American Sparkling Wines: as good as champagne?

[Jason Perlow]

There's a lot of Recoltant Manipulant (RM) aka "grower" or "single estate" champagne produced in France, the problem is that most if it is not readily avaliable to the US market. If you live in a large city or are in the burbs with great big wine stores, you might be able to score some. Some of these estates are so small they may have less than 2 hectacres of arable land and produce less than 2000 cases a year. A "Big" RM may have a dozen hectacres to grow grapes.

One of the houses I mentioned above, Egly Ouriet, is distinctive in that they make some unusual and varied stuff, such as a Non Dose (Zero Dosage, meaning no sugar added) which is very dry and excellent to match with caviar, a fantastic Blanc De Noir and a delicate Ambonnay Brut Rose. They also apparently make a 100 percent Pinot Meunier champagne Brut Les Vignes de Vrigny which is about as wacky esoteric in Champagnes as you can get -- Pinot Meunier is typically an accent grape in Champagne blends and very little of it is comparatively grown to Pinot Noir and Chardonnay. Egly has been getting a lot of accolades in the French press as one of the best boutique producers in Champagne and it is getting more and more distribution in the US.

Others which may or may not be in your area that are nice -- Rene Geoffroy, Guy Larmandier, Larmandier-Bernier, Paul Goerge, Charles Cazenove, Demoiselle, Pierre Peters, Pierre Gimonnet, Gaston Chiquet. Again a lot of this has to do with your local distributor situation and what your wine store is capable of getting in. Sometimes an individual wine store with enough resources may decide to import a few dozen cases at a time. There are so many RMs in the Champagne region and more and more of them are being imported by individual importers in different cities, that you may have access to different ones in LA, San Francisco or Seattle than you do in New York. Terry Theise, for example, imports a good number of RMs and wine stores that buy from him carry the RMs he gets -- You can read his 2005 champagne catalog and newsletter here. Its a gread read and very informative. Frankly, I've never had a bad RM, and whenever I see a new one, I buy it sight unseen and completely unheard of just because of the coolness and uniqueness factor of trying a new champagne. They are cool wines to drink, no doubt about that -- and compared to the "great" houses you can get them frequently under $40 per bottle, sometimes under $30.

Another cool thing I like about RMs is that because these guys are so small time, they don't have the resources to buy new oak barrels, because they are so expensive. So a lot of RM is aged in older barrels or even stainless steel. If you tend to be on the oak-averse side like myself, the RMs are a breath of fresh air compared to the big NM champagnes.

[Brad Ballinger]

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.

←

Adding onto Jason's reply, if you search for "recoltant manipulant" or "RM" or "grower champagne" in this forum, you'll come up with a larger list of producers. I'll briefly add, however, Diebolt-Vallois, H. Billiot, Chartogne-Tallet, Jean Milan, Pierre Moncuit, Michel Arnould, Franck Bonville, Tarlant, and Rene Collard. In additon to the Terry Theise portfolio, you can find some from K & L, based out of Redwood City and San Francisco (as if jbonne and I don't shill for them plenty as it is).

[MaxH]

I don’t know how many folks here addressed the topic's question at the time, but those who did may recall how radically the US picture changed in the 1980s. For some years prior, the population of regular California sparkling-wine producers had been more static. Schramsberg (under Jack Davies) and, from 1973, Domaine Chandon, occupied their own class or stratum, then there was a bit of a quality gap, and then the Korbel and Hans Kornell products and a few others, then another gap and the “cheap” wines (Charmat-process and otherwise). Even the best of regular production products from California lacked a measure of the delicacy and subtlety routine in French sparkling wines for not much more money, and the astute consumer headed for good-value French alternatives like Lanson Black Label which retailed for around $11-12 in the US northeast where Domaine Chandon was going for $9 and $10. I was actively interested because, as Cronin and Pallais argue in their spirited little book Champagne!, the wine “combines with food in the most versatile manner.” (They give many examples, including “with a cold chicken sandwich before noon.”) Circa 1980 I was going back and forth between northern CA and the northeastern US (including relocations each way), and sometimes transporting wine. For instance, when Kermit Lynch introduced many in the US to Champagne Billecart-Salmon with its 1978 vintage, this was offered on the west coast and I had to ship some of it east; it was the first some fellow wine geeks there had seen of that label.

