Cristal Champagne's Do-over Vintage

Many a Champagne producer has said, "if we had 1996 again we'd do it differently". And then, in 2008, they had their chance.

Now it's possible to taste both 2008 Roederer Cristal and 1996 Cristal Vinothèque side by side: we can see for ourselves the effects of hindsight.

"We made the 2008 remembering 1996 every day," says Jean-Baptiste Lecaillon, chef de cave of Roederer. "There were many similarities. We had a chance to do 1996 again; we tried to correct our mistakes."

Now, 1996 is not a vintage that one would normally write off as disastrous. A lot of people made very good vintage wines, and a lot made prestige cuvées, too. So why does Lecaillon say they made mistakes?

In a nutshell, they picked too early. It was a windy year, in which northeasterly winds dehydrated and concentrated the grapes and fooled everyone into thinking that good sugar levels meant proper ripeness. How soon did they have doubts? When they began to do the first blends, in the early spring after the harvest, says Lecaillon. The vins clairs (the still wines) were just not quite where they should be, he says. They were undoubtedly good, and I've never heard of anyone turning down the offer of a glass of 1996, but they should have been better – and could have been, had they left the grapes on the vines for another week.

The first lesson that Roederer learnt was not to rely on laboratory analysis when judging ripeness. "It was the last year that we picked on analysis only," says Lecaillon. "Since then we have understood that analysis is there only to confirm." What it confirms is what a winemaker's tastebuds tell them: in 2008 they tasted grapes constantly, walking the vineyards, picking one here and one there, taking constant note of flavours and skins and pips.

In 2008 they also focused on aromatic and phenolic ripeness much more than they did in 1996. Lecaillon says that "Pinot Noir and Chardonnay do not have the same aging process. Pinot Noir has one single jump of aromatic complexity, when you can catch the fruity notes, then it has no other aromatic maturity. Chardonnay has a first level of ripeness, when it tastes like Sauvignon Blanc, then it goes to citrus flavors, and then the third level is saline and dense." That understanding, rather than a focus on sugar and acidity, is a big reason why Champagne from good producers is at such a high level of quality nowadays.

The 1996s had plenty of acidity, but not all have lasted the course; some were unbalanced and fell apart. Cristal has lasted, and the 1996 has now been re-released as Cristal Vinotheque, in both white and rosé. But Vinothèque releases are not just late-disgorged Cristal: the aging process in bottle is different. And here again, what they learnt from that windy, dehydrating vintage influenced how they treated the wine in the cellar.

The aging of bottles of Cristal destined to be Vinothèque releases is complicated. Lecaillon reckons that the wine has a "window of beauty" at around 20 years. "And we want to keep it even more. So we play with the time on lees. We keep the bottles flat [sur lattes], which gives the wine plenty of contact with the lees, with oxygen coming in – it's an oxidative stage. But you also get reduction from the lees, so it's a double effect, and you get autolysis as well, which gives oiliness, and umami. It's a time of texture, developing the nose and the texture.

"Then, after about eight years sur lattes, we riddle the wine and put the bottles sur pointe [vertical, resting on their corks]. All the lees are in the neck, and no oxygen is coming in. Autolysis stops because there is much less lees contact with the wine. So the texture develops no further, and the wine is completely reductive. The wine seems to go backwards." The 1995 Vinothèque had six years like this.

Then the wine is disgorged and dosage is added – about 7 grams per liter, less than for the original bottling, which was 9-10g/l. And the dosage is made with the wine itself, rather than with Cristal aged in cask, which is usual. This way no extra maturity is offered.

"Then it has seven to eight years in bottle post-disgorgement. These are the caressing years, when the bubbles become softer; the texture of the bubbles becomes more caressing. So Vinothèque has three kinds of ageing: texture and aromas, then reductive, then softness and a caressing texture."

The 1995 Vinothèque received this complicated upbringing, but with the 1996, given what they knew about its powerful, linear acidity, 10 years sur lattes, aging on its lees, was decreed. Then four years sur pointe, and seven years post-disgorgement – all intended, obviously, to give it a bit more roundness, a bit more softness.

It seems to have worked – the 1996 Vinothèque white is a tense, powerful, very focused wine with a touch of phenolic grip and rich, almost opulent, brioche-and-buttercream fruit balanced by a taut structure and great freshness. The rosé is a very pale copper color with a dense structure, rich and fresh, with notes of orange peel and almond tart and a creamy texture. Both feel surprisingly young.

Cristal 2008, tasted alongside, has a touch of honey coating its tense, powerful structure; and it feels light and dancing. There are flavours of bakewell tart and ripe citrus, and the finish is long and saline.

So how did they handle the 2008, in the light of what they learnt from 1996? They picked later, and on aromatic ripeness, not sugar ripeness. They did 16 percent malolactic fermentation, where they'd done none in 1996 – just, in 2008, on some Pinot Noir from the Montagne de Reims, Verzenay and Verzy, where the wines were very slightly out of balance. And they gave the wine more time on its lees, for texture in a very fresh year – nearly nine years on the lees. The 1996 was first released after six years on the lees.

Hindsight is great – and even greater when you can reset the clock and do it again, differently.