Decanting Champagne

Decanting Champagne

At Ria a few nights ago, I was more than a little surprised when the sommelier decanted the champagne. He actually put it in a decanter and swirled it to release the gas and create a still wine from what was once bubbly. A new one on me.



I found this degassifcation of an otherwise sparkling beverage intriguing. I’ve mentioned it to a few food people over the past day or so, and I get a range of responses from curious interest to eye rolls.

One of the rationales behind this practice is that it reduces the noise so that you can taste the juice unobstructed, more cleanly, un-camouflaged.

Not sure what I think about this strategy, but I will say this: I enjoyed the de-bubbled Champagne (though I may have enjoyed it more with bubbles).

Considering Egly-Ouriet is a favorite champagne of mine, I'm in the the eyeroll camp. If I wanted to drink de-gassed wine, I wouldn't drink champagne.

I think there may be some confusion here. Putting champagne in a decanter and swirling it will not remove the bubbles. It will lessen them but it will not create a still wine (unless you leave it for like a day).

I have friends who are very serious champagne collectors (drinking champagnes 50+ years old, etc) and they often decant champagnes. I've been with them and have drunk the champagne. When they've done this, NEVER has the champagne turned into a "still wine."

People who eye roll don't know what they're talking (or rolling) about.

I guess I misunderstood the OP when he said it was de-bubbled. I've certainly heard of decanting Champagne, but this sounded like a more rigorous process with the end result being a flat wine (and maybe it was). Still, I'm guessing that this Egly is not terribly old, and I still feel like it's a bit gimmicky in this context. Maybe more information is needed.

DutchMuse wrote:I think there may be some confusion here. Putting champagne in a decanter and swirling it will not remove the bubbles. It will lessen them but it will not create a still wine (unless you leave it for like a day).

There are perhaps degrees of stillness, and I don't have a shot of the glass of Champagne, but the glass I had from this bottle, after it was decanted, looked for all appearances like a still wine. The point is, whether it was completely completely bubble-free or not, it had way fewer bubbles. What I'm not sure about is whether the bottle was decanted long before dinner.

I wonder if they used one of the special Riedel decanters made for decanting champagne?

http://tv.winelibrary.com/2009/10/21/a- ... isode-756/

What does the decanting of Champagne achieve?

If I had to guess, I'd say that the removal of some of the carbonation allows one to pick up on some of the Champagne's subtler flavors.

There is at least one Champagne House that specifies decanting for one of their Cuvee's.
But the makers have spent a lot of time and energy putting the bubbles in your Champagne and I never decant any Champagne. Decanting is an affectation in my opinion. If I was at a restaurant and they decanted a Champagne that I ordered, it would go back, no questions asked.
As for older Champagne whether Vintage or not (20- 30 years old and not recently disgorged), the carbonation is usually greatly reduced and many times the wine is actually maderized and unpleasant. I have been served these older Champagnes by collectors and I usually try to find a potted plant or sink to unobtrusively dispose of the contents.
I, in fact, like the bubbles as Champagne is my favorite wine!-Dick

DutchMuse wrote:I have friends who are very serious champagne collectors (drinking champagnes 50+ years old, etc) and they often decant champagnes.

Talked to Pilkey at Ria today and he said, "With older Champagne, there’s no reason to decant. You’ve lost a lot of gas already, so if you decant, you’re going to make a flatter champagne even flatter."

Okay, I do't know why you would order bubbly, hold the bubbles. While I can appreciate an ability to taste all of the lovely toast or caramel in La Grande Dame or all of the crisp apple and pear in an inexpensive bubbly from Spain like Segura Viudas Aria (yes this is back when I used to drink alcohol) why you would want a champagne without bubbles, aside from when I decide to use it in preserves or some other cooking, is beyond me. Yes, I've put up "bellini" in a jar" this past canning season and yes that was about the taste of champagne without the bubbles but that's only because the processing and the release of fruit juice flattens the bubbles.

Oh well, I also liked ketchup on my hot dog back when I ate the one's made from animals, I don't consider myself in bad company since Chef Adria said the same thing last week to a room of gasping Chicagoans. .

Some people like Twinkies and I will take that great line from Seinfeld and apply it to things I don't get like decreasing the bubbles in champagne prior to drinking it, "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

pairs4life wrote:Oh well, I also liked ketchup on my hot dog back when I ate the one's made from animals, I don't consider myself in bad company since Chef Adria said the same thing last week to a room of gasping Chicagoans. .

Are you kidding me? What was the context for that comment? Please, tell me more.

David Hammond wrote:

pairs4life wrote:Oh well, I also liked ketchup on my hot dog back when I ate the one's made from animals, I don't consider myself in bad company since Chef Adria said the same thing last week to a room of gasping Chicagoans. .

Are you kidding me? What was the context for that comment? Please, tell me more.

From a recap of his talk last week, here.