Several things then happened in California, including Domaine Chandon’s eventual increase to vastly more production than in 1980, but the most dramatic results came from further investment in California by experienced European sparkling-wine producers, including Piper Heidsieck (under the Piper-Sonoma label, retailing from 1982, greeted by fanfare at the time), Deutz, and especially, Champagne Louis Roederer (CLR). In 1980 CLR, a privately-owned family firm, started a California subsidiary Roederer Estate (RE), acquired vineyard land in the rolling hills of Anderson Valley, and hired Prof. Michel Salgues from Université de Montpellier (then on leave teaching at UC-Davis, where he had also trained when younger) as managing director. That firm, especially, elevated the top quality levels available in California sparkling-wine products (though at a cost, which I’ll get to). Roederer makes regular bottlings at well under $20 (brut and brut rosé) and also a premium reserve bottling, Brut L’Ermitage, which is vintage-dated. In 1999 I had a stockpile of the L’Ermitage (1993 vintage) for possibly lively New Year’s Eve but it turned out to be a more sober and reflective party, so most of the wine found other uses later, being so versatile. But Roederer Estate famously, finally, bridged the quality gap so conspicuous in the 1970s and much of the 80s. British wine writer Tom Stevenson, in his encyclopedia, writes that the second batch, from 1987 grapes, “was the first sparkling wine made outside Champagne that could be compared not simply to an average Champagne but to a good quality Champagne, and winemaker Michel Salgues has maintained this high standard ever since.” (Stevenson criticizes the product for being released relatively early, and sometimes consequently drunk a little “green.”) RE and Salgues (retired 2003) deserve historic credit for raising the bar. (I thought I should mention this history, as it is essential context to the topic.)

The problem I see now is that at least the premium versions of such products, selling for $35 or more, overlap the US price range of very good real Champagnes especially with the increasing, pro-active importation of “small house” French products that are not part of luxury-goods conglomerates (yet) and do not have their marketing budgets, or sales teams that call so eagerly on restaurants and retailers. Yet the small houses offer not just individuality, but sometimes better value. In my region, Gary Westby, Champagne buyer at K & L Wines (Redwood City and San Francisco), has aggressively sought out small houses and retails dozens of them (the firm has good online service by the way, Link). I and other wine geeks did a tasting of several of these, many in the $20-$30 range (including the ones we turned out to like best, blind), and we were delighted with the results. This is why for that price range (over $20) California has serious competition, even in California retailers.

[CtznCane]

As to whether American sparkling wines are as good as Champagne's sparkling wine, I think the answer is yes. Does this mean that at the highest end American sparklers are as good as their Champagne counterparts? No, though even that I can't say for certain as I think the high end French wines have become ridiculously overpriced, for some that may not be a concern but for most I think it is.

As a senior in high school/freshman in college I worked at a couple of the better wine stores in Berkeley and got a little introduction into Champagne. That was in 70/71 though I didn't relly get interested in wines and champagne till about 1980. At that time there was very little in the way of quality American sparkiling wine. I remember in that time period going to Narsais with my best friend and having a bottle of Vueve Ciquot Royal Celebration Cuvee the night after my son was born. Back then champagne was reasonable. One champange I enjoyed a lot (at reasonable prices then) was Alfred Gratien which out here even I"ve only found once in the last 10 years or so. Back then though even the top notch champagnes, while high, were not outrageously priced.

However opinionated you may be, I think you'd agree there is no comparison to the American sparkling wines of the 70's and 80's and what they are now. Not only are there a number of American sparklers of good quality but they are priced reasonably as well. Personally, I think much (not all but a good deal) of the French champagne hype is pompous hogwash trying to impress people. Truth of the matter is, both make fine sparkling wines. Both different, both similar.

