Also called Grower Champagnes, they are new to my market.

I've read a little of Terry Thiese's opinion that the big blending houses have pulled the wool over our eyes, to some extent, with the suggestion that terrior has little to no place in Champagne.

In fact, Thiese is the importer for the Grower Champagnes we have here. He seems to remain pretty objective, for an interested party. And, it really seems to make sense when he asks, "Why are single-vineyard productions valued in still wines but not in Champagne?"

So, what are your opinions? On the practice of sourcing grapes from all over Champagne for blending... does this truly result in a product with the greatest character? If so, why isn't it the practice for still wines?

Furthermore, if the blending process removes the foibles of any batch of grapes or juice, does it also remove the greatest aspects of those batches?

I imagine the answer is that SOME single-vineyard productions are well worth the experience while others are not. It's a matter of knowing your producers, just like with any other wine, but that's just speculation.

Does anyone here have much experience with Grower Champagnes? Any strong opinions one way or the other?

Oh, but they are valued - see Krug Clos de Mesnil!

The overwhelming majority of Champagne sold is non-vintage, so even if you get a sense of place, you don't get a sense of year.

The luxe cuvees and vintage dated champagnes are a small part of sales. I bet you the first 2 cases worth of champagne you bought were NV. Nobody jumps in with Salon.

And welcome to the boards

I'm not sure I understand the question. As far as Champange goes...the more singular, as far as vintage and vineyard goes, the Champange, the more money you pay for it. All the way up to the Krug Mesnil and Bollinger ay Villes Vignes that retails for $400-600 per btl. Whoever is saying that singular expressions of Champange aren't sought after is giving you the wrong info!

-DRAB

I think that Waldo is talking about the burgeoning group of small Champagne producers who are making the wine from their own vineyards rather than selling all of their crop to the big houses.

I'm all for it. These tiny producers will have to concentrate on quality rather than quantity. A little competition against the big houses wouldn't hurt, although I think these producers are going to represent a niche market, at best.

DRAB has a point here. For all the Champenois' talk of the miracles of assemblage they sure don't miss a chance to charge a premium for site-specific bottlings.

On the other hand, the huge production of the Grand Marque houses needs a larger audience than Champagne nuts to sell to. The average buyer is looking for consistency i.e. Moet White Star should taste like the same whether the base wine is a '90 or '93. This arguably makes assemblage necessary. Without having the production to worry about such things Thiese's "Grower Champagne" can focus on, and in fact advertise, their site-specificity.

For anyone interested, Terry Theise's 2 page commentary on this issue is included in his Champagne catalog which can be found at this link. It is on page 36 I believe.

VM