Champagne is made in Champagne

[Craig Camp]

The winemakers in Champagne are trying to educate people about the difference between sparkling wine and authentic champagne, made in the region about 90 miles east of Paris.

[bobferdon]

The sooner consumers begin to understand the difference the better off we will all be. Maybe if they understand where real champagne comes from they might also start to drink real burgundy and real chablis. There is a difference.

There are great sparkling wines from all over the world. Just please call them by their correct names.

We need to start calling the burgundy and chablis from california by their correct names, "wine flavored products"

Edited January 1, 2004 by bobferdon (log)

[Boris_A]

to educate people about the difference between sparkling wine and authentic champagne

I thought most consumers do already know how to compare price tags.

[fresco]

If France is beginning to lose some of its lustre as far as food is concerned, I wonder if the day is far off when sparkling wines from other countries (Spain included) will begin to outsparkle Champagne.

[Jason Perlow]

Even other French sparkling wines can be better than most brand name Champagnes. Last night among our sparklers we had a Cremant D'Alsace, it was a huge hit. I think I paid 15 bucks for it.

[Schneier]

Even other French sparkling wines can be better than most brand name Champagnes. Last night among our sparklers we had a Cremant D'Alsace, it was a huge hit. I think I paid 15 bucks for it.

I agree. There are several sparkling Loires that provide great value. I generally find myself buying non-Champagnes.

Bruce

[KatieLoeb]

Even other French sparkling wines can be better than most brand name Champagnes. Last night among our sparklers we had a Cremant D'Alsace, it was a huge hit. I think I paid 15 bucks for it.

I agree. There are several sparkling Loires that provide great value. I generally find myself buying non-Champagnes.

Bruce

Totally in agreement with this. Last night we had Baumard Cremant de Loire Carte Turquoise, a delicious sparkling Chenin Blanc that easily could compete with many of the better domestic sparkling wines. And blow the doors off a lot of the Cook's, Korbel and Tott's and such. About $12/bottle. Damn good stuff for the money.

I always had a Cremant d'Alsace (Barmes-Buecher) available by the glass while Striped Bass was still open. Everybody loved it. I often have this at home as well. I always try to keep a bottle of something reasonably priced and bubbly (Cremant d'Alsace, Prosecco, etc.) chilled in the back of the refrigerator for spur of the moment celebrations. You never know when a friend is going to call to say they just got a promotion or something, and it's nice to be ready to play gracious hostess with little to no notice.

[Boris_A]

we had a Cremant D'Alsace, it was a huge hit. I think I paid 15 bucks for it.

A very interesting French sparkler region is Limoux, an AOC in the hilly region of the Pyrenees near Carcassonne and Perpignan.

They claim having invented the "Méthode Champenoise" and we find there the worlds oldest documents about prodcution of "Brut" sparklers going back to the year 1531. These wines are not very known outside of France. Nevertheless they produce excellent quality overall.

You can find excellent values starting at $10.

[Scott]

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

[Brad Ballinger]

A number of reactions follow here.

First, the article linked by Craig -- More of the same old, same old from the Champenoise. Get over it. You haven't and cannot trademark the Champagne AOC. Rubes in the United States for one are still going to call Andre swill "Champagne" whether or not the actual word is on the bottle. And if you gave them a bottle of authentic Champagne, half of them will put it into a mimosa anyway. Sacre bleu!

Regarding sparklers from other French regions -- Great stuff. I've had them from Alsace, Loire, Limoux, Rhone. Many of them represent great value comparatively. And while Scott may have a point that they aim for NV Champagne quality, there are some that surpass it. Huet's Vouvray Petillant is first rate, as is Baumard's Cremant de Loire mentioned by Katie. Both of which are typically vintage bottlings.

