Ain't sipping if it ain't Cristal?
The story of a tasting of some recent-ish and not so recent vintages of Cristal held in central London in Apri. By Kate
One day, I will start one of these entries with details of how fresh and awake I feel and how very on top of things I am. Mind you, that sounds insufferable so perhaps not. Anyway, I feel I must point out here that this is certainly the long term aim as once again, I have to make apologies for being hopelessly behind and slightly muddled due to tiredness. Over a month ago now – today is May the 29th, I attended a tasting of Cristal in central London along with a room full of serious wine industry professionals. Finally, I have got round to editing and then posting my notes – 1am on a Tuesday morning after a very busy night at Green & Blue, so you will have to excuse any rather bizarre phrasing. I think I tend to get silly after a certain point.
I am a great fan of properly aged Cristal but the main problem with it these days is that it is sold and subsequently drunk far too young and when drunk young, Cristal never shows the complexity and perfect balance that it goes on to acquire. The other problem of course is that it is now surely one of the most hyped wines in the world – whole swathes of people who would not have the first clue about other very fine, rare, expensive wines, know about Cris. While we are all for the democratisation of wines at Green & Blue – indeed it is a cornerstone of what we do, this is a great shame as the wine has become lost under the weight of its own reputation. I would say that most people who buy and drink this now do so because of what the wine represents and not at all because of how very well made it is and how delicious it can taste – if drunk at the correct time.
In some ways, twas ever thus. Cristal was originally created for the Russian Tsar in 1876 and has always been associated with wealth and power - at the time, he was one of the wealthiest men in the world. He had demanded a top of the range cuvee, one which the Jones’ would not have a hope in hell of keeping up with and so this fabulous wine was born, sold in a solid crystal bottle – hence the name. It remains rare, only being produced in relatively tiny volumes which helps of course to keep demand at fever pitch. The quantities made every year do vary. 02 was a big vintage and 800,000 bottles were produced but generally it is a mere 100 – 200,000 which is absolutely nothing when you consider how many people want to drink this. Or, rumour has it, pour it all over dance floors in clubs as a mark of how apparently successful the moron doing the pouring is. ( Look! I have so much money I dance in puddles of Cristal
While we are on the subject of the bottle, it is worth noting that the instantly recognizable orange cellophane that Cristal comes wrapped in is not an aesthetic choice but a protection against damaging UV rays and should not be removed until literally just before the wine is opened and drunk. The light in the cellars where Cristal ages is kept incredibly dim – terrible from a health and safety point of view but perfect for preserving the wines and the wrapper is an attempt to protect it as much as possible once it leaves the sanctity of this environment.
Cristal is produced by the Roederer Champagne house, a family company since 1776. In 1833, Louis Roederer took over the company from his uncle and it was his incredible vision which lead the house to buy 130 hectares around 1850. This was remarkably prescient as grape prices then were not nearly as high as they are today but the cost of vineyard owner ship was, so most did not bother. Thanks to him, Roederer now has incredible vineyard holdings in the region, something that very few top houses can boast of. The fact that the company is so bound up with this family is of great importance. It is run for the long-term, which, in an industry where the product of any given vintage may not be completely understood for at least a decade, is of paramount importance. They remain a small, focused team who know exactly what they want from their wines – precision, purity, richness and vinosity.
Roederer now own 124 hectares of Grand Cru and 46 hectares of Premier Cru vineyards in Champagne and feel that Cristal would not be possible without the Grand Cru vineyards, this being a selection of fruit from the very best of these. Vine usually last 40 – 50 years in Champagne and mainly those with age are used for Cristal as concentration is key, with low yields being essential. Grapes are grown very traditionally with very little fertilization and picking is done when they feel that full ripeness has been attained. Not as obvious as it sounds - many champagne styles are about a crisp delicacy as opposed to rich ripeness. Selection in the vineyard is rigorous and wine making is them kept as simple as possible – in most vintages, there is no malolactic fermentation (the secondary fermentation which turns very tart malic acid into much softer lactic acid – just one of the reasons why this wine can be hard work in its youth). Up to 25% of the wines are fermented and aged in 60hl casks for extra spice and richness.
When it comes to blending, a selection of different vineyards are used – some to give backbone and some for richer, fruitier character. Always though, the philosophy is that Cristal is made in the vineyard and without these vineyards, the wine would simply not exist.
