So much for terroir

Nobody knows.

But it's a fact that Champagne has *doubled* its planted surface from 18,000 hectares in the 1960s to 36,000 hectares nowadays.

M.

This article partly addresses your question

Steve wrote on Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:12:04 +0000:

??>> How far can you "widen the vineyard" to increase ??>> production/profits before you dilute the "terroir"?

SS> This article partly addresses your question SS>

It all sounds very plausible but industrial flacks are good at that! I will await the rationalizations when the zone is expanded to include California :-) In some ways, I was reminded of a common preamble to Vatican announcements of a radical changes: "As the church has always said.........".

James Silverton Potomac, Maryland

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

Are you saying Stevenson is an industrial (industry?) flack? Why do you think that?

Steve wrote on Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:20:42 +0000:

??>> Steve wrote on Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:12:04 +0000: ??>>

??>>>> How far can you "widen the vineyard" to increase ??>>>> production/profits before you dilute the "terroir"? ??>>

SS>>> This article partly addresses your question SS>>>

??>>

??>> It all sounds very plausible but industrial flacks are ??>> good at that! I will await the rationalizations when the ??>> zone is expanded to include California :-) In some ways, I ??>> was reminded of a common preamble to Vatican announcements ??>> of a radical changes: "As the church has always said.........".

SS> Are you saying Stevenson is an industrial (industry?) SS> flack? Why do you think that?

I used to think that Elliot Spitzer was an honest crusader against fraud too!

James Silverton Potomac, Maryland

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

"Martin Field" wrote in news:47db11ba$0$19209$ snipped-for-privacy@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:

He must drink a lot to singlehandedly cause Champagne to answer his demand.

Fred.

Stevenson is probably the most respected independent expert on Champagne. Certainly he is a fan (would be ridiculous to become an expert if one didn't like), but he is scarcely a flack, as he is very capable of slamming vintages or individual wines he dislikes.

As noted, all of the villages proposed to be added are well within the historic area that is noted for Champagne production, it's not as if there an expansion into Ile de France (or Belgium) - or even into greater Champagne-Ardennes.

I certainly don't know the geography of the area enough to know whether the expansion will decrease the quality of the wine overall. If it does, eventually it will rebound as the appeal and value of the name "Champagne" will suffer. One could certainly make that argument re Chianti or Crozes-Hermitage. But to me its their choice to make.

DaleW wrote on Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:36:54 -0700 (PDT):

D> On Mar 15, 3:32�pm, "James Silverton" D> wrote: ??>> �Steve �wrote �on Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:20:42 +0000: ??>>

�??>>>> Steve �wrote �on Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:12:04 +0000: �??>>>>

�??>>>>>> How far can you "widen the vineyard" to increase �??>>>>>> production/profits before you dilute the "terroir"? �??>>>>

�SS>>>>> This article partly addresses your question �SS>>>>>

�??>>>>

�??>>>> It all sounds very plausible but industrial flacks are �??>>>> good at that! I will await the rationalizations when �??>>>> the zone is expanded to include California :-) In some �??>>>> ways, I was reminded of a common preamble to Vatican �??>>>> announcements of a radical changes: "As the church has always ??>> said.........". ??>>

�SS>>> Are you saying Stevenson is an industrial (industry?) �SS>>> flack? �Why do you think that? ??>>

??>> I used to think that Elliot Spitzer was an honest crusader ??>> against fraud too! ??>>

??>> James Silverton ??>> Potomac, Maryland ??>>

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

D> Stevenson is probably the most respected independent expert D> on Champagne. Certainly he is a fan (would be ridiculous to D> become an expert if one didn't like), but he is scarcely a D> flack, as he is very capable of slamming vintages or D> individual wines he dislikes.

D> As noted, all of the villages proposed to be added are well D> within the historic area that is noted for Champagne D> production, it's not as if there an expansion into Ile de D> France (or Belgium) - or even into greater D> Champagne-Ardennes.

