Questioning accepted wisdom re sparkling wines

Accepted wisdom being that the Pinot family (Noir/Meunier/Chardonnay) are the best for making fizz and these varieties represent the pinnacle.

We see PN/PM/C being planted in England, increasingly for Cava in Spain. SAf are intending changing their MCC rules making that cepage mandatory, most new world sparkling wine makers plant those three.

And yet, and yet....

I tasted and brought home a lot of Loire fizz which is made in the methode traditionnel but from Chenin Blanc. And I am enjoying it greatly. There is a creaminess, a balancing of acidity and great flavour.

I drink a lot of Champagne and age it first to lose some of the sharpness and rough edges, but my young Loire fizz is tasting great.

I've had good sparkling Vouvray, but in all honesty nothing that reaches the heights of good Champagne.

That having been said, when you're talking value for money it's a totally different ballgame.

You have to hunt to find a good Crémant de Bordeaux. However, Crémant de Bourgogne can be quite good (arguably the best Crémant in France).

I'm not really familiar with the *good *(dry) sparkling wines from other European countries (forget about most Sekt and sweet Muscat).
Is there such a thing as an excellent Cava?

Alex R.

[Robin Garr]

I think the conventional wisdom is hard to disprove, and in places where the bubbly can match real Champagne (Franciacorta for sure, and maybe California's best), the PN/C/PM formula is almost invariably in place.

But about the best argument to the contrary, as you say, Peter, is pretty surely Chenin-based Crémant de la Loire. I can't honestly think of a Champagne-quality Cava, and while I do love Prosecco for fun and fizz and QPR, I don't think its style or nature or intended use is in the same place as Champagne.

Like the other respondents, I can't think of an exceptional cava. Franciacorta does some awfully good bubbly. And I'm with Robin: Prosecco is in an entirely different league. And let's not even talk about Sparking Shiraz.

I would put the best of the Loire sparklers in high contention. And the Bourgognes can be excellent as well---but I might even quibble with Alex just a bit to defend the amazing excellence of Cremant de Alsace, which they have achieved in an amazingly short period of time as compared to the others. If they have done that well, that quickly (and with the folks in France responding enthusiastically), I expect even better quality in the future.

On the accepted wisdom thing: I've seen and tasted some worthwhile results with Sangiovese in some American sparkling roses---which, when you come to think about it, makes sense: high acid, intense flavors, along the same lines of PN.

And I've always wondered what good Provencal rose sparkling could be capable of when done the right way????

I'm not talking about making a carbon copy of Champagne. When I want Champagne I buy Champagne.

It would be a wonderful serendipity if PN/PM/C on their own or blended really do make the very best possible sparkling wine since they were chosen for purely pragmatic reasons...

In the first place the Champagne region was too cold to make decent still wines so manufactured fizz, but from many varieties. Only in the 1930's did they decide to concentrate on PM/N/C because there other varieties didn't grow as well.

I do think sparkling wines from Chenin can be just as good as Champagne, although not the same.

I think it's important not to assume that there is a single scale for sparkling wines, with Champagne at the top and everything else somewhere below it. Perhaps we can talk about 'classic method, classic varieties' sparkling wines that way, in the same we it's hard to resist comparing any other Pinot Noir with Burgundy, but IMO it's a mistake to make the same comparison with non-classic sparkling wines and Champagne. For example, even the very best Prosecco tries to achieve something quite different from Champagne; and the best Loire sparklers are IMO excellent wines but quite different from Champagne.

[David M. Bueker]

I do think sparkling wines from Chenin can be just as good as Champagne, although not the same.

As good as very good Champagne or just some Champagne?

I think there are a few, isolated cases of non PN/PN/Chard sparklers that equal very good Champagne from those varieties. Examples come from Huet and Chidaine to start. In actual Champagne there are a few non-PN/PM/Chard wines that are outstanding. Aubry and Cedric Bouchard make some fabulous wines from other permitted varieties.

"As good as Champagne" all depends on what you use as your benchmark.

One of the reasons why Champagne can reach great heights is that the PN/PM/C mix generates lovely crisp acidity at their latitude.