And so to the wines. We were tasting out of Magnums today. Champagne, like all wine, tastes better out of Mags – there is more roundness and freshness and the Roederer team believe, as many do, that this is by far the best format for Champagne. They are also as passionately opposed to halves as I am but do these for their non-vintage cuvee as there is demand.
1999 Cristal – 58% Pinot, 34% Chardonnay, 20% oak fermentation
Both 96 and 99 were ripe vintages – no chaptalisation was necessary for either, with full maturity in the grapes. The difference is in the acidity. 99 was very low in acidity –, the lowest since the 1950’s. 03 even lower – global warming is having a huge effect here, much more obviously so than in many regions.
99 therefore is very soft and round – very seductive, if not really at all classic. 1996 is much more so with great acidity balancing perfectly ripe fruit – the berries in this year were very small and very concentrated.
Richly honeyed fruit nose – candied grapefruit, honey and brioche. Acidity still crisp but softer than it often is with lovely grapefruit, brioche and honey flavours on palate. Powerful but elegant with huge amounts of still very young complexity – mineral, honey and spice underneath. Great length and superb finish – very slightly hot. Deliciously long, fine champagne which is obviously still very young but which is lovely to drink right now as well.
1996 – 61% Pinot Noir, 39% Chardonnay only, 3% oak fermentation in ‘96
The acidity here is still incredibly fresh – there is not yet the layers of complexity here found on the ’99 although it is clearly packed with life so that will come in time. Grapefruit and honey mainly with a small hint of spice on the palate, coming out more towards the back. This is not showing brilliantly today but that has everything to do with its age. The class and potential is obvious though.
1990 - A perfect vintage – one of the dream vintages in Champagne. God did everything right – sun when it was needed and rain exactly when required. 63% Pinot Noir and 37% Chardonnay. Only 3% oak fermentation to give the house style.
The bottles we were tasting were kept on the lees till 06 – as was the 88. These were then disgorged last June. This is very important – they call the period after a late disgorgment the ‘second life’ as it gives a good blend of freshness and maturity.
Relatively closed on nose. Acidity still very bright with very fresh grapefruit and spiced honey – lovely brioche and butter underneath the fruit with great length and richly fruity, buttery finish. Great complexity and intensity in this wine, despite the still very youthful character - still something rather closed about this but not unpleasantly so and certainly, this is good to drink now although I would hold on to it for longer – if I was lucky enough to have any to hold onto.
1988 –classic vintage. Mild July and very good August – very low ph again, so great ageing potential. 54% Pinot Noir an d46% Chardonnay in this year. This Cristal has more chardonnay than any Cristal ever made. Did a bit more oak fermentation – about 11%.
Definitely more delicate on the nose – not as richly grapefruity as the other vintages. Beautifully crisp, fine acidity and huge finesse in the fruit – delicate, almost aromatic lemon with some honeyed fruit. Very slight spiced butter underneath with great length and a really very minerally finish which is lovely. I don’t think in a million years I would pick this as Cristal if I was tasting it blind – it does not have the rich fruit and intensity I always associate with this house and this wine but I would certainly know that it was very smart stuff.
No Cristal was produced in 91, 92, 98, 03, 01, 72, 87, 84.
In 98 – fruit wasvery aromatic hence the decision not to make any Cristal. They had done so in 1975 when the fruit was similarly aromatic and decided not to do it again.
They find that recently disgorged (less than 2 – 3 months) is only interesting in the cellars, for tasting without dosage. Otherwise, the wine should be kept for 2 – 3 years before release as for the first 2 – 3 years, it is a bit all over the place – the sugar/acid balance has not yet sorted itself out. The wines showing here which were disgorged last year have had very low dosage, which helps. Dosage, if you are wondering, is the mixture of sweetened wine which the bottles are topped up with in order to add complexity and balance. The level of sugar in the dosage varies depending the style being produced.
1982 – disgorged in 87 while 79 was disgorged in 84. 82, like 90 was a dream vintage, coming just after 80 and 81 which were catastrophic – very low yields, very difficult. This had good ripening and good volume. 65% Pinot noir and 35% Chardonnay. 23% oak fermentation.
