Does Champagne go bad?

It is just as well the bottle has never been opened, because once opened it will lose the fizz quickly (flat Champagne isn't nice!) and go bad through oxidisation within a couple of days.

Otherwise, it should keep for a few years, but unless it is a great Champagne - and I have never heard of Corbel - don't expect it to keep improving. My advice? Drink it up.

All depends on conditions of storage. Three years at room temperature will ruin everything bubbly, even the very best.

Kept cool, there are chances it might be drinkable. Never tasted Corbel (isn't that "Korbel", btw?) here in Europe, so I can't give further help.

M.

Korbel, a California sparkler deliberately mislabeled as "Champagne."

There is no reason for you to want to taste Korbel, it is on the low side of the quality spectrum, a California wannabe distinguished by high acidity and large-bubbled bright fruit. It is decidedly not Champagne, by the way. Closer to bad Cava.

As far as it keeping: any sparkling wine will go bad as any still wine will, just a matter of time (the goal of any wine is to become vinegar) and the quality of the cork, the integrity of the winemaking process and so on. I would expect a three year old Korbel to be ready for Halloween as a trick, not a treat.

pavane

"pavane" ha scritto

If it is labeled Champagne, France should impose an importation tax of 200% on every wine coming in France from the USA until this Korbel stops labeling Champagne what is not Champagne. Call this "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

Same should do we italians with canada, where some canadian has registered the trade mark "parma ham".

Governments who don't care of theyr national products are a big source of frauds against consumers everywhere. And a big source of (stolen) income for dishonest companies.

Vilco

I once read an article on this. For example Schramsburg is also labeled as Champagne.

The rationale was that the actual vines were from that region in France. Somehow I think that was felt to justify the naming of it.

Not sure but I don't think they operate outside the scope of the law. They just choose not to show the respect for France by doing so.

This is interesting as France has Dijon Mustard which is the best in the world. However the mustard seed comes from Canada for most. Should the name be changes to Canadian Mustard Seed Dijon Style?

"dick" ha scritto

Dijon Mustard is a french recipe so they can call it as they want. Champagne is a standardized product of a specific french region, so nobody out of that french region can call a wine "Champagne". That makes a great difference. If you like to eat canadian "parma ham", that's your business, but then you'd be eating a fake. Same for the fake Champagne we were 'talking' about.

Vilco

Even though its still wrong in principle, Schramsburg is a product worthy of the name. Its quite another thing to produce something that tastes like carbonated apple juice and slap "Champagne" on it.

Massa Blackadder

-- "I wants to be in heaven with all my white folks, just to wait on them and love them, and serve them, sorta like I did in slavery time."

- Betty Cofer, former slave.

Nay laddie. How about "Hamilton ground (or not) Canadian Mustard Seed Mixed With Miscellaneous and Incidental Ingredients Dijon (France) Style".

We do many things well here in Hamilton at the Western end of the Niagara Wine Route ;>))

If you make Sparking wine from French Vines and make it in the Traditional Champagne method, then it too is a French Recipe.

I am not sure about Korbel but I am with Schramsburg.

I am not taking any shots about Canada to the north but they make French Mustard under the Maille Label which is also made in France.

Also the Parma Ham from Canada is pretty good for 1/2 the price of the Italian Parma. I buy both depending upon where I am.

Labeling is first a legal issue. Secondly a principal issue. There should be respect given to Champagne of France but if there was a legal issue here it surely would have surfaced.

I agree that Schramsburg is quite worthy of bearing the name. In my opinion they are the best of California...I also like Roederer Brut and Brut Rose.

Amazingly I am not aware of any USA-Pinot Noir calling themselves Burgundy.

Blah blah blah.

Consumers that give a sh*t understand the difference between "champagne" from California and Champagne. Other consumers don't matter (they don't care... they just don't know the difference and don't care anyway).

Now, I'm a guy that's uptight enough to call sparkling wine from California "sparkling wine" in casual conversation. I *get it*. I also don't buy much French wine. If worrying about your name is a big deal, I'm not interesting in your wine. The reasons should be obvious.

