WTN/Wine Advisor: Chablis rehabilitated (2005 Chantemerle)

[Robin Garr]

Chablis rehabilitated

When was the last time you heard someone order "A glass of Chablis" when what they really wanted was an anonymous, inexpensive white wine?

After a generation in which the lofty French names "Chablis" and "Burgundy" were co-opted as generic monikers for cheap American wines, order is gradually being restored to the universe. Such abuse nowadays occurs only at the extreme low end of the jug-wine universe, and few people are fooled by the borrowed name.

This is quite a contrast with the situation when I started writing a newspaper column about wine in the early 1980s. In those days it was impossible to discuss "real" Chablis without spelling out the difference between the cheap domestic stuff and the excellent but comparatively pricey white wine from the Burgundy region in Northeastern France.

True Chablis, as I had to explain in those days, is made from 100 percent Chardonnay grapes in a small appellation well to the north of the main Burgundy region. It's bone-dry, acidic, rarely oaked; steely and "stony," an almost classic demonstration of the principle of "<i>terroir</i>," the character inextricably associated with the sense of the place where the grapes were grown. Chablis tastes good because it is good, and it's expensive but worth it.

Domestic Chablis was a lackluster imitation at best. Made by industrial processes from a grape blend that rarely included any Chardonnay (overcropped Chenin Blanc and French Colombard were typical), it was a soft, slightly sweet quaff, often displaying pungent, un-wine-like flavors with no sense of the soil. It tasted cheap because it was cheap, and it was cheap because it was made for the mass market, the vinous equivalent of "lite" beer: drinkable, industrial, primarily of use as an alcohol-delivery system.

The terms do persist on the jug-wine and box-wine shelves, where, for example, both Carlo Rossi, a jug-only product of E. & J. Gallo's vast wine factory in Modesto, Calif., and Inglenook, a once proud but long devalued name now in the hands of giant Constellation Brands, both still produce "Chablis," not to mention "Burgundy," "Rhine" and "Chianti."

Curiously, in an apparent effort to serve more than one audience, both firms now make both a "Chablis" <i>and</i> a Chardonnay, as well as other popular varietally labeled wines such as Pinot Grigio, Merlot and Zinfandel; but not, apparently, the currently fashionable Pinot Noir.

Frankly, I'm just as glad to see the generic names disappearing from the market, or at least the upscale market. Domestic "Champagne" still lingers in the premium category, largely thanks to the marketing efforts of a few major American producers, but even this abuse seems to be fading as more consumers come to recognize it as misleading.

Today I dig down for a few extra bucks to invest in a recently arrived young Chablis, 2005 Domaine de Chantemerle made by A. & F. Boudin. It's a good but perhaps not a perfect benchmark example of classic Chablis; reflecting a more recent trend, it's made in a somewhat more fruit-forward and fat manner than the historical Chablis, a new style that some wine fanciers dub "international" to distinguish it from the more traditional "Old World."

<table border="0" align="right" width="170"><tr><td><img src="http://www.wineloverspage.com/graphics1/chan1214.jpg" border="1" align="right"></td></tr></table>Domaine de Chantemerle 2005 Chablis ($23.99)

Transparent pale gold. Ripe cooking-apple aroma with hints of honey and delicate spice. Flavors are consistent with the nose, tart green-apple flavor over crisp fresh-fruit acidity and a subtle suggestion of chalky minerality. Flavors persist in a long, clean finish. Good wine if a bit "New World," fruit-forward and fat by the standard of traditional Chablis. U.S. importer: Vintner Select, Mason, Ohio; North Berkeley Imports, Berkeley, Calif., and other regional importers. (Dec. 14, 2007)

<B>FOOD MATCH:</b> Chablis is a natural with a good range of delicate to medium-rich pork, poultry or fish dishes; it was fine with a hearty but not overly cream-rich fish chowder.

