several parcels biodynamic.

The 2000 vintage was a blend of 30% Grenache, 30% Mourvèdre, 10% Syrah, 10% Counoise, 5% Cinsault and 15% combined of Vaccarèse, Terret noir, Muscardin, Clairette, Picpoul, Picardan, Bourboulenc, Roussanne.

Each grape variety is harvested and fermented separately. For reductive grapes like Mourvèdre and Syrah, fermentation is done in oak barrels while oxygen-sensitive grapes like Grenache are fermented in cement tanks. The finished blend is aged for a year in large foudres. Around 16,665 cases made.

Photo by	Jon Sullivan. Released on Wikimedia Commons under PD-author

Savory grilled meats notes feature prominently in this wine.

The Wine

High intensity nose. Lots of tertiary notes–meatiness, leather and tobacco spice. With some air, you get dried red cherries.

On the palate, those savory characters come through but more “animal-like”. Two Brett Stars but very well balanced with smoke and tobacco spice. Medium-plus acidity takes the dried red cherry notes and bring them back to life with freshness. Medium tannins are quite soft but still provide good structure. Long finish ends on the spice and meaty notes.

The Verdict

Gorgeous on several levels. For folks who like savory and tertiary notes, this wine is drinking perfectly now and with the acid will probably still be giving pleasure for at least 3-5 more years.

Well worth the $100 average retail but even at a restaurant mark-up around $185, I still think this is an exquisite bottle.

Subscribe to Spitbucket

New posts sent to your email!

60 Second Wine Review — Hedges In Vogue Cabernet Sauvignon

A few quick thoughts on the 2016 Hedges In Vogue Cabernet Sauvignon from Red Mountain.

The Geekery

Hedges Family Estate started in 1987 when Tom and Anne-Marie Hedges’ contacts in the produce industry asked them to create a Washington wine that could be sold in Sweden. In 1989, the Hedges purchased fifty acres on Red Mountain with construction of the chateau that now sits in the middle of their vineyards beginning in 1995.

In Washington Wines, Paul Gregutt notes that Hedges Family Estate is the largest family-owned winery in Washington State. Firmly established on Red Mountain, the Hedges family were one of the strongest advocates for the region getting recognized as an AVA in 2001.

Tom’s brother, Pete, was the first winemaker at Hedges with the Hedges’ daughter, Sarah Hedges Goedhart, joining as assistant winemaker in 2006 and taking over head winemaking duties on Pete’s retirement in 2015.

Sarah started in the wine industry at Santa Barbara Winery before moving to Sonoma to work at Preston Farm & Winery in the Dry Creek Valley. Here she was introduced to the principles of biodynamics.

Hedges has been farming their estate fruit sustainably since 2003 but in 2008 began converting their vineyards to biodynamics. By 2015, 40% of their 125 acres of vines were certified Biodynamic by the Demeter Association.

The Wine

Medium intensity nose. Some dark fruit and noticeable oak spice but they aren’t very defined at this point.

Photo by Gandydancer. Uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under CC-BY-SA-3.0

This young wine has a basket of dark fruit that will develop beautifully.

On the palate, you get the richness of the dark fruit and smoothness of the oak vanilla but, again, not very defined. Medium-plus acidity and high tannins highlight the big, robust structure of this wine and foretells well for its aging and development. Moderate length finish.

The Verdict

The 2016 Hedges In Vogue Cabernet Sauvignon is super young but has all the ingredients to develop well over the next couple years.

At around $30, it’s on the low end for a Red Mountain Cab from a top estate so this potentially could develop into quite a steal. Worth revisiting in at least 6 months.

Subscribe to Spitbucket

New posts sent to your email!

What’s fine (and not so fine) about Vegan Wines

Photo by www.Pixel.la Free Stock Photos. Uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under CC-Zero

Veganism is described as one of the fastest growing lifestyle movements in the world. Some estimates claim that in the United states alone, there was a 500% increase between 2014 and 2017 in the number of Americans (around 19 million) identifying as vegan.

For the wine industry, that is a sizable demographic that retailers and wineries have value in marketing to.

So what makes a wine “vegan-friendly”?

For the most part, veganism is a code of conduct that avoids using any animal products or by products as well as anything that has been tested on animals. There are various reasons why people adopt veganism but often ethical concerns about the treatment of animals and impact on the environment are cited.

While wine is often assumed to be vegan, the use of animal-based fining agents such as casein (milk protein), albumin (egg whites), isinglass (fish bladders) and gelatin (animal collagen) in winemaking is problematic for many vegans.

Let’s Talk About Fining Agents

As Alison Crowe notes in The Wine Maker’s Answer Book, fining agents are used to help clarify and stabilize wine by binding to molecules such as proteins and excess tannins. These are items that can cause unsightly haze in the bottle, aggressive bitterness on the palate, off odors and flavors. The agent binds to the target molecule to form larger structures that eventually precipitates and settles to the bottom of tank or barrel as sediment.

Bruce W. Zoecklein et. al in Wine Analysis and Production classified the various fining agents into 8 categories based on their nature.

Photo by self. Uploaded as User:Agne27 to Wikimedia Commons under  CC-BY-SA-3.0

Isinglass and bentonite fining trials.