Sparklers from other countries -- I'm still trying to find a Spanish one that will blow me away. Some German sekt comes close, and they do show variety with sekt from rielsing, pinot blanc, pinot noir, and chardonnay. Some California ones can be quite good (Gloria Ferrer's top shelf wines, Iron Horse's LD wines, and Roederer Estate's deft hand with pinot blanc). But many of these still lack a certain minerality. From Italy, there are many good prosecco frizzante and spumante producers (and the dry ones can be delicious). Bellavista's Franciacorta DOC sparkler can compete with NV Champagne. Giulio Ferarri makes some postively sublime wines that are worth seeking out. I confess to not having had much Ox bubbly. What I have had has seem driven by powerful fruit. And I've had some quite forgettable Latvian sparkling wine.

[Scott]

Regarding sparklers from other French regions -- Great stuff. I've had them from Alsace, Loire, Limoux, Rhone. Many of them represent great value comparatively. And while Scott may have a point that they aim for NV Champagne quality, there are some that surpass it. Huet's Vouvray Petillant is first rate, as is Baumard's Cremant de Loire mentioned by Katie. Both of which are typically vintage bottlings.

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.

[MichaelB]

I try -- but often fail -- to refer to method champenoise wines from places other than Champagne as "sparkiling wine." It is only fair to everyone involved.

This week, I have had two particularly good "sparklers." First, a magnum of Schramsberg Reserve 1981 from Napa Valley.

The second was a first for me, a nonvintage Brut Cremant from Jura. It was private labelled but I am sure the producer was Tissot.

Neither were vintage grand cru Champagne; but they were both special, exciting even, in their own way.

[Brad Ballinger]

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.

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.

[Scott]

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.

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.

[Katherine]

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.

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.

[Scott]

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.

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.

[Boris_A]

Regulating linguistic changes is a thankless and unproductive task.

Oh, you are still free to say "Champagne" for sparklers in general.

But you are no longer allowed to write it on a bottle.

Of course you are allowed to say Parmigiano for every white stuff you throwing at your spaghettis. But you are no longer allowed to write Parmigian on pieces of white rubber.

And it's effective. 20-30 years ago, here in Europe, most people outside of France used to say Champagne for sparklers as well. This has significantly changed. And it has a lot to do with producers no longer labelling their stuff in a misleading way. They simply have to promote Prosecco, Cava and so on now.

[KatieLoeb]

A very interesting French sparkler region is Limoux, an AOC in the hilly region of the Pyrenees near Carcassonne and Perpignan.

They claim having invented the "Méthode Champenoise" and we find there the worlds oldest documents about prodcution of "Brut" sparklers going back to the year 1531. These wines are not very known outside of France. Nevertheless they produce excellent quality overall.

You can find excellent values starting at $10.

I served Blanquette de Limoux at my wedding and have recommended it to other budget conscious party hosts as well. Drinks like Blanc de Blanc Champagne at 1/3 the cost.

I've tried the St. Hilaire and think it's good. I'm particularly fond of the Maison Vergnes Blanquette de Limoux Berceau. It's around $12 in NJ.

[Scott]

~ double post.

Edited January 5, 2004 by Scott (log)

[Scott]

Regulating linguistic changes is a thankless and unproductive task.

Oh, you are still free to say "Champagne" for sparklers in general.

But you are no longer allowed to write it on a bottle.

Of course you are allowed to say Parmigiano for every white stuff you throwing at your spaghettis. But you are no longer allowed to write Parmigian on pieces of white rubber.

And it's effective. 20-30 years ago, here in Europe, most people outside of France used to say Champagne for sparklers as well. This has significantly changed. And it has a lot to do with producers no longer labelling their stuff in a misleading way. They simply have to promote Prosecco, Cava and so on now.

Absolutely spot on.

I note with interest, that the arguments put forward by Brad and Katherine have little to do with the rights of the champenoise, but more to do with the inconvenience of having to respect them.

[KatieLoeb]

We need to start calling the burgundy and chablis from california by their correct names, "wine flavored products"

I thought the name of that red stuff in the jug referred only to the color, and not the flavor of the wine-flavored product within.

