Champagne - Expanded Region

I can see why this is creating quit a stir in the Champagne growing and surrounding regions. However from the viewpoint of one who has nothing to gain or lose in respect to value of land in the region, I still wonder how this will play out. If I were the Champagne Tsar who could decide the outcome, I think preliminary surveys of the quality of the soil, microclimates, wine growing history, etc as being considered now are just a first step. For parcels of land that seem promising from this respect, I think the owners should be allowed to grow grapes for sparkling wine on a provisional basis. This might be sold as Lesser Champagne or something of the sort. After official blind tastings of about 10 years of production, the property might be elevated to part of Champagne. If the wine does not quite meet what is expected for at least a non vintage Champagne, but is not far behind, it might continue be allowed to be sold as Lesser Champagne or whatever. Of course absolutely no Lesser Champagne would be allowed to be blended into anything sold as Champagne. If the wine is clearly not close to Champagne, it would not be entitled to continue to sell the wine with mention of anything concerning Champagne in the name of the wine. If I really were the Champagne Tsar, I would also require the blind tasting tests for all present Champagne properties. Those that did not pass would be demoted to Lesser Champagne or whatever.

What you propose makes a lot of sense sense, but the fact is that 61% of french wine is sold under the formerly prestigious AOC label, including Champagne of course. The label was initially conceived to allow consumers to identify clearly the top 10% of french production. Today most AOC bottles are in the "barely drinkable" category.

So while your procedure for Champagne is reasonable, the rest of the system is not. IOW, one should apply your procedure over again to the entire national production!

Mike Tommasi wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:

Mike,

it is very interesting that we went from a 10% to a 61% under AOC. Two different ideas came to mind inmediately:

- First is that probably, the average wine of 2007 is better than the average wine of 1935 (Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée were founded). So, if the quality of the standards to belong to an AOC is the same as 70 years ago, probably it is not absurd to think that the average wine is now of a regular quality (if not of outstanding quality), which is good for the market and the average consumer.

- Second is that, as a large part of wine sold within AOC standards is now of average quality, many top quality producers are getting out of the AOC system.

With respect to Champagne: the most interested part on this expansion are, obviously, the big houses, who are making 95% of the production (it's a guess on my part, I am ready to stand corrected). Not a small part of the production (conscious use of the word here) of big houses is "barely drinkable wine", no matter they have a huge leverage on their brands. So, is Brut Imperial able to become a more ordinary wine? Not even if they used grapes from Penedes in Spain. I do not see a problem with the expansion. Besides, on a recent trip to Champagne, I was said by a small grower that the areas to be expanded had belonged to Champagne production in the past, mostly for lesser known grape varieties. So, it is really not clear if it would be correct or not to get back to these areas.

Same has happened in many areas in France in the past. Chateau Latour is now much bigger that it was in 1855, with vineyards purchased to neighbours and now sold under the Ch. Latour name, even if they were not classified as 1st Growth in 1855. And no one doubts about the quality of Latour 2005.

An intriguing discussion, for sure.

Best,

Santiago

Yes and no. The overall average is probably much better today than 1935, but the idea of AOC was not to apply it to average wines, but rather to exceptional ones. The AOC wines of 1935 were far fewer and far better than today.

True in Italy, where it is a form of snobbery to make top wines under a Vino da Tavola or IGT label.

Also true. But notice that it is not enough to expand the territory. All grapes in Champagne must be harvested by hand, this is the law there. So if you expand the surface area, you also need to find the hands to pick the grapes. The large houses rely mostly on small farmers that harvest and sell the grapes. Not easy to expand so fast. OK, EU expansion helps a little...

Mike wrote on Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:23:37 +0200:

MT> santiago wrote: ??>> it is very interesting that we went from a 10% to a 61% ??>> under AOC. Two different ideas came to mind inmediately: ??>>

??>> - First is that probably, the average wine of 2007 is ??>> better than the average wine of 1935 (Appellation ??>> d'Origine Contrôlée were founded).

MT> Yes and no. The overall average is probably much better MT> today than 1935, but the idea of AOC was not to apply it to MT> average wines, but rather to exceptional ones. The AOC MT> wines of 1935 were far fewer and far better than today.

??>> - Second is that, as a large part of wine sold within AOC ??>> standards is now of average quality, many top quality ??>> producers are getting out of the AOC system.

MT> True in Italy, where it is a form of snobbery to make top MT> wines under a Vino da Tavola or IGT label.

??>> With respect to Champagne: the most interested part on this ??>> expansion are, obviously, the big houses, who are making ??>> 95% of the production (it's a guess on my part, I am ready ??>> to stand corrected). Not a small part of the production ??>> (conscious use of the word here) of big houses is "barely ??>> drinkable wine", no matter they have a huge leverage on ??>> their brands.

MT> Also true. But notice that it is not enough to expand the MT> territory. All grapes in Champagne must be harvested by MT> hand, this is the law there. So if you expand the surface MT> area, you also need to find the hands to pick the grapes. MT> The large houses rely mostly on small farmers that harvest MT> and sell the grapes. Not easy to expand so fast. OK, EU MT> expansion helps a little...

Sorry but I had a sneaky thought that, given the success of French companies in making what they like to call "sparkling wine" in Napa, they might extend the boundaries to California:-)

James Silverton Potomac, Maryland

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

James Silverton wrote: > Sorry but I had a sneaky thought that, given the success of French

I was expecting Grand Cru Kent

"James Silverton" wrote in news:SdGUi.102$a01.79@trnddc06:

or Yara valley Australia where Chandon has a property!

They could make a true World Class Champagne - what does that mean anyway, "world class" one assumes it must mean good but what marketing agency came up with that one for a truly meaningless accolade?

we have certainly heard of the major houses buying land in the South Downs (Sussex). So perhaps Kent is not far behind!

-E

The problem IMO as regards Champagne is that most of the vineyards sourced by the big houses are horribly overcropped, overfertilized and sterile. Photos I've seen of those vineyards look like the moon: no weeds, no grass, nothing but exposed earth and vines. If by expanding the AOC they can then impose some realistic production limits, I would be all for it. Until then, I'll just look for "grower" Champagne.

Mark Lipton