1.) Earths like bentonite and kaolin
2.) Proteins like the animal based ones above
3.) Polysaccharides like gum arabic and Sparkolloid
4.) Carbons like activated carbon
5.) Synthetic polymers like polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (or PVPP)
6.) Silica gels like silicon dioxide or Kieselsol
7.) Tannins often derived from insect galls on oak leaves though oak chip fining can also fall into this category.
8.) Others which includes both enzymatic fining (more fining aids rather than fining agents) and chelators that assist in the removal of metals such as “blue fining” with potassium ferrocyanide (illegal to use in the United States).

The different fining agents work on principles of electrical charge (like positively charged gelatin reacting with negatively charged tannins), bond formation (like the carbonyl group of PVPP bonding with the hydroxyl group of tannins) and by absorption/adsorption (like activated carbon absorbing off odors or bentonite adsorbing proteins).

There are positive and negative attributes to each fining agent with no one fining agent being perfect for every situation.

Animal-based Fining Agents

Egg whites (Albumin) Used primarily to remove excess tannins. Works by forming hydrogen bonds with the hydroxyl groups of tannins. Compared to other fining agents like gelatin, albumin tends to remove less positive flavor and aroma traits. Egg whites have a long history of use in winemaking in places like Bordeaux and Burgundy. The usual addition is 1 to 3 egg whites per 225L (59 gallon) barrel.

Casein (Milk protein) Used primarily to remove browning or pink color in white wine. Can also be used to remove some off odors. Works by adsorption and attracting negatively charged particles. Like with egg whites, it has a long history of use in wine production, particularly with the great white wines of Burgundy. It also has the benefit of reducing the concentration of iron and copper in wine. In red wines, it can negatively impact the wine by removing the polyphenol resveratrol that has been associated with various health benefits.

Gelatin (derived from the boiling of animal tissues like bones and tendons) Used primarily to remove excess tannins. It has a positive charge that reacts to the negative charge of harsh tannins. It can be prone to over-fining that can strip a wine of positive flavors and aromas.

A heat stability trial for rose wines that have been fined with isinglass.

Isinglass (derived from the air bladder of fish like sturgeons). Used primarily to help clarifying wines, remove excess tannins and to “unmask” or bring out varietal character.

Chitosan (derived from chitin in the exoskeleton of crustaceans) Used primarily to remove haze causing proteins from white wines. A positively charged agent, it often needs to be paired with a negatively charged fining agent like Kieselsol to be most effective.

Blood Albumen (derived from the blood of ox and cattle) historically used but illegal in the United states, France and several other countries.

Vegan-friendly Alternatives

The website Barnivore is a database of wines and other liquors that have been vetted by users to be either “vegan-friendly” or not. In answering queries about their use of animal based fining agents, many wineries share their alternative methods.

Photo by self. Uploaded as User:Agne27 to Wikimedia Commons under  CC-BY-SA-3.0

Letting the wine settle and clarify on its own before racking into another container is one method to avoid using fining agents.


One common method is the use of time and gravity to let the wine settle and clear out on its own. This is the technique used by Baldacci in the Stags Leap District and many other wineries. Depending on several factors like the health of the grapes, method of pressing, pH and temperature, this method could take several months and even then the wine might not be completely stable. Some wineries facilitate this method with the use of mechanical centrifuges and ultra-filtration but these carry the risk of being overly aggressive and potentially stripping the wine of positive flavor and aroma attributes.

Along those lines, many wineries adopt a hands-off method of not fining or filtering their wines at all. This is the method used by many high-end wine producers like Black Cordon and Kapcsandy in Napa Valley. This does carry the risk of haze and sediment developing in the bottle but the risk is often presented to consumers as a trade-off for having potentially more complex and flavorful wines.

The most used “vegan-friendly” fining agent is bentonite, a type of clay that can dramatically swell in size to adsorb protein molecules. This is the method used by wineries like Chinook in Washington State, Ideology in Napa Valley, Spier in South Africa and many others. One big drawback is that it causes significant loss of wine volume due to the heavy sediment it creates. As much as 5-10% of volume could be lost. Roger B. Boulton et al notes in Principles and Practices of Winemaking that these voluminous bentonite lees also create a large amount of solid waste that can have an environmental impact (such as sealing percolation ponds) if not properly disposed. In red wine, there is also a risk of color loss.

Photo by self. Uploaded as User:Agne27 to Wikimedia Commons under CC-BY-SA-3.0

The lees sediment and volume loss from bentonite can be significant (between 5-10%). Using counter-fining agents like isinglass can help with lees compaction but would obviously make the wine not vegan-friendly.

Some wineries like Amici use the technique of “yeast fining” for wines like their 2013 Russian River Pinot noir. This involves adding fresh yeast to a wine where their cell walls (which are about 30% positively charged proteins) can adsorb many polyphenols and compounds that can cause off odors. It brings the risk of the yeast breaking down as lees, releasing sulfur compounds and enhancing reductive notes. Also, if not removed by filtration, the yeast in the bottle can start re-fermenting any residual sugars–causing spritziness in what is, otherwise, supposed to be a non-sparkling wine.

PVPP is a synthetic polymer that can remove bitter tannins and brown discoloration from white wines. Like casein, it can remove the polyphenol resveratrol from red wines. There is also a risk of overfining with the PVPP binding to desirable tannins and anthocyanins needed for structure and color.

Sparkalloid is a blend of polysaccharides and diatomaceous earth (fossilized algae) that can be used to clarify white wines. It does take significant time to eventually settle and creates a fair amount of waste with the DE that requires proper disposal.

