New Year's fizz

[Randy Caparoso]

Wait, wait, wait, wait! Let's not throw the Veuve Clicquot out with the baby and the bath water. Clicquot happens to my personal favorite Champagne house (and when it comes to Champagne, there really are no "bests" -- but there are a lot of "personal favorites," which is what all the other guys are expressing.

In my opinion, for instance, NV Clicquot is a heckuva lot better than the vintaged Bruts from most houses. They have great vineyards, great winemaking, and great distribution (the latter factor accounting for the freshness of their nonvintage cuvees -- as opposed to the deadened quality of a lot of lesser known, less popular houses which end up sitting around in overheated warehouses).

In fact, Tabby, the Yellow Label Clicquot is made in the definitive style for Clicquot -- round, toasty, richly yeasted, and smooth as the literal baby's bottom. More than a few times I've found that I like it better than their pricier vintaged "Gold Label" Brut (depends on the quality of the vintage).

But then again, it's a matter of taste. If you like the Clicquot style, there's a good chance that you'll also like those of Louis Roederer and Bollinger, which are even yeastier, and usually fuller -- although all three house styles could be classified as rich, full and aggressive for French Champagne.

So that's where you have to be careful. Although Pol Roger is a fabulous house, their style is a little lighter, creamier, and (in my mind) somewhat fluffy in comparison with the meatier style of Clicquot. If that's what you like, great. Lanson, I'd describe as a "between" style -- tending to be quite richly yeasted in the nose, but fine and moderately weighted on the palate. Mumm and Moet & Chandon are other examples of this "between" style -- nothing sacrificed for the sake of either pure intensity or pure lightness, just a fine, elegant sense of proportion.

Finally, in my estimation Lasalle is another excellent style. Handcrafted, flavorful Champagnes. Noses that capture terroir and grape complexity within a finely yeasted package. However, I've had bottles (having sold it for many years) that have been rather flat in their wine-iness compared to more conventional styles. So if you like richly flavorful Champagne, go for Lasalle. But don't expect it to have the consistently fresh, exuberant, bubbling, airy fruit quality that you can always depend on finding in, say, a Pol Roger, Mumm or Moet & Chandon.
Re your question on what will I be drinking on the "Millennium" New Year's Eve: We're starting off with a non-Champagne sparkler from South-West France -- a Cremant de Limoux by Domaine Delmas, which has an incredibly fresh, apple cidery yeastiness and lightness. Then we're moving up to a cuvee selected exclusively for our restaurants (finished just this past month with a personally designed dosage) -- a silken, creamy textured, markedly yeasty, dynamically fruited '91 Blanc de Blancs by Iron Horse Ranch & Vineyards in Sonoma's Green Valley. Thirdly, we're going to (you guessed it) a nicely matured '91 Veuve Clicquot Brut. But at that magic moment at the stroke of 12, hopefully it will be either a Moet & Chandon Dom Perignon or Veuve Clicquot La Grande Dame. Heck, I'll do both of them, if possible! But seeing that I'm working on that night at the same time (doing a 13 course/13 wine dinner in Honolulu), we'll have to see!