Talk:Bollinger

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Food and drink Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here . Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. inactive .WineWikipedia:WikiProject WineTemplate:WikiProject WineWine articles

	France Start‑class
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Bollinger Page Started

I have recently started editing the stub for Bollinger champagne. The page was a stub with only a few cultural references. I started by writing and adding the History. Please stay tuned for more details which I will add to the page.Veritasjohn 22:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this article requires editing due to some POV language. Charleenmerced ^Talk 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced[reply]

Charleenmerced - could you please explain what language you believe to be POV?Veritasjohn 21:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I will say that John has done some great work with the article. I see real

neutral tone. By neutral, I mean (and I think this is along the same lines Charleen is thinking) is that the current article tip toes along the lines of selling the wine to the reader. Lines that jump out include "This gives the special cuvee complexity and structure absent in many other non-vintage champagnes." and "This fine champagne is also available in Rose." etc. Now I absolutely LOVE Bollinger. It is by far one of the best Champagne houses out there and I would agree 100% with the sentiments expressed in the article. However, for the benefit of a Wikipedia article, we want to try and curb our personal enthusiasm and passion for the wine from entering our words and phrasing. The most ideal situation is to simply present the story of the wine and let the reader decide on their own to pick up a bottle and then realize that this wine has complexity and structure absent in many other non-vintage champagnes and that is a fine champagne. We want them to realize this on their own without the article specifically telling them this. But again, this article has a lot of great stuff in it and please don't interpret our comments as a negative. I would love to work with you and get this article up to GA status. All it really needs is a little polishing.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Please point out any additional potential POV statements. I left a statement that Bolligner has "structure and coplexity." These are objective properties of the wine, which I will source in the near future. I cut out the comparitor "compared to other champagnes" which could relfect a POV. Other than that line, are there any other objectionable parts of the article that should be addressed?Veritasjohn 16:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work that you have done. It looks much more in line with an NPOV tone. The one thing that I would be mindful of is the need for sources apart from Bollinger's website-which is essentially a "self reference". Ideally we should have a preference for independent third party sources over the subject matters own sourcing.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence right now is way too simple. At one point, the lead mentioned that Bollinger was Bond's favorite champagne. I am not currently advocated a simple reversion to that version. However, I believe the article right now lacks enough information in the lead / intro paragraph. A simple mention that Bollinger is a type of Champagne is not very descriptive. Considering the amount of information about Bollinger late in the article, the intro does not give the reader enough information. I am opening a discussion about what information should be included in the lead paragraph. I believe a short paragraph is likely the optimum intro section.Veritasjohn 21:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current lead is lacking and needs work. I'll do a little digging and see if I can find something that will improve it. I don't see a need for trivia in the lead though.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While working up to GA here are some things that I'd like to find sources on or expand.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In the history section, why did the founders agree to leave Villermont's name off the label?

As I recall, the Comte de Villermont did not want to sully his name with connotations of trade.Fmh1964 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The line "...when the Hennequins, one of the Bollinger founding families..." is a little confusing. Is Hennequin relating to Villermont as a first or last name?
• I'm not sure that Veuve Cliquot was related to the Heidsiecks. I may be wrong though. Can we add a cite though?
• Lilly's quote will also need a cite

Lilly's quote is from the 17 October 1961 edition of the Daily Mail.Fmh1964 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In "R.D" there are a lot of phrases that are in quote that is a little confusing. Are these direct quotes that we can cite to someone?

running list of fixes

• fixed the Lilly quote.Veritasjohn 20:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Villermont name I moved the "label" section relating to the history of Bollinger and founders name on the label to the history section. I did minor editing to delete redundant material and incorporate the facts into the history. It would be useful, Fmh1964, for you to cite your source about de Villermont not wanting his name on the label.Veritasjohn 17:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to remove many of the red stub links for names which are unlikely to be created anytime in the near future. Perhaps a few main names coudl be left, such as the main Bollinger founder, but many of the other names for historic figures are unlikely to be created anytime soon. I think the high number of red links impares the quality and readibility of the article.Veritasjohn 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the purpose of red links is to encourage the creation of the article. Now if you don't think there will ever be an article then by all means remove the links but if the subject is deserving of an article then we should have that impetus to create one with the red links. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried unsuccessfully to revise the information box for Bollinger. I am of the view that in terms of price and production, R.D. qualifies as a prestige cuvée. Indeed, I have learned that Bollinger intends to increase the price of R.D. for future releases to a level at or above Louis Roederer's Cristal. May I suggest a threefold classification, Non-vintage, Vintage and Prestige cuvées. I did add a bit about what I believe is the now abandoned Année Rare label. In about 1994 one could purchase a 1975 Année Rare, 1979 R.D. and the current vintage of Bollinger 1985. I had emailed Bollinger in the past year to find out whether Année Rare was still produced but received no reply.Fmh1964 17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cuvee's have now been omitted from the info box. I am new to working with the info box tags, and don't want to further do damage, but we should get the main champagnes back in the box, even if we have to settle on the categories.Veritasjohn 14:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had added a note that Bollinger champagnes do age. It is interesting to note that despite being the same wine, Grande Année and R.D. of the same vintage receive different scores and tasting notes from such wine writers as Robert M. Parker Jr. and Michael Broadbent.Fmh1964 17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better evidence of aging would be the R.D. reference that R.D. champagnes of the same year have different tasting profiles, cited earlier to a book by Cyril Ray. Along the same lines, some information about who Cyril Ray is would be in order earlier in the article, especially if the wine author is to be cited in text by name.