The only somewhat controversial point in the night is when someone asked him about his thoughts on the Chicago-style hot dog. He initially steered around the subject, remarking that with any simple dish you need to start with the basics and then work from there. "Start with a good hot dog," he said, "then get a good bun, the best mustard, and great ketchup." The last remark led to a collective gasp from the auditorium, but he moved on before anyone could explain both the intricacies of what was actually on a Chicago-style hot dog and the city's aversion to the red stuff.

kl1191 wrote:

David Hammond wrote:

pairs4life wrote:Oh well, I also liked ketchup on my hot dog back when I ate the one's made from animals, I don't consider myself in bad company since Chef Adria said the same thing last week to a room of gasping Chicagoans. .

Are you kidding me? What was the context for that comment? Please, tell me more.

From a recap of his talk last week, here.

The only somewhat controversial point in the night is when someone asked him about his thoughts on the Chicago-style hot dog. He initially steered around the subject, remarking that with any simple dish you need to start with the basics and then work from there. "Start with a good hot dog," he said, "then get a good bun, the best mustard, and great ketchup." The last remark led to a collective gasp from the auditorium, but he moved on before anyone could explain both the intricacies of what was actually on a Chicago-style hot dog and the city's aversion to the red stuff.

Not all dislike tomato condiments on our dogs, but I wasn't born here, I will always be from the land of boiled peanuts and scuppernongs/muscadines ;D

David Hammond wrote:

DutchMuse wrote:I have friends who are very serious champagne collectors (drinking champagnes 50+ years old, etc) and they often decant champagnes.

Talked to Pilkey at Ria today and he said, "With older Champagne, there’s no reason to decant. You’ve lost a lot of gas already, so if you decant, you’re going to make a flatter champagne even flatter."

Not sure how many really old champagnes Pilkey has had, but my friend is probably one of the top 3 or 4 champagne collectors in the US and he prefers to decant--not having to do with the bubbles, but he believes it improves the taste. That is, he's not trying to lessen or "tame" the bubbles, he's addressing issues of taste which he (and I'm only referring to one person) believes decanting improves.

Again, it is not my preference, but I'm not in this guy's league.

Not trying to get into a debate about decanting/no decanting (I'm in the no decanting camp, personally) but I wanted to address the people who "roll their eyes" about this. Was trying to say they're not, perhaps, fully informed.

DutchMuse wrote:Not trying to get into a debate about decanting/no decanting (I'm in the no decanting camp, personally) but I wanted to address the people who "roll their eyes" about this. Was trying to say they're not, perhaps, fully informed.

DutchMuse - DH's opening post did not mention anything about decanting a really old champagne for taste, rather, to smooth out the bubbles. Setting aside your top champagne-collecting friend who decants 50 year old champagne for taste, where do you stand on decanting champagne to de-gassify it? (Not trying to start a debate, just curious.)

aschie30 wrote:

DutchMuse wrote:Not trying to get into a debate about decanting/no decanting (I'm in the no decanting camp, personally) but I wanted to address the people who "roll their eyes" about this. Was trying to say they're not, perhaps, fully informed.

DutchMuse - DH's opening post did not mention anything about decanting a really old champagne for taste, rather, to smooth out the bubbles. Setting aside your top champagne-collecting friend who decants 50 year old champagne for taste, where do you stand on decanting champagne to de-gassify it? (Not trying to start a debate, just curious.)

I had assumed--perhaps incorrectly--that decanting a young champagne was also aimed at taste/flavor/aromas rather than specifically to reduce the bubbles. I would not view "reducing the bubbles" as a desirable aim. Rather, much like decanting a young wine to give it air and help it develop more quickly, one would decant a young champagne to improve the flavor/taste/aromas.

Oh, I thought that older champagnes were decanted. But I think we're basically in agreement that Ria decanted the champagne -- effectively "de-gassing" it -- specifically to alter the taste and aroma. Now, whether or not anyone believes that altering the winemakers' vision of a gassified product to "improve" it merits an eyeroll -- or not -- is simply a matter of opinion, rather than, perhaps, misinformation, no? To each his own; I personally like my champagnes young -- and incanted.

aschie30 wrote:Oh, I thought that older champagnes were decanted. But I think we're basically in agreement that Ria decanted the champagne -- effectively "de-gassing" it -- specifically to alter the taste and aroma. Now, whether or not anyone believes that altering the winemakers' vision of a gassified product to "improve" it merits an eyeroll -- or not -- is simply a matter of opinion, rather than, perhaps, misinformation, no? To each his own; I personally like my champagnes young -- and incanted.

According to notes I have from conversation with Pilkey: "Taking down the gas leaves me with more the voice of the terroir."

So I'm not sure if what is being done, from Pilkey's perspective, is "altering" or "revealing" the character of the Champagne.

