How are the R&J characteristics obtained?

[BrightonCorgi]

1 hour ago, BigGuns said:

The human component to terroir is fascinating to me, especially when considering Cuban cigars.  How much autonomy do the individual farmers have under the Habanos umbrella?

I have nothing to back this up, but I think farmers can do as much as they want as long as it promotes the best and fullest harvest.  Habanos and the farmers must be in concert to a degree if there is true knowledge science into what grows best, how, and where. 

You have separate the growing from the curing.  Strides have been made in each sector; not sure how much overlap the farmers have in each.  New strains are another game changer to Habanos where old timers remember a different cigar.  Consumer tastes change too.

 

 

[NSXCIGAR]

21 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

how the tobacco is cured plays a part, but Habanos likes to be tight lipped on that.

I don't know how much Tabacuba influences processing. That's handled by the farmers. I suppose edicts can be issued, but the farmers are free to speak about it. It's a pretty standardized process. Doing it properly is hard enough. The only real adjustable variable is temperature. Additional fermentations (for Cohiba and Maduros) occurs after the leaf is "sold" to Tabacuba. Basically, I don't think processing is that much of a variable. Leaf is either processed correctly or it's not.
 

As far as brand differentiation, I do agree that while brand profiles are still unique the distinctions aren't as great. Yes, back in the day brands were extreme in their differences. Now, it's can be difficult to tell a SLR Regios from a RyJ Ex 4 or a SP Non Plus from a RGPC. 

[Corylax18]

I'm going to preface the rest of my comments by reminding everyone of the country and location within the country that most of these farmers live. PdR ain't Havana, by a long shot. Even Havana is struggling with the basics now and has been at times for years. Not enough fuel, not enough chicken feed, not enough fertilizer, not enough of anything. Most (almost all) of the tobacco farmers in Cuba are making decisions with the sole motivation of providing for their families. They may have some livestock and grow some veggies, but the $$ from the tobacco harvest is their main sustenance, for the entire year. 

They aren't walking around during the season thinking "if I give the shade leaf some extra water today the finished leaves will have much better sheen" They're thinking, "I hope I can find a few gallons of Diesel, somewhere, so I can run the pumps today and water the tobacco at all." 

The last time I was lucky enough to visit a farm was Nov 19, multiple farmers told us Diesel fuel just wasn't available, anywhere. That means almost all of the fields where tilled by Oxen last year, of which there are a limited number. So if you are EXTREMLY lucky, (like Hector for example) you have your own tractor and Your own oxen (only 2 though). 

Hector got to till his farm when he wanted, but the other farmers he lent the animals to didn't necessarily have that luxury. Plantings where pushed back almost 6 weeks(from optimal) on some farms. In 2019, Oxen where on the "critical path." 

The government always seems to provide enough seeds, but literally everything else is variable. Diesel, fertilizer (type, amount, quality), infrastructure, etc.  

 

Even, with all of the above restrictions taken into account a Cuban Tobacco farmer (and his socioeconomic status) can have a Major affect on the quality and qualities of leaf produced. Neither list below should be considered comprehensive.

During the Growing season:

When they plant, how densely they plant, which tobacco they plant, how much cheese cloth is used on the sides (not just the above) the shade grown fields, mix of organic vs non organic fertilizer, amount of fertilizer, timing of fertilizer applications, amount of hand watering, frequency of hand watering, frequency/quality of weed removal, when to remove the flower buds to force the plant to focus on leaf production, when to remove the "libre de pieze" leaves at the bottom of the plant, hell even the direction you plant your rows in relation to the prevailing winds, when the leaves are harvested, how carefully they're harvested. (Green "waterspots" are actually bruises on the leaf from the initial picking process)

During Harvest/Initial Processing:

Wrapper vs binder/filler leaf(how much care is taken), construction of the curing barns(dirt vs concrete floor, height, length, etc.), curing temperature, humidity, duration, desired leaf color(set during initial drying) how thoroughly the process is watched and manipulated (essentially how often they check and modify parameters) how tightly the leaves are packed in the barns, the length of time they take to dry and complete the first fermentation, the temperature used during the first fermentation, maybe even the type of wood they use for the heating fires in the drying barns. (I'm not sure about that last one😁)

Terrior is really all encompassing, even including government/economic systems. The harsh realities of Cuba have forced the Farmers to be very resourceful and has a major affect on not only the growing process, but also processing, cigar construction and blending. "The Man" may be a larger part of Terrior in Cuba than anywhere else. 