Activated Carbon can be used to remove off-odors such as mercaptans (rotten eggs, burnt match). It does have the risk of overly oxidizing wine as well as stripping color and resveratrol from red wines.

New Developments on the Horizon

Ronald S. Jackson notes in Wine Science that fears about the prions potentially in gelatin and “Mad Cow” disease, encouraged studies into the use of plant proteins like wheat gluten as a substitute for gelatin. (Note: most gelatin used in US winemaking is derived from pigs rather than cows) Likewise, a New Jersey company has been experimenting with using pea proteins in conjunction with bentonite and silica as an alternative to gelatin.

Interest in food allergies have also spurned innovations with Scott Labs developing a technique to isolated chitosan from the fungus Aspergillus niger (instead of shellfish and crustaceans) that can be used as a fining agent.

The California based ATP Group has developed a way to extract tannin powder for fining from white wine grapes instead of insect galls to help soften tannins.

In 2016, a Swiss company announced that they were experimenting with the use of UV light to soften tannins in lieu of using animal-based protein fining agents.

The Biodynamic Quandary

While wineries can avoid using animal products in the winery, there is a question of whether wines produced from fruit sourced from biodynamic vineyards are truly “vegan-friendly”. This is because several of the “preparations” used in biodynamic viticulture require the use of animal products such as cow horns (BD 500 and 501), stomachs, intestines and bladders.

In an anecdotal account of a visit with the vineyard manager of the biodynamic Pinot noir producer Sea Smoke, Kirsten Georgi (The Armchair Sommelier), describes how the “Biodynamic approach” to removing gophers without the use of poisons or chemicals involves trapping several gophers, killing them, burning their ashes and spreading those ashes over the vineyard during winter solstice as a means to “scare off” the rest of the gophers. This method of “peppering” vineyards with the ashes of pests is not unique to Sea Smoke with recipes on biodynamic websites recommending its use for everything from weeds, snails and insects to mice, rats, rabbits and opossum.

Photo by Mark Smith. Uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under CC-BY-2.0

Manure composting at a biodynamic vineyard in Tasmania.

Despite these practices, organizations like PETA recommend biodynamic wineries as “vegan friendly”. The UK website Vegan Wines Online notes that while “…natural animal products can however be used in the growing process all the biodynamic wines they sell are somehow suitable for vegans.

Even organic viticulture could be problematic with the use of animal-derived bone and blood meal being used in lieu of chemical fertilizers. There is even debate if manure, as an animal by-product, is acceptable. Like honey and milk, manure doesn’t require killing the animal but still often requires farming to acquire.

There is also the question of whether the increased presence of insects in healthy and vibrant vineyards that eschew the use of chemicals can make a wine less vegan-friendly due to the higher incidence of insects as MOG (material other than grapes) getting caught up in the harvest. On the Barnivore website, Calcareous Vineyard in Paso Robles expressed this reservation though their wines were still classified as “vegan friendly”.

More Manipulated=More Vegan-friendly?

With the concerns of high insect MOG, biodynamic viticulture and organic animal-derived fertilizers, is it possible that the vineyards that can produce the most “vegan-friendly” wines are really the ones being farmed with heavy saturation of pesticides (no insect MOG there) and chemical fertilizers? Mass produced wines like the PETA recommended Sutter Home and Moët & Chandon often employ these conventional, chemical dependent styles of viticulture.

While avoiding using animal-based fining agents to remove excess tannins and haze forming proteins, big mega-corps can use other tricks to manipulate the wine with things like lab designed enzymes, oak adjuncts and Mega Purple which will “smooth out” bitter tannins and cover up off-flavors.

Just a single drop of Mega Purple had this white Riesling looking and smelling like a Grenache rose. Crazy stuff.


Sure, Charles Shaw reds (Two Buck Chuck), Sutter Home Cabernet Sauvignon, Meiomi Pinot noir and Yellow Tail reds are made without animal fining agents but should vegans (and really all wine drinkers) be concerned with what other products are being used to make these wines?

And while it can be exciting to see advances in the use of pea proteins and fining agents derived from fungi like Aspergillus niger, its worth asking if these are only adding to the laundry list of the 60+ (and counting) additives that can be used in winemaking–taking it even further away from being just “fermented grapes”?

Now What?

While I’m not vegan myself, I wholeheartedly support anyone that chooses to live their life by convictions that eschews the use of animal products. I respect their ethical concerns for the treatment of animals and the impact on the environment that using animal products have. It’s also not my wish to stress out vegans who just want to relax and enjoy a nice bottle of wine.

But I do believe it is fair to think about the big picture involved in many seemingly “vegan-friendly” wineries that utilize viticulture and winemaking practices that may not align with the ethical and environmental concerns of many vegans.

However, it is clear from sites like Barnivore that there are tons of environmentally conscious wineries (many of which are even owned by vegans) that are producing vegan-friendly wines. They may not be the easiest to find at grocery stores or restaurant wine lists that can be dominated by the portfolios of the large mega-corps but these often small family-owned wineries are well worth seeking out and supporting.

And that’s something that I think both vegans and non-vegans can drink to.

Subscribe to Spitbucket

New posts sent to your email!

Keeping up with the Joneses in Burgundy — Morey Edition

Photo by PRA. Uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under  CC-BY-SA-3.0As with our first edition featuring the Boillot family, we’re going to explore the many Morey estates in Meursault and Chassagne-Montrachet, trying to dissect the tangled weave of similar names to see how the estates may (or may not) be related.

