Sprkling wines and other inflammatory thoughts

Hi Joseph C,

I was also "offline" while all of this excitement was going on.

Having just read the whole "Belgium..." thread, my take is that it is fair for the "real" Champagne folks to want to protect their region's name. Truth-in-labeling and all that. However, the only people likely to order Andre Cali Champagne are those who either have no experience with wine in general, or don't have much money to spend. The French sparklers are certainly several notches higher than that mass-market stuff, but they come at a price that wine newbies might be unwilling to pay.

Just my tuppence.

Dan-O

Dan wrote on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:36:16 -0800 (PST):

DtM> I was also "offline" while all of this excitement was DtM> going on.

DtM> Having just read the whole "Belgium..." thread, my take is DtM> that it is fair for the "real" Champagne folks to want to DtM> protect their region's name. Truth-in-labeling and all DtM> that.

True enough in that there is certainly commercial advantage for the makers of "Champagne" and I can understand their motives. However, as I think Ed Rasimus implied, limiting competition makes life easier for them especially if they are allowed to adjust appellation boundaries for their own convenience.

I have not had the opportunity to make enough comparisons (truth: too expensive!) but is the bottle-fermented sparkling wine made by Chandon in France much better than that made by Domaine Chandon in California?

Competition on quality can lead to improvement and it is interesting to see transatlantic competition. Something that might excite Belgian nationalists a little is that wheat beer imported from Belgium, like Hoegarden (spelling?), does not seem any better to me than Blue Moon, made in Texas at one time and now Canada, I believe.

James Silverton Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"James Silverton" wrote in news:bPNij.5574$KU.719@trnddc01:

You should have stopped by at the Publix store in my neighborhood just before New Year's! Tasted both Chandon and Moet White Star. White Star was much more interesting while the Brut from Chandon hit with bigger fizz and little substance. The White Star was a tad less dry than the brut, but had more in the way of nuance. More fruit with complexity. Chandon was nice for the money (16US vs. 30US for the Moet) but for a once a year purchase I would go the extra for champagne.

I have also compared Mumm to Mumm Napa. I think in my experience that Mumm does a better job with its California product especially in its upper end.

Blue Moon is brewed by Molson in Canada and is imported into the US by Coors. While I've never had Hoegarden I don't think that Blue Moon tastes much like real Belgium wheat beer.

But who has tried to stop competition? No one has suggested that Gallo can't make and sell Andre. The problem is labelling it "Champagne", when it is made many thousands of miles away from Champagne. To me it's immaterial whether you prefer Andre or Krug, I just think stealing another's reputation is tacky.

I've loved local proscuittos- just don't call it Proscuitto di Parma. Smithfield hams are from VA/NC. Fiji water is from Fiji (vile stuff imo). Tomme de Savioe is from the Savoie. Florida oranges are from Florida. Make or grow the best damn ham, water, cheese, or fruit you can, just don't market it using someone else's reputation. Build your own- that's competition.

The Champagne expansion proposal is apparently to include properties that historically produced Champagne in the 19th century, until the codification after WWI. All the areas are within the Champagne administrative district. In any case, if they expand and it hurts the quality, it is their decision, as opposed to others deciding what to market as "Champagne."

DaleW wrote on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:17:21 -0800 (PST):

D> On Jan 14, 1:26�pm, "James Silverton" D> wrote: ??>> �Dan �wrote �on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:36:16 -0800 (PST): ??>>

�DtM>>> I was also "offline" while all of this excitement was �DtM>>> going on. ??>>

�DtM>>> Having just read the whole "Belgium..." thread, my take �DtM>>> is that it is fair for the "real" Champagne folks to �DtM>>> want to protect their region's name. Truth-in-labeling �DtM>>> and all that. ??>>

??>> True enough in that there is certainly commercial ??>> advantage for the makers of "Champagne" and I can ??>> understand their motives. ??>> I have not had the opportunity to make enough comparisons ??>> (truth: too expensive!) but is the bottle-fermented ??>> sparkling wine made by Chandon in France much better than ??>> that made by Domaine Chandon in California?

D> But who has tried to stop competition? No one has suggested D> that Gallo can't make and sell Andre. The problem is D> labelling it "Champagne", when it is made many thousands of D> miles away from Champagne. To me it's immaterial whether you D> prefer Andre or Krug, I just think stealing another's D> reputation is tacky.

Would you consider that Domaine Chandon would be "stealing another's reputation" if they labeled their own California wine as "California Champagne"? IMHO, the California wine is pretty good!