 

On 3/15/2021 at 8:57 AM, Jimmy_jack said:

Terroir, location location location. I say this because VR has such a particular flavor that no other CC have. 

All of the tobacco for the VR brand does not come from the Robaina Finca. There's actually a better chance that a VR cigar doesn't contain a single leaf from the farm.

After the first fermentation, HSA picks up the pilones from the Farmers. This is the final step where the leaf is with its brethren from the farm. 

Once HSA has it, the tobacco is resorted, regraded, and refermented. Several times. The farm of origin is not a grading criteria in any of those processes. 

They grade the leaves based on size, thickness, color, consistency and obviously type. (Wrapper, binder, filler) Leaves of similar shape, size, thickness and color are restacked together to help ensure that they ferment at a similar pace. 

This happens at regional processing facilities close to the farms. Then the tobacco is packed on trucks and shipped to Havana for the final processing. Where the above process are repeated, by a totally different set of people. 

Then the factory managers are called to the tobacco warehouses in Havana to select (or be assigned) their tobacco for the next batch of cigars. Once this tobacco gets to the factory, its then regraded, resorted and weighed into piles to be included in each rollers tobacco packet for the day. 

I obviously didn't include every step/detail above, but those are the main events. Every leaf in most cigars is from a different farm, 4-5 in a typical cigar. A typical box of Cuban's contains leaf from probably a dozen farms, maybe more. How they achieve any consistency is beyond me, the blenders at the factories don't have an easy job. 

[RDB]

Brilliant post @Corylax18, thanks for the insight.

Do you think there’s an effort from HSA to direct certain types of leaves to particular marcas? Do they say ‘this farm is a Partagas farm’? In which case certain types of leaves would end up at certain factories.

Or is it all down to the people in the factories who, faced with a huge pile of leaves, decide ‘these are best for Punch cigars’? It’s fascinating either way.

[mprach024]

29 minutes ago, Lrabold89 said:

But if the tobacco is only sorted by size color etc how is consistency achieved between maracas and certain cigars within them ????.....how do they know what flavors a leaf will produce just by looking at it without knowing anything about the farm it came from etc ? This is extremely informative but just not sure how it answers the question specifically how run for example gets its defining characteristics unique to the marca


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Corylax18]

3 hours ago, RDB said:

Brilliant post @Corylax18, thanks for the insight.

Do you think there’s an effort from HSA to direct certain types of leaves to particular marcas? Do they say ‘this farm is a Partagas farm’? In which case certain types of leaves would end up at certain factories.

Or is it all down to the people in the factories who, faced with a huge pile of leaves, decide ‘these are best for Punch cigars’? It’s fascinating either way.

I don't think its a coincidence that we see a lot of light, golden wrappers on Cohiba, Rosado on RyJ, Chocolate on Monte, Etc. But there are examples of cigars in every marca, with wrappers of just about every shade, even boxes with very noticeable shade differences within them. If you only buy your cigars here you're shielded from a lot of this variability. 

In a perfect world I'm sure they would love to maintain total consistency, but just like the farmers, there are structural deficiencies in the system that prevent processors, blenders and rollers from maximizing the raw materials. They cant just take the day off because the current batch of wrapper has water spots or the volado isn't complete fermented yet. They slap lipstick on the pig and hope for better tomorrow.

 

24 minutes ago, Lrabold89 said:

But if the tobacco is only sorted by size color etc how is consistency achieved between maracas and certain cigars within them ????.....how do they know what flavors a leaf will produce just by looking at it without knowing anything about the farm it came from etc ? This is extremely informative but just not sure how it answers the question specifically how run for example gets its defining characteristics unique to the marca


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Years of practice. Decades in some cases. But I think there is a lot less consistency/difference marca to marca than we want to admit. At the high end, its harder to see, but when you see boxes across the quality spectrum, those expectations get crushed pretty quickly. 

We like to talk up our favorite farm rolls because one farmer "has the best wrappers" another "The best construction", whatever. But the reality is there are thousands of great farmers producing quality leaf with some semblance of constancy year to year. Things change, but no one is starting from scratch every year. 

