American Sparkling Wines: as good as champagne?

[Gifted Gourmet]

article from Slate Online

Trying to make champagne someplace other than the Champagne region of France is a bit like preaching abstinence on the set of a porn film—it's an exercise in futility.... Where American sparklers can compete is on price, particularly at the bargain end. There is almost no decent champagne that sells for less than $25 a bottle, so if you need to keep it cheap, American wines like the Roederer Estate ($18) and Scharffenberger ($19) are good options.

Iron Horse Brut LD 1996, $60 (California)

Bubbles so fine they barely break the surface. Pear, ginger, candied lemon, and baking spices greet the nose. Quite yeasty as well. In the mouth, it's a riot of citrus and acidity, finishing dry

looks interesting ....

An interesting article with a lot of specific information on sparkling wines from America ... your opinions on their opinions?

[raxelita]

My advice? If you need to keep it inexpensive, American sparklers are a reasonable choice, but if you're able to pay up, make it champagne—there is no substitute.

I agree with this. I've had good American sparklers that rival cheap French Champagne (Roederer stands out in this category), but at the $60 and over rate there is no competition. My $60 goes to NV Perrier Jouet or Laurent Perrier long before I touch Iron Horse (whose bubblies I find often have an unpleasant metallic aftertaste) or Schramsberg.

[melkor]

Nothing even close comes from the states. There are plenty of good grower champagnes available for around $25 on sale. Granted at list price they are often more like $35-$45, but while the Scharffenberger brut mentioned in the article is half the price, it also is syrupy sweet and incredibly simple. Delamotte, Billecart-Salmon, Egly, Turgy, Paul Bara, Lassalle, Pierre Peters, Duval-Leroy, Jean Milan, and countless others all can be had for reasonable amounts of money. The domestic offerings only look good when compared to the uninspired mass-produced products from Champagne like White Star and Veuve.

The higher end domestic sparklers from Iron Horse, Chandon, Domaine Carneros, Mumm, et al are more expensive and significantly less delicious than the widely available Billecart rose. At the lower end there are no shortage of delicious cremant and prosecco - most priced in the low teens.

[wattacetti]

I like Roederer's American production better than their French.

When it comes to serving large quantities of bodies, I would go with that, Mumm's stuff from Napa (or crémant) since no one really complains in such a scenario. Special occassions would be Veuve-Cliquot La Grande Dame, Bollinger RD or (if I really liked them) Salon.

The red fizzies from Australia are great conversation starters too.

[Jason Perlow]

Nothing even close comes from the states.  There are plenty of good grower champagnes available for around $25 on sale.  Granted at list price they are often more like $35-$45, but while the Scharffenberger brut mentioned in the article is half the price, it also is syrupy sweet and incredibly simple.  Delamotte, Billecart-Salmon, Egly, Turgy, Paul Bara, Lassalle, Pierre Peters, Duval-Leroy, Jean Milan, and countless others all can be had for reasonable amounts of money.  The domestic offerings only look good when compared to the uninspired mass-produced products from Champagne like White Star and Veuve. 

The higher end domestic sparklers from Iron Horse, Chandon, Domaine Carneros, Mumm, et al are more expensive and significantly less delicious than the widely available Billecart rose.  At the lower end there are no shortage of delicious cremant and prosecco - most priced in the low teens.

←

I cannot agree with this on principle. American wineries are certainly capable of producing sparkling wines as good and as complex as a grower Champagne. I know, I've tasted them. Have you tried the pinot-heavy Argyle Extended Tirage, for example? As far as I am concerned that's as good as any RM vintage blanc de noir as I have ever had. Argyle's Rose sparkling wine -- which albeit is very hard to get -- is at least as good as say, the Egly Ouriet Ambonnay Rose, which is as serious as rose champagnes get.

I'm not saying that there are many examples of this kind of American methode champanoise or even if they are comparable values to say, a really good $40 RM. But to say that good sparkling wines do not exist to rival anything in France is ideological poppycock (please substitute a more colorful metaphor here). The wines exist, you just might have to go through a lot of trouble to find them, however. This is inevitably going to change, especially with the stuff coming from Oregon and Washington State and the increasing demand for quality domestic sparkling wine.

[melkor]

I've tasted through the entire Argyle portfolio, they make some nice wines but nothing I'd consider in the same ballpark as the Egly you mention. The Gruet sparklers from New Mexico while fairly simple are a better example of what the domestic producers should be striving for - a clean well made wine at a reasonable price point. The climate in California, Oregon, and Washington is just too warm for the wines to have the same focus and precision as Champagne offers.

[Jason Perlow]

I've tasted through the entire Argyle portfolio, they make some nice wines but nothing I'd consider in the same ballpark as the Egly you mention.

We will agree to disagree then.

