Champagne: Drink or Hold?

Was is the general consensus on how quality champagne ages?

As a general rule, is it worth while to put the great vintages away for a while?

How do champagnes do after 20 years?

I realize these questions are very vague and general. Usually I consume champagne shortly after purchase, but am considering buying some [Veuve and Dom] from significant years with the hopes of enjoying them long term.

The only really old champagne I have had was several magnums of Dom 1964 and 1966. I bought them very cheaply at a Christies auction about 15 years ago. The description was lousy....low shoulder fills, signs of ullage (leaking), so I was able to buy 6 magnums for $200. While I was not expecting much, they were fantastic. 1964 was apparently a great year for champagne, but the 1966's were excellent also. They still were bubbly, though not as vibrant as young champagne. The flavors had turned a wonderful toasty vanilla. I had the last bottle about 6-7 years ago, which would have made it 35 years old, and while I doubt if it would have improved from there, it was as good as the first bottle that I had had 8 years earlier. These were magnums, so they would presumably last longer than regular bottles. I still have a case or so of Joseph Perrier nv that I bought in 2001 during the industry's post 2000 hangover, and it is drinking fine, though it has not really changed from the aging.

-Will

That's good to hear.

I just picked up a magnum of 1998 Dom, which I would like to hold for 20+ years.

I may pick up some additional bottles over time.

Although I don't have direct experience (because I haven't opened it yet), I did by a bottle of 1995 Don Ruinart from a reputable shop, and the employee assured me that it should age well for 15-20 years.

Champagne is the most fragile of all wines. Unless one has storage facilities which can maintain a temperature between 50-60F and a relative humidity over 40%, a bottle of Champagne stored for 20 years will turn into expensive sparkling madiera. A normal refrigerator will not work, the humidity is too low and the cork will eventually dry out.

And FWIW, the best recent vintage for Champagne is 1996, which also happens to be the best vintage in many decades. Those attempting to cellar Champagne should consider selecting something from 1996...

Champagne is already aged in Reims before disgorgement, so, depending on what you buy, you're already getting years of reductive aging. If you could poll Champenois about bottle aging their products, you'd probably hear "yes, but mostly no." In the case of non-vintage Champagnes, there is no benefit to aging on the cork. For vintage Champagnes like the ones you've mentioned, aging on the cork can beneficially affect the wine, but only if it's kept in near perfect conditions: away from light and vibration with controlled humidity and temperature. Champagne is much more sensitive to storage conditions than other wines and most wine cellars just aren't up to the task. Also, sometimes the wine simply won't survive long oxidative aging begun after disgorgement (more than a couple years, say). If you are looking for aged Champagnes, there are also Grande Année wines with 5-7 years of lees aging, and special vintages with even more lees aging from Bollinger (their RD wines), Moët & Chandon (Oenothèque) and Charles Heidsieck (Mis en Cav), to name a few. I've had a few wonderful, old bottle-aged Champagnes, but more often I've had old, oxidized, maderized stuff that had a great label.

I admit I don't know a lot about champagne, but I didn't think there was any point to trying to age either white wine or champagne; that only red wine really improves with age. I can believe that a high-quality champagne might keep for more than ten years, but I didn't think that meant it was any better in the tenth year than in the first year. I thought that the point of buying an old bottle of champagne, if one does, is to buy a bottle from a known good year, not to reap any benefit from the champagne improving from the year of bottling til now.

But as I say I don't know a lot about it, so I'm willing to be disabused of any or all of the above opinions if necessary.

Not sure about champagne, but high-quality whites of good vintages certainly can be set down and aged. This is particularly encouraged for the sweeter wines like riesling, some gerwurtz, and late harvest whites. Sauternes becomes more honey like with age, and in some instances 2 decades is not unheard of.
My understanding is that for most whites, in general, you don't want them sitting around past 4 years or so. I'm certainly no expert on all this-but pretty sure about the above snippets of info.

Good champagnes can age. I just drank a 1985 Rene Collard Rose from France. 21 years old, damn good...like anything else, it depends on how the winemakers structure the wines. 95% of reds aren't worth ageing either, usually high alcohol bordeaux's and california reds, or high sugar German's like riesling tend to age well after a long time.

The best source is to look at descriptions of similar wines from collectors and enthusiasts to see how wines you are interested in are holding up and use that as a guage. Vintage Dom's and Veuve esp Grand Damme stuff have generally aged pretty well, so that should be a good indicator of their vitality over a number of years. On the other hand, past performance is never a guarantee of future results.