I have RyJs from 2003 that taste very, very similar to RyJs from 2018/2019. Berry flavors, very smooth and light, Almost Identical. I also have a couple boxes that taste very similar to Monte 2s/1s/4s I've smoked. Chocolate and Coffee. They're great cigars, but not what you would "expect".

Despite their best efforts 100% consistency just isn't possible in the current climate. 

[MrBirdman]

On 3/15/2021 at 9:26 PM, shortsqueeze said:

Liem’s book is terrific! I especially like his thoughts on dosage. 

Funny you mention that, because earlier I was thinking of exactly that apropos my above exchange with @Ken Gargett about terroir. We were discussing how expansive the concept is, and I see Liem's comments re dosage as further demonstrating how terroir encompasses far more than the geographical and climatologist attributes.

For those unfamiliar, his metaphor is that dosage is to Champagne what salt is to food. Liem believes that dosage is widely misunderstood - by both the public and even some producers - as merely adding sweetness. He stresses that dosage is actually integral to the full expression of the wine, so a wine can be just as stunted by underdosing as it can by overdosing.  

While Liem himself doesn't describe dosage as "part of Champagne's terroir", I think he'd probably agree with its inclusion, and I think it's an especially compelling example of how deeply enmeshed wine-making and viticulture are with terroir. I mean, dosage is literally the "adulteration" of a finished wine with cane sugar. Yet it is essential to the expression of Champagne's terroir. You can, of course, make a wine without dosage, but you'll find that the best examples are from plots grown specifically for brut nature. 

Why am I not writing marketing material for Acid? "Like the greatest winemakers of Champagne, who include a careful dose of sugar to complete their wines, we at Drew add the perfect touch of PLUSH or KUBA KUBA to the finest Nicaraguan tobacco..."

[Ken Gargett]

38 minutes ago, MrBirdman said:

Funny you mention that, because earlier I was thinking of exactly that apropos my above exchange with @Ken Gargett about terroir. We were discussing how expansive the concept is, and I see Liem's comments re dosage as further demonstrating how terroir encompasses far more than the geographical and climatologist attributes.

For those unfamiliar, his metaphor is that dosage is to Champagne what salt is to food. Liem believes that dosage is widely misunderstood - by both the public and even some producers - as merely adding sweetness. He stresses that dosage is actually integral to the full expression of the wine, so a wine can be just as stunted by underdosing as it can by overdosing.  

While Liem himself doesn't describe dosage as "part of Champagne's terroir", I think he'd probably agree with its inclusion, and I think it's an especially compelling example of how deeply enmeshed wine-making and viticulture are with terroir. I mean, dosage is literally the "adulteration" of a finished wine with cane sugar. Yet it is essential to the expression of Champagne's terroir. You can, of course, make a wine without dosage, but you'll find that the best examples are from plots grown specifically for brut nature. 

Why am I not writing marketing material for Acid? "Like the greatest winemakers of Champagne, who include a careful dose of sugar to complete their wines, we at Drew add the perfect touch of PLUSH or KUBA KUBA to the finest Nicaraguan tobacco..."

on board with pretty much all that. personally, not a fan of non-dosage except for a few rare examples. the starck from roederer is a pretty good example and as suggested, the plot they use tends to be a much warmer one so they don't need the sweetness to balance acidity. and they only make it in warm years as well. 

[CaptainQuintero]

  I think there must also be a point where whatever the process, the end products are significantly stable in flavour, so much that Cuba can essentially use a 'recipe book' for how to blend any particular cigar they wish.

  Whilst they test the results to check they smoke correctly, it shows how reliable their tobacco crops are in terms of consistency of characteristics.

  It brings up the questions of crop variety because clearly things have changed since the 80's etc. But they can't be creating strains for each different area of each farm in PdR to get different flavours. Which, to me at least, points more towards that it's the specific areas where the tobacco is grown which is the most direct influence on flavour. 

  How those specific areas are kept sufficiently nutrient-rich in what makes that soil just perfect is obviously more than just fertiliser, possibly hinting at a factor which naturally replenishes these areas. Eg sea air/rain or water flowing from a specific mineral-rich area. Otherwise those areas would have been farmed dry of whatever these properties are decades ago.