Along with some Google-Foo, my scalpels on this journey will be:

Remington Norman and Charles Taylor’s The Great Domaines of Burgundy
Clive Coates’ The Wines of Burgundy
Matt Kramer’s Making Sense of Burgundy
Bill Nanson’s The Finest Wines of Burgundy

The Morey Family

The Morey family’s history in Burgundy dates back to at least the 16th century with evidence of winemaking in Meursault since 1793. The history in Chassagne-Montrachet dates back to Claude Morey’s arrival from the village of Paris l’Hôpital in 1643.

In modern winemaking history, Albert Morey (father of Jean-Marc and Bernard) was one of the first estates in Chassagne-Montrachet to domaine bottle when he started out in 1950.

Robert Parker has noted in Burgundy: A Comprehensive Guide to the Producers, Appellations, and Wines, that the Morey family name is well regarded in Burgundy for producing “…very good, sometimes excellent white wines.”

In studying the various Morey domaines, the family’s prominence in the Grand Cru vineyard of Bâtard-Montrachet is apparent with several members producing examples. Though Domaine Pierre Morey owns nearly half a hectare and Domaine Pierre-Yves Colin-Morey contracts with multiple growers in the Grand Cru to expand his production, most of the Morey Bâtards come from tiny holdings averaging only around 0.11 hectare (≈ 0.27 acres).

The Current Morey Estates

Domaine Pierre Morey (Meursault) founded in 1971 by Pierre Morey, son of Auguste Morey, who farmed several parcels for Domaine Comte Lafon under métayage agreement. For two decades, Pierre also served as vineyard and winery manager for Domaine Leflaive during which time he was inspired to convert his estate to organic viticulture in 1992 and biodynamic in 1997.
Prime holdings: Bâtard-Montrachet Grand Cru (0.48 ha), Meursault 1er Cru Les Perrières (0.52 ha) and Pommard 1er Cru Les Grand Epenots (0.43 ha)

Domaine Emile Jobard-Morey (Meursault) tiny 4.5 ha domaine ran by Rémy Ehret, son-in-law of the original owners, and Valentin Jobard. The vineyards are farmed using sustainable viticulture. Unfortunately not much information is available about this estate to decipher the connection to the other Moreys or to estates like Domaine Antoine Jobard.
Prime holdings: Meursault 1er Cru Charmes (parcel just below Les Perrières) and Meursault 1er Cru Le Porusot

Domaine Jean-Marc Morey (Chassagne-Montrachet) founded in 1981 by Jean-Marc after the retirement of his father, Albert Morey, with his father’s holdings divided between Jean-Marc and his brother Bernard (Thomas & Vincent’s father). For almost two decades his daughter, Caroline, has helped him manage the property with his son, Sylvain, running Bastide du Claux in the Luberon.
Prime holdings: St. Aubin 1er Cru Les Charmois (0.40 ha), Beaune 1er Cru Grèves rouge & blanc (0.65 ha) and Chassagne-Montrachet Les Champs Gains rouge & blanc (0.77 ha)

Domaine Marc Morey et Fils (Chassagne-Montrachet) founded in 1919 by Marc’s father Fernand Morey with Marc taking over the family estate in 1944. In 1978, the estate was divided between his two children with his son, Michael, taking his holdings to establish Domaine Morey-Coffinet while his daughter, Marie-Joseph, and her husband Bernard Mollard continued producing under the Domaine Marc Morey name. Today the estate is ran by their daughter Sabine with all the vineyards being farmed sustainably.
Prime holdings: Bâtard-Montrachet Grand Cru (0.14 ha), Chassagne-Montrachet 1er Cru Les Caillerets (0.20) and quasi-monopole of Chassagne-Montrachet 1er En Virondot (2.02 ha) with the domaine buying the remaining 0.1 ha from other growers

Domaine Pierre-Yves Colin-Morey (Chassagne-Montrachet) founded in 2001 as a négociant firm by Pierre-Yves Colin (son of Marc Colin in St. Aubin) and Caroline Morey, daughter of Jean-Marc Morey, with the first solo vintage of estate fruit being produced in 2006. Prior to returning to his father’s estate in 1995, Pierre-Yves spent time working in California at estates like Chalk Hill and in the Loire and Rhone. The vineyards of Domaine Pierre-Yves Colin-Morey are farmed sustainably with some hectares farmed completely organic.
Prime holdings: Chassagne-Montrachet 1er Cru Les Chenevottes (0.40 ha) with purchase contracts for Grand Crus Bienvenues-Bâtard-Montrachet, Corton-Charlemagne and Bâtard-Montrachet

Caroline Morey’s Chassagne-Montrachet Le Chêne

Domaine Caroline Morey founded in 2014 by Caroline Morey, daughter of Jean-Marc Morey and wife of Pierre-Yves Colin. The domaine owns 7 ha inherited from Caroline’s father in Chassagne-Montrachet and Santenay.
Prime holdings: Chassagne-Montrachet 1er Cru Les Caillerets (0.75 ha) and Chassagne-Montrachet 1er Cru Les Champ Gains