<B>VALUE:</B> The $24 price tag might horrify a jug-wine fancier looking for a generic white wine, and wine-price inflation plus the weak dollar have moved "real" Chablis close to special-occasion territory. It should be noted, further, that my local retail price was exceptionally high. Wine-Searcher.com shows several vendors pricing this wine in the $17-$20 range, which is more than fair.

<B>WHEN TO DRINK:</B> The conventional wisdom holds that basic Chablis should be drunk up soon, while the more lofty <i>première cru</i> and <i>grand cru</i> bottles wait in the cellar. I don't see any need to panic about consuming this well-balanced wine in the next year, however, and two or three years in a temperature-controlled cellar should do it no harm.

<B>WEB LINK:</B>
For a short article about the Boudin family's winery, with links to this and other wines, see the North Berkeley Website,
http://northberkeleyimports.com/articles/index.php?id=390

<B>FIND THIS WINE ONLINE:</B>
Compare prices and find vendors for the Chablis wines of A. & F. Boudin on Wine-Searcher.com:
[url=http://www.wine-searcher.com/find/Boudin%2bChablis/-/-/USD/A?referring_site=WLP]http://www.wine-searcher.com/
find/Boudin%2bChablis/-/-/USD/A?referring_site=WLP[/url]

<center>Subscribe to The 30 Second Wine Advisor</center>

Robin,
Your title says '06, but your note says '05 -- which is correct? FWIW, I enjoy Boudin's Chablis, but they don't excite me in the same way that some other producers do.

Mark Lipton

[Robin Garr]

Your title says '06, but your note says '05 -- which is correct? FWIW, I enjoy Boudin's Chablis, but they don't excite me in the same way that some other producers do.

Happily, it's just a typo on the forum post, Mark, not in the mailing. (gulp)

I agree on the Boudin, or the 2005 anyway ... I read it as "international" in style, but certainly a little soft by Chablis texture standards, although okay on the nose. I'm kind of glad I got the Vintner Select bottling ... if NBI does a "cuvee unique" that goes beyond, as seems likely, I don't think I'd want it.

Domestic "Champagne" still lingers in the premium category, largely thanks to the marketing efforts of a few major American producers, but even this abuse seems to be fading as more consumers come to recognize it as misleading.

What "abuse", exactly, are you referring to, Robin? Is that the one where the French agreed that it was permissible for certain American producers to use the word "Champagne"----as long as it was a long-standing practice, and as long as the word "Champagne" was used in conjunction with a specific identification of origin, as in "California Champagne"?

Why is it an "abuse" to do something that's approved, that's legal, that's in full compliance with all standing laws, regulations, and mutually agreed upon trade statutes, and that goes out of its way to clearly establish the difference between origin and process/style?

Do you really believe that there's anyone out there with half a brain that's buying "California Champagne" that thinks they are getting something from the rolling hills just east of Paris???

Hey, you got your soapbox; I got mine. Now go out and buy a nice Cheddar from Wisconsin to go with your Chablis.

dear hoke - it might help if you made clear your place of employment, so the soapbox would be understood.

robin - i've found nearly all the '05 chablis to have a very lactic and to me unpleasant finish. haven't tasted this one; but........

dear hoke - it might help if you made clear your place of employment, so the soapbox would be understood.

Okay, fair dinkum, David. I usually do that anyway, but neglected to this time.

My place of employment is Brown-Forman, which markets Korbel California Champagne, as well as marketing and in some cases owning several other beverage brands.

That being said, do you believe that I said what I said because I work for Brown-Forman? I was speaking for myself, not my employer. I said the same thing when I worked for a retailer in Texas, another retailer at a later date, a wholesaler, when I was being a restaurant consultant, when I've worn a journalist hat, when I've taught classes in wine, when I've judged at numerous competitions, and on other occasions. Heck, I probably even said it when I was unemployed, but I'll have to check that, because it's been a while, and that period was so brief that I probably didn't have time to say very much.

Now that I've come clean, David, why don't you weigh in on the topic instead of my employment? Where do you stand on the topic?