One question I would pose, especially to those who are so adamant about the French sparkling wine is this: If California were not a top notch area for sparkling wines, why would Mumm, Moet-Chandon, Roederer, Tattinger, and Freixenet all have properties here producing sparkling wines? Which by the way, of those wineries our favorite is Gloria Ferrer who in addition to putting out some fine sparkling wines has some wonderful pinot noirs.

I would say gone our the days of the French Colombard in California but that is still a primary grape in Korbel's Sec (I must be a perv as we actually like that for brunches and mimosa's but at 5.99 a bottle by the case it is hard to beat) though thank goodness we don't see it anyhwhere else.

One side question I have deals with the geographic situation. Living in California and in the wine region, we (Californians) have a much easier time with California sparkling wine. I would think that those of you on the East Coast would have more of a toss-up situation as to choices since importing from France is damn near as convenient as best coast to lest coast transport. As for Brad, being stuck darn near in the middle (and knowing he prefers the French) I give his opinion a bit more weight on impariality than I do to some.

As for NYE, we finished off the last bit of a bottle of Korbel Rose (not bad for the price, pleasant and non-descript) and then Iron Horse Blanc de Blanc and are working on a bottle of Schramsberg Cremant at the moment.

A happy new years to all, and I hope there is more spriited (friendly but with an attitude) posting on this forum in the new year. ----- Cheers to all

[melkor]

    One question I would pose, especially to those who are so adamant about the French sparkling wine is this: If California were not a top notch area for sparkling wines, why would Mumm, Moet-Chandon, Roederer, Tattinger, and Freixenet all have properties here producing sparkling wines?  Which by the way, of those wineries our favorite is Gloria Ferrer who in addition to putting out some fine sparkling wines has some wonderful pinot noirs.

←

Just as a guess, I'd say they are trying to make some money.

[jbonne]

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.

←

well, in part it's because most NW wineries don't have good mechanisms in place to tout themselves to the rest of the country. even in Seattle, it's hard to know who's releasing what and what's coming on the market without spending a lot of time talking to trade people.

the only ones with major PR efforts are Columbia (Constellation) and Ste. Michelle, and the Domaine Ste. Michelle sparkler isn't especially noteworthy.

Argyle actually has decent representation, which is why anyone on the East Coast has heard of them. and Tony Soter is Tony Soter, so anyone plugged into Cali will know what he's up to. but the few other bubbly producers out there are very much under the radar. Michael Manz at Mountain Dome, for instance, manages to make some amazing wines while doing some side projects and keeping down a day job as a child psychiatrist.

what i like about NW wine is that it's an industry still mostly focused on the wine, not the hype -- which i can't say about most of California anymore. but the same things that will make the wines more accessible to East Coasters are the things that could gut the industry's soul.

[MaxH]

... what i like about NW wine is that it's an industry still mostly focused on the wine, not the hype -- which i can't say about most of California anymore.

Today the innovation, tomorrow the hype. Isn't it ever so?

[jbonne]

Today the innovation, tomorrow the hype.  Isn't it ever so?

←

and how -- except maybe in the Loire, which can innovate all it likes and will never feel the love from this side of the pond. (and that's ok by me, since it keeps me in great wine on the cheap.) and maybe the Sierra Foothills too, since Plymouth is a long drive home for the average wine hound.

otherwise, gotta ask yourself how long it'll be before Paso Robles gets the full St. Helena/Healdsburg treatment. Walla Walla is already headed down that road too.

Rose? any predictions?

meantime, back to the bubbles ...

[Craig Camp]

The climate in California, Oregon, and Washington is just too warm for the wines to have the same focus and precision as Champagne offers.

←

The climate in Oregon is too warm for sparkling wine? Perhaps you have not visited the northern Willamette Valley in the fall. Sparking wine producers in Oregon are picking a full month later they do in California, where they often have to pick on August.

