American Sparkling Wines: as good as champagne?

[russ parsons]

i spent new years stranded in a house on the mendocino coast with a lot of good friends and cases and cases of wine. we drank some american sparkler, a LOT of champagne, and some really good prosecco. i'd hate to say one was "better" than the other. more like apples, pears and asian pears. personally, if there's a better wine buy than roederer estate, i'd like to know what it is.

[Lan4Dawg]

of course the questions are begged: When a customer comes in to my store and requests "champagne" do I lecture him/her on what constitutes "Champagne" (& watch the eyes glaze after about ten seconds)? immediately ask if he/she wants a "'true' Champagne" or a sparkling wine (which usually leads back to the first question)? ascertain their reason for purchase and lead them from there (or just flat out ask how much they want to spend)? or when I take him/her back to the rows of "Champagnes" and present the couple of dozen we carry--lowest price being $25--and he/she walks over to the Korbel/Freixenet/Andre/JRoget/Cook's/Asti/Martinelli Sparkling Cider/et al and proclaims, "Ah, here is what I want!" just sigh, mutter under my breath, and shake my head as I walk away?

[MaxH]

... when I take him/her back to the rows of "Champagnes" and present the couple of dozen we carry--lowest price being $25--and he/she walks over to the Korbel/Freixenet/Andre/JRoget/Cook's/Asti/Martinelli Sparkling Cider/et al and proclaims, "Ah, here is what I want!"

Those consumers at least are going for products (I think) differentiated by price (even if one local random consumer survey by a newspaper, some years back, gave passers-by various samples on the theme "is $30 sparkling wine [Moet's Dom P.] really better than $3 sparkling wine [Gallo's "André Extra Dry"] and the public consensus was that it was "more than ten times as good and therefore a better value").

One expert merchant I know could persuade few customers to buy a good-value low-end white Burgundy she'd been lucky to get (100% Chardonnay, note) though they bought 800 bottles a week of [a highly advertised California] low-end Chardonnay that was more expensive, but a familiar name. (I'm not even sure it was an issue of style preference, as much as advertising.) But she served their preferences, that was her job.

[Rebel Rose]

Wow, I'm a little late to this thread, and look at all the fun you've been having!

On the issue of sparklers in general, I think that regional characteristics of still wine production--pinot noir, pinot blanc, and chardonnay primarily--will translate into similar qualities in a sparkling wine. So a discussion of North American sparklers should probably tie in closely with qualities observed in the still wines.

Also, producing a sparkling wine production is a full time commitment. Wineries do not generally produce sparklers as a sideline. Aside from the different bottles, closures, and production requirements, wineries must invest in an entirely differrent set of equipment. When tasting a North American sparkler, please understand that this winery believes that they have something important to offer.

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

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?

I remember visiting Napa wineries in the 1970's. Wineries were sparsely visited, and attendants would scoot a basket of oyster crackers toward us and ask us if we would like a tour. I got carsick traveling to Calistoga. There was only one family restaurant--a burger joint--and it closed at 9 pm sharp.

Look at Napa now . . .

Will Paso Robles be like Napa in another 30 years?

I think this will happen much more slowly because of our geographical distance from metropolitan areas. We are equidistant between San Francisco and Los Angeles, so I think we are pretty well buffered from intensive tourism. We have also learned some lessons about growth, development, and tourism from our friends to the north.

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. 

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?

Again, I remember when Sonoma was Napa's parking garage.

This is where it comes down to a winery's business model. Wineries no longer have to make the "bread and butter" varietals--cabernet, merlot, and chardonnay--to survive. We can celebrate our diversity and present Rhones, zinfandel, and Italian varieties--whatever each winemaker is truly passionate about. Consumers are interested in variety. And wineries no longer need to depend on people turning up the driveway. Consumers are connected to the Internet and they're assertively shopping for wines--and wineries--that fit their lifestyles and their preferences.

This is a blessing on many levels for Paso Robles. People are looking for "out of the way" wineries and travel experiences. Our bucolic location appeals to consumers on many levels. At the same time, the drive is long enough that it must be a weekend commitment, so when our visitors arrive, they're dedicated to exploring our area. And I think they find it refreshing!

As an additional note, our excellent executive director of the Paso Robles Wine Country Alliance, Stacie Jacob, was previously with the Washington State Wine Commission.

"Freedom Fizz"

Now that just tickles.

[MaxH]

Topically marginal but stilll important --

... I remember visiting Napa wineries in the 1970's.  Wineries were sparsely visited, and attendants would scoot a basket of oyster crackers toward us and ask us if we would like a tour. 

Look at Napa now . . .

No kidding! I wonder sometimes what it is like to be one of the people who did not see the Napa Valley of most of its quiet history (changing so radically after say 1980), and therefore be inevitably partly unconscious of just how novel the current "Napa" is.