(Oh, and sorry about the Creighton/David thing pre-edit. Since you tag yourself creightond, I got canalized into thinking of you as "Creighton" instead of "David". My apologies.)

hey hoke - not sure even what a dinkum is; but i guess i did it anyway. the creightond thing was a mistake that i've never figured out how to correct. not very technical.

i tend to be pretty traditional on issues like this. i guess i'm not clear on one detail. did the EU cave on just 'california champagne'? or is it legal to use 'california chablis' 'california chianti', and all the others. and i assume it isn't just CA that gets the exception.

i think that at a minimum - the standards for the similar names should be similar. that is, to have the words 'ca champagne' on the label the thing should be from the traditional grapes only and bottle fermented. otherwise, people still get the impression that they are getting the same sort of thing; but for much less money - that the french are basically ripping them off because they are french. this is champagne, this is champagne - what's the difference. people shouldln't have to know as much as we do to make an informed choice.

on the other side, the problem is greater with other things. substituting 'sparkling' for ' champagne' still tells you what you are getting. how do you tell someone they are getting something like 'sherry' or 'port' with other words? btw, is 'vermouth' protected in the EU?

[Robin Garr]

the creightond thing was a mistake that i've never figured out how to correct. not very technical.

It's easy to fix, David. You just have to ask me to do it.

If you'd like to change, I'll be happy to tweak it. David or Dave Chreighton?

i guess the whole thing; but without the first 'h' as in your post - just david creighton - thanks so much.

hey hoke - not sure even what a dinkum is; but i guess i did it anyway. the creightond thing was a mistake that i've never figured out how to correct. not very technical.

i tend to be pretty traditional on issues like this. i guess i'm not clear on one detail. did the EU cave on just 'california champagne'? or is it legal to use 'california chablis' 'california chianti', and all the others. and i assume it isn't just CA that gets the exception.

Well, to be honest, I haven't the faintest what a dinkum is either. Apparently there are fair ones though.

The trade issue wasn't just on the allowed use of "California Champagne", no. And just to be clear, the allowed use was only for those firms who had a long established use of the term; they were allowed to grandfather. But still not in the EU; which I think is fine: their market, their rules, pretty much.

And I should point out this was a settlement of a large trade issue---had very little (if anything) to do with "right" and "wrong".

think that at a minimum - the standards for the similar names should be similar. that is, to have the words 'ca champagne' on the label the thing should be from the traditional grapes only and bottle fermented. otherwise, people still get the impression that they are getting the same sort of thing; but for much less money - that the french are basically ripping them off because they are french. this is champagne, this is champagne - what's the difference. people shouldln't have to know as much as we do to make an informed choice.

I understand what you're saying...but I don't totally agree with you. I see the nomenclature of "California Champagne" as signifying a process, or method, of making the wine --naturally fermented in the bottle sparkling wine-- so don't see any need to follow the 'traditional grapes' of Champagne. Even the Champenoise will (now) admit that taking the entire formula intact to places other than Champagne results, more often than not, in poor to mediocre wine (see what happened in Napa and Sonoma, for instance, when the Champenoise companies tried to mandate what Napa/Sonoma sparkling wine would be; they beat a fairly hasty retreat when they realized the lockstep of Champagne would not work in this area. And that's as it should be: if you're trying to transplant everything under the rubric of the Methode Champenoise, you are simply saying that the process is more important than the place; or in other words, you are totally denying any sense of place or terroir. And I don't think any winemaker really wants to do that. Company, maybe, but not the winemaker.

I am comfortable (for even the most common of denominative drinkers) at signalling, loudly and on the label, where a product is from. I'd also be comfortable with having a clear and precise definition (whether that casual consumer knows clearly what the definition is or not; if they're that damned lazy to not know or care what they're consuming, then why should we care?) on the label

If I know it's "Naturally Fermented In The Bottle", or even better, "Naturally Fermented In This Bottle", and I can see it says "California Champagne" on the label, bold as anything....I seriously don't believe anyone with half a brain is going to be confused about where it comes from. And, again, if someone is such a total doofus as to pick up that bottle and think it's from Champagne...then there are larger problems to worry about.