Slightly truffled, earthy nose. Acidity beautifully integrated but still fresh with fabulous richness – buttered brioche, candied grapefruit and honey, spice and truffles. The beading is fine and soft and the development on the palate is truly wonderful – fresh grapefruit chunks enlivening the back palate with a softly spiced finish. This is fabulous wine, drinking beautifully now.
There is a real problem with tannins in Champagne and higher yields (growing more fruit) help to avoid this. While producers have to stay reasonable, it is one region where very low yields are really not, on the whole, desirable – which they tend to be in many other regions.
1979 – 64% PN, 36% Chard, 20% oak fermentation. Very late picking date for this vintage – mid October.
Beautifully deep, golden colour. White choc and spice on the nose with some mushroom. Acidity still fresh but fruit very slightly faded with white mushroom and some spice remaining. I do find a slight hollow in the mid palate here with a still fresh, honey/mushroom finish. This is not as completely wonderful as the 82 at the moment. It is not dead by a very long shot – perhaps not even dying, despite the fading fruit – but certainly not drinking beautifully right now.
To conclude, Frederic felt that the ’88 was his favourite of the day while chief wine maker Jean-Baptiste felt that the 90 had the balance and complexity he looks for. He also particularly liked ’82 as a great example of an older wine. I agree – ’82 is my wine of the tasting.
99 was similar to the 82 and the 89 in style – rich, round wines with great potential. 96 is closer to 88 and 79 – much more mineral and more pure.
Finally, there was not much difference between the bottles opened. 4 mags of each were served and there was remarkably little bottle variation which is the sort of consistency you can only really hope for when bottles stay exactly where they are born until just before being drunk.
All in all, a very lovely and very interesting tasting. I am always being asked whether or not I think wines like Cristal are ‘worth it’ – difficult to answer in many ways. Can any wine that costs upwards of £100 a bottle really be ‘worth it’ for those of us who work damn hard for our money and don’t have anything like enough of it to think nothing of spending that amount on something which will, quite literally, be pissed away (however lovely the process of conversion may be)? Having said that, if someone offered me a bottle of the ’82 which had been immaculately stored, it would be amazingly hard for me to walk away from. I would almost certainly have to as it would seem obscene to even try to justify that expense on a single bottle but my God, I would be sorely tempted.
One day, I will start one of these entries with details of how fresh and awake I feel and how very on top of things I am. Mind you, that sounds insufferable so perhaps not. Anyway, I feel I must point out here that this is certainly the long term aim as once again, I have to make apologies for being hopelessly behind and slightly muddled due to tiredness. Over a month ago now – today is May the 29th, I attended a tasting of Cristal in central London along with a room full of serious wine industry professionals. Finally, I have got round to editing and then posting my notes – 1am on a Tuesday morning after a very busy night at Green & Blue, so you will have to excuse any rather bizarre phrasing. I think I tend to get silly after a certain point.
I am a great fan of properly aged Cristal but the main problem with it these days is that it is sold and subsequently drunk far too young and when drunk young, Cristal never shows the complexity and perfect balance that it goes on to acquire. The other problem of course is that it is now surely one of the most hyped wines in the world – whole swathes of people who would not have the first clue about other very fine, rare, expensive wines, know about Cris. While we are all for the democratisation of wines at Green & Blue – indeed it is a cornerstone of what we do, this is a great shame as the wine has become lost under the weight of its own reputation. I would say that most people who buy and drink this now do so because of what the wine represents and not at all because of how very well made it is and how delicious it can taste – if drunk at the correct time.
In some ways, twas ever thus. Cristal was originally created for the Russian Tsar in 1876 and has always been associated with wealth and power - at the time, he was one of the wealthiest men in the world. He had demanded a top of the range cuvee, one which the Jones’ would not have a hope in hell of keeping up with and so this fabulous wine was born, sold in a solid crystal bottle – hence the name. It remains rare, only being produced in relatively tiny volumes which helps of course to keep demand at fever pitch. The quantities made every year do vary. 02 was a big vintage and 800,000 bottles were produced but generally it is a mere 100 – 200,000 which is absolutely nothing when you consider how many people want to drink this. Or, rumour has it, pour it all over dance floors in clubs as a mark of how apparently successful the moron doing the pouring is. ( Look! I have so much money I dance in puddles of Cristal
While we are on the subject of the bottle, it is worth noting that the instantly recognizable orange cellophane that Cristal comes wrapped in is not an aesthetic choice but a protection against damaging UV rays and should not be removed until literally just before the wine is opened and drunk. The light in the cellars where Cristal ages is kept incredibly dim – terrible from a health and safety point of view but perfect for preserving the wines and the wrapper is an attempt to protect it as much as possible once it leaves the sanctity of this environment.