Will Paso Robles be like Napa in another 30 years?

For reference (I hope I'm not too repetitive on this) the Santa Cruz Mountains winemaking area has been very little Napafied (other than peripheral portions bordering Silicon Valley), despite early identification as one of the state's top potential winemaking regions (in Schoonmaker and Marvel's classic 1941 book). This is refreshing for wine geeks (few tour buses, no absurdly-named "wine train," the winemakers themselves deal with visitors and are happy to see them) but on the other hand, as a rule it doesn't reward those wineries' efforts with as much business as higher-profile regions produce. As always it's a tradeoff ...

[Jason Perlow]

I think that regional characteristics of still wine production--pinot noir, pinot blanc, and chardonnay primarily--will translate into similar qualities in a sparkling wine.

There actually -is- such thing as unsparkling Champagne, you know. And guess what.... it tastes like flat Champagne! Well, closer to a White Burgundy, but still...

[Rebel Rose]

There actually -is- such thing as unsparkling Champagne, you know. And guess what.... it tastes like flat Champagne! Well, closer to a White Burgundy, but still...

Smart aleck. But yes, that's my point, California fizz will, and should, have qualities similar to our still wines, and the same for French, Austrian, etc. sparklers . . .

[jrufusj]

I think that regional characteristics of still wine production--pinot noir, pinot blanc, and chardonnay primarily--will translate into similar qualities in a sparkling wine.

There actually -is- such thing as unsparkling Champagne, you know. And guess what.... it tastes like flat Champagne! Well, closer to a White Burgundy, but still...

←

Here are very recent tasting notes from an '89 sparkler and a '90 still wine from the same Champagne grower...

• 1989 Guy Michel Tradition Brut - France, Champagne, Pierry (12/31/2005)
  A Break from Shopping (Ebisu Garden Place -- R-Gath): Evolved deep golden yellow with unusually (even worryingly) large bead of good persistence. Not sure how there could be enough dissolved CO2 to keep up a mousse with bubbles that large for that long. Nose is classic mature Champagne in a slightly oxydised style. Bruléed apple fruit is joined by ripe brie cheese and mushroom. Palate is very soft and very round, in fact a bit fat. Acid is nowhere to be found, but there is a nice dose of grilled bread and roasted hazelnut that hits the back of the nose during the finish. A nice array of flavors and an interesting contrast to the still wine from Christmas day, this was enjoyable for a glass, but would begin to cloy after that. There was only the slightest hint of the chalk that was so prominent in the still wine. I’m not a big fan of ‘89 Champagnes in general, but I suspect this was about more than just vintage.
  
• 1990 Guy Michel Coteaux Champenois Guy Michel - France, Champagne, Pierry, Coteaux Champenois (12/25/2005)
  Christmas Dinner (At home in Tokyo): Pale yellow, with darker hints around the rim. The surprisingly youthful look carries through to a nose that simply screams chalk and tart pears. Underneath this initial youthful presentation is a bit of more mature and ripe apple, plus some grilled nut that hints at a bit more underlying maturity. On the palate, the wine is a little sharp and is texturally thin, though not thin of flavor. A bit of slightly exotic citrus joins the white tree fruit, but this is really all about chalk and acid brightness. The mid-palate fills with chalk that is reminiscent of upper Loire chèvre in its chalky stage – both in flavor and texture. The finish lingers a bit with more chalk and just-ripe apple. I’m not sure I’d want to drink this alone, but this was fantastic with the fresh oysters and fried shellfish. This chardonnay from Pierry is an absolute testament to terrior and the ageability and lurking character of what can seem like thin and acidic base wines.
  

Posted from CellarTracker

Re: all the other discussions, I've stayed out of them as I normally make a rude or intolerant comment when people make broad generalizations. I haven't matured or grown much (except by losing my hair and expanding my girth) but I have learned to keep my mouth shut on rare occasions.

However, a few comments (some of which will be much like the same generalizations I criticize):

(1) My favorite sparkling wines are generally farmer fizz from the Champagne region. I find they generally show the level of detail and terroir that makes me happy. In fact, I think Champagne can show terroir in a way that not many places can...MSR, Nahe, Loire CB, B&B, Burg, Kamptal/Kremstal GruVe and riesling...maybe northern Rhone and Alsace riesling...some new world sites that I (and most of the world) don't yet know so well. I am also (generally) more of a blanc de blancs fan than a fan of pinot-driven sparklers. This is a type where I think the almost-too-freaking-cold-to-grow level of acidity-etched detail really shines through from Champagne terroir.

(2) There are, of course, wines from Champagne NM houses that can also show detail and terroir (Salon, Krug Mesnil, Clos des Goisses) and there are house wines that don't necessarily show such terroir but are just so damn seductively good that one can't help but love them (Krug vintage, Krug MV, Bolly GA and VVF and RD). I know I've left some out, as well.

