Rare Champagne 2012: 100 Points from James Suckling, Deserved or Hype?
When I first read the news, I had to pause for a moment: 100 out of 100 points for the champagne/">Rare Champagne 2012, awarded by James Suckling. A perfect score is always an event in the wine world, but with Champagne it's even rarer, and therefore all the more worth discussing. I wanted to take a closer look, not because I blindly trust the score, but because I'm interested in what's behind a rating like this and what it actually means for us Champagne lovers.
What is Rare Champagne, anyway?
For anyone who doesn't know the name well: Rare Champagne is the prestige Cuvée from the house of Piper-Heidsieck. The brand was launched in the 1970s and has been maintained rather sparingly, almost exclusively, over the years. It isn't released every year, only when the grapes are considered exceptional enough by the cellar team. That alone makes every new release a small event among enthusiasts. In recent years, Rare has increasingly positioned itself as a serious rival to the very biggest prestige Cuvées like Dom Pérignon or Cristal, with its own signature style that, to me, is often marked by a very precise, almost austere fruit character.
Why the 2012 vintage, of all years?
Anyone who follows Champagne vintages knows 2012 as one of those years that could have been a disaster on paper. Spring frost, hail, mildew pressure from wet weather: yields fell accordingly low, in some cases well below average. And yet 2012 has come to be regarded in Champagne almost as a small miracle year. The grapes that survived the adversity apparently brought remarkable concentration and ripeness with them. I've noticed this myself with other 2012 Champagnes I've had the chance to try at home: a very dense, powerful style, with plenty of substance but still that typical Champagne freshness in the background. That this particular vintage is now earning a perfect score fits the picture, as far as I'm concerned.
What does a 100-point score actually mean?
I want to be honest here: I'm no sommelier, and I don't presume to judge James Suckling's rating methodology in detail. But as someone who spends a lot of personal time exploring Champagne, I've learned over the years to treat scores like this with some caution. 100 points sounds objective, but in the end it's always the personal assessment of a single person at a particular moment in time. That doesn't diminish the achievement. A Champagne that earns a score like this is certainly doing a lot right. But I would never buy a Champagne based on the number alone, without having some idea myself of which style actually suits my taste.
At the same time, I understand why news like this stirs up so much excitement in the industry. For a house like Piper-Heidsieck, a perfect score for the prestige Cuvée is obviously a huge marketing success. And honestly, I find myself more curious about the Rare 2012 now than I would have been without this news. That's exactly the effect these ratings are meant to produce.
My personal take
What fascinates me most about this story is actually less the number itself and more what it says about the 2012 vintage. To me, it's yet another reminder of how little a difficult harvest year has to say about the actual quality in the end. Some of the best Champagnes I've tasted so far came from years that sounded like trouble on paper.
Whether the Rare 2012 would actually be a 100-point experience for me personally, I can't say without having had it in the glass myself. And that's exactly where the real appeal lies for me: a score like this is an invitation to look more closely, not a verdict to simply accept. I'll definitely try to get my hands on a bottle. Not because of the 100 points, but because the vintage and the Cuvée already interested me before all this.