  Or perhaps that is exactly what has happened and is the reason for such drastic changes in strength etc down the years. New strains have been developed to be not just more disease resistant but also more easy to grow in an ever more nutrient-depleated soils?

  

[shortsqueeze]

On 3/17/2021 at 12:24 AM, MrBirdman said:

Funny you mention that, because earlier I was thinking of exactly that apropos my above exchange with @Ken Gargett about terroir. We were discussing how expansive the concept is, and I see Liem's comments re dosage as further demonstrating how terroir encompasses far more than the geographical and climatologist attributes.

For those unfamiliar, his metaphor is that dosage is to Champagne what salt is to food. Liem believes that dosage is widely misunderstood - by both the public and even some producers - as merely adding sweetness. He stresses that dosage is actually integral to the full expression of the wine, so a wine can be just as stunted by underdosing as it can by overdosing.  

While Liem himself doesn't describe dosage as "part of Champagne's terroir", I think he'd probably agree with its inclusion, and I think it's an especially compelling example of how deeply enmeshed wine-making and viticulture are with terroir. I mean, dosage is literally the "adulteration" of a finished wine with cane sugar. Yet it is essential to the expression of Champagne's terroir. You can, of course, make a wine without dosage, but you'll find that the best examples are from plots grown specifically for brut nature. 

Why am I not writing marketing material for Acid? "Like the greatest winemakers of Champagne, who include a careful dose of sugar to complete their wines, we at Drew add the perfect touch of PLUSH or KUBA KUBA to the finest Nicaraguan tobacco..."

Nice post.  Where Liem is also very much on point is in regards to the recent/current movement of no-dose or "Brut Nature" champagnes.  Some champagnes, in some years don't require dosage.  The next year, the same champagne might, to achieve the proper balance.  The point being one shouldn't adopt an inflexible approach to dosage just because of a trend to lower dose champagnes. 

[MrBirdman]

1 hour ago, shortsqueeze said:

The point being one shouldn't adopt an inflexible approach to dosage just because of a trend to lower dose champagnes. 

Yep, he is right. There is too much tolerance of low dosage or non dosé wines because some people think they “should be better” because you’re “tasting the wine.” Liem explains well why that’s nonsense. 

[Ken Gargett]

10 hours ago, shortsqueeze said:

Nice post.  Where Liem is also very much on point is in regards to the recent/current movement of no-dose or "Brut Nature" champagnes.  Some champagnes, in some years don't require dosage.  The next year, the same champagne might, to achieve the proper balance.  The point being one shouldn't adopt an inflexible approach to dosage just because of a trend to lower dose champagnes. 

i agree with that although i think those champagnes which do not benefit from some dosage, even a gram or two, are extremely rare. they were flavour of the month for a while but i think the top producers, houses and growers, have realised that a tiny bit at least is almost essential.

the good part of the non-dosage move was that it helped lower dosages in many of the usual suspects and those champagnes are better off for it. but it is a very gradual process. benoit gouez is chef de cave for Moet. i know Moet often gets knocked - the big is bad stigma. but what he has done there is extraordinary. he has, slowly, improved the standard of the basic Moet NV out of sight to what it was. i asked why this was such a long process - if he knows where he wants to get to, why not go straight there? simply put, customers - and there are millions of them, of course - won't tolerate the changes. they have to be guided very gently, so they do not realise what is being done. if he went straight there, he'd lose customers by the truckload, even though it is a better champagne.

the example of jacquesson is another. they basically made the decision to jump and and make a far better wine all at once (sort of). it meant that the brothers, who did this after taking over from their father, were locked into selling and promoting the old wines and styles, which they did not like, while the new ones were maturing in the cellars. and when the new, infinitely better champagnes emerged, they lost a heap of customers because these new wines were so different. it has taken a long time for them to build the new client base but they are now justifiably recognised as one of the region's stars. 

as for dosage revealing terroir, i'm not so convinced but i think that what it does is show that the human influence is massive. the same plot making a sans dosage and one with a reasonably standard dosage of 9-12 grams/litre will see two very different champagnes. not sure where that leaves terroir.  

[Bijan]

30 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

as for dosage revealing terroir, i'm not so convinced but i think that what it does is show that the human influence is massive. the same plot making a sans dosage and one with a reasonably standard dosage of 9-12 grams/litre will see two very different champagnes. not sure where that leaves terroir.  