(3) There are also wines from other places that I think are every bit as good as Champagne, just different. Most of them are less appealing to my palate and preferences, but that doesn't make them lesser wines. I think the Giacosa Brut (pinot from Oltrepò Pavese), the Roederer (from Andersen Valley), some Iron Horse wines (Green Valley), Huët's Pétillant, and others are great efforts AND appeal to me. For the price, I've liked the Argyle that I've tasted. There are others that appeal to me less but are still good.

(4) I do believe American wineries are just finding the best spots. I strongly favor Andersen and Green Valleys over Napa/Sonoma sparklers. Perhaps it's just palate preference, but I've never found the definition I've wanted in warmer climate wines.

(5) There is plenty of industrial plonk made in Champagne. I'd never disagree with that. A good bit of it sells for a lot of money and is a disgrace.

(6) However, that doesn't mean that even Moët can't make a good wine sometimes. Whether the '95 and '96 DPs are worth the money is a worthwhile and interesting debate. I am not generally a buyer of DP at all. I'd prefer to spend my money searching for a new, more unusual farmer fizz that will teach me something more about a particular site/village. However, the '95 and '96 DPs are both very good wines, of very different style despite the attempts of LVMH to maintain the brand style. They're not small production and they're not what I normally drink, but we can all get carried away in our desire to slam the large production, industrial wines. I'm more guilty than most. But I do think this thread has perhaps been a bit rough on them.

Enjoy,

Jim

[JohnL]

Good post jrufusj!

You touched all the basis--I found your observations to be interesting and informative.

I think that we have become a bit "terroir crazy."

There are three elements in the making of any wine: the terroir, the grower, the wine maker.

Champagne has long been the bastion of the wine maker. There are reasons that the terroir has been of lesser importance here. There are also reasons why much wine produced in champagne has been a result of blending--not only different varietals but different vintages.

That "house style" is operative here.

That reason is mostly weather/climate (a key element of terroir).

I am not saying that place is not important in Champagne--I am saying that it is less important.

Unfortunately, there has been a trend toward emphasis on specific place (where the grapes are grown). That is a label with a specific place or vinyard on it carries a premium. That is to say, we assume that a wine made from grapes from a single vinyard is a better wine than one not. We are thus willing to pay more (the winemaker can charge more).

This works sometimes and sometimes not. Often the better value (dare I say bargain) is in a wine that is blended-- sometimes the wine from the single vinyard is really more interesting and more "worth the premium or attention."

[jrufusj]

John:

Thanks for the kind words about my post, but you and I simply disagree. I would not say that there is too much focus on terroir these days but too little. Then again, there are wines made in all styles and as long as there's plenty around for all sorts these kind of disagreements are nothing but fun differences.

I do agree that there are plenty of single vineyard products that add nothing over (or even lose versus) blends. If wines are not made in a transparent style (or without style, as if that were really possible) then vineyard designation adds nothing. However, if the wines are transparent I will always opt for more specific over less.

In terms of Champagne, I think that place can be even more important. For years we've all accepted the marketing push that the glory of Champagne is blending. There is no question there are master blenders and I enjoy some of the blended wines as much as the next guy, but to me there is nothing more exciting than a Champagne that comes from a more delimited area and that speaks clearly of its place. And the fact is that most of these place-specific wines come at a fraction of the price of any blended wines that can approach their quality. There is not just romance, quality and place definition in the grower wines; there is generally also great value.

Now I don't expect you to agree with me on any of this. And there's no reason you should. But for me, wine is primarily an agricultural and cutural product that speaks of the earth and of the people that are still closest to it and of the foods that come naturally from the earth and local sea. The closer the wine remains to the specific bit of earth and the individual person who grew it (not made it) and to the way his family before him grew it, the more I enjoy it. In essence, that is the terroir/grower manifesto.

I can appreciate and even be wowed by a Krug MV or a Bolly RD, but they will never speak to me and make my eyes tear up the way a much simpler but place-specific grower wine will.

To each his own. And the diversity that lets each drink and savor his own is the real glory of wine!

In vino veritas,

Jim

[JohnL]

Jim!

Actually, I think we do agree--for the most part.

My point was/is Champagne is a difficult region to grow grapes for wine.

The climate is the culprit.

Because of this the wine makers have resorted to blending.

I agree with you regarding terroir (with some reservations) it can add to the enjoyment of wine but I believe the whole issue of terroir --especially in discussing Champagne is somewhat murkier than the "perfect world" one hopes for.

The fact is, blending is, most often, a neccessity in Champagne and not a result of a choice by wine makers.

In the end--it comes down to what is in the glass.