I'm not denying that Bollinger champagnes age, but I think there is a distinction between being capable of aging, and being released with the intention of the champagne aging. Bollinger, at least, claims that they do not release until the champagnes are consumption ready -- they may still be able to age, but they do not have to.

It is not clear, even with citations to the names, how Grand Année and R.D. tasting different during the same vintage is evidence of age-worthiness.Veritasjohn 14:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we may be entering into the long running debate as to whether champagnes age. In 1995, I conducted the following tasting A.R. 1975, R.D. 1975, R.D. 1979, G.A 1979, G.A. 1982 and G.A. 1985. There were differences in between the two 1975s and the two 1979s. It did demonstrate that champagnes do age differently between kept on the lees and in the bottle. As further evidence of the difference between Grand Annee and R.D., may I refer you to Michael Broadbent's New Great Vintage Book of Wine, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1991 at pp. 339 - 349. (Please note that * refers to the number of stars out of 5.) As an example, Michael Broadbent's entry for the 1982 Grand Annee, "First noted Nov. 1986. Some depth of colour; a sweet, broad, meaty old-style Bollinger nose with just a whiff of sultanas; medium dry, fairly full-bodied, rich, chewy. More recently: fairly pale, lively; good rich creamy nose; dry medium-full body. Showing well. Latterly I have found it somewhat acidic on nose and palate, but a wine of refinement. Last tasted Nov. 1990 **(**) 1992-1998. Compare that to his description of the Bollinger, RD Palish yellow; straw nose and taste. May 1991 **. From my own of Bollinger champagnes, I have come to the conclusion that while the Grande Année and Vielles Vignes Françaises both repay bottle aging while the R.D. champagnes do not develop. I have been fortunate to taste the following Bollinger champagnes, R.D. 1973, 1975, 1979, 1982, Grande Année 1979, 1982, 1985, 1988, 1989 and 1990, Année Rare 1975 and Vielles Vignes Françaises 1979, 1981 and 1988.Fmh1964 16:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very fascinating, and you have been fortunate in your Bollinger tastings. However, I may refer you to the "no original research" policy of Wikipedia

WP:V source for a Wikipedia article. Your note about Broadbent's entry of the different champagnes rating differently is verifiable, but still not quite a source for this precise claim. I do not think it is clear to me, or the the reader of the current article text, how different ratings for two separate champagnes from the same vintage relates to a general claim about Bollinger's champagne's aging potential. I think we can come up with an agreeable compromise that conforms with the current verifiable source. It is certianly not unique that different Bollinger champagnes received different * ratings.Veritasjohn 20:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I will look to see what the aging potential of Bollinger champagnes is given by Robert M. Parker Jr. I have however found a reference in Tom Stevenson's The Millennium Champagne & Sparkling Wine Guide, Elan Press, 1998 at p. 77 which rates the Bollinger Grande Année 1985 at 96 points drinking between 1998 & 2010 with a note that "Still available and if you still have the first release of 1985 nesting in your cellar, you have a wine of magnificent fruit, exuberance, complexity and finesse." The Bollinger 1985 R.D. scored 93 points for drinking between 1998 & 2010 and received the following comment "Dominated by the flowery, acacia-like finesse of autolysis which all R.D. fans love, the powerful, rich-flavored fruit in this wine is awesome, but I still prefer the way the first disgorgement has developed. I will have to have a look at subsequent reviews by Tom Stevenson who is probably the leading writer on champagne at present to see if there are differences between the aging potential as well as scores of R.D. and Grande Année.Fmh1964 21:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have managed to find published reviews of Bollinger Grande Année and Bollinger R.D. for the same vintage in the Winespectator. Bruce Sanderson is the reviewer identified for all of these wines apart from the 1990 Grande Année where no reviewer is given. Keep in mind that the Grande Année and the R.D. are the same blend but differ only in disgorgement date.