Domaine Thomas Morey (Chassagne-Montrachet) founded in 2006 when the estate of Bernard Morey (Jean-Marc’s brother) was divided between his sons, Thomas and Vincent. The estate is relatively unique among the Moreys with around half of its production being focused on red Pinot noir. All the vineyards are farmed sustainably.
Prime holdings: Bâtard-Montrachet Grand Cru (0.10 ha), Chassagne-Montrachet 1er Cru Vide-Bourse (0.20 ha located just below Bâtard-Montrachet) and Chassagne-Montrachet 1er Cru Dent de Chien (0.07 ha located just about Le Montrachet)

Domaine Vincent et Sophie Morey (Chassagne-Montrachet) founded in 2006 when Vincent inherited his share of his father’s estate. His wife Sophie is from the notable Belland family in Santenay and brought with her to the domaine around 12 ha. All the vineyards are sustainably farmed.
Prime holdings: Bâtard-Montrachet Grand Cru (0.10 ha), Chassagne-Montrachet 1er Cru Les Embrazées (3.80 ha) and Chassagne-Montrachet 1er Cru Les Caillerets (0.35 ha)

Domaine Morey-Coffinet (Chassagne-Montrachet) founded in 1978 when Michael Morey, son of Marc, combined his inheritance with that of his wife, Fabienne (daughter of Fernand Coffinet and Cécile Pillot). The other part of Domaine Coffinet went to Fabienne’s sister, Laure, who founded Domaine Coffinet-Duvernay. The estate has been practicing organic cultivation (receiving Ecocert in 2015) and is converting over to biodynamic.
Prime holdings: Bâtard-Montrachet Grand Cru (0.13 ha), Chassagne-Montrachet 1er Cru En Remilly (0.35 ha located next to Chevalier-Montrachet) and Chassagne-Montrachet 1er Cru Les Blanchots-Dessus (0.06 ha the southern extension of Le Montrachet)

Additional Keeping up with the Joneses in Burgundy

The Boillot Familly
The Gros Family
The Coche Family

Subscribe to Spitbucket

New posts sent to your email!

Getting Geeky with 2008 Sarget de Gruaud-Larose

Going to need more than 60 Seconds to geek out about the 2008 Sarget de Gruaud-Larose from St. Julien.

The Backstory

Clive Coates notes in Grand Vins that the 2nd Growth estate Ch. Gruaud-Larose was formed in 1757 when two brothers, one a priest and the other a judge, pooled together their inheritance and purchased adjoining vineyards to create the 116 hectare (≈ 287 acres) property. Wine that was in high regard and commanded prices almost on par with estates like Ch. Latour and Margaux had been produced on the property for sometime prior to the brothers’ involvement.

The Gruaud brothers were known for their eccentricities, particularly the judge, who would hoist different flags on the property after harvest to signal what nationality he felt that year’s wines would most appeal to. A British flag would be raised if the wines were going to be full-bodied and firm, a German flag if they were going to be soft and supple and a Dutch flag for a style that was a mix of the two.

The magistrate also garnered a reputation for alienating the merchants and négociants with his business practices. Each year when the previous vintage was ready to be sold, he would go to the market center and set his price for the vintage. If his price wasn’t met, he would leave only to come a few months later with an even higher asking price for his unsold wine. In what seems like a foreshadowing of the future tranche release and en primeur systems, M. Gruaud would keep raising his price until eventually the merchants capitulated else wise the price would be higher the next time he returned.

In 1778, the property passed to the magistrate’s daughter and son-in-law, Joseph-Sébastian de La Rose, who affixed the name Larose to the estate. Larose would also go on to establish the large Haut-Medoc estate of Ch. Larose-Trintaudon located on the border of Saint-Laurent and Pauillac.

The author at Gruaud-Larose.


The estate would change hands multiple times and in 1867 the two families who jointly owned the property split it up into two estates–Ch. Gruaud Larose Sarget and Ch. Gruaud Larose Faure (sometimes labelled as Ch. Gruaud Larose-Bethmann). The two estates co-existed until the early 20th century when the Bordeaux négociant family of Cordier bought first the Sarget portion in 1917 and then the Faure portion in 1935 to reunite the two properties.

Founded in 1877, the Cordier négociant house became a significant player during World War I when they landed the exclusive contract to supply the daily wine rations for the entire French Army. Flushed with income, they were able to acquire numerous estates over the next several decades beyond Gruaud-Larose, including the St. Emilion estate Clos des Jacobins, the Premier Grand Cru Classé Sauternes estate Ch. Laufarie-Peyraguey, Ch. Meyney in St. Estèphe, the 5th Growth Haut-Medoc estate of Ch. Cantemerle and the 4th Growth St. Julien estate of Ch. Talbot.

Today, Gruaud-Larose is owned by the Merlaut family under their Taillan Group which also includes the 5th Growth Pauillac estate of Haut-Bages Libéral, the 3rd Growth Margaux estate of Ch. Ferrière, Ch. Chasse-Spleen, Ch. Citran and several others in Bordeaux, the Loire and the Rhone.

The Estate

Bottles from the 1815 vintage of Gruaud-Larose in the estate’s cellar.

While still a large estate by Bordeaux standards with over 200 acres planted to vines, Ch. Gruaud-Larose has seen it size reduced somewhat since the 18th century. However, it is still one of the few estates whose vineyards have remained relatively the same since the property was classified in 1855.

The majority of the vineyards are on the southern side of St. Julien between Ch. Lagrange and Ch. Brainaire-Ducru. There is a parcel further west next to Ch. Talbot and another plot of vines located on the boundary of St. Julien and the commune of Cussac, across the road from the Haut-Medoc estate of Ch. Lanessan. While the average age of the vines are 40 years old, the estate owns several plots that are more than 100 years of age. All the vineyards are sustainably and organically farmed with around 100 acres farmed biodynamically.

