Many of us equate sparkling wine’s cold, crisp bubbles with youth and therefore don’t think to age Champagne. In fact, Champagne  – particularly very good Champagne – evolves more in the bottle than perhaps any other wine. Some don’t like the bready, yeasty qualities that become more pronounced with age, but for those who do, it’s an experience found nowhere else in the wine world. In terms of laying Champagne down for several decades, it’s best to steer clear of the non-vintage stuff (drink those delicious wines early and often) and instead focus on the rarer Champagne from declared vintage years (e.g., 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002 – that these are all even years is mere coincidence). But which vintage is most age-worthy? Everyone’s talking about 1996. Sure, 2000 and 2002 are showing great promise, but 1996 may be the only truly classic vintage still on the shelves (most, but not all of it’s been snatched up by now – thank goodness for those producers that wait to release their wines for a decade or more after harvest!). Good Champagnes from 1996 are already exhibiting mature layers of flavor and texture, which will deepen considerably with time. If you can afford to buy and store a magnum, do so – Champagne’s high oxidation rate rewards the low air-to-liquid ratio found in large-format bottles. (Besides, what’s more fun than popping the cork of a 1.5 L bottle of bubbly?)