I think the idea is that the terroir dictates what dosage works best.

I've only had one non dosage champagne but it was a single vineyard one, so not typical, but it worked fine, as the wine lacked bitterness, it was more tart and fruity than anything else.

[Ken Gargett]

3 minutes ago, Bijan said:

I think the idea is that the terroir dictates what dosage works best.

I've only had one non dosage champagne but it was a single vineyard one, so not typical, but it worked fine, as the wine lacked bitterness, it was more tart and fruity than anything else.

that is a good thought and certainly something to it. but the mere fact that winemakers vary it so much and that the trend has been down makes me wonder about that. but i think that in an ideal world, that should be how it is. we are not there yet. 

[BrightonCorgi]

16 hours ago, Bijan said:

I think the idea is that the terroir dictates what dosage works best.

I've only had one non dosage champagne but it was a single vineyard one, so not typical, but it worked fine, as the wine lacked bitterness, it was more tart and fruity than anything else.

It cannot be solely on terrior as the weather plays a most significant part on sugar levels, ripeness, when grapes are picked etc...  Not so many single vineyard Champagne's are made either.  Wine makers want to blend a house style as the majority of Champagne is not vintage.  There is an aversion to sweetness and wine with today's consumers, so no dosage sounds appealing when previous decades the consumer had no idea there was even a dosage in Champagne.

[Bijan]

20 minutes ago, BrightonCorgi said:

It cannot be solely on terrior as the weather plays a most significant part on sugar levels, ripeness, when grapes are picked etc...  Not so many single vineyard Champagne's are made either.  Wine makers want to blend a house style as the majority of Champagne is not vintage.  There is an aversion to sweetness and wine with today's consumers, so no dosage sounds appealing when previous decades the consumer had no idea there was even a dosage in Champagne.

Good point about conditions each year. Even this single vineyard champagne that was non-dosage in the 2012, changes between brut nature and extra brut depending on the vintage (I think the 2010 was extra brut). It seems there should be a range for each house style that would vary along that range based on the factors you mention. But even in non single vineyard champagnes some are pretty restricted in location, like Salon which is from a single village, and I believe 100% chardonnay (though always a vintage champagne, so not quite the house style blends you mention). And a narrow majority of Pol Roger grapes (55%?) come from their own vineyards, so still a factor.

I always wonder how much of an effect the low carb/zero carb fad that passed through recently had on things. Luckily no gluten in champagne 😂

[mprach024]

2 hours ago, Bijan said:

I always wonder how much of an effect the low carb/zero carb fad that passed through recently had on things.

Very very little to none would be my guess, Brut champagne and it’s formation can be placed solely on the shoulders of the British customers of champagne who detested how sweet it was.  So the vineyards made dry versions to attract the British clientele.  This was some 200 years ago.  Old world wine rarely thinks in fads, they think in centuries.  

[Ken Gargett]

1 minute ago, mprach024 said:

Very very little to none would be my guess, Brut champagne and it’s formation can be placed solely on the shoulders of the British customers of champagne who detested how sweet it was.  So the vineyards made dry versions to attract the British clientele.  This was some 200 years ago.  Old world wine rarely thinks in fads, they think in centuries.  

pommery 1874. 

[mprach024]

3 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

pommery 1874. 

Interesting.  Always thought it was Pierer-Jouet

[Bijan]

3 minutes ago, mprach024 said:

Very very little to none would be my guess, Brut champagne and it’s formation can be placed solely on the shoulders of the British customers of champagne who detested how sweet it was.  So the vineyards made dry versions to attract the British clientele.  This was some 200 years ago.  Old world wine rarely thinks in fads, they think in centuries.  

Brut then was much sweeter than now. While there were some non dosage champagnes in the 19th century at first they were the precursor of brut champagnes that had relatively high dosage by modern standards. English taste was 22 to 66 g/l. Way out of brut by today's standards.