[Brad Ballinger]

I'll grant that there is a bit of "absolutism" in this Steinberger column. And generally I tend to err on the side of avoiding any type of generalization, but I have to agree with him here. Plus, he's doing the good job of a writer, and provoking his readers.

While American sparkling wines can give a first impression that may stand up to their French counterparts, for me they lack the complexity dollar for dollar that Champagne offers. There's precious little, if any, minerality -- a hallmark of good Champagne -- in California sparklers. The most "mineral" domestic bubbly I've had comes from Gruet in New Mexico.

Some other observations...

While pleasing domestic bubbly exists, it's important to view the comparisons on a price point level. And that's where the U.S. fails in my opinion.

At the low end of the price scale, I go along with Dave and put my money toward Cremant de Loire (and Vouvray Petillant), Cremant de Limoux, Cremant d'Alsace, Cremant de Bourgogne, etc. For me (your mileage may vary), I find them more interesting and layered than American counterparts -- and they're cheaper.

At the high end, I could not imagine throwing $60 down for the Iron Horse Brut LD (Late Disgorged) or $80 for the J Schram when I can pay the same amount for vintage Champagne from any NM, CM, or RM house in Champagne. I've had those two domestic wines and, for me (again), they show me nothing to justify the price. I'd rather buy two or three NV wines from Champange for the same amount of money.

If I have to buy domestic, I buy Gruet or Iron Horse. I've been to Iron Horse, and their sparklers stand out among the domestic producers I've tried. (But they still don't do for me what Champagne does.)

[Jason Perlow]

I will agree that American sparkling wines, on the whole, with few exceptions, dollar for dollar, cannot match their French counterparts, Brad. However, some of us drink American wine on the principle of supporting our native wine industry. Even if I have to pay slightly more for an American sparkler, such as the Argyle for example (which really isn't that expensive a wine if you buy it by the case) I'll do it, because at the end of the day I'd rather an American winemaker get my dollars than a French one. If its unavoidable and the opportunity is good, and for the lack of a good American alternative I'll drink a French wine. But I don't have to like doing it. If i have to go through the trouble to seek out those few and far between American sparkling wines that rival those of France I will and I do -- because I feel I have a duty to support our native vinoculture. I don't expect others to behave in the same way but -I- will do my part.

[Brad Ballinger]

However, some of us drink American wine on the principle of supporting our native wine industry. Even if I have to pay slightly more for an American sparkler, such as the Argyle for example (which really isn't that expensive a wine if you buy it by the case) I'll do it, because at the end of the day I'd rather an American winemaker get my dollars than a French one.

←

I don't see a problem with that at all. Of course, some American wineries are foreign-owned. But that's another topic.

[mrbigjas]

I agree with this. I've had good American sparklers that rival cheap French Champagne (Roederer stands out in this category), but at the $60 and over rate there is no competition. My $60 goes to NV Perrier Jouet or Laurent Perrier long before I touch Iron Horse (whose bubblies I find often have an unpleasant metallic aftertaste) or Schramsberg.

i liked this line about the iron horse brut LD in his notes:

The taste buds probe for something deeper, some nuance; they come up empty.

ah, the existential loneliness of a disappointing bottle of wine. i can hear a coyote howling in the distance, and a far-off train whistle in the middle of the night...

Edited December 30, 2005 by mrbigjas (log)

[Jason Perlow]

True, they tend to be fruitier, but that fruitiness invariably morphs into heaviness; they wear on the palate. Champagne, by contrast, is refreshing; it gives the palate a lift (which is why it is the ideal aperitif). And while American bubblies have the same buttery yellow color and fine mousse (read: tiny bubbles), they lack the definition, complexity, and depth of flavor that one finds in better nonvintage champagnes, to say nothing of prestige cuvées like Dom Perignon.

Did this whole paragraph not rub anyone else here the wrong way? And does using Dom Perignon, probably the most bling and unremarkable of Champagnes also come across as somewhat unresearched?

I'll bite, though. Dom Perignon does make one exceptional wine, their vintage Rose- -- which at $300+ per bottle is quite bling, yes siree.

If given a choice between vintage Dom and Argyle's sparkler, I'll pick the Argyle. Or if under duress I'll swallow my pride and open a bottle of that Egly Ouriet or Billecart.

[Jason Perlow]

However, some of us drink American wine on the principle of supporting our native wine industry. Even if I have to pay slightly more for an American sparkler, such as the Argyle for example (which really isn't that expensive a wine if you buy it by the case) I'll do it, because at the end of the day I'd rather an American winemaker get my dollars than a French one.

←

I don't see a problem with that at all. Of course, some American wineries are foreign-owned. But that's another topic.

←

I've been known to have a bottle of Gruet NV here and there. At the very least it makes a decent Mimosa, at its (relatively) budget price.