Tell me, David: have YOU ever been confused as to what you were drinking. How many times have you confused a Veuve Cliquot with an Andre? Since yesterday, I mean?

Nah, I think this "problem" is waaaaay overblown. Might strike some people as funny, but I am actually in favor of as much protection of place names as possible. I think this whole thing actually works to the advantage of the Champenoise, if you want to know the truth. Look at this instance: here Robin is once again bleating about the poor, put upon and severely wronged Champenoise (oh woe, oh woe) and that fabled and oft-cited average idiot drinker (like we really care about people who don't know their mouth from their elbow)...hey, it's just continuing free advertising for 'real' Champagne. Pretty clever of the Champenoise; and no one has ever doubted they are masters of marketing.

As to vermouth, David, I honestly don't know. Don't recall that in the articles explaining the newer trade agreements. I'll have to look. Or wait for a true uber-geek to chime in here....

[David M. Bueker]

I'm frequently quite amused by the concern that wine geeks (me included) have for the poor general public and their massive confusion. Most of the general public don't care what's on the label, what's in the bottle or much about anything else other than does it have bubbles & will they get tipsy on New Year's Eve.

Those that are confused frequently (more often than they are given credit for) ask questions.

I am also for protecting place names, but don't see the whole consumer confusion issue as being all that relevant.

Hoke,
I tend to take the side of protecting place names, since in the US consumers have such a problem distinguishing place names from brand names. BUT, and this is the reason that I'm writing this post, I have always bristled at the notion that placing "Methode Champenoise" on the label is an infringement of the rights of the poor, downtrodden LVMHs of the world. If anything, in a rational world, placing such a statement on the label of a wine produced in the US, NZ or elsewhere should be viewed as paying just dues to the efforts of the Champenoise. Of course, we both know that "rational" and trade laws rarely are used in the same sentence...

Mark Lipton

are you saying that the agreement to allow California Champagne covers ONLY bottle fermented? Cooks can't use it? Andre can't? wow.

I'm frequently quite amused by the concern that wine geeks (me included) have for the poor general public and their massive confusion. Most of the general public don't care what's on the label, what's in the bottle or much about anything else other than does it have bubbles & will they get tipsy on New Year's Eve.

Those that are confused frequently (more often than they are given credit for) ask questions.

I am also for protecting place names, but don't see the whole consumer confusion issue as being all that relevant.

David,
I think your somewhat relaxed attitude addresses the two ends of the wine drinking village, the wine geek on the one end and the wine challenged on the other end who really doesn't care what a bottle of wine is called. It is a continuum and a large group in the middle may care, may want to learn and may even put a little effort in what they drink. My son-in-law is one of these people as an example. Why call anything in California, or for that matter outside of Champagne, Champagne? As Hoke says, it is not illegal but that doesn't really address the point. Lots of things are not illegal but make no sense and are misleading. In wine, Champagne, Chablis and Burgundy come to mind. The only reason to call a California sparkling wine a Champagne is to mislead the public and try to associate the wine with a higher level of quality. I am under the impression that most good sparklers in the US no longer use Champagne and Chablis and Burgundy are even less used. This, IMO, is a very good thing. Now Tokaji is another thing but that has no impact on the US.
Walt

Of course, we both know that "rational" and trade laws rarely are used in the same sentence...

Mark Lipton

Another very good point.
Walt

are you saying that the agreement to allow California Champagne covers ONLY bottle fermented? Cooks can't use it? Andre can't? wow.

No, I'm not saying that, David. At least, I don't think I said that. Let me go back and look..... Nope, I didn't say that.


Mark:

I think you and I see the issue roughly the same.

Doesn't mean we can't argue incessantly over minor details, of course.

It's not an easily resolved situation..mainly because the parties involved don't (can't) in any way be reasonable and balanced about it. It becomes partisan immediately, and in the worst way.