While the South of UK should have the same potential, I have a lot more doubt about locations much further south like Catalonia. Would not the Catalans do better to use local varieties which give good acidity in their own conditions, just as the people in Saumur and Vouvray use their own Chenin to get excellent results?

As it happens, I have tasted some excellent Cava made from local grapes and here are my notes from November 2009 -

Gramona, DO Penedès
The Cavas from this estate are a revelation. The still whites are pretty good too.
Cava Imperial Gran Reserva Brut 2005 (€20), from Xarel.lo 50%, Macabeu 40% and Chardonnay 10%, had rich aromas with a liqueur touch and round rich body with a pleasing oily touch and great moutn-fill; 16/20.
Cava III Lustros Reserva Brut Nature 2001 (€29), from Xarel.lo 70% and Macbeu 30%, was in a different league of finesse with the profile of the previous considerably refined and a more linear palate and longer finish; 16.5/20++; one of my handful of memorable bubblies from outside Champagne.

Accepted wisdom being that the Pinot family (Noir/Meunier/Chardonnay) are the best for making fizz and these varieties represent the pinnacle.

Is it that accepted wisdom is that those varieties are best; or is it that nowhere else in the world is considered to make sparkling wine capable of reaching the heights of great Champagne, and therefore by extrapolation (though not necessarily logic), the varieties used to make Champagne are considered the best? Even if not, I think it's hard for people to (even subconciously) ignore the connection.

And let's not even talk about Sparking Shiraz.

What have you got against Sparkling Shiraz - surely it has its place? Personally, I'd typically rather drink Sparkling Shiraz than Cava, but then I'd typically rather drink Champagne than Sparkling Shiraz.

Oh, sparkling shiraz I can deal with, Ben. Don't drink it very often, but I can deal with it. (I vaguely recall a Vixen from Oz I liked. But it seemed a little foxy. Ba dum bump.)

It's when the Ontarians try their best to convince me that I'll really really really like the Sparkling Cabernet Franc Icewine they are so proud of that I gag a little.

I find it difficult to judge non-Champagnes without making reference to Champagne. That said, I'd say Huet's Petillant comes closest in terms of fineness, complexity, and overall appeal. I'd also argue that if you were to stick a bottle of Hubert Clavelin's Cremant du Jura, (made from 100% chardonnay, hand-picked, bottle-fermented, etc., etc.) in the middle of a blind tasting, it will pass for good NV Champagne.

Its interesting that a region can "invent" a wine style, and hold it out there for two hundred years and let people try to emulate it, with no restrictions, other than the name "Champagne", and not have a credible competitor. Maybe there is something to this "terrior" thing after all. That said, I do think that California is producing high quality sparkling wine that does come close to the "real deal", and might even equal it in isolated cases, but Champagne is what it is, and it is the best. It may be a little psychological, something about it makes you sit up a little straighter, and pay a little more attention, but that little extra is what its all about. Let 'em keep trying to duplicate it.

Its interesting that a region can "invent" a wine style, and hold it out there for two hundred years and let people try to emulate it, with no restrictions, other than the name "Champagne", and not have a credible competitor. Maybe there is something to this "terrior" thing after all.

I think that perfectly sums up a large part of why it's my favorite wine.

Sure, the glitz and embodiment of class and romance the wine holds is a part of the marketing spell, and I'm as (happily) guilty as anyone of being allured by it for the aesthetic reasons. Yet it's really the above statement that makes champagne a distinct wine I think. In a way that no other wine can claim in quite the same way. At least to my tastes.

That and the fact that it's just utterly delicious...

Jeff

Its interesting that a region can "invent" a wine style, and hold it out there for two hundred years and let people try to emulate it, with no restrictions, other than the name "Champagne", and not have a credible competitor. Maybe there is something to this "terrior" thing after all. That said, I do think that California is producing high quality sparkling wine that does come close to the "real deal", and might even equal it in isolated cases, but Champagne is what it is, and it is the best. It may be a little psychological, something about it makes you sit up a little straighter, and pay a little more attention, but that little extra is what its all about. Let 'em keep trying to duplicate it.

You could just as easily say the same thing in almost the same words for Burgundy, couldn't you? Austria? German Riesling?

I'll agree this far though: Champagne makes the best Champagne in the world!