1996 in champagne. what happened?
by Edouard Bourgeois
November 21, 2025
Ratings for 1996 often use words like "exceptional" and "grandiose," with some comparisons to 1928. What made 1996 objectively unique was the high average potential alcohol (10.3%) combined with high total acidity (10g/litre)—figures rarely seen together. As Charles Philipponnat noted, this is a significant jump from the 9.3% potential alcohol common forty years prior.
Acidity and potential alcohol work together for balance, but typically, when one is high, the other is low. In 1996, both figures were high. Bruno Paillard called it a 'naughty boy' vintage due to its unpredictable nature and the anxiety it caused producers while waiting for acidity levels to drop. However, the result for those with patience is "fantastic."
While acidity is key for aging, the true test is time. Over two decades later, the remaining 1996 bottles reveal which producers succeeded. The best examples are still complex and alluring, where the high acidity is balanced by a wide range of aromas, from brioche to stone fruit. Unfortunately, some other bottlings show only residual acidity, resulting in unbalanced and tart wines.
I recall opening a glorious bottle of 1996 Cristal for my son's birth seven years ago; the wine was still vibrant and charged.
Another fabulous example was made by Krug. As Olivier Krug said, "It’s a year where a good house or a good winemaker will make a good wine... It’s a tricky vintage." Other industry professionals have shared similar sentiments, noting that some vintners either opted out of making a vintage bottling or failed to achieve balance, resulting in wines that are already clumsy or tired.
The 1996 vintage often draws comparisons to its predecessor, 1995. These were the last two great Champagne vintages following the 1988, 1989, and 1990 trio. The 1996s are powerful wines; the best combine weight from ripeness with tension from acidity, providing the interest, complexity, and structure needed for long-term aging.
Interestingly, more houses released 1995 as a vintage Champagne than 1996, with a ratio of roughly 60% (1995) to 40% (1996).
Given its unpredictability, the safest bet for 1996 Champagne remains to go with producers you trust.
While looking for pictures of 1996 Champagne on my IPhone, I also found several other wines from various regions where the 1996 vintage truly shone, as seen in images below;jbgories
What's Pressoir Drinking?
Over achieving mature white Burgundy.
August 1, 2020
by Raj Vaidya
I recently passed a milestone birthday, and nothing makes an aging former sommelier feel younger than noting that the wines of his birth vintage are starting to decline, because I certainly feel healthier and more fit than most red Burgundy from 1980. ‘80 was a slyly great vintage for a long time, underestimated by many in the 80’s but appreciated by those in the know. Today, most of the reds are slowly coming apart. But the whites from the vintage are largely panned as mediocre in the best cases, terrifically bad in the worst. And so though I had a number of red Burgs I wanted to enjoy with friends of the same age this year, my one bottle of white Burgundy was something I placed very little value on. As it turns out, a very nice surprise awaited me…
I once asked Dominique Lafon about his memories of the Domaine des Comtes Lafon before he took over in the early 80’s, and he shared one with me which stuck out as hilarious and quite telling. Sometime in the late 70’s, he observed a member of the team putting a bin full of fairly botrytised grapes (the same mold that is found in Sauternes to make sweet wines) into a vat and asked him why he hadn’t sorted out the unfit, rotten berries. The fellow replied, “kid, to make a great wine, you need one third perfectly ripe fruit for the longevity, one third underripe fruit for the acidity, and one third botrytised grapes for the sugar concentration!” This hilarious (and today heretical) statement offers a window into common wisdom in the winemaking of the past.
Sure enough, this bottle had a fair bit of botrytis, and upon first opening it all of us present had to comment that it was surprisingly fresh, a very healthy bottle for its age and poor vintage pedigree. But it held a great deal more in store, and as the evening progressed it gained in volume, and in precision and salinity till it reached a plateau which was truly marvelous. Lemon curd, oyster shell and grassy aromas and flavors appeared, seemingly from out of nowhere. The length of the palate grew with air also, furthering our surprise and pleasure. That botrytis concentrates sugars, and thereby ripeness in a wine is well understood, but what I realized from this wine was that the botrytis concentrates everything; by allowing the water in the juice to evaporate the concentration of not only the sugars but the acids rise as well. If you squint at the less than ideal picture I managed to take on this hot evening in Tribeca, you can notice an (empty) tin of caviar through the glass sitting on the table. It was the perfect pairing!
Domaine des Comtes Lafon Meursault 1er Cru “Goutte d’Or” 1980
