Scott

~ double post.

It's a losing battle. The French are better off putting their energy elsewhere. Sparkling wine purchases in this country are more seasonal than anything else. And 90% of the people buying it don't care where it comes from. They just wnat bubbles at midnight. Those who don't want to pay much for those bubbles won't look at the French stuff. Those who want to impress will only look at it. I'd rather the French spend effort extolling the virtues of Champagne as a food wine. It is incredibly underrated in this category IMO. Wrong. In fact, imho, I struggle to see how only one person can be SOOOO wrong. I remain shocked by this parochial myopia. You are, of course, free to man the barricades and fight noble losing battles. What you're fighting here is not only manufacturers, who could undoubtedly be regulated into submission, but the English language. "Champagne" has long been a common noun synonymous with "sparkling wine". Regulating linguistic changes is a thankless and unproductive task. Katherine, with all due respect. Utter rubbish. Regional labelling restrictions have successfully been implemented throughout the western world, with the notable exception of the US. the language norms are disingenuous at the very politest. If this causes a little inconvenience to a supplier who is fraudulently attaching a trademark of quality to his jug wine, then tough. I do not understand why anyone, would suggest that this is ok. Would you expect Sony or Nike emblems to be attached to inferior goods. I had never understood why the US stands alone on issues like this, perhaps it is only representing the lazy views of some consumers.

better imo.

It's a losing battle. The French are better off putting their energy elsewhere. Sparkling wine purchases in this country are more seasonal than anything else. And 90% of the people buying it don't care where it comes from. They just wnat bubbles at midnight. Those who don't want to pay much for those bubbles won't look at the French stuff. Those who want to impress will only look at it. I'd rather the French spend effort extolling the virtues of Champagne as a food wine. It is incredibly underrated in this category IMO. Wrong. In fact, imho, I struggle to see how only one person can be SOOOO wrong. I remain shocked by this parochial myopia.

Sorry Brad, I haven't expressed myself well I fear. I believe that the top cuvees from California & Australia aim for NV quality, I do NOT think any of the regional sparklers from france get anywhere near close. At least not to a decent one. Mostly they are broad and coarse, though often with good flavour - which is the antithesis of proper champagne. making a wine in the USA and calling it champagne is basically stealing, and I am utterly shocked you think the French are being unreasonable in wanting to prevent this.

I'm confused are you saying it was botrytised, but not sweet?

are we being fed a load of rubbish by so called media experts - absolutely. It is true now, and has always been. There are always exceptions of course, but in the main... as an example, this bit about veuve adding some 96 reserve wine, being something to applaud??? This just suggests the writer is struggling with his mastery of ass to elbow theorum. Of course, some releases will have 96 reserve wine in it, that's what a f****** Nv champagne is all about. The batches are not marked per se, some of the veuve on the shelf will be [b[ based on the 96 vintage, some 95 and almost certainly 97. There is no way of knowing which you have, and big deal if you did, is this fact supposed to make the wine taste better. A couple of years while we imported Egly Ouriet into the UK, the NV came in based on the 96 vintage, it was very good, but so much that it ecliposed other tranches. The NV is ALWAYS good, the respect of a house is earnt through their NV blends. IF there was a significant variation in quality of the veuve blends then they should be abandoned as a brand with haste, because they have failed themselves and their customers. Now, the real point is that this is likely untrue. if the predominant base wine is not up to the standard of say a 95 or 96, then they will add greater quantities of reserve wine to compensate to create a house style of consistent quality. I think this tells us more about the writer of the article than anything else, either he is peddling effluent and prone to sensationalism, or he had nothing to write about - which does his readers a disservice. actually upon rereading, he strikes me as a sales rep's tool. My 2 cents.

There is no area in the world where the qualitative 'lead' is held so firmly by a region as in champagne. I'm surprised, there is so much discussion about quality here. There are better values of course, and perfectly sound wines from other regions, often being better choices. But no sparkling wine approaches the better quality champagne. Mostly they set their sights on NV quality, and a couple get nearish, but none get within a bulls roar of a solid grower vintage champagne. I was at seminar a few years for the Vin de Champagne, and the speaker announced to us Australians, that we, nor anyone else in the new world or old for that matter would ever make champagne. Clearly being baited, we enquired further, and her response (which I still consider unassailable) was: "because your base wine is too good, it will never be so lacking in fruit character as to be suitable for the best sparkling wine. We make champagne because we have to". If you have ever tasted how green their base wine is, you will understand

I personally don't think Germans are underrated, look at recent media saturation. Equally I don't think they will ever be wide spread "hot", always being in the cork dorks sanctum. the area I do beleive will be "hot" and is approaching such already is the Languedoc Roussilion. It has a broad spread of quality, across most price points, can be ripe and easy to understand for the supermarket customer, and the top end offers finesse, complexity within a robust and rich wine context. They have great terroir and aren't afraid of technology or new developments, in fact I can't think of a more dynamic combination of the 2 anywhere in the world today. Another personal, great value wines, I think are underrated (and probably always will be) - Chinon & bourgeil. Fragrant, crisp wines, nervy and complex - also they cost bugger all, and can age forever.

avoid them both then ?