Cristal is produced by the Roederer Champagne house, a family company since 1776. In 1833, Louis Roederer took over the company from his uncle and it was his incredible vision which lead the house to buy 130 hectares around 1850. This was remarkably prescient as grape prices then were not nearly as high as they are today but the cost of vineyard owner ship was, so most did not bother. Thanks to him, Roederer now has incredible vineyard holdings in the region, something that very few top houses can boast of. The fact that the company is so bound up with this family is of great importance. It is run for the long-term, which, in an industry where the product of any given vintage may not be completely understood for at least a decade, is of paramount importance. They remain a small, focused team who know exactly what they want from their wines – precision, purity, richness and vinosity.
Roederer now own 124 hectares of Grand Cru and 46 hectares of Premier Cru vineyards in Champagne and feel that Cristal would not be possible without the Grand Cru vineyards, this being a selection of fruit from the very best of these. Vine usually last 40 – 50 years in Champagne and mainly those with age are used for Cristal as concentration is key, with low yields being essential. Grapes are grown very traditionally with very little fertilization and picking is done when they feel that full ripeness has been attained. Not as obvious as it sounds - many champagne styles are about a crisp delicacy as opposed to rich ripeness. Selection in the vineyard is rigorous and wine making is them kept as simple as possible – in most vintages, there is no malolactic fermentation (the secondary fermentation which turns very tart malic acid into much softer lactic acid – just one of the reasons why this wine can be hard work in its youth). Up to 25% of the wines are fermented and aged in 60hl casks for extra spice and richness.
When it comes to blending, a selection of different vineyards are used – some to give backbone and some for richer, fruitier character. Always though, the philosophy is that Cristal is made in the vineyard and without these vineyards, the wine would simply not exist.
And so to the wines. We were tasting out of Magnums today. Champagne, like all wine, tastes better out of Mags – there is more roundness and freshness and the Roederer team believe, as many do, that this is by far the best format for Champagne. They are also as passionately opposed to halves as I am but do these for their non-vintage cuvee as there is demand.
1999 Cristal – 58% Pinot, 34% Chardonnay, 20% oak fermentation
Both 96 and 99 were ripe vintages – no chaptalisation was necessary for either, with full maturity in the grapes. The difference is in the acidity. 99 was very low in acidity –, the lowest since the 1950’s. 03 even lower – global warming is having a huge effect here, much more obviously so than in many regions.
99 therefore is very soft and round – very seductive, if not really at all classic. 1996 is much more so with great acidity balancing perfectly ripe fruit – the berries in this year were very small and very concentrated.
Richly honeyed fruit nose – candied grapefruit, honey and brioche. Acidity still crisp but softer than it often is with lovely grapefruit, brioche and honey flavours on palate. Powerful but elegant with huge amounts of still very young complexity – mineral, honey and spice underneath. Great length and superb finish – very slightly hot. Deliciously long, fine champagne which is obviously still very young but which is lovely to drink right now as well.
1996 – 61% Pinot Noir, 39% Chardonnay only, 3% oak fermentation in ‘96
The acidity here is still incredibly fresh – there is not yet the layers of complexity here found on the ’99 although it is clearly packed with life so that will come in time. Grapefruit and honey mainly with a small hint of spice on the palate, coming out more towards the back. This is not showing brilliantly today but that has everything to do with its age. The class and potential is obvious though.
1990 - A perfect vintage – one of the dream vintages in Champagne. God did everything right – sun when it was needed and rain exactly when required. 63% Pinot Noir and 37% Chardonnay. Only 3% oak fermentation to give the house style.
The bottles we were tasting were kept on the lees till 06 – as was the 88. These were then disgorged last June. This is very important – they call the period after a late disgorgment the ‘second life’ as it gives a good blend of freshness and maturity.