David Hammond wrote:

aschie30 wrote:Oh, I thought that older champagnes were decanted. But I think we're basically in agreement that Ria decanted the champagne -- effectively "de-gassing" it -- specifically to alter the taste and aroma. Now, whether or not anyone believes that altering the winemakers' vision of a gassified product to "improve" it merits an eyeroll -- or not -- is simply a matter of opinion, rather than, perhaps, misinformation, no? To each his own; I personally like my champagnes young -- and incanted.

According to notes I have from conversation with Pilkey: "Taking down the gas leaves me with more the voice of the terroir."

So I'm not sure if what is being done, from Pilkey's perspective, is "altering" or "revealing" the character of the Champagne.

Yeah, but in order to reveal you have to alter what the winemaker did (at least somewhat). I didn't want to speculate earlier, but I suspected that the terroir issue was exactly Pilkey's aim. It's an interesting and noble idea (especially for wine geeks), but a little too much like having your cake and eating it too. Champagne's reputation is made on its bubbles, so taking away the bubbles in champagne in order to let the terroir speak kind of reminds me of Marilyn Monroe getting tired of not being taken seriously as an actress, so she tries her hand at directing instead. Intriguing, but not as fun.

This has been a very interesting discussion.

aschie30 wrote:Oh, I thought that older champagnes were decanted. But I think we're basically in agreement that Ria decanted the champagne -- effectively "de-gassing" it -- specifically to alter the taste and aroma. Now, whether or not anyone believes that altering the winemakers' vision of a gassified product to "improve" it merits an eyeroll -- or not -- is simply a matter of opinion, rather than, perhaps, misinformation, no? To each his own; I personally like my champagnes young -- and incanted.

If someone reacted to decanting a young or old champagne with an eye roll, I would personally (perhaps not you or others) think them uninformed or--to be blunt--philistines.

David Hammond wrote:

aschie30 wrote:Oh, I thought that older champagnes were decanted. But I think we're basically in agreement that Ria decanted the champagne -- effectively "de-gassing" it -- specifically to alter the taste and aroma. Now, whether or not anyone believes that altering the winemakers' vision of a gassified product to "improve" it merits an eyeroll -- or not -- is simply a matter of opinion, rather than, perhaps, misinformation, no? To each his own; I personally like my champagnes young -- and incanted.

According to notes I have from conversation with Pilkey: "Taking down the gas leaves me with more the voice of the terroir."

So I'm not sure if what is being done, from Pilkey's perspective, is "altering" or "revealing" the character of the Champagne.

This mystifies me. I, personally (and I only speak for one), do not believe it really has to do with the bubbles (gas).

I wonder how many old (or great even young) champagnes most sommeliers have actually, themselves, tasted under different conditions. Most don't have the budget for it. With respect to my wonderful sommelier friends--I'm used to collaborating with them rather than being instructed by them.

aschie30 wrote:

David Hammond wrote:

aschie30 wrote:Oh, I thought that older champagnes were decanted. But I think we're basically in agreement that Ria decanted the champagne -- effectively "de-gassing" it -- specifically to alter the taste and aroma. Now, whether or not anyone believes that altering the winemakers' vision of a gassified product to "improve" it merits an eyeroll -- or not -- is simply a matter of opinion, rather than, perhaps, misinformation, no? To each his own; I personally like my champagnes young -- and incanted.

According to notes I have from conversation with Pilkey: "Taking down the gas leaves me with more the voice of the terroir."

So I'm not sure if what is being done, from Pilkey's perspective, is "altering" or "revealing" the character of the Champagne.

Yeah, but in order to reveal you have to alter what the winemaker did (at least somewhat). I didn't want to speculate earlier, but I suspected that the terroir issue was exactly Pilkey's aim. It's an interesting and noble idea (especially for wine geeks), but a little too much like having your cake and eating it too. Champagne's reputation is made on its bubbles, so taking away the bubbles in champagne in order to let the terroir speak kind of reminds me of Marilyn Monroe getting tired of not being taken seriously as an actress, so she tries her hand at directing instead. Intriguing, but not as fun.

This has been a very interesting discussion.

No one is talking about "taking away" the bubbles--see early posts above. We ARE talking about revealing terroir and revealing flavour/taste.

DutchMuse wrote:No one is talking about "taking away" the bubbles--see early posts above. We ARE talking about revealing terroir and revealing flavour/taste.

So your suggestion is that the lessening of the bubbles is entirely incidental? If it were magically possible to reveal flavor/taste in the same manner without disturbing the effervescence, would those who decant champagne choose to do so? (I realize to generalize in such a fashion is probably unfair... but I'm curious about your sense of this.)

At this juncture, I'd suggest you ask it of those (as I've indicated above, does not include me) who wish to decant their champagne.

I can just tell you no one who has done this has mentioned, as an attribute or goal, reducing the bubbles. In fact my collector friend once commented that one would be surprised at how little was lost in terms of bubbles by decanting.