WTN: cheap Champagne and a question

We had a bottle of NV Moutard Brut Grande Cuvee last night with a spicey cucumber chicken dinner that was a wonderful match. The Champagne was disgourged in May of 2014 but tasted older than that which was a very good thing. Medium straw color with sparce tiny bead, the flavors were medium-full of yeasty dough and pear and that undefinable oldish Champagne flavor. The cork did not expand much after opening. For a Champagne that usually costs less than $35 and often found at a bit less, it was a delight to pair with the meal. My question is: are there any Champagne producers considered very sub-standard? I do not mean that very occasional corked or cooked Champagne but producers that routinely make wine that is dull and uninteresting. I have consumed maybe 15-20 different Champagnes over the years and have never had one that I did not consider at least very good and often exceptional. I have never had Krug ,Salon or Crystal but hopefully before I die!

I've liked Moutard's rose.

Bubbles are usually fun, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of boring Champagnes out there. Lately Andre Roger, Andre Jacquart, and Louis Chalvon have disappointed. I've heard Veuve-Cliquot has rebounded, but in the aughts the yellow label was a shadow of former quality. Nicolas Feuillatte is a co-op and very variable. I don't know any of these are consistently substandard, but wouldn't rush to buy more no matter the price.

[David M. Bueker]

Lanson had been rather substandard, but seems to be getting a lot better.

Lanson had been rather substandard, but seems to be getting a lot better.

I like older vintage Lanson (70s/early 80s) and they've been reasonably priced. But agreed the NV & vintage releases released 5-15 years ago were not exciting (to say least). But had an Extra Age not too long ago that was good, and JohnG told me the new releases of black label are good quality.

Of course, for dull Champagne I should have mention Moet White Star (is that still produced?)

White Star was a label specifically intended for the USA; it had a higher dosage than the regular Brut.

I understand the brand was discontinued to be replaced by Ice Imperial, "the world's first champagne specifically created to poured over ice"

I have tasted neither brand but I saw people drinking Ice Imperial in NZ, served in large opaque white glass, like a large paris goblet filled with ice and fruits and thought 'thats not for me'......

We had a bottle of NV Moutard Brut Grande Cuvee !

Moutard's an interesting house in that yhey make one Champagnes from a blend of 6 varieties and also do a varietal Arbane

There's many different nuances in Champagne and we get through a lot but mostly Lanson Black Label, cheap own labels from various supermarkets and Aldi plus a small grower maker Francis Boulard.

I t ry to keep Champagne for at least 6 months after purchase; the improvement is noticeable.

[David M. Bueker]

Aubry does work with the additional varieties as well. Aubry's wines are a big step up from Moutard.

The Aubry "La Nombre d’Or Campanae Veteres Vites" is fun to serve and ask people what varieties are used (in addition to PN, Chard, and PM, has Pinot Blanc, Pinot Gris, & Petit Meslier which are grandfathered in). Assume the Moutard has the same- what is name of that bottling?

Dale, you jogged my memory with the mention of Feuillatte. I remember buying a bottle of the NV Brut from Chevy Chase in D.C. and even at $19, was not worth it.

[Jenise]

I understand the brand was discontinued to be replaced by Ice Imperial, "the world's first champagne specifically created to poured over ice"
...

The White Star is gone. In the States now, we get a Brut Imperial instead, which to my tastes is a scoch drier (thank god) than the White Star.

Yup, the Brut Imperial is the standard M&C NV Brut, and it is drier than White Star

[David M. Bueker]

The Brut Imperial is quite a bit drier (60% or so - more than a scooch) than White Star. There are still so many better values out there.