Relatively closed on nose. Acidity still very bright with very fresh grapefruit and spiced honey – lovely brioche and butter underneath the fruit with great length and richly fruity, buttery finish. Great complexity and intensity in this wine, despite the still very youthful character - still something rather closed about this but not unpleasantly so and certainly, this is good to drink now although I would hold on to it for longer – if I was lucky enough to have any to hold onto.
1988 –classic vintage. Mild July and very good August – very low ph again, so great ageing potential. 54% Pinot Noir an d46% Chardonnay in this year. This Cristal has more chardonnay than any Cristal ever made. Did a bit more oak fermentation – about 11%.
Definitely more delicate on the nose – not as richly grapefruity as the other vintages. Beautifully crisp, fine acidity and huge finesse in the fruit – delicate, almost aromatic lemon with some honeyed fruit. Very slight spiced butter underneath with great length and a really very minerally finish which is lovely. I don’t think in a million years I would pick this as Cristal if I was tasting it blind – it does not have the rich fruit and intensity I always associate with this house and this wine but I would certainly know that it was very smart stuff.
No Cristal was produced in 91, 92, 98, 03, 01, 72, 87, 84.
In 98 – fruit wasvery aromatic hence the decision not to make any Cristal. They had done so in 1975 when the fruit was similarly aromatic and decided not to do it again.
They find that recently disgorged (less than 2 – 3 months) is only interesting in the cellars, for tasting without dosage. Otherwise, the wine should be kept for 2 – 3 years before release as for the first 2 – 3 years, it is a bit all over the place – the sugar/acid balance has not yet sorted itself out. The wines showing here which were disgorged last year have had very low dosage, which helps. Dosage, if you are wondering, is the mixture of sweetened wine which the bottles are topped up with in order to add complexity and balance. The level of sugar in the dosage varies depending the style being produced.
1982 – disgorged in 87 while 79 was disgorged in 84. 82, like 90 was a dream vintage, coming just after 80 and 81 which were catastrophic – very low yields, very difficult. This had good ripening and good volume. 65% Pinot noir and 35% Chardonnay. 23% oak fermentation.
Slightly truffled, earthy nose. Acidity beautifully integrated but still fresh with fabulous richness – buttered brioche, candied grapefruit and honey, spice and truffles. The beading is fine and soft and the development on the palate is truly wonderful – fresh grapefruit chunks enlivening the back palate with a softly spiced finish. This is fabulous wine, drinking beautifully now.
There is a real problem with tannins in Champagne and higher yields (growing more fruit) help to avoid this. While producers have to stay reasonable, it is one region where very low yields are really not, on the whole, desirable – which they tend to be in many other regions.
1979 – 64% PN, 36% Chard, 20% oak fermentation. Very late picking date for this vintage – mid October.
Beautifully deep, golden colour. White choc and spice on the nose with some mushroom. Acidity still fresh but fruit very slightly faded with white mushroom and some spice remaining. I do find a slight hollow in the mid palate here with a still fresh, honey/mushroom finish. This is not as completely wonderful as the 82 at the moment. It is not dead by a very long shot – perhaps not even dying, despite the fading fruit – but certainly not drinking beautifully right now.
To conclude, Frederic felt that the ’88 was his favourite of the day while chief wine maker Jean-Baptiste felt that the 90 had the balance and complexity he looks for. He also particularly liked ’82 as a great example of an older wine. I agree – ’82 is my wine of the tasting.
99 was similar to the 82 and the 89 in style – rich, round wines with great potential. 96 is closer to 88 and 79 – much more mineral and more pure.
Finally, there was not much difference between the bottles opened. 4 mags of each were served and there was remarkably little bottle variation which is the sort of consistency you can only really hope for when bottles stay exactly where they are born until just before being drunk.
All in all, a very lovely and very interesting tasting. I am always being asked whether or not I think wines like Cristal are ‘worth it’ – difficult to answer in many ways. Can any wine that costs upwards of £100 a bottle really be ‘worth it’ for those of us who work damn hard for our money and don’t have anything like enough of it to think nothing of spending that amount on something which will, quite literally, be pissed away (however lovely the process of conversion may be)? Having said that, if someone offered me a bottle of the ’82 which had been immaculately stored, it would be amazingly hard for me to walk away from. I would almost certainly have to as it would seem obscene to even try to justify that expense on a single bottle but my God, I would be sorely tempted.