[Katherine]

Regulating linguistic changes is a thankless and unproductive task.

Oh, you are still free to say "Champagne" for sparklers in general.

But you are no longer allowed to write it on a bottle.

Of course you are allowed to say Parmigiano for every white stuff you throwing at your spaghettis. But you are no longer allowed to write Parmigian on pieces of white rubber.

And it's effective. 20-30 years ago, here in Europe, most people outside of France used to say Champagne for sparklers as well. This has significantly changed. And it has a lot to do with producers no longer labelling their stuff in a misleading way. They simply have to promote Prosecco, Cava and so on now.

Absolutely spot on.

I note with interest, that the arguments put forward by Brad and Katherine have little to do with the rights of the champenoise, but more to do with the inconvenience of having to respect them.

Shifting rights of foreigners in some faroff country have no effect on linguistic change. That's not how language works, regardless of how you might wish it to.

I personally would not dream of asking for Champagne, if it were not what I intended to buy or drink. And if I ordered a glass of sparkling wine, and they said they were bringing me Champagne (as has happened), I would certainly correct them, just in case they understood what I was talking about.

But they don't understand. And my correcting people on points of language, particularly when I am politically motivated to boot, is going to have zero effect on their actual usage. You can't legislate linguistic change, and if you try to you look like an idiot. Especially if you're a foreigner trying to change somebody else's language for what appears only to benefit market share.

That said, you can legislate label changes, and eventually, people may stop using the forbidden terms. Just as they don't say Kleenex™ when they mean tissues, or Scotch Tape™ when they mean cellophane tape, or Thermos™ when they mean vaccuum bottles...

[cdh]

From a legal point of view, Scott's association of mislabeling with theft actually goes beyond the (already broad) reach of the law. Theft analogies are rampant in talk about patent and copyright infringement, where there are real proprietary interests.

Trademark law comes at the problem of intellectual property from a different angle-- it has historically been essentially about consumer protection, rather than brand protection for its own sake. The standards by which trademark violations are judged are all about the consumer's perceptions-- "passing off" one product as another thereby fooling the consumer, and "deceptively misdescribing" a product so the consumer thinks it is something it isn't. Is affixing the word "champagne" to a bottle of clearly labelled California wine either of the above? An analysis like Katherine's comes into play here, as actual linguistic usage is evidence of what consumers think when a description is used. It is the consumer's perceptions that are being protected, not the wishful desires of any particular user of a mark.

As a thumbnail sketch of an analysis of the mark "champagne", I'd venture to say that it suffered genericide a long time ago. "Genericide" is trademark lawyer slang for a mark having fallen into generic usage and lost all capacity to identify a specific producer. Like kleenex, or xerox (despite their attempts to head that off), and (maybe) tivo.

[Boris_A]

That said, you can legislate label changes, and eventually, people may stop using the forbidden terms. Just as they don't say Kleenex™ when they mean tissues, or Scotch Tape™ when they mean cellophane tape, or Thermos™ when they mean vaccuum bottles...

I dont think that Kleenex, Scotxh or Thermos are against people using their brand name as a synonym. Au contraire, I'd say. But they spend still advertising $$$ to convince you to buy the original stuff.

That's what the Champagne people are doing. Being hard on legal (intellectual properties) issues. The rest is advertising.

Nobody is trying to "regulate" somebody else's language.

[cdh]

I dont think that Kleenex, Scotxh or Thermos are against people using their brand name as a synonym. Au contraire, I'd say. But they spend still advertising $$$ to convince you to buy the original stuff.

They're obligated to do so under trademark law. A holder of a unique identifier of source (the legal definition of a trademark) is obligated to protect its uniqueness to the best of their abilities, or the mark could be deemed abandoned. Encouraging generic usage is a sure fire way to kill a mark.

Edited January 5, 2004 by cdh (log)