1996 vintage: Grande Année higher score but R.D. claimed to last 5 years longer.

In the November 15, 2004 Winespectator, the Grand Année 1996 received 93 points with the following review from BS "This is full-bodied, with berry, bread dough and citrus aromas and flavors unfolding on the palate. It's firm and muscular, with depth, intensity and a long, lingering aftertaste. A Champagne for the table. Drink now through 2015." In the November 30, 2006 edition of the Winespectator, the R.D. 1996 received 94 points and had the following review from the same reviewer, "A powerhouse. Big and sophisticated, combining lemon and grapefruit notes with candied fruits, roasted nuts and coffee. Fresh, dry and finely detailed, with finesse and a lingering finish driven by acidity. Drink now through 2020."

1995 vintage: Equal scores of 95 points. R.D. claimed to last 10 years longer.

In the November 15, 2002 the Grande Annéee received the following review from BS "Brilliant. Very distinctive aromas of coconut and vanilla, with oxidation adding complexity, followed by fresh citrus, oatmeal and honey notes. It's all displayed on a firm, powerful structure that needs time to integrate all the elements. Classy finish. A statement. Drink now through 2010."

The R.D. 1995 from the August 31, 2005 edition of the Winespectator received the following review, "A dry, oxidative style, with whole-grain bread, ginger, roasted hazelnut and yeast notes lending complexity. Its structure comes into relief due to the dryness, but overall this is balanced and well-integrated, with a very long finish and an expansive aftertaste. Ideal with seafood and rich sauces or game birds. Drink now through 2020." For the 1990 vintage, the Grande Année

1990 vintage: R.D. higher score and claimed to last 16 years longer.

In the September 15, 1999 edition of the Winespectator, the Grande Année garnered 95 points was described as follows, "A sense of opulence marks this highly concentrated, creamy-textured 1990 Champagne, with its ripe, generous fruit flavors complementing the toasty, honeyed nuances acquired from aging on the lees. Lingering finish. Drink now through 2004.

In the November 30, 2004 edition of the Winespectator, the R.D. 1990 received 97 points and was described as "A full-bodied, powerful Champagne featuring biscuit and ginger aromas and flavors, picking up a grilled nut character on the finish. Very firmly structured and dry, yet with the flavor intensity and fine texture to match, this is a tour de force. Endless finish. Drink now through 2020." I hope this demonstrates my contentions that Bollinger champagnes are capable of aging and that the R.D. and Grande Année age differently.Fmh1964 04:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All these reviews are interesting, but how should the be incorporated into the wiki article? I think the idea that R.D. is commonly said to age longer may be an appropriate way to incorporate the idea? As far as I know, no wiki wine pages include discussion of ratings, since those are subjective, and not suitable for general information.Veritasjohn 17:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some information about the corporate structure of Bollinger and its related companies.Fmh1964 03:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly a nice addition though I would encourage adding a source citation. That way the article will be in better standing with

WP:V. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC) O.K. just added some citations.Fmh1964 04:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I have added an entry on this still red wine produced by Bollinger. I realize that it is rarely seen and is not a champagne but for the sake of comprehensiveness, I have added it.Fmh1964 17:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added the list of villages where Bollinger has vineyard holdings. The information that Tom Stevenson gives from 1988 is 141.75 hectares owned, of which 120.65 hectares are planted. This accounted for 70% of Bollinger's needs in the 1980s.