I must admit that I was not aware of Stevenson's reputation but the web site seemed a paraphrase of the information I have seen from the Champagne Growers Cartel. I accept that very good sparkling wine is made in Champagne and by French Champagne companies in California. It sometimes seems that the expansion is a grandfathering and legalisation of current practice.

I know that Champagne growers are an altruistic organization, whose greatest concern is the greater glory of Champagne, France and probably God and who are concerned that I should not be mistaken about the sources of the Champagne that I drink :-)

James Silverton Potomac, Maryland

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

Did the "Champagne Growers Cartel" also criticise the dismissal of the echelle system and the way yields are managed?

Steve wrote on Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:33:58 +0000:

??>> I must admit that I was not aware of Stevenson's ??>> reputation but the web site seemed a paraphrase of the ??>> information I have seen from the Champagne Growers ??>> Cartel.

SS> Did the "Champagne Growers Cartel" also criticise the SS> dismissal of the echelle system and the way yields are SS> managed?

You are getting way beyond my knowledge of champagne and I don't really care what is the correct name for the growers association. I'm a consumer not a producer but I've always had a suspicion of organizations that restrict production and tell me it is for my own good and others that allow expansion for themselves but try to prevent others using names. I have to admit that the French-owned Champagne companies do make good, possibly the best, "California Champagnes" even if they don't want to call them that.

James Silverton Potomac, Maryland

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

No one has claimed that the CIVC is anything but a trade organization, dedicated to their own well-being. However, their efforts can often have ancillary benefits for consumers, since their self-interest in maintaining reputation leads to regulations that are aimed at maintaining quality.

I'm not especially interested in refighting the "what is champagne" issue, as to me it's self-evident that those who made the reputation should reap the benefits. But it's factually inaccurate* to say that the CIVC has sought to "restrict production" - their position (and the position of virtually every wine region in the world) is that it's fine to make the wine, just don't name it after another region. I've had good sparkling wines from CA, Germany, Loire, NM, & Franciacorta, all are proud enough of their origins not to have to pretend to be from Champagne. The CIVC has never sought to stop production, just to stop mislabeling.

Production WITHIN Champagne is restricted and, as Tom Stevenson pointed out towrds the end of the article, the mechanism they cuurrently employ has little effect on quality - it's about restricting supply to keep prices high.

I agree with everything else you said though, Dale.

Likely only time will tell. The place to check is likely the NV wines of the major houses that also produce vintage wines and some very expensive ones. I would not expect the quality of the more expensive wines of the house to change much, since the company likely will just increase their price to what the market will bear. For the standard brut range of a house, many of the better houses will try to keep the quality, but some may not. Wines not up to present standards likely will end up in the NV except for Krug multi vintage wine and a few others. Or if a house does not wish to lower the quality of their NV wine, they may make a second label wine or perhaps make house label Champagne for discount chains.

Interesting Dale, but the problem right now is not so much pricing but having enough supply to meet the demand, at any price. Champagne is booming and even the small Champagne producers I know are offered incredible prices for still wine for the large houses, yet their own demand for finished Champagne is increasing each year.

Expanding the appellation area intelligently will not dilute terroir. For one thing, yields are controlled very strictly. Also, by law all harvesting has to be done MANUALLY, so the large houses have always depended on a huge number of small growers to do that (about 15000). And in any case there will be no wine from the new communes before maybe

Are the new areas of the same quality as the existing ones? Only 40 communes were selected out of a potential 300 that applied. I would assume that the work was done very carefully. Champagne is big business, they would not want to dilute their brand !

cheers

Sorry I was unclear, I meant that the Champagne association had not tried to restrict the production of OTHERS. Within the region, they have yield restrictions, but I believe they are 1.5 to 2 X what other areas allow, so scarcely a quality guarantee.

When demand increases, you can react in three ways:

- increase planted area

- increase yields

- increase price

Champagne is doing all three.

But, not surprisingly (at least to the insider), Champagne has done has done that for ages. Planted surface has doubled in the last 40 years (from 18,000 to 36,000 hectares); yield went from around 60 hl/ha to currently around 100 hl/ha -- and what's with prices? Everybody knows.

M.