[Brad Ballinger]

True, they tend to be fruitier, but that fruitiness invariably morphs into heaviness; they wear on the palate. Champagne, by contrast, is refreshing; it gives the palate a lift (which is why it is the ideal aperitif). And while American bubblies have the same buttery yellow color and fine mousse (read: tiny bubbles), they lack the definition, complexity, and depth of flavor that one finds in better nonvintage champagnes, to say nothing of prestige cuvées like Dom Perignon.

Did this whole paragraph not rub anyone else here the wrong way? And does using Dom Perignon, probably the most bling and unremarkable of Champagnes also come across as somewhat unresearched?

I'll bite, though. Dom Perignon does make one exceptional wine, their vintage Rose- -- which at $300+ per bottle is quite bling, yes siree.

If given a choice between vintage Dom and Argyle's sparkler, I'll pick the Argyle. Or if under duress I'll swallow my pride and open a bottle of that Egly Ouriet or Billecart.

←

I'll take issue with the paragraph. But mine will start out from a slightly different slant. Steinberger pigeon-holes Champagne as an aperitif. For me (yet again, and others' mileage may vary), Champagne is one terrific food wine. While there are some that make excellent aperitifs, and I support using them as such, that's not the be all and end all to the wine. And the Champenoise, in particular, would support me on that. But Steinberger has written the article in close proximity to New Year's Eve -- the only time much of this country drinks a frothy alcoholic beverage that isn't beer.

To address the Dom comparison, my guess is Steinberger picked it for name recognition. Cristal has replaced it as quintessential bling bubbly, as the kids will tell you, but everyone still knows about Dom. As far as tete de cuvees go, I prefer many others. I've had Dom's rose only once, but I'm with you there. On a return trip from Champagne, I brought back a bottle because it is much cheaper there. Instead of keeping it to myself, I opened it at a dinner party for eight. I only got a taste, but what a taste.

[jackal10]

That is a dangerous precedent, Jason. It leads to wars.

There are many people I know who won't drink US wines for political reasons. No way to world peace and understanding.

Champagne is quite far north, and so the grapes make poor still wine.

I suspect the micro-climate is not good for US sparklers, since there is little tradition in the right areas.

There is UK sparkling wine as well. Nosr of that is grown too cold and far north. Its OK in a good year, but not as good as the real stuff.

[Jason Perlow]

On a return trip from Champagne, I brought back a bottle because it is much cheaper there. Instead of keeping it to myself, I opened it at a dinner party for eight. I only got a taste, but what a taste.

I had a chance to sample the wine only once. I was in the hotel bar of a major New Orleans hotel back in '03 when I was invited in with the wine buyer to sample the entire Dom Perignon line with the DP rep. I had two glasses of the Rose... everything else was totally unremarkable. But at that price... Oy.

I agree that Champagne is a wine that should be drank all the time -- not just for special occasions. It also matches very well with the kind of cuisine I eat a lot of.

[Jason Perlow]

That is a dangerous precedent, Jason. It leads to wars.

There are many people I know who won't drink US wines for political reasons.  No way to  world peace and understanding.

Champagne is quite far north, and so the grapes make poor still wine.

I suspect the micro-climate is not good for US sparklers, since there is little tradition in the right areas.

There is UK sparkling wine as well. Nosr of that is grown too cold and far north. Its OK in a good year, but not as good as the real stuff.

←

I'm not saying I'm going to stop drinking French wine, or wine of non-US origin Jack, or that others should either. God knows I buy a ton of Italians and Spanish and German, and Chilean and Australian and even South African and Israeli wines and certainly my share of Recoltant Manipulant champagnes and Burgundies and Bordeaux and dessert Semillons and Banyuls. I'm certainly not going to pour my good Burgundy down the toilet because the French government and French media will inevitably do and say things that are offensive to me and my own principles or my own unpopular political bent. But when given the opportunity, I'll drink an American wine because as an American, I think its the correct and patriotic thing to do -- just as I'd buy American-made cheeses and American farmed goods if the opportunity is there. I don't think being patriotic and a consumer of domestic goods is endemically war-causing. That's asinine.

[budrichard]

The whole premise of the original article is without true understanding!

"Trying to make champagne someplace other than the Champagne region of France is a bit like preaching abstinence on the set of a porn film—it's an exercise in futility"

Champagne can only be produced in the Champagne region of France. The rest is all sparking wine be it Cava, Sekt, , Asti (awful stuff), or Korbel"Champagne"( we all know the story). Where ever an agricultural product is produced, the product takes on a different set of charachteristics due to the clime and soil and one can never get the same taste. Comparing which is 'better' is a really fruitless exercise. One can say what one enjoys more but that is often due to what one taste buds first experienced. My first expereinces were with the European wines in the 1960's and that is what my taste buds like but there are some very good sparklers from around the world.-Dick

[Daniel Rogov]

Over the years I've sampled some truly excellent American sparkling wines. When comparing them to the wines of the best Champagne houses, however, I cannot help but call to mind the wisdom that is found in one form or another in Judaism, Christianity, Budhism, and the Moslem religions: "If it's like an egg, it's not as good as an egg".

