Magnum forces
By Lyn FarmerA running joke among critics is that if you ask a winemaker to name his or her favorite wine, it will be whichever vintage they have the most of to sell. That almost never happens, however, in the Champagne business. I've asked dozens of chefs de caves about their favorite bottles and many say it's any one of their wines in magnum. They make it very clear that the wine seems better to them in magnum than in the standard 750-ml bottle, and they're equally adamant that it has nothing to do with being able to sell twice as much wine in a bottle that's twice as big.
If Champagne is so good in magnum, why don't we see these larger format bottles more often? Standard 750s are even commonplace at big parties. Only in nightclubs - where luxury cuvées like Dom and Cristal are de rigueur en magnum - and sporting event victory parties is Champagne frequently poured from big bottles.
For wine lovers, magnums are better than 750s for more than show. To understand why, we must visit the cellars of Champagne where still wine is first made, then combined with a little yeast and a little sugar to carry out a second fermentation in bottle instead of tank. Practically speaking, the 3-liter bottle, or Jeroboam, is the largest vessel in which this second fermentation can take place (any bottle larger than a Jeroboam invariably is assembled from the contents of smaller bottles post disgorgement.
The reason is in the handling. A glass bottle is a fragile thing, especially with all the pressure that builds up during the second fermentation. Magnums are easier to handle than Jeroboams, though 750s are obviously easiest of all, especially because most of the cellar equipment is tooled to accommodate the standard bottle.
So why do Champagne's makers favor magnums for quality? When I asked this question repeatedly during an October visit to Champagne, I received the same two answers over and over: "It's partly about oxidation, and partly it's a mystery." The oxidation aspect is easy to explain: Wines age through controlled oxidation and that tiny amount of air between the wine and the cork is like a little aerobic factory. While the distance from the top of the wine to the bottom of the cork is slightly greater in a magnum, it's not doubled and the necks are the same size. So the net effect is there is less air per liter of wine in a magnum and that means a slower evolution.
There are a couple of other things going on as well: Small temperature fluctuations are less dramatic in a larger volume of wine; and while it's not scientific, I like to think Champagne enjoys its own company and is happier with more wine in a bigger bottle. The end result is that Champagne matures - or oxidizes - more slowly in a magnum. In Champagne, the commonly accepted wisdom is that slower aging means wine in magnums will last longer and thus be "fresher," or less developed, than the same wine from a 750.
Here's where the mystery part comes in: By slowing the aging process, the wine ages differently, and there is thought to be an elusive attribute gained from this. Or so goes the theory at least.
Over the past year, I've tasted a lot of Champagnes in magnum and compared them side by side to the same wines in 750s. I have to say the first theory - that the magnum will always taste younger and fresher than a 750 - isn't consistently true. There are too many variables: The wines were likely disgorged at different times and, especially in young wines, that difference of a few months can make a noticeable difference in the glass. In November, I tried the exquisite but still slightly immature 1996 vintage from Laurent-Perrier in both bottle formats and thought the 750 was, in fact, the less evolved of the two.
In October in the Champagne village of Aÿ, I tasted the 1997 Amour de Deutz, a classic blanc de blancs, side by side in 750 and magnum with Deutz CEO Fabrice Rosset and chef de caves Michel Davesne. We found the smaller bottle slightly more advanced, but I loved the wine in the magnum because there was more balance in flavor and texture.
In comparing the two bottle sizes, time after time it seemed that perceived maturity wasn't really the issue - sometimes the smaller bottle tasted more mature and sometimes the magnum had the edge. What proved consistent, however, was that I preferred the balance and roundness of the wine in magnum. This conclusion was particularly true of older wines, but even with younger vintages the magnums offered a distinctive elegance. By what process this added dimension is achieved remains a mystery, but I loved making the discovery.
I'm not about to stop buying Champagne in standard bottles, but I want to drink more of it from magnum, and that brings up the only problem with 1.5-ml bottles: They're not easy to find.
At most houses, non-vintage wines account for upward of 80 percent of sales and non-vintage magnums are produced in a similar ratio; luxury cuvées are usually bottled in magnum, too. For the Champagne connoisseur, short of special ordering, there's little else to be found in magnum but these two contrasting styles. That doesn't make sense to me.
Putting the least expensive and most expensive wines in bigger bottles may have a rationale in the marketplace, but it ignores the fact that non-vintage Champagnes, made to be consumed soon after release, have the least prospect of profiting from the biggest strength of the magnum - the ability to age slowly for added complexity. They may improve with a bit of bottle age, but I'd like to see more vintage wines bottled en magnum, especially because stratospherically priced magnum-sized luxury cuvées are out of the reach of most consumers. Vintage Champagne is more affordable, and the quality gains of it in magnum are compelling.
Champagne houses charge a premium for magnums, sometimes as much as three times the cost of a standard bottle for only twice as much wine due largely to the additional handling required. Bottling non-vintage Champagne in magnum focuses only on the showy aspects of the large bottle format. If the wine is non-vintage, the extra money laid down at the cash register has bought a bit of flash and little else. This isn't exactly going to encourage consumers to discover the added joys of drinking Champagne from a magnum.
Finally, there is no denying the aesthetic pleasure of the larger bottle. In sharing Champagne with friends, pouring from a magnum - which Olivier Krug jokes "is the perfect size for two" - is a generous gesture that just looks cooler, too.
Whether you are willing to pay the premium charged for a magnum is a matter of individual choice, but if it's a vintage wine with a little age, the real premium is in your glass.