Jeff Leve of The Wine Cellar Insider notes that Gruaud-Larose is unique in St. Julien for not only having the most clay soils in the commune but also for being located at the highest elevation on the St. Julien plateau.

After the retirement of winemaker Georges Pauli, Eric Boissenot has served as consultant for the estate.

Wine Stats

Ch. Gruaud-Larose produces around 540,000 bottles a year with about 45% of the yearly production being declassified to the second wine of Sarget de Gruaud-Larose. Named after the mid-19th century owner, Baron Jean Auguste Sarget, the wine spent 18 months aging in 30% new oak.

In 2008, the blend was 57% Cabernet Sauvignon, 30% Merlot, 8% Cabernet Franc, 3% Petit Verdot and 2% Malbec with around 15,100 cases made.

The Wine

Photo by © Superbass. Released on Wikimedia Commons under CC-by-SA-4.0

A lot of cedar cigar box notes in this wine.

Medium-plus intensity nose. Very cigar box with tobacco spice and cedar. Underneath there is some red fruits like currant and plum.

On the palate, those cigar notes carry through and bring an even more savory, meaty element. Medium-plus acidity maintains freshness and adds a little juicy element to the red fruits. Medium tannins still have some grip but are rather mellow at this point. Moderate length finish ends with the same cigar box notes that have dominated this wine from the beginning.

The Verdict

With the 2008 edition of the Grand Vin of Gruard-Larose going for around $90, the 2008 Sarget de Gruaud-Larose is a very solid second wine at around $35-40.

It is a classic St. Julien that would certainly appeal to folks who like old school, savory Bordeaux. While the tannins are softening, the wine has enough acidity and structure to still be drinking well for at least another 3 years.

Subscribe to Spitbucket

New posts sent to your email!

Champagne Masters and their Bull Shit

By Comite Champagne - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, On Wikimedia CommonsFood & Wine recently published an article by wine educator and “prophet” Jonathan Cristaldi titled “Pop These 25 Bottles and Become a Champagne Master”.

The article had so many mistakes (some glaringly obvious) that it made my head hurt.

While I wholeheartedly support any message that begins with “Pop these bottles…”, if you don’t want to look like a bloody fool to your friends, let me tell you some of things you SHOULDN’T take away from Cristaldi’s list.

1.) Veuve Clicquot did not developed techniques to control secondary fermentation and perfect the art of making Champagne. (Intro)

Oh good Lordy! At least Cristaldi later redeemed himself a bit by accurately noting that Dom Perignon spent his entire career trying to get rid of the bubbles and didn’t invent Champagne. But this is a whopper of marketing BS to start an article with.

First off, let’s give Veuve Clicquot due credit for what her and cellar master, Anton Mueller, did do. From 1810 to 1818, they developed in their cellars the technique of riddling to remove the the dead sediment of lees left over from secondary fermentation to produce clearer, brighter Champagnes. Important, yes. But even this technique wasn’t perfected at Veuve Clicquot with a cellar hand from the Champagne house of Morzet and M. Michelot perfecting the pupitre (riddling rack) that truly revolutionized Champagne production.

Further more, riddling has nothing to do with controlling secondary fermentation. It merely deals with the after-effects that happens months (usually years) after secondary fermentation was completed.

Credit for understanding the secondary fermentation that produces the bubbles in Champagne goes to Christopher Merret who delivered a paper in London in 1662 on the process of adding sugar to create gas in wines. But the process was fraught with challenges and risks. Regularly producers would lose a quarter to a third of their production due to exploding bottles because it was hard to calculate just how much sugar you needed to add to achieve the desire gas pressure in the bottle.

By Albert Edelfelt - Photograph originally posted on Flickr as Albert EDELFELT, Louis Pasteur, en 1885. Date of generation: 27 August 2009. Photographed by Ondra Havala. Modifications by the uploader: perspective corrected to fit a rectangle (the painting was possibly distorted during this operation), frame cropped out., Public Domain, on Wikimedia Commons

Pasteur’s work detailing the role of yeast in fermentation and Jean-Baptiste François’ invention to precisely measure how much sugar is in wine, contributed far more to the Champagne’s industry efforts to “control secondary fermentation” than a riddling table did.


The major breakthrough for that came in 1836 when Jean-Baptiste François, a pharmacist and optical instrument maker, invented the sucre-oenomètre that allowed producers to measure the amount of sugar in their wine. This led to the development in the 1840s of a dosage machine that could give the precise amount of sugar to each bottle to avoid explosion. These developments, followed by Louis Pasteur’s work in the 1860s on the role of yeast in fermentation, set the industry on the road to “perfecting the art of making Champagne”.

Truthfully, it was a team effort with many hands involved. Its disingenuous (and, again, marketing BS) to give exorbitant credit to anyone for making Champagne what it is today.

2.) No vintage of Krug’s Grande Cuvée is the same because it is not a vintage Champagne! (Item #2 & Item #4)

Likewise, Dom Perignon is not “a blend of several older vintage base wines”. This is one of the most glaring errors of Cristaldi that he repeats throughout the article. He doesn’t seem to truly understand the differences between vintage and non-vintage Champagnes.

A non-vintage or “multi-vintage” Champagne.
Note the lack of a vintage year on the label.

