Can Sparkling Wine From The U.S. Be Called Champagne?

To be fair M'Lawd I've had many a Kir in Burgundy made with Aligote and Brocard distributes a pretty fair Sauvignon de St Bris here in America. I do not think of either as being "Burgundy" however.

Yep and I don't agree with that practice. I prefer the way its done in the USA.

That could often be said of many appellations. Thats why in the USA the appellation is labeled to give the consumer the information they need to make their choices.

I think most here are missing my point. The way wines are labeled in the USA works very well to inform the consumer. I feel the way it's done in France etc. is a limitation to the market. There may very well be excellent 'Burgundy' style wines made outside the Burgundy region but marketing conventions make it difficult to gain in the publics eye. That type of limitation doesn't exist in the USA and I prefer it that way.

Actually, as stated here before. Basically, red burgundy is pinot noir and white is chardonnay and they do not blend varietals. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "common stock shelves" since there really aren't a lot of mass producers in burgundy. Perhaps Jadot and Drouhin?

I'll have to check next time at the store. There are cheap jugs of Burgundy I see often. While I love a good California or Oregon PN their styles are vastly different than any Burgundy I've tried. Perhaps I've tried the wrong ones or the availability where I am is limited.

Where are you? I haven't seen "jugs" of actual burgundy wines since it's generally quite expensive. If you click on the link that I posted in my previous post you'll get a better idea of why burgundy is so pricey. It's almost impossible these days to find it at under $30 a bottle since the land parcels are so tiny and production is so limited. Warning-do not search for great burgundy. Once you've tasted a great burgundy, from a good producer, in a good vintage, properly stored and aged, from a Grand Cru vineyard you will be moved to tears and will then spend the rest of your life searching for the holy grail of burgundy only to be crushed by the countless lesser wines that you will encounter.

Miles, I do not disagree with you but it is more than that. See, in my opinion once we became part of a global economy you have to take other trading partners into consideration.

While packaging laws vary from country to country some countries are very protective of their names. But for whatever the legal reasons we do not have to conform on geographical preferances. And that I beleived was the result of the WTO on some of the cases I have mentioned.

In my opinion this is a clashing of cultures and I beleive cheese in France is also geographical in naming. In my opinion we should NOT name items in the geographical names no matter what.

Would Schramsberg taste less good if it was called Sparkling wine vs Champaigne (they do not call it Champaigne by the way...that is an example.

How about KOBE beef, the imitati>

You are assuming consumers know what they are doing :-)

Appellations can lead to two extremes.

One extreme is the one you defend, where the appellation defines place alone and not much more, this is practically meaningless, if the only criterion is place, then you can make hundreds of different wines with nothing in common but the banal fact that they were made in the same area. If the provenance does not imply anything, then why indicate it at all?

The other extreme is to place so many limitations on an appellation that all the wines end up tasting the same, often modeled around some fuzzy notion of what is "typical", a very dangerous concept indeed because it tends to level everything and homogenize taste. Concepts of the "typical" are so subjective that they are not even worth discussing.

The whole point of defining an appellation is to define some of the necessary, but not sufficient, criteria for making a wine that one can recognize as coming from that place, because it somehow expresses the local terroir. For a given valuable winemaking area, usually one or two types of wine stand out because they are truly unique, they give such extraordinary results that, of all the hundreds of possible wines that a given area may produce, one or two have turned out to be exceptional, to the point that you could not make a wine like that in any other place.

I know many people laugh at the word terroir, and indeed if one reduces it to, say, just the soil (including the archstupid notion of tasting the soil), then there are so many other variables left free that the resulting wines would be vastly different and hard to identify. When you extend the notion of terroir to include soil, climate, but also viticultural practices, history, winemaking techniques, and so on, then you can limit the type of wines produced to those that truly stand out. On the other hand you cannot stifle creativity, and each winemaker, while remaining in the same "key" as his local collagues, can impart to that wine his own interpretation.

There are problems with appellations.

1) there are too many appellation areas. Most areas have not gone through the long process of selection that allows one to declare that this area has truly found its magic combination of elements that give terroir. Most appellation areas are nonsense. For example, Italy gets a new appellation every week, it's ridiculous. 2) too much wine is produced under the appellation label. When appellations were invented, they were intended to bring together the top 10% of wine production. Today MOST wines in Europe are appellation wines, as a result, MOST appellation wines are disappointing because they do not deliver what they promise, in fact MOST are not even very good. Consumers will often, and justifiably, complain that they derive more satisfaction from a humbler table wine or Vin de Pays. 3) appellations try to govern themselves democratically. As a result, many are dominated by bulk producers who do not hesitate to impose their own standard-lowering rules.

The new EU reform, which I have strongly criticized on many points on my blog, was conceived with at least in theory the idea of a two tiered wine classification, with on the one hand terroir wine (with its limits on geography, soil, practices etc.) and on the other hand brand wines, wines made for a wider market with no stylistic limitations, but still governed by rules to protect consumers on issues of health, envirnment, etc.. Unfortunately the resulting reform ends up failing on both fronts. It will become European law this summer. Not a directive (requiring each country to pass a law based on it), but a council regulation (i.e. a supranational law applicable in the 27 states without any further legal procedures required).

So while appellations could play a significant role in preserving the best terroirs (not just in Europe!), in fact they have become a perverse system that is no better than the idea of simply labelling provenance : meaningless. If you find a great wine today, it is because some intelligence and work has gone into it, and it MAY carry an appellation label...

This does not mean that one should not strive to get back to the original concept of appellation and "clean up" the mess. The US has a chance to lead the way and apply to the concept of terroir and appellation as it was conceived by its creators not so long ago... maybe Europe will then follow?

cheers

Mike

Probably true! Years ago I was quite fine with my case of beer and some $5 box wine. Then my folks moved to Napa area so I was introduced to some 'real' wines when visiting. Theres no going back! But my wine and beer budget sure increased substantially!

Geography does mean something and is why USA wines state their appellation. However, there can be rot gut wine from the same region as a very top notch wine. I just prefer the way it's done in the USA. Works for me as a consumer just fine.

You can buy a lousy Burgundy and a top notch one. You can also buy a top notch PN from outside the Burgundy region. It comes down to ones particular tastes rather than a name. Two PN's from the exact same vineyard but different wineries, winemakers etc. can be totally different.

I prefer to let a winemaker do what he knows best and let the consumer decide what they like. Gives the consumer more variety.

is not that the nub of the "problem" : they are not counterparts, they are simply different.

Traditional wines grew into what they are to complement local foods.

Wines from new countries serve a different and wider market.

It's like trying to compare American football and rugby - certain surface similarities but fundamentally different beasts.

pk