You can only make Champagne in Champagne, just like you can only make Burgundy in Burgundy and Barolo in Barolo. These names designate places with distinct character. There are certainly wines like the late disgorged Iron Horse and Argyle wines that can rival Champagne on a quality basis, but they don't taste the same and they should not taste the same as wine from Champagne. They should taste like wines from the Green Valley and Willamette Valley. For example at Iron Horse, they discovered over the years that the French method of controlling sweetness with dosage had to be completely reevaluated as the fruit character of their vineyards did not require the same degree of sweetness. Thus they use a much lower level of dosage than they do in Champagne relying instead on fruit sweetness rather than added sugar. This makes for a wine quite different in style than Champagne. Preference of one over the other is a personal choice.

One area where domestic sparklers really trash champagne is in the basic brut category. The thin wines, tasting more of aspirin than fruit, most French Champagne houses dump millions of cases of on the world market are clearly inferior to wines like the 2000 Argyle Brut, which can be easily found in the $20 range. Indeed, most French Champagne is a manufactured industrial product, while the best American sparklings are produced by artisans in comparison. Even production of famous names like Crystal and Dom Perignon is measured in millions of bottles produced. In Champagne itself, most of the finest wines come from the smaller producers.

Enjoyment of fine American sparking wines should be made in the same way one admires the qualities of outstanding New Zealand or Oregon Pinot Noir as compared to Burgundy - each of the wines can be excellent, but each has their own personality, just as it should be.

[CtznCane]

otherwise, gotta ask yourself how long it'll be before Paso Robles gets the full St. Helena/Healdsburg treatment. Walla Walla is already headed down that road too.

Maybe I'm wrong on this but I think it is going to be tougher, and a longer road (if at all) for the Paso area to get the same kind of recoginition simply due to their location. I've never been to Walla Walla nor had any of the wines from that area but I would guess they too may suffer the same fate as Paso in terms of locale.

While the wines are certainly worthy of recognition I think it will be hard for many of them to get too much of a following. Napa and Healdsburg/Sonoma Co wineries have both benefitted greatly from their proximity to San Francisco and the Bay Area. Paso Robles (at least according to Mapquest) is damn near equa-distant between L.A. and S.F, with the ride for both being about 4+ hours. Napa and Healdsburg on the other hand are within about 1-2 hours from even the furthest points in the Bay Area.

An established winery will do fine (or at least okay) regardless of its location due to publicity. I think a lot of nice smaller wineries though will fall through the cracks, or at the very least have a much more difficult time. Smaller places simply don't get the traffic and are pretty much off the radar. For those visiting or living in the Bay Area (as an example) can have a nice day visiting and exploring the wineries as well as enjoying other aspects of the area and not have it take to long to get there and get back. The same cannot be said for the Paso area. Even from San Jose which is the most southern part of the bay area it is a shorter distance to Healdsburg than to Paso.

I feel lucky in the fact that we go to the Paso area a couple of times a year due to having family living there. I enjoy the Paso wines immensely and without going to that area I would certainly not have a clue about several that have become favorites of mine. The ride to Paso from the Bay area, to put it politely, is not the most scenic of trips. It is a far more enjoyable drive from L.A. I'm sure. About the only chance they have of people finding the wineries by accident is if someone is headed across to the coast to go to Hearst Castle or something. Paso Robles itself and the areas south of there are very enjoyable, but they do suffer (I think) from the fact that the ride North from there on 101 is just plain boring for quite a distance.

I don't have a clue about Walla Walla, but my guess would be that it can be tougher in that area too since it is a long distance from there to either Portland or Seattle. (While a little longer than from S.F to Paso I find it interesting that it is about the same distance from Walla Walla to Portland or Seattle and even to Boise for that matter.)

Perhaps Mary could answer it best in terms of how relelvant it might be for a winery to be accessible to the public or in a well traveled area?

[MaxH]

. . . The climate in California, Oregon, and Washington is just too warm for the wines to have the same focus and precision as Champagne offers.

What is the temperature measure that you are using, Melkor? I was curious.