Non-vintage Champagnes, like Krug’s Grande Cuvée, are blends of multiple years that need to be aged at least 15 months. As Cristaldi correctly notes, some examples like Krug are aged far longer and can include stocks from older vintages but it, itself, is not a vintage Champagne. This is why you do not see a year on the bottle.

A vintage Champagne, such a Dom Perignon, is the product of one single year and will display that year on the bottle. By law, it needs to be aged a minimum of 36 months. You can’t “blend in” older base wines from another vintage. If you want an older base wine, you need to age the entire vintage longer.

3.) Speaking of Dom Perignon, the “6 vintages released per decade” thing hasn’t been true since the 80’s (Item #4)

Again, marketing mystique and BS.

While, yes, the concept of vintage Champagne was once sacred and reserved only for years that were truly spectacular, today it all depends on the house. Some houses, like Cristaldi notes with Salon, do still limit their vintage production to truly spectacular years. But other house will make a vintage cuvee virtually every year they can.

In the 2000s, while the 2008 hasn’t be released yet (but most assuredly will be), Dom Perignon declared 8 out of the 10 vintages. In the 1990s, they declared 7 out of 10–including the rather sub-par 1993 and 1992 vintages.

Now, as I noted in my post Dancing with Goliath and tasting of the 2004 & 2006 Dom Perignon, LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy) credits global warming for producing more “vintage worthy” vintages. There is certainly some truth to that. But there is also truth in the fact that LVMH can crank out 5 million plus bottles of Dom Perignon every year if they want and have no problem selling them because of their brand name.

Seriously…. there is so much Dom being made that it is being turned into gummy bears.


And, if they don’t sell… well they can always make more gummy bears.

4.) Chardonnay grapes do not take center stage in every bottle of Henriot (Item #5)

The Henriot Blanc de Blancs is certainly awesome and worth trying. But so are their Pinot noir dominant Champagnes like the Brut Souverain and Demi-Sec (usually 60% Pinot according to Tom Stevenson and Essi Avellan’s Christie’s World Encyclopedia of Champagne & Sparkling Wine) and the vintage rosé (at least 52% Pinot plus red Pinot noir wine added for color). Even Henriot’s regular vintage Champagne is usually a 50/50 blend. Again, not to discredit a great recommendation to try an awesome Champagne from a well regarded house, but it is just lazy research for a “Champagne Master” to describe Henriot as a “Chardonnay dominant” (much less exclusive) house.

If you want to talk about Chardonnay-dominant houses, look to some of the growers based around the Grand Cru villages of Avize, Cramant and le Mesnil-sur-Oger in the prime Chardonnay territory of the Côte des Blancs. Here you will find producers like Agrapart & Fils, Franck Bonville, Salon-Delamotte and Pierre Peters that, with few exceptions–such as Agrapart’s 6 grape cuvee Complantee and Delamotte’s rosé, can be rightly described as putting Chardonnay “on center stage in every bottle”.

5.) No, not all the vineyards that go into Cristal are biodynamically farmed. (Item #6)

Some great resources if you don’t want to sound like an idiot when spouting off about your “mastery” of Champagne.

In November, I got a chance to try the new 2009 Cristal with a brand ambassador from Louis Roederer. And while I noted in my post, Cristal Clarity, that Roederer’s push towards eventually converting all their vineyards to biodynamics is impressive–right now they are only around 41% biodynamic. Of course, most of this fruit does get funneled towards their top cuvee, but in 2017, that was still just 83% of their Cristal crop.

6.) No, Taittinger’s Comtes de Champagnes are not Chardonnay only wines. (Item #11)

The Comtes de Champagne is a series of prestige vintage cuvees made by Taittinger to honor Theobald IV, the Count of Champagne. This includes a scrumptious Comtes de Champagne rosé that is virtually always Pinot noir dominant.

In the 1930s, Pierre Taittinger purchased the historical home of the Comtes de Champagne in Reims. Renovating the mansion, they released the first Comtes de Champagne in 1952. Yes, that was a Blanc de blancs, but the rosé version followed soon after in 1966. While there are some vintages where only one style is released (such as only the rosé Comtes de Champagne in 2003 and the Blanc de blancs in 1998) in most vintages that are declared, both versions are released.

7.) I doubt Queen Victoria and Napoleon III time traveled to drink Perrier-Jouët’s Belle Epoque (Item #14)

By W. & D. Downey (active 1855-1940) - collectionscanadanpg.org, Public Domain, on Wikimedia Commons

With all the Champagne houses with histories of being ran by widows, it’s kind of surprising that no one has ever done a special bottling for the world’s most famous widow.

Perrier-Jouët’s first release of the Belle Epoque was in 1964.

While Cristaldi may have been trying to insinuating that those long, dead Champagne aficionados enjoyed the wines of Perrier-Jouët available during their time (which were FAR different in style than they are today), he’s dead wrong to say “Napoleon III, Queen Victoria and Princess Grace of Monaco were all fans of this gorgeous bubbly, which boasts classic white-floral notes (hence the label design), along with candied citrus and a creamy mouthfeel.”

I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, though, on Princess Grace since she didn’t pass away till 1982.

Likewise….

8.) Marie Antoinette was dead more than 40 years before Piper-Heidsieck was founded (Item #15)

Kinda hard to be a brand ambassador when you don’t have your head. (Too soon?)