I really can't get all that incensed about, say, Cheddar Cheese infringing on the sacred rights of Cheddar, England, because that term has obviously become part of common usage. On the other hand, I can certainly see the desire for folks in Cheddar, England, to require that anyone using the term 'cheddar' be required to state where that product is made, say California Cheddar. Then the place of origin is clear, as is the process or style.

And where does it stop? Bologna, frankfurter, hamburger, limburger (or Lemberger!!!)? Are those sufficiently common as not to be given protected status? Should we really allow those Germans to call Spatburgunder by that name. How about Melon de Bourgogne; can those damned Nantais get away with that? Can you tell people they are having a Tarte d'Alsace if you're not in Alsace and none of the ingredients come from Alsace and you're not from Alsace anyway? Tocai Friulano lost out to the Hungarians and their Tokaj; though I doubt anyone ever seriously had them confused. So where do you draw the line?

But then you elevate it to the next level. There's a place in Oregon where the cheese is famous. It's called Tillamook. Tillamook has a very well known cheese company called...Tillamook. They make a Tillamook Oregon Cheddar. But then someone came along and contested their right to the name "Tillamook". So, does a company have the right to preempt a regional name, and then dictate that no one else can make a cheese called "Tillamook Cheddar"? Doesn't seem right, does it?

[David M. Bueker]

I think your somewhat relaxed attitude

Something I am trying to cultivate and continue.

I think your somewhat relaxed attitude

Something I am trying to cultivate and continue.

David,
As well you should. I probably chose the wrong adjective and didn't mean it as a dig but this Champagne, Chablis and Burgundy thing really irritates me. It is purely a marketing play and IMO very misleading and a typical in-your-face American attitude. I still pick up a bottle called Champagne and then look to see the coutry. My mother still asks for a glass of Chablis when at a restaurant and has no idea what she is getting.
Walt

I'm frequently quite amused by the concern that wine geeks (me included) have for the poor general public and their massive confusion. Most of the general public don't care what's on the label, what's in the bottle or much about anything else other than does it have bubbles & will they get tipsy on New Year's Eve.

Those that are confused frequently (more often than they are given credit for) ask questions.

I am also for protecting place names, but don't see the whole consumer confusion issue as being all that relevant.

Why call anything in California, or for that matter outside of Champagne, Champagne? As Hoke says, it is not illegal but that doesn't really address the point. Lots of things are not illegal but make no sense and are misleading.

The only reason to call a California sparkling wine a Champagne is to mislead the public and try to associate the wine with a higher level of quality.

I am under the impression that most good sparklers in the US no longer use Champagne and Chablis and Burgundy are even less used. This, IMO, is a very good thing. Now Tokaji is another thing but that has no impact on the US.
Walt

Walt: So it's only important when you're personally affected by it?

Why call anything in California, or for that matter outside of Champagne, Champagne?

Well, let's see: perhaps because it was a quick and effective way of telling a customer the STYLE of wine he was buying, to give him an idea of what he was consuming, using a commonly recognized name for a PROCESS of making wine, while clearly labelling the product as being sourced from a specific place?

The only reason to call a California sparkling wine a Champagne is to mislead the public and try to associate the wine with a higher level of quality.

Oh, c'mon, Walt. Really? That's the one and only reason possible? To convince gullible people like you that it's reaaaaally from Champagne and the equivalent thereof? I didn't think you were that innocent, for some reason. Try this: when you have a burgeoning industry in a new place (the New World) that doesn't have an established heritage of producing particular styles of wine, you tend to adopt the names of commonly recognized regions famous for that style.

So when you're in Australia and you make a fortified wine in the style of Oporto, what would you tend to automatically call it if you wanted to make it clear to people (without being as long winded and cantankerous as me) to make them easily understand what it is you're doing? You know what comes to mind? Port. So you're telling me that every single producer of fortified wine in the Port style over the last couple of hundred years had no other motive in mind by calling their products by a commonly known name than to hoodwink every single person who purchased and consumed those products into believing they were buying something else??? And all those people really thought that when the producer used the name Port they did it elevate their product to the same transcendental level of quality. Those Australians: pretty gullible fools, aren't they?