James Silverton Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Yes, I would. Who produces it doesn't suddenly change 5000+ miles of distance. Banfi can't start growing red grapes near their LI headquarters and call it Brunello di Montalcino just because they own a wine in Tuscany.

Unlike Mark, I actually did think the Domaine Chandon sparkler (regular Brut NV) was pretty good for the price the last time I tried it.

James, see how the state of California would act in France sent boatloads of Oranges from Martinique to California Labeled, California Oranges from Martinique.

An interesting speculation and I'm sure the indignation in California would be monumental! However, speaking in generalities, who, apart possibly from the growers, would necessarily be harmed?

Dale, have you tried the most recent edition? I had the most recent Chandon Brut and was seriously underwhelmed by it. I've liked it in the past, but this one just seemed flat and uninteresting to me.

Mark Lipton

I understand your point Dale but I honestly don't believe that anyone with a brain in their head would confuse $4.00 Andre with real champagne and if they don't have a brain in their head it wouldn't matter anyway. My guess is that Andre has been around for more than

40 years now and most likely uses the "Champagne" label as a discriptor of the style (sparkling) than anything else. I have a hard time imagining someone looking for Champagne and buying Andre at $4.00 versus $40.00 for real Champagne wouldn't know the difference in quality or for that matter care. Is a Honda made in Marysville, Ohio an American car or a Japanese car? On the other hand is a Ford made in Canada with Mexican parts an American car or a Canadian car or a Mexican car? I think that the marketing would lead you to believe that the Honda is Japanese and the Ford is American when in reality neither is what it appears to be but the buying public really doesn't care.

No, it has been at least 3-4 years since I've tried.

I'm not arguing that in the short run Andre is taking away sales from Champagne, nor am I viewing it mainly as a consumer protection issue, The damage is to the reputation over long term, as people associate it with cheap dreck. On a related note (did I already post this here?), last week my in-laws were in town from California. I served a Brocard Chablis with dinner one night. My M-i-L said in a surprised voice " oh, they make Chablis in France, too?" She was amazed to hear that Chablis wasn't always a cheap wine. While serious wine folks will never be "fooled," and people who only buy $6/magnums are never going to be in market for Chablis AC much less Le Clos, the devaluation of the name does damage in the middle.

Continuing that thought, if someone starting marketing a $4 Central Valley PN called "Serene" I don't think anyone would really get confused with Domaine Serene at $40. Domaine Serene would not lose any sales. But I'd bet a WHOLE lot of money they wouldn't just say "no big deal."

You may well have a valid point. I did a little research and found this interesting article which gives credence to your position and I remain as always your humble servant! :-)

The consumers.

As an example: "Brand X" washing powder has built up a large customer base due to it working well and having a cute mascot. Since we have no labeling protection, competing brands also market themselves as "Brand X". This harms the original producer of "Brand X" by diluting the value of the name that they've assiduously built up through advertising, and it harms the consumer by making it more difficult to tell whether they're purchasing "Brand X" or "Brand Y" in "Brand X" boxes. Since "Brand Y" turns your washing puce, this is important information.

couple more thoughts:

I am a big fan of Pierre Peters, and often Jacquesson. But after a period where I always thought grower Champagnes were better, I've begun to reconsider. Sure, some Grand Marque NVs are often pretty awful (Veuve-Cliquot, Ayala, Lanson, etc). But then there is Billecart- Salmon, Laurent-Perrier, Pol Roger. All of whom I like. And on the top end wines like Taittinger Comtes, Billecart "Cuvee Elizabeth" rose, Salon are pretty damn special. For years I said Dom couldn't be that great, because it is made in such big quantities. But have to admit a recent 1985 was one of the best bubblies I ever had.

And some grower Champagnes are lame.

I personally think there is no inherent reason that a New World winery couldn't make a wine as good or better than any Champagne. I just think they should concentrate on the quality, and build their reputation.

I'm not Dale, but I would consider it that.

I agree that their California wine is pretty good, but I think that's beside the point. It's *not* champagne, and using the champagne name confuses the unsophisticated customer, and can lead him to believe that it's the same product, just made somewhere else. If he can get champagne from either France or California, and the California stuff is cheaper, why not take advantage of the savings and buy the stuff from California, since it's the same thing? That's inherently dishonest, whenever you use a place name to describe a product that wasn't made there, whether it's wine, cheese, or anything else.