Again, I suspect this is just lazy research (and/or falling for marketing BS). Taking into consideration that the picture Cristaldi uses for his recommendation of Piper-Heidsieck (founded in 1834) is actually a Champagne from Charles Heidsieck (founded in 1851), the betting money is on general laziness.

A bottle of Piper-Heidsieck, in case Jonathan Cristaldi is curious.

Now for most people I wouldn’t sweat them getting confused about the three different Champagne houses with “Heidsieck” in the name. While Champagne is nothing like Burgundy with similar names, there are some overlaps with the Heidsiecks being the most notable.

As I recounted in my recent review of the Heidsieck & Co Monopole Blue Top Champagne, the three houses (Heidsieck & Co. Monopole, Charles Heidsieck and Piper-Heidsieck) trace their origins to the origin Heidsieck & Co. founded in 1785 by Florens-Louis Heidsieck.

But Piper-Heidsieck didn’t appear on the scene until 1834 when Florens-Louis’ nephew, Christian, broke away from the family firm to establish his own house. Even then, it wasn’t known as Piper-Heidsieck until 1837 when Christian’s widow married Henri-Guillaume Piper and changed the name of the estate.

Now wait! Doesn’t the label on a bottle of Piper-Heidsieck say “founded in 1785”? That’s marketing flourish as the house (like the other two Heidsieck houses) can distantly trace their origins back to the original (but now defunct) Heidsieck & Co. But Christian Heidsieck and Henri-Guillaume Piper likely weren’t even born by the time Marie Antoinette lost her head in 1793, much less convincing the ill-fated queen to drink Piper-Heidsieck with her cake.

It’s not an issue for regular wine drinkers to fall for marketing slogans. But someone who is presenting himself as a wine educator (nay a Wine Prophet) should know better.

9.) Carol Duval-Leroy is not one of the few women to lead a Champagne house (Item #21)

Beyond ignoring the important roles that women like Lily Bollinger, Louise Pommery, Marie-Louise Lanson de Nonancourt, Mathilde-Emile Laurent-Perrier and Barbe-Nicole Ponsardin (Veuve Clicquot) have played throughout the history of Champagne, it also discounts the many notable women working in Champagne today.

The De Venoge Princes Blanc de Noirs made by a pretty awesome female chef de cave, Isabelle Tellier.


Maggie Henriquez, in particular, is one of the most powerful people in Champagne in her role as CEO of Krug. Then you have Vitalie Taittinger of that notable Champagne house; Anne-Charlotte Amory, CEO of Piper-Heidsieck (and probable BFFs with Marie Antoinette’s ghost); Cecile Bonnefond, current president of Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin; Nathalie Vranken, manager of Vranken-Pommery; Floriane Eznak, cellar master at Jacquart; Isabelle Tellier, cellar master at Champagne Chanoine Frères and De Venoge, etc.

Is there room for more women in leadership in the Champagne industry? Of course, especially in winemaking. But let’s not belittle the awesome gains and contributions of women in the history (and present-day) of Champagne by sweeping them under the rug of “the few”.

Though what did I expect from a man who literally uses a woman as a “table” in his profile pic on his personal website?

Is there an end to the pain? God I hope there is an end…

Though not as egregious as the glaring errors of mixing up Vintage vs Non-vintage and touting long-dead brand ambassadors, I would be amiss not to mention one last thing that upset at least one of my very good Champagne-loving friends on Facebook.

At the end of his article Cristaldi throws out two (very good) recommendations for a Californian sparkling wine from Schramsberg and a Franciacorta made in the traditional method in Italy. While I appreciate that Cristaldi does point out that these two items are technically not Champagnes, it is hard not to miss the general laziness in how he leads off his article by describing the list of wines to follow as “… some of the most iconic Champagnes out there, featuring an array of styles and price-points, so study up and become the Champagne know-it-all you’ve always wanted to be.” Again, mostly just a sin of imprecision and sloppiness.

To sum up this article, my dear Champagne-loving friend, Charles, had this to say about Jonathan Cristaldi’s article on Food & Wine.

The article is “riddled” errors. The author should be given an “ice bath” so that he can contemplate “disgorging” himself of the idea he is a master. At the very least someone should burst his “bubbles”. The article never should have made it to “press”

Now what?

I’m not going to claim to be a “Champagne Master” (though I’ll confess to being a Bubble Fiend) because frankly I don’t think that title really exists. Even Tom Stevenson and Master of Wine Essi Avellan who literally wrote one of THE books on Champagnes and sparkling wine, probably wouldn’t consider themselves “Champagne Masters”.

To celebrate the Supreme Court decision in US v Windsor that legalized gay marriage nationwide, my wife and I threw a party in honor of the 5 justices that voted for equality.

But I do think that people who put themselves in positions as wine educators or wine influencers owe it to their fellow wine lovers to provide them with good information. Encouraging people to open bottles and try new things is terrific advice. Backing that advice up with falsehoods, embellishments, conflicting and confusing statements? Not so terrific.

No one knows everything and people make mistakes. It’s human nature. Hell, I’m sure I made at least 1 mistake in this post. But 9+ errors (2 of which are basic ‘Champagne 101’ stuff) is failing the readers of Food & Wine and everyone that those readers pass this faulty information along to.

Wine drinkers deserve better from our “prophets”.

Note: A follow up to this article can be found at Thought Bubbles – How to Geek Out About Champagne

Subscribe to Spitbucket

New posts sent to your email!