GUD BLOG: SINGLE POST
The Champagnes of Duval-Leroy
A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to taste through a significant number of the champagnes produced by Duval-Leroy, all of which were new to me. The experience was particularly instructive, giving me a sense that Duval-Leroy has a defined style for their wines: clean, elegant, never too weighty, and delicately oaked.
Sadly, the night also illustrated a problem common to so many wine drinkers in Michigan: our distribution system.
This tasting was organized by a local customer. It was he, not the distributor, who negotiated the details of the event. Why? Because after trying to order the wines through the appropriate distribution channels and being ignored by the distributor — in this case, Great Lakes — he was fed up.
So he worked directly with the U.S. representative from Duval-Leroy, Arthur, who brought a killer line up of wines, some of which may be available in the coming months through local shops like Cloverleaf Fine Wine. (I know in the past that Elie Wine Company has also sold Duval-Leroy champagnes.)
Tasting Notes
Brut (Non-vintage): Unlike other moderately priced champagnes, this has real power. There’s a strong concentration of citrus and yeast flavors with a longer finish that one might expect from an entry level product. Plenty acidic, so a nice companion to food.
Rose Sec (Non-vintage): As Arthur explained, “sec” in champagne is a relative term. Of course, it means “dry,” but it’s dry compared to an older standard of dry versus sweet. In this case, the wine is in fact pretty sweet, not something I generally like. In this case, I find it a bit on the fat, unfocused side, but the flavors are quite rich and would seem to work well with dessert (though we drank it with fois gras and waffles).
Clos des Bouveries 2004: Arguably the biggest value (and surprise) of the night, this is unlike just about any champagne I’ve ever had. It’s fermented in oak, and it carries with it lots of structure and some of that toasted flavor. But it’s hardly oppressive. Indeed, the wine is brimming with fruit aromatics, it feels quite lively and crisp, and the finish is long. It glows in the glass, almost like a Riesling. Very interesting stuff. Retails for around $50, which is expensive for a lot of wines but pretty reasonable among champagnes, especially when one considers they might pay $45 for some terrible Veuve Cliquot.
Femme de Champagne 1996: This is their flagship, heavy hitter, and it’s crazy good. Even now, it tastes youthful with plenty of acid. But it’s layered with yeast, brioche, wood, and fruit. Complex and delicious. This vintage is nearly impossible to find, even online, but the 1995 and 2000 are both available (if the distributor is willing to get off its ass to place an order for you). It’s expensive stuff at $120+ per bottle, but the 1995 is supposedly similar to the 96, and if you’re ever looking to splurge a bit, this isn’t a terrible place to start.
Rose Brut: Beautiful pink color with a bit more fruit on the nose and a bit more rounded flavor profile than some of the other wines. Dry as a bone but finishes a bit short. A perfectly nice wine, especially if you “need” a rose, but for a similar price, I’m drinking the Clos des Bouveries every time.
Cuvee Paris 2006: An elaborate design wraps around this entire bottle. It’s a nice wine – tart, yeasty, minerally. Unquestionably more complex than the Brut NV, but for twenty dollars more, it’s definitely more for regular champagne drinkers. At the price, the Bouveries is again a more interesting drink to me.
- – - – -
Duval-Leroy is an interesting producer for reasons beyond the wines themselves: The company is family owned, as it has been since its inception in 1859. It’s dramatically larger than many of the tiny grower/producers, but it’s practically minuscule compared to the popular, behemoth brands like Veuve Clicquot or Moet. After tasting the wines, I think this offers them some advantages in terms of being able to produce bottles of both quality and value at scale.
To offer some perspective, here’s a rough comparison of production levels (figures pulled from a June 2nd article on Shanken News and a piece on small grower champagnes from Decanter):
- Moet & Chandon: Shipped 2.73 million cases (almost 33 million bottles) worldwide in 2010, not including its popular, high-end Dom Perignon brand
- Veuve Cliquot: Shipped 1.32 million cases (almost 16 million bottles) worldwide in 2010
- Duval-Leroy: Produces about 5 million bottles per year
- Larmandier-Bernier: Produces around 130,000 bottles per year
I included Larmandier-Bernier because (a) it’s located in the same area in which Duval-Leroy is headquartered and (b) it shows just how little the “little guy” in Champagne can really be. But it’s also quite a different animal altogether.
More appropriately, compare Duval-Leroy to Veuve: The entry level product for both producers runs in the neighborhood of $35. That’s being generous to Veuve, which is often sold for upwards of $40. In Michigan, both producers are distributed by Great Lakes. Unfortunately for consumers in Michigan, the distributor’s priority seems to be on mediocre yellow label from Veuve, which is a shame, considering:
- It tastes and smells like sulfur with sometimes bitter, very flat flavors
- Half their packaging probably costs more to make than the wine, so you have to ask what you’re paying for
- It’s yet another example of big business operating like you’d expect a lot of big businesses to operate
So what’s the point of all my rambling?
I suppose it’s three-fold: (1) If you’re interested in trying some reasonably priced champagne — not Cava or other sparkling wines, for which there are plenty of decent sub-$20 options — Duval-Leroy seems like an excellent place to get started. (2) Unsurprisingly, a mid-sized, family-owned producer is making drastically better products than large corporate producers at similar prices. (3) Always be aggressive with your retailers and your distributors, because as I’ve learned first hand watching this tasting come together, Michigan suffers from a flawed system in which distributors base their inventory on what they can sell with minimum effort rather than what they can sell to interested consumers.
2011.11.07 Evan Hansen at 11:53 pm
This entry was posted in GUD Blog. Bookmark the permalink.