I think the list of villages may be too much information for the Wiki. Furthermore, the ratings system is obtuse. Although it comes from a book, the current use of the information is unclear. What are the ratings relative to? Also, I am wondering if we really need these % ratings of each village for the general Bollinger article. I propose cutting the ratings, and perhaps the list of villages. In a quick scan of other Wiki articles for Champagnes, this level of grape supply detail appears to be unique.Veritasjohn 20:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Champagne's system vineyard ratings is based on price and warrants an entry on the general page of champagnes. This information can be replicated for other producers. One that comes immediately to mind is the Salon page which is at present written like an advertising blurb. Fmh1964 21:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about Salon. However, as to this page there is still no indication of what "echelle" means? Could this word be defined, and explained in the text. This may be especially needed since the source is a book that is not readily accessible.Veritasjohn 17:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Veritasjohn and Agne27, may I suggest that we work together to develop a standardized format on this page Bollinger which can then be used for the other champagne producers listed on Wiki? Headings which I think we can agree on are History of the house, Range of Products, Vinification, Corporate Structure and Trivia/Popular Culture references. What are your thoughts?Fmh1964 15:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think some standardized topic headings are a good idea. I think simply "history" is good for history of the house, and "Champagnes" for "Range of products" - after all, these products are champagne, and I think "grape supply" may be more accessible than "vinification." I'm not sure that corporate structure needs a separate category, seems like this can go in the history, or general information about the House. I think the trivia, popular culture references is nice, when applicable. Thoughts? I want to keep in mind that many users of wikipedia are looking for reliable, quick information about a product, such as Bollinger, and may not have the level of interest that true oenophiles have.Veritasjohn 17:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of range of products, "Product portfolio" could be used. In the case of Bollinger, they do produce a Coteaux Champenois and other houses produce Marc de Champagne. Neither is a champagne and readers might wonder just what such a product is when they see the bottle on the shelf but the product inside is not champagne. So here is my suggested list of ranges, Non-Vintage, Vintage & Prestige Cuvee(s) with a further description as to dryness e.g. Brut, Extra-Dry, Dry and Demi-Sec. Corporate Structure or perhaps Corporate Information could go into general information but it should also include financial links to other firms. What about a quick description of house style i.e. full, medium or light bodied? As far as a handy reference tool, that would I believe help readers especially if they want to buy a bottle. House style can be verified by publications such as Robert M. Parker's Wine Guides. Also in general information or perhaps just in the information box, the name of the chief winemaker if known. Such a format could then be used for the Wiki Project on Wines.Fmh1964 17:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Range of Products" and "Product Portfolio" sounds too much like a sales brochures. How about simply "Wines"? I also think we should we strongly avoid the trivia and pop culture references per

How about Wines and if produced Spirits for Marc de Champagne? This will result in an accurate description which will avoid commercial overtones. I am not so opposed to the trivia, as for some people it may be how they first learn or remember such wines. In the case of Bollinger, I recall buying my first bottle of R.D. and the clerk at the rare wine store said, "That's the wine James Bond drinks." If you look at the website, Bollinger is actively using its product placement in the Bond films. A trivia section with links to related items on wikipedia would be a fascinating example of the links that occur on the internet.Fmh1964 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is a difference between noting that the Bollinger company actively tries to utilize product placements in the bonds film in the Corporate section of the article and having bullet point listings of various trivia and tidbits. One is encyclopedic, the other is a dumping ground for info. Again, I think we should actively avoid Trivia but there are some "pop culture" related items that could be successfully integrated into other parts of the article and serve some encyclopedic benefit. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the "wines" or "champagnes" category, I'm also in favor of wine or champagne, but not "products," I concur with Agne about the sales-brochure overtones. I think the issue about extremely rare non-champagne items produced by the champagne houses, we should not sacrifice that title "champagnes" or "wines" over such a minor point. Most houses will not have a non-champagne entry, and in the rare case that there is some odd product, it can simply be added under the "Champagnes" heading (or "Wines", but I think wine is less accurate than champagnes), with perhaps a bold heading for "still wine" or whatever. Again, I think "Champagnes" is preferable. It is the most accurate heading description in the vast majority of the cases. Also, "wines" might confuse the readers who are googling for "bollinger champagne." I know it is technically correct, but less descriptive than champagne.

On the trivia issue, I think that trivial is to be avoided, but some major cultural references warrant inclusion. The Bollinger connection to James Bond is one the clearest examples. Other trivia, like a listing of every single rap song with a Cristal reference, is to be avoided, IMO.Veritasjohn 19:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the trivia section, per

WP:TRIVIA, leaving only the Bond section as a prominent product placement. Any objections? The list was getting too long, and took away from the encyclopedic nature. Perhaps the Bond material can be integrated into the text. I will work on that if I get a chance. Veritasjohn 21:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

A new editor has done some fine cleaning up of language today. (IP address or I would name). However, some of the changes involve a capitalization change, to make "Champagne" capitalized in all uses. I think this is incorrect, but a quick review of other pages does not reveal on consensus. I understand capitalizing Champagne when it is part of a proper noun, such as "Champagne region," but I think when it is used to describe the type of wine "champagne" should not be capitalized. This seems like capitalizing "Wine" in all uses -- also incorrect. Other thoughts?Veritasjohn 21:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on the borderline and therefore can not be