Craig, I think your summary of Mumm cordon rouge is about right. it's very disappointing for some time now.

Not sure, is it shiny one with the customs patrol and the playground with the big swings out front ??

how??? twice I have been there, and the entire team has been 12 years old. Mostly from uzbekistan I suspect

Guys, I think a couple of you are missing the point, lets try to separate personal preference away from the intrinsic qualities of a region. For 1 I don't think price is such a good comparator, in that it does not dictate quality. value yes, quality no. Not that this balance isn't important but it can skew a good debate. Consider both Napa and Champagne: 1. can it deliver great quality - yes 2. can it deliver good quality & value - yes 3. do they offer fair quality across vintages - can do. 4. is there a fair spread of quality at low & high price points - yes, if you know where to look. 5. if you have good knowledge, can you navigate safely at most price points - yes 6. do all producers exhibit a fair pricing policy - N/A I think much beyond that, personal preference gets in the way. The fact that some Napa dudes gouge doesn't really say much about the region, unless you believe these are genuinely not good wines. At which point, call it overrated. Champagne is a case in point with the right knowledge, you can get very good quality and price, yes you can go wrong, but it's out there. Now a couple of regions I hate: Condrieu - the opening price point of any wine of quality is £25, and goes up. this includes the filth. The top level is not exciting, and there doesn't seem to be an understanding of market forces. These are not modern or responsive estates, and I don't rate the terroir. Yes, yes Vernay does not some ok ones, Yves Cuilleron does some ok, and a nice sticky, and the mother of all bad values - chateau Grillet. But the grape, it's not capable of complexities, it ages poorly, it matches food badly, and it does not reflect adequately it's underlying terroir. It's pretty and floral, perfumed without any interest on the palate where it's one note city. It serves best as quaffing VDP from the roussilion, not as the expression of a grand appellation claiming suitable prices. I will concede one thing, I am quite fond of new world Viogniers. I like Calera and SQN. How can a great old world region be great, when johnny upstart foreigner, betters him so quickly???? Now don't let me start on Jura... My excessive drivel does not of course make me right, but I have tried enough to be singular in my thinking.

oh I don't know about the prestigious thing, if you read the rest of the top ten, ludicrous might be a better term.

try a nice white bordeaux, they have a nice oaky richness with a fine acid balance. think something like a smith-haut-laffite, or really push the boat out with domaine chevalier. should have 4 years or so on it, say 1997 - 1999. could be too much if served without gobs of butter.

or it could be that it's a rubbish grape, making rubbish wine from the single most overrated appellation on the planet. could be... [disclaimer] these thoughts represent that of the author, who can barely be trusted, and do not necessarily represent the views of the majority public.

steer away from sauvignon, it won't hold. Manzanilla is the way forward, balance the saltiness with a richer style - think palo cortado.

Look for the 1997 if you can, I think it could surpass the 1990 & even the 1989 possibly, in quality. It is drinking fabulously young also. Don't be afraid to have it on it's own.

yeah, maybe a white chevalier. I think a red bordeaux is all wrong here, the red will overpower the lobster. especially given your preparation. Doesn't matter if your serving a good 1970, the wine will thump it into next week. you are thinking too much about the steak, which will go with many things provided the flavour is there, and the acidity is too. The lobster will not be so forgiving. Condrieu - rich flavours, but no acidity to speak of. your steak and mustard sauce will laugh at it. Batard or Corton charlemagne? could work, but would need to be 2000, to make your budget and have the intensity needed. my call would absolutely be, grand cru chablis, perhaps 1998 or 2000. Fat, big wines, with rapier acidity. it's this thrust that will allow it to partner the steak and match a buttery lobster well also. R&V Dauvissat Preuses? maybe le clos, but the extra fattness of the preuses would come in handy. you will be amazed at how it handles the mustard gravy, and navigates bloody meat. Cheers Scott ps. a white chevalier could also work.

Mike, the clos de barre usually attracts a slight touch of botytris, which explains the darker colour and fuller palate, but with an ever so slight loss of fineness to the wine. Whereas the charmes does not, likely explaining the 'cleaner' character you refer to. I certainly agree though, that 105 euro for the 1995 is a steal in a 3* restaurant.

Natalia...?

disagree

By dom standards, 1993 is average. lacks the requisite intensity to carry off the house style. which is a creamy, round style of champagne, complex layers of flavour, but needs the thrust of a good year to keep everything interesting. It's very front of the mouth wine. 1993 is little dull in comparison to a great year, like say... the 1985! the 85 DP if well cellared is a high value wine and should be quite exciting, firmly structured, rich in red fruits, almost like a top burgundy. very much a food wine. enjoy!

I was going to keep that a secret, but Circe seeing as it's you Latour D'argent.