Schoonmaker and Marvel's prescient 1941 book (exact reference below) quotes Winkler’s “degree day” analysis (cumulative annual temperatures weighted by degrees above minimum for grape growing), which governed US grape planting for some decades. Under that metric, even Sonoma resembles the Champagne district (and is slightly cooler than Beaune and Bordeaux).

(By the way, from the same book, Napa Valley, Healdsburg, and the Santa Cruz Mountains measure intermediately between Bordeaux and Piedmont; the “Great Central Valley” likewise between Tuscany and Algeria; and, though the regions were then relatively lightly planted, “California’s best table wines, whether white or red, may be expected to come from the Santa Cruz Mountains, from the Napa Valley, and from Sonoma County.” -- Schoonmaker and Marvel, American Wines, Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New York, 1941. From original.)

[JohnL]

Craig--your words eloquently reflect my opinions far better than my own could.

Wine is wine is wine is....

Perhaps we should remove the mystique of champagne and look at it as sparkling wine. Much fine champagne will stand on its own at any price point. Some won't fare so well.

It is difficult to make broad generalizations and broad comparisons and wines are always better compared within regions and appellations as opposed to across regions and appellations.

[elixirofthetropics]

In 2003, I had a 1988 Henriot Brut Cuvée des Enchanteleurs that tasted literally like fizzy vomit although it was rated 94 by Wine Spectator. I had a American champagne (made by methode champagnoise) that was much better. I've also had other champagnes and sparkling wines that taste like aspirin. I would recommend an American champagne unless someone has different experiences that I have had with French champagne.

[Craig Camp]

In 2003, I had a 1988 Henriot Brut Cuvée des Enchanteleurs that tasted literally like fizzy vomit although it was rated 94 by Wine Spectator.  I had a American champagne (made by methode champagnoise) that was much better.  I've also had other champagnes and sparkling wines that taste like aspirin.  I would recommend an American champagne unless someone has different experiences that I have had with French champagne.

←

Out of respect for both Champagne and fine American sparkling wines, lets try to refrain from the unfortunate misnomer "American champagne".

Fizzy vomit or not, it deserves the respect of place.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Craig Camp (log)

[jsolomon]

I agree. America needs a better name for its sparkling wine than, well, sparkling wine.

[JohnL]

I agree.  America needs a better name for its sparkling wine than, well, sparkling wine.

←

There are two issues in play here.

First is an accurate description and second the marketing and mystique factor.

What we are talking about here is "sparkling wine" that descriptor fits everything from Champagne to Cava to Sekt to....well...sparkling wine!

It also tells the consumer what is in the bottle. (along with an indication of dryness or sweetness).

Perhaps we should strip "Champagne" of its mystique and look at it as a sparkling wine. I believe that much Champagne will fare quite well-- large and small producers and vintage and non vintage etc. There are Champagnes that offer unique qualities and those that are not so special.

Then there are sparkling wines from around the world that should be judged on their own merits.

I believe that sweeping generalizations lead us away from looking at what is in the bottle regardless of where it came from.

Interestingly, most European wine sales are suffering from the system of labelling that ignores basics like grape varietal etc and focuses instead on place. this leads to promotion of a "mystique" and thus far is working for Champagne. I suspect that as more areas of the world produce sparkling wines of a high quality, some inroads into the large sales volume of Champagne may be inevitable. Sparkling wine from the new world is gradually losing its "inferiority" complex. I am seeing more and more sparkling wine from places other than Champagne on local shelves--that is more choices.

I am also seeing more and more Champagne from small heretofore unknown, producers.

There is a lot of poor quality "overpriced" Champagne around and more and more very high quality sparkling wine from America (and other countries). There is also some stunning Champagne that is worth the money as well as some awful new world stuff not good at any price.

I do believe that to be fair--we should look at the merits of each sparkling wine as well as any value/price judgements rather than making generalizations.

Champagne needs to be demystified and new world sparklers given their due--in the end the consumer wins!