Brut nature and extra brut are recent fads it seems to me. Though they haven't taken over.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/karlsson/2015/02/20/flawless-champagne-the-newest-trend-in-champagne-drier-than-brut-or-even-sugar-free/amp/

[Ken Gargett]

2 hours ago, Bijan said:

Good point about conditions each year. Even this single vineyard champagne that was non-dosage in the 2012, changes between brut nature and extra brut depending on the vintage (I think the 2010 was extra brut). It seems there should be a range for each house style that would vary along that range based on the factors you mention. But even in non single vineyard champagnes some are pretty restricted in location, like Salon which is from a single village, and I believe 100% chardonnay (though always a vintage champagne, so not quite the house style blends you mention). And a narrow majority of Pol Roger grapes (55%?) come from their own vineyards, so still a factor.

I always wonder how much of an effect the low carb/zero carb fad that passed through recently had on things. Luckily no gluten in champagne 😂

salon makes about 60,000 bottles three times a decade so not really much of a example for anything but itself. 

BC is right with the nod to the blending. and the big houses. and that is the vast majority of what comes from the region.

we are seeing a lot more single vineyard champagnes - the fascination with terroir is partly to blame for this - but most of them come from the small growers who have no other option. despite the big push behind grower champagnes, and there are some stunners like U Collin, Selosse, Agrapart, Ogly-E and more, most are a bit ordinary. for precisely the reason the big houses succeed. they have access to a variety of vineyards, of grapes, they have money and expertise and they can use reserve wines. 

as for non-dosage, i think we'll see fewer and fewer promoted. sometimes a house might make one without pushing that fact - that has certainly happened before. you need the right conditions and the right vineyard for it to work, a much rarer combination than people think. and most don't age well. i think it a fad which has seen its best days and left us with curios. 

[mprach024]

2 minutes ago, Bijan said:

Brut then was much sweeter than now. While there were some non dosage champagnes in the 19th century at first they were the precursor of brut champagnes that had relatively high dosage by modern standards. English taste was 22 to 66 g/l. Way out of brut by today's standards.

Brut nature and extra brut are recent fads it seems to me. Though they haven't taken over.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/karlsson/2015/02/20/flawless-champagne-the-newest-trend-in-champagne-drier-than-brut-or-even-sugar-free/amp/

No not exactly:

“The brut style was pioneered by top-end Champagne house Perrier-Jouët in the mid-19th Century, originally for their extensive market in England. The 1846 vintage marked the beginning of a new era; in that year Perrier-Jouët took the brave decision not to add any sugar to their wines destined for the English market.”

[Bijan]

3 hours ago, mprach024 said:

No not exactly:

“The brut style was pioneered by top-end Champagne house Perrier-Jouët in the mid-19th Century, originally for their extensive market in England. The 1846 vintage marked the beginning of a new era; in that year Perrier-Jouët took the brave decision not to add any sugar to their wines destined for the English market.”

I'll have to dig deeper but it was my understanding that was the first step. And once that was done a little later low dosage but not no dosage took hold in the English market.

 

3 hours ago, mprach024 said:

in that year 

This being the operative phrase.

[Ken Gargett]

3 hours ago, mprach024 said:

Interesting.  Always thought it was Pierer-Jouet

various houses were trialling it but it was not until pommery released its 1874 with much lower dosage, although it still would have been extremely sweet to us, that it really took off and stuck. there is a song, to the tune of 'old lang syne', called 'ode to pommery 1874', which celebrates all this. 

3 hours ago, Bijan said:

Brut then was much sweeter than now. While there were some non dosage champagnes in the 19th century at first they were the precursor of brut champagnes that had relatively high dosage by modern standards. English taste was 22 to 66 g/l. Way out of brut by today's standards.

Brut nature and extra brut are recent fads it seems to me. Though they haven't taken over.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/karlsson/2015/02/20/flawless-champagne-the-newest-trend-in-champagne-drier-than-brut-or-even-sugar-free/amp/

bijan, that article is about six years old and i think we can see now that when they wonder if non-dosage will age as well, it certainly doesn't. 

[Bijan]

8 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

as for non-dosage, i think we'll see fewer and fewer promoted. sometimes a house might make one without pushing that fact - that has certainly happened before. you need the right conditions and the right vineyard for it to work, a much rarer combination than people think. and most don't age well. i think it a fad which has seen its best days and left us with curios. 

Yes, so non-dosage more of a fad then. Again I wonder if it roughly coincided with the no carb period we went through.

Though it does seem brut and extra brut are the default options now, especially in those bigger houses.