Don't get me wrong...given some of the fine sparkling wines of the USA I wouldn't throw them out of bed.

[Mayhaw Man]

This is sort of on topic, I think- though, really, that's never stopped me before.

[jsolomon]

That is a dangerous precedent, Jason. It leads to wars.

There are many people I know who won't drink US wines for political reasons.  No way to  world peace and understanding.

Champagne is quite far north, and so the grapes make poor still wine.

I suspect the micro-climate is not good for US sparklers, since there is little tradition in the right areas.

There is UK sparkling wine as well. Nosr of that is grown too cold and far north. Its OK in a good year, but not as good as the real stuff.

←

Hmm, I wonder if Nebraska would make good champagne...

[jbonne]

there's a lot in Steinberger's piece that didn't quite jibe for me, much as i generally adore his writing. leaving aside the premise, which is a bit like asking whether all California Cabs are better than Latour, there's some specific items:

1) Argyle brut is sold by vintage, but none was listed in the piece; the '99 is a gorgeous wine, while the '00 (despite its ratings) to me was slightly imbalanced and from too-hot fruit, which is one thing Steinberger takes issue with. (and it's a fair point. Carneros/Sonoma really isn't an ideal climate to be replicating chilly Champagne.)

2) as always, WA state bubblies get screwed. i often sound like a broken record about Mountain Dome, from Spokane, but i've never met an unapologetically Francophile American winemaker as Michael Manz, and his vintage bruts can be lovely, special wines in good years. (and his fruit is from a notably cold site.)

3) the Soter brut rose is quite a good wine, but i'm just not as enthusiastic about it as he is. by contrast, the Gruet rose -- for less than half the price -- is a sheer pleasure, yet it's their blanc de noirs that gets the kudos.

overall, i'd agree that it's hard to make a comparison between the American tetes de cuvee and the French. you're not going to be able to trump a Krug Mesnil or a Grande Dame without a lot more experience. but i've also tasted a lot of wan, soulless and just plain mediocre Champagne. if Champagne does have an overall selling point over plain old domestic bubbles, it's that the bubbles themselves tend to be finer, longer lasting and better integrated. (i remain so keen on Deutz Classic in part because its bead is fine and enduring.) but again, there are more than a few exceptions to that rule.

i don't think you can make the statement he's making without also acknowledging the sea of bad French Champagne that's out there, and the wonderful efforts that are available from U.S. producers. there's also the whole pleasurable adventure of trying domestic bubbly as it evolves, especially those from smaller producers. (We just recently tried Navarro's 1999 brut, for instance; still a work in progress, but a joy to drink nonetheless because Navarro wines are so good and it was such a rare beast.)

And anyone who holds up Dom Perignon as the reason why American bubblies can't compete should be locked in the basement of a Costco to rusticate along with many thousands of bottles of that triumph of hype.

[Jason Perlow]

i don't think you can make the statement he's making without also acknowledging the sea of bad French Champagne that's out there,

I think that's a very important point. Virtually all the champagne sold on the market is NM or MA/CM, with -most- of the so-called "great champagne houses" making unremarkable wine or even stuff that is outright nasty (aka Veuve Cliquot "agent orange") -- how many Deutz, Nicolas Feuillattes and Bollingers and Pol Rogers are there in a sea of crap like Dom Perignon, M&C, Mumm, Roederer and Veuve Cliquot and Tattinger and so on and so on? Not many. Sure, the RMs are making amazing stuff, but the only people buying it is foodie wine dorks like us. So little of it is getting into the country, comparatively.

as always, WA state bubblies get screwed.

Why do you think is this happening to Pac NW wines Jon? Not that its necessarily a good metric, but certainly the Wine Spectator speeds and feeds are way up there on many of these wines, particularly the Argyle.

And anyone who holds up Dom Perignon as the reason why American bubblies can't compete should be locked in the basement of a Costco to rusticate along with many thousands of bottles of that triumph of hype.

YES! YES! YES!

[Gifted Gourmet]

This is sort of on topic, I think- though, really, that's never stopped me before.

←

"The red sparkling wines offer a lot of intense red berry flavors, like strawberries, currants, cherries and sun-dried cranberries. It's a completely different flavor. They don't come across the palate as something too dry or too bitter."

this is my kind of sparkling wine, Brooks, and it is therefore, completely on topic ...

[jsolomon]

Sure, the RMs are making amazing stuff, but the only people buying it is foodie wine dorks like us. So little of it is getting into the country, comparatively.

←

Jason, some of us perusing the list don't generally have access to many neurons to scratch about champagne, so some examples would be in order, please.