"Late Disgorged?"

Pardon me. My ignorance and research lethargy are showing.

I've been going through the product line of a sparkling wine house located on Yountville Cross Road in the Stags Leap District of the Napa Valley which shall remain nameless and I came across the term "late disgorged" on the label of two of their sparklers. I've never really seen anybody make a point of this before. Have you? And, I imagine, letting the bubbly hang out upside down in the bottle longer means longer contact with the sediment, i.e. kinda like letting still wine sit on lees. But is there another reason for this?

Comments and donations appreciated!

The way I understand it, your guess is correct: "late disgorged" is usually applied to vintage sparkling wine/champagne at it means the wine was left on the lees for longer than usual for whatever benefits that might bring in terms of complexity.

The French CHAMPAGNE (ahem...) houses use the term 'Recently Disgorged' or R.D. (Bollingers is especially famous.) Having older Champagnes hang around upside-down longer Sur Point prolongs the process of Autolysis which helps to develop more biscuity complexity, as well as increasing amino acids among other chemical changes. The chemical changes after disgorgement are not as profound (not to say that cellaring vintage Champagne isn't benificial, it is.) It is rather like having more lees contact in a still wine. It helps with texture, aroma and overall complexity.

Also, Bruno Paillard and Philipponnat (both owned by Paillard) print disgorgement dates on all NV Champagnes too. Handy since NV Champagne, unlike Vinted Champagne, doesn't get better in bottle. Rule of thumb is to drink NV Champagne 2-3 years from disgorgement date. I came across a very old bottle of NV Krug once that was almost undrinkable. What a shame. Was the Cali-Sparkler vintage or not?

Handy since NV Champagne, unlike Vinted Champagne, doesn't get better in bottle. Rule of thumb is to drink NV Champagne 2-3 years from disgorgement date. I came across a very old bottle of NV Krug once that was almost undrinkable. What a shame.

Oh fun, we get to disagree about Champagne again

One bottle of Krug NV disgorged in 1987 (and very well cellared) was incredible, among my top 3 Champagnes of all time and another from 1989 (unknown, but it seems good provenance) was brilliant as well.

Like with any wine, some will improve, some (most?) won't, but I think saying that none will is too broad a generalisation. If the source material and structure when young is good enough, I don't see why it couldn't?

Vinted Champagne,

Bill, tell me that was a slip and not that you are starting a new word for vintage

i disagree more strongly than cam about NV champagne not improving after disgorging. certainly every wine including sparkling will CHANGE after final bottling; and some of those changes may be good and some bad. AND some people like more 'mature' champagnes and they will be more likely to think that they 'improve'. the kind of changes that take place will depend among other things on:
1. how long it was laid down originally - if for the minimum legal period the changes most likely will be improvements and be dramatic
2. how much if any reserve wine was used to make it. small houses often use little or no reserve wines - ployez-jacquemart e.g.
3. how oxidative the original winemaking process was including use of sulphur.

Seconded. There was an article in Decanter years ago that suggested the best way to drink Champagne was to buy the better NVs and age them for (if I remember correctly) 3-5 years. I think this is very good advice.

The disgorgement date is very relevant, particularly if the wine has spent a lot of time sur lie. Many years ago Pol Roger released a '52 that had been disgorged in '77 (for the Queen's Silver Jubilee) and it was extraordinary, but only for a year or so.

The disgorgement date is very relevant, particularly if the wine has spent a lot of time sur lie. Many years ago Pol Roger released a '52 that had been disgorged in '77 (for the Queen's Silver Jubilee) and it was extraordinary, but only for a year or so.

I just came back from the winery which started my inquiry into the term "late disgorged" and it was suggested to me there that the longer the champagne remains sur point, the longer it can remain in the bottle after disgorging, i.e. there was some kind of direct proportion.

that seems both counter to my intuition and to my experience. aging is aging - and everything has a limit.

The disgorgement date is very relevant, particularly if the wine has spent a lot of time sur lie. Many years ago Pol Roger released a '52 that had been disgorged in '77 (for the Queen's Silver Jubilee) and it was extraordinary, but only for a year or so.

I just came back from the winery which started my inquiry into the term "late disgorged" and it was suggested to me there that the longer the champagne remains sur point, the longer it can remain in the bottle after disgorging, i.e. there was some kind of direct proportion.

That sounds very much like something called PR or maybe BS...

The disgorgement date is very relevant, particularly if the wine has spent a lot of time sur lie. Many years ago Pol Roger released a '52 that had been disgorged in '77 (for the Queen's Silver Jubilee) and it was extraordinary, but only for a year or so.

I just came back from the winery which started my inquiry into the term "late disgorged" and it was suggested to me there that the longer the champagne remains sur point, the longer it can remain in the bottle after disgorging, i.e. there was some kind of direct proportion.

That sounds very much like something called PR or maybe BS...

Ne fusillez pas le messager!

I was about to make a snide remark about CA sparkling wine, but I won't.

I was about to make a snide remark about CA sparkling wine, but I won't.

Wouldn't that be California Champagne, Oliver

Vinted Champagne,

Bill, tell me that was a slip and not that you are starting a new word for vintage

A slip indeed Thomas, but now you have me thinking... Maybe I SHOULD start coining words...

Like with any wine, some will improve, some (most?) won't, but I think saying that none will is too broad a generalisation. If the source material and structure when young is good enough, I don't see why it couldn't?

But Cam, I'm ALL ABOUT making sweeping generalizations. All part of my charm I guess...

If you don't know winespeak, it sounds like someone drank too much and then threw up, doesn't it?

Champagne AOC law sets a minimum period that it must be aged in bottle before the sediment from the secondary fermentation is disgorged. I think it's 3 years past the vintage. To keep inventory costs down, most Champagne is disgorged as soon as it's legally permissible and sent right off to market. One trick with low-end NV Champagnes is to buy from a retailer with a fast turnover (to insure you get fresh bottles), then to keep it in your cellar a year or two before opening it. It can improve markedly with an extra year if it was released on the "green" side.

So with that perspective "late disgorged" means "received proper aging before being disgorged".

-Paul W.