And when you're in California in the 1800s and you make a sparkling wine in the style of the most renowned sparkling wine producing area in the old world, and you want to make it as easy to sell as possible, so that people don't have to ask "What is this?", you call it "California Champagne"---that makes you a crook and a liar out to fleece the poor unsuspecting public?

You know, I'm about as geeky as they come with wine. I admit it. But I also admit that when I walk into a private home and am handed a glass of bubbly, I automatically think, "Oooo, champagne." If, later, I see it is California Champagne or cava or Cremant de Limoux (and that's a whole different argument we could get into there), or Argyle Sparkling Wine or whatever, I don't get the least little bit upset over it. I don't think I've been taken advantage of. That's because it's common to react that way. Do you???


Conversely, when Moet et Chandon, that poor struggling little sparkling wine company headquartered in Epernay (or is it Paris these days?) decided to sell its particular type of sparkling wine in Argentina, went there and established a winery, made the wine from local grapes (and zut alors, not even the traditional grapes of Champagne!), and then sold it to the Argentineans, what did they chose as the name to sell it under?

How about Champana? (sorry, I still don't know how to do the symbol over the n in this forum) So maybe you're right. Maybe those evil people are all just out there to scam us. Can't be too careful.

[David M. Bueker]

I think your somewhat relaxed attitude

Something I am trying to cultivate and continue.

David,
As well you should. I probably chose the wrong adjective and didn't mean it as a dig but this Champagne, Chablis and Burgundy thing really irritates me. It is purely a marketing play and IMO very misleading and a typical in-your-face American attitude. I still pick up a bottle called Champagne and then look to see the coutry. My mother still asks for a glass of Chablis when at a restaurant and has no idea what she is getting.
Walt

The thing is that for the most part it is gone. Maybe it's lingering in the midwest, but I never see "Chablis" or "Burgundy" listed in restaurants anymore unless it's the real thing (I don't even see fake "chianti" in bad red check tablecloth Italian joints). Sure there might be jug chablis out there (is there? I don't look for it) , but I just don't see it as being a real consumer fraud type issue.

Yuh, it's still out there, David.

Just wander down the jug and box aisle in your local mega-retailer and you'll see it. Somehow I don't think that's an area you frequent all that much though.

It's still out there. Most people don't care very much. The ones buying it sure don't: it's mildly alcoholic and it's wet and it's cheap; that's pretty much all they know and care about. Eventually it will die out. When the people who are used to it die out, probably, or cease to be enough of a marketing force for anyone to cater to anymore.

Not hardly anything worth getting excited over though.

Hoke,
Your post is too long for me to understand as I have a very short attention span. Even when I was a budding wine geek I could never understand the Champagne thing. What is wrong with Sparkling Wine? I certainly am not saying the US does not make some great sparklers but why call it Champagne? I may be wrong but haven't most serious sparkling wine producers dropped the word Champagne? It certainly is not illegal but very misleading. Somehow the rest of Europe had been able to sell sparkling wine without calling it Champagne but hey, maybe they are smarter than we are. I think the issue becomes clearer, although the arguments are the same with Chablis. Coming out of corportate america in our marketing driven society I have to still consider this just a marketing ploy.

We definitely don't agree but that is what makes the world go around. Sit back, relax and enjoy a nice Golden Chablis from Almaden or with you pasta and gravy a nice Almaden Chianti.

Walt

[David M. Bueker]

Coming out of corportate america in our marketing driven society I have to still consider this just a marketing ploy.

Maybe, except that there really isn't much in the way of marketing around the stuff anymore (hence why I haven't noticed the stuff even existing). At this point isn't it really just a holdover from days gone by. Seen any ads or commercials for Paul Masson Chablis anymore?