Dana

That clinches it. A day-trip to Anderson Valley to visit Roederer is in order tomorrow. I'll report back in the evening. My 3G wireless data doesn't work up there so you'll have to wait. Let's see what Josh has in the barrels at Lazy Creek...

Dana

Do you mean to say "Schramsberg"? If so, where exactly do you find the word "Champagne" on the label? Schramsberg is a sparkling wine from California made in the "Methode Champenoise." "Method Champenoise" is the method by which Champagne is made, but it does not imply that it is Champagne, the region in France. There is a HUGE difference in calling a sparkling wine "Champagne", which some very cheap wines do, and indicating that you make it in the "Methode Champenoise".

Here:

or

It clearly reads "NAPA VALLEY CHAMPAGNE".

Sorry, you're plain wrong. From their Homepage:

| From the inception of our efforts in 1965, we have sought to | achieve the greatest elegance and individuality possible in our | champagnes.

M.

Salut/Hi Dana Myers,

le/on Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:54:25 -0700, tu disais/you said:-

That's probab ly true, yes.

I'm sorry, Dana, I find that a little arrogant towards the millions of people who buy "champagne" in those countries which allow their local sparklers to be called that, and all similar attempts to pass off local products using prestigious names from elsewhere. It's not JUST dishonest vis-a-vis the people in the areas whose product names are being usurped, but worse, it's fraud against the consumer. As you say, they may well not know the difference, or that "Tokay d'Alsace" or "Tokay" from Rutherglen are attempts to pass off their products (decent enough to stand on their own names) as "the real thing".

They aren't. Not to me anyway. Passing off is passing off whether it's "Feta cheese" or "Tokay" or "Parma ham" from France or "Champagne" from the USA or Australia or "Blue Mountain Coffee" from Sumatra. It cheats both the producer and the consumer. And saying that because the consumer is not yet knowledgeable enough to know, s/he doesn't matter, is as arrogant and dishonest as anything I've read recently. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

Ignorance can be cured by knowledge. An ignorant consumer (I have lots of visitors who are ignorant about wine here) can usually tell the difference when they get a chance to taste one wine against the other. As to which they will prefer, that's another matter. But I CANNOT accept that it right that laws don't forbid producers/ entrepreneurs/importers from passsing off, no matter how long the fraud has been going on. This isn't in any sense to be taken as anti-American, because I feel JUST as strongly about French and British passing off. More so in fact, as these countries take a strong stance against it when it is their products whose names are being misused.

I tend to think that fraud is a bit strong here. What you are really discussing here are labeling laws and the trademarks.

Trademark laws vary from country to country and I believe needs to registered in each country.

The biggest issue with the word Champagne is that if France really wants to protect that name---it needs to be registered and defended everywhere so that the name does not become classified as generic. Since the name is not descriptive it likely would be easily defended. Examples are Kleenex Brand Tissues...some refer to a tissue as Kleenex and that company defends their name so that it does not become generic. Another is Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages....and on and on.

This might explain why companies that have holdings in France and California...such as Mumm, Chandon, and or Roederer that they call French Product Champagne and the USA-Cal Sparking Wine. There are probably legal standing and their assets could likely be attached in France. But if an American producer has no holdings in France...no issue.

I don't think it is a fraud but it is a lack of respect for the name Champagne to use this name outside the production of that said region. But French customs do not have to be respected in the USA nor the USA in France and that is how it is all around the world. All laws are local.

Again...does anyone know of the name Burgundy being used for Pinot Noir here in the USA the way the Champagne is. I really do not other than a box wine.

Check this out. Found on internet...on topic...French imperialism on the name Champagne.

There seems to be a minor difference between "some referring to a tissue as a kleenex" and others labelling their tissues "kleenex", don't you think so?

M.

No. Since Kleenex is trademarked you can do neither in countries that Kleenex is trademarked in.

Champagne issue is questionable. Its a question of law and from the articles I have read its somewhat in the WTO's hands now. I can go either way on it. I personally refer to California Sparkling wines and Sparkling wines. However that is out of respect.

But it is not misleading in anyway unless a California producer claims his product is from France but it is not. However it might one day change if laws change.