By the way, I do believe that French Champagne at the very best levels(low to high priced) does offer some fabulous drinking pleasure. I also enjoy well made Cava and Sekt, Prosecco and domestic sparklers. There are some very fine wines out there at all price ranges. I just try to appreciate what each offers rather than lamenting that my glass of Prosecco or Argyle is not the 82 Krug. Or conversely, that my glass of 82 Krug isn't less expensive.

[Adam Balic]

I agree.  America needs a better name for its sparkling wine than, well, sparkling wine.

←

"Freedom Fizz" - nope, too specific a market.

I assume that American Sparkling wines are made in various regions, so maybe a totally generic name is not viable. Maybe drop the notion all together and market the individual wines. The bottles are distinctive, no confusion there, and I doubt many people ask for a bottle of "Bollinger Champagne" over just "Bollinger" for instance?

[Brad Ballinger]

I agree.  America needs a better name for its sparkling wine than, well, sparkling wine.

←

Cremant de Sonoma?

[jsolomon]

Considering the only bar I know that serves sparkling wine (they call it champagne) by the pitcher is called "Homey's", I think we should call it something similarly ebonic.

Or maybe something l33t. Sh4mP4gN3?

[elixirofthetropics]

In 2003, I had a 1988 Henriot Brut Cuvée des Enchanteleurs that tasted literally like fizzy vomit although it was rated 94 by Wine Spectator.  I had a American champagne (made by methode champagnoise) that was much better.  I've also had other champagnes and sparkling wines that taste like aspirin.  I would recommend an American champagne unless someone has different experiences that I have had with French champagne.

←

Out of respect for both Champagne and fine American sparkling wines, lets try to refrain from the unfortunate misnomer "American champagne".

Fizzy vomit or not, it deserves the respect of place.

←

Point taken.

[MaxH]

I agree.  America needs a better name for its sparkling wine than, well, sparkling wine.

This is the classic dilemma of US wine industry, which is so young relative to many regions'. Dilemma, literally: Two issues. On the one hand to de-mystify wine in general, make it accessible to people; on the other, find reliable, recognizable naming. Lichine and Schoonmaker's 1930s promotion of "varietal" naming as a pragmatic approach has worked for some wines, but falls apart for others, like the Bordelian blends (synthetic names like "Meritage" increase the education burden). All of this is confounded in very recent years by some US consumers who start out with varietal naming, ignore its history and limitations, and then want to impose it on the much older winemaking world, with its greater diversity and its smaller education burden because wine is more familiar in that world, more integrated into life.

[CtznCane]

If there is one thing I can be sure of in 2006, it is that like in every other year, if the subject gets on to what to call American sparkling wine, or American 'Port' or anything else, is that there will be no agreement. At least that is true for this panel, which is probably more highly opinionated than the rest of the public.

Frankly, it is an overblown subject If somebody refers to it as a sparkling wine, American champagne (however distateful some of you find that), or whatever, does it really matter? It is what it is. Tonight I had a bottle of Gloria Ferrer 1987 Late Disgorged Brut. Absolutely delightful. In our opinion (my wife and myself) we prefer American sparkling wines to French sparkling wines. We drink both, but due to our preference we drink far more American sparklers. (Primarily Gloria Ferrer, J, Iron Horse, & Schramsberg.) If they are done well, it doesn't matter if it is an American sparkler, Cava, Sekt, Prosecco, Champagne or whatever, if they are good they are good, if they aren't they aren't. Either you like something or you don't. Let's not forget, it is all subjective.

[Craig Camp]

If there is one thing I can be sure of in 2006, it is that like in every other year, if the subject gets on to what to call American sparkling wine, or American 'Port' or anything else, is that there will be no agreement.  At least that is true for this panel, which is probably more highly opinionated than the rest of the public. 

    Frankly, it is an overblown subject  If somebody refers to it as a sparkling wine, American champagne (however distateful some of you find that), or whatever, does it really matter?  It is what it is.  Tonight I had a bottle of Gloria Ferrer 1987 Late Disgorged Brut.  Absolutely delightful.  In our opinion (my wife and myself) we prefer American sparkling wines to French sparkling wines.  We drink both, but due to our preference we drink far more American sparklers.  (Primarily Gloria Ferrer, J, Iron Horse, & Schramsberg.)  If they are done well, it doesn't matter if it is an American sparkler, Cava, Sekt, Prosecco, Champagne or whatever, if they are good they are good, if they aren't they aren't.  Either you like something or you don't.  Let's not forget, it is all subjective.

←

There is no such thing as "American Champagne" when you speak in a quality context and you only confuse the issue when you insist on using it. All of the producers you like: Ferrer, J, Iron Horse, and Schramsberg refuse to use the name. There is nothing wrong or insulting with the term "sparkling wine'.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Craig Camp (log)

[JohnL]

If there is one thing I can be sure of in 2006, it is that like in every other year, if the subject gets on to what to call American sparkling wine, or American 'Port' or anything else, is that there will be no agreement.   At least that is true for this panel, which is probably more highly opinionated than the rest of the public. 

    Frankly, it is an overblown subject  If somebody refers to it as a sparkling wine, American champagne (however distateful some of you find that), or whatever, does it really matter?  It is what it is.  Tonight I had a bottle of Gloria Ferrer 1987 Late Disgorged Brut.  Absolutely delightful.  In our opinion (my wife and myself) we prefer American sparkling wines to French sparkling wines.  We drink both, but due to our preference we drink far more American sparklers.  (Primarily Gloria Ferrer, J, Iron Horse, & Schramsberg.)  If they are done well, it doesn't matter if it is an American sparkler, Cava, Sekt, Prosecco, Champagne or whatever, if they are good they are good, if they aren't they aren't.  Either you like something or you don't.  Let's not forget, it is all subjective.

←

There is no such thing as "American Champagne" when you speak in a quality context and you only confuse the issue when you insist on using it. All of the producers you like: Ferrer, J, Iron Horse, and Schramsberg refuse to use the name. There is nothing wrong or insulting with the term "sparkling wine'.

←

This is my point.

Sparkling wine is appropriate (and accurate) additionally the label should indicate the method used in creating the sparkle. Also the blend if any and where the grapes came from and where the wine was actually made.

The use of the term Champagne is an attempt to latch on to the marketing mystique of real Champagne (though now the term Champagne has become somewhat generic to indicate: sparkling wine.)

In the end--from a consumer standpoint--Champagne needs to be judged on its own as does any sparkling wine.

I do disagree that it is "all subjective."

There are objective standards for all wines--if there were not, then none of the information about a wine's provenance would be of any importance. Yes it is true that when tasting a wine it is most important that the taster apply his or her likes and dislikes according to the palate when deciding to buy or not as well as one's idea of what value is.

[MaxH]

If somebody refers to it as a sparkling wine, American champagne ... or whatever, does it really matter?  It is what it is.

In our opinion (my wife and myself) we prefer American sparkling wines to French sparkling wines.  We drink both, but due to our preference we drink far more American sparklers.  (Primarily Gloria Ferrer, J, Iron Horse, & Schramsberg.) ...

1. Fair enough and I also second JohnL that the method of production needs to be on the label (often it is; most premium US products use the Champenoise "fermented in this bottle" anyway). Just please don't argue that the French producers in Champagne ought to relabel it "Sparkling Chardonnay / Pinot blend," etc., on the grounds that this will make the product more understandable!

2. This thread question is narrowly framed. Most of the competition for true Champagne (even, I have reason to believe offhand, most of the competition that is available to US consumers) comes not from the US but from other regions of Europe, including of course in France. For many decades, very creditable wines such as cremants de Bourgogne and sparkling Côtes du Jura have been consumed by US consumers seeking a bottle content competing with the lower-priced Champagnes, rather than buying a name. (Among other things, they don't pay for all that marketing